Who's the dummy the stove or the owner, twist your knickers!!!!!!!!!!!!

[restorer]

Lately we have had questions about pre-EPA regulation stoves, and poor quality available fuel. So my lazy minds really wants to ask this question: "Given a good pre-reg stove, can a very good burner make it meet current standards?????????" My thought is, there are many knowlegable members of this forum that do a great job of burning with stoves that don't necessarily meet the current standards.

Which, taking my usual leap of faith, would suggest the new stoves are dummy downs for those without the skill to burn wood well.


Before you get your keyboards burning, The new standards are set for more burners to do a good job of burning without understanding the principles and standards for good burning.

Thus pushes the question, "What can we as a forum do to promote better understanding of burning efficiently for those who can not afford to buy a new stove?"

If you are still with me, what can we do to make the owners better burners, and not depend on better stoves to do the job?

 

[Sandor]

Looking at what is coming out of the chimney is a good indication on how things are burning. This is true for a pre/post epa stove. Perhaps the best message is "if you have visible smoke coming from the chimney, you need to do something different".

The two biggest culprits of smokey stacks, is trying to burn wet/unseasoned wood, and damping down too far with a big load in the box to reduce heat, or attempting to get an overnight/long burn. This is where an EPA stove may help, by supplying a fixed amount of secondary air to clean things up.

 

[babalu87]

If you are still with me, what can we do to make the owners better burners, and not depend on better stoves to do the job?

Tell them to get their wood ready AT LEAST a year in advance, after that its so easy a Caveman can do it.

 

[webbie]

Depends on the stove - very much.
For instance, a stove like the old Efel Kamina, the Jotul (#1, etc) with refractory lining, etc - it MIGHT be possible to get them down under 10 grams per hour and perhaps under 7 for short period, but I really doubt they would get down under 5 or even near that throughout a 24 hour period.

Unlined stoves with larger boxes like the old VCs would seem next to impossible to get down to these numbers unless burning at full blast with a strong chimney and perfect wood. Same with front to back burners like old jotuls and uplands, etc. - you need a really hot fire that makes the whole combustion chamber stay at very high temps.

My opinions, anyway.

 

[pistonslap]

I can get the good heat, the clear smoke, etc, but my biggest complaint with my pre-epa ORC LaCrosse furnace is that it eats wood like a woodchipper. The firebox is so big that unless you put a big load in, it won't throw the heat you need when it's in the 30's and below. Also, it's a bottom burner so you constantly have to rake the fire to keep the air flowing or it will begin to smoulder. Other than that I like the monthly $40 gas bills.

 

[begreen]

Older stoves will never match the incredible efficiencies achieved by new VC, Lopi, Englander, etc. But they can be burned reasonably clean, at least at 3% opacity. But like Craig said, they must be burned hot until the wood gas is fully burned off. Tom Oyen can tell some interesting tales here. When the EPA was doing the early testing of stoves, just for fun they tested an old bus too. It wasn't too hot compared to a new (1994) technology diesel.

(broken link removed to http://www.chimneysweeponline.com/hoarticl.htm)

 

[Shane]

You'll never get a pre epa stove to a comparable emissions leval to an epa stove. The smoke generally does not have enough firebox residence time to properly burn all the hydrocarbons in the smoke and the fireboxes tend to be so large that getting the proper temps to burn everything out of the smoke would be difficult. YOu can properly burn a pre epa stove and make the best of it, but to get near modern efficiencies would not be reasonable.

 

[Todd]

Don't forget about fireplaces. I bet there are more wood burning fireplaces than wood stoves out there. I know they are EPA exempt, but how clean burning are they compared to pre EPA stoves? Most of my neighbors have fireplaces, and I see lots of smoke out their chimneys. I just installed outside air and air tight doors to my fireplace and I'm thinking of burning bio logs the few times I use it, to keep the emissions down.

 

[Eric Johnson]

Given that you can't get a reliably clean burn from a pre EPA stove under most circumstances, I would say that using dry wood is the most important factor for getting the cleanest burn possible with just about any woodburning appliance.

The bottom line is that you burn less wood when you burn dry wood, and less wood burned means less smoke, no matter what you're burning it in.

Or, to paraphrase my friend babs, "dry wood makes every aspect of burning wood easier."

 

[jpl1nh]

UR, I think one answer to your education question is happening right here. I know that I have gone from being a true offender with my old Jotul to a really clean burner because of reading this forum. I'm sure I would do better with a nice EPA stove especially on long burns but I have drastically cut down on the amount of time my chimney is smoking. Yesterday, rainy and mid 50's, Sunday late AM, I drove five miles to work, and saw three different chimneys puffing smoke. Now I possibly passed 3 start up or refuel situations, but I suspect I most likely passed 3 too wet wood, or too low temp situations. I agree that much of the issue is the operator. I have not had the pleasure of burning an EPA stove, but I have to believe they can be burned badly too. I recently talked to one guy who has a second hand Woodstock soapstone stove, my impression was that it was less than 10 years old. I asked him how he like the cat and he told me he had taken it out "because it chocked the stove down too much!" Kinda scarey if you ask me.

 

[titan]

I'l bet I've read all the stove reviews on this site ten times over;more often than not, the poor reviews that certain models receive are likely due to user error.The problem(as with most things) is as follows:"COMMON SENSE ISN'T COMMON PRACTICE."Now if the stove designersengineers want to incorporate features into their EPA stoves that make it easier for rookies or simpletons to achieve decent burns with fewer emissions,then I'm all for it. :gulp:

 

[Corie]

It would be nice if we could offer two types of stoves, and very specifically define them. One category would be a fool proof, simple one lever operation wood stove meant for beginner users or those who aren't interested in the real idiosyncracies of wood burning. THe second would be for the serious burner. More controls, but more control over the fire and longer more consistant burn times.

 

[elkimmeg]

UR some companies anticipated the EPA requirements as early as 1985 the State of Oregon passed its own requirements in 1986 there requirements mirrored the later 1990 specs It was possible to get a stove made and tested to Oregon specs and burn as clean as any Epa Stove. How do I know I have one. Corie is right many stoves did not have the smoke path and secondary chambers to burn off the particulates. Many went the way of ad on Cat combustors that really did not work out well The companies that designed the secondary cat combustion chamber are the ones that would pass today's EPA regs

A season burner can regulate a mid 80's stove pretty effecient. Naturally it takes dry wood. Also one has to factor in chimney technology, there were few liners in the mid 80's

a lot of inserts were slamed in place and cross-sectional codes allowed this Since then the codes reflect the demands of the stoves and the need to produce cleaner drafting

 

[Gooserider]

I know that with my main smoke dragon (haven't burned the basement dragon enough to really know, but expect it would be about the same...) I have in essence TWO choices -

1. I can choke it down and get moderate smoke,

2. I can let it run more open, and I don't get smoke, but I would go through wood at incredible rates, and see lots of cheery red glow from the pipes :bug: - it's not a VC, so that isn't supposed to happen...

Our stoves have nothing resembling a secondary burn chamber, or even a convoluted smoke path. The smoke exit is directly into the firebox, so there is essentially NO "residence time" for the smoke to get consumed, I would not expect my emissions to be anywhere close to an EPA stove, but hopefully I can refrain from annoying the neighboors to much.

Gooserider

 

[pistonslap]

Sounds like you're talking about my furnace, Goose.

 

[restorer]

UR some companies anticipated the EPA requirements as early as 1985 the State of Oregon passed its own requirements in 1986 there requirements mirrored the later 1990 specs It was possible to get a stove made and tested to Oregon specs and burn as clean as any Epa Stove. How do I know I have one. Corie is right many stoves did not have the smoke path and secondary chambers to burn off the particulates. Many went the way of ad on Cat combustors that really did not work out well The companies that designed the secondary cat combustion chamber are the ones that would pass today's EPA regs

A season burner can regulate a mid 80's stove pretty effecient. Naturally it takes dry wood. Also one has to factor in chimney technology, there were few liners in the mid 80's

a lot of inserts were slamed in place and cross-sectional codes allowed this Since then the codes reflect the demands of the stoves and the need to produce cleaner drafting

I totally agree. I used to have an Orley Stove. To many it was a real ugly stove, but sitting in a Summer Home on the San Juan Islands in December with for so thick it rolled in the door when you opened it, or slid underneath if you didn't that puppy put out the heat. Four air controls, side loading and enough steel to make you think twice, it was a burners dream. Started easy and with a little watching could be tuned to a fair-thee-well. It was made in Oregon, and very well may have been the stove used for the benchmark standards. That said, you had to be a burner. You controlled the stove, if it got away from you the windows had to be opened and the beer put outside so it wouldn't spoil.

What I would like to know is, can those who are not the affluent sort to afford a new stove, trainable to use the smoking dragons successfully? (Crap, my analytical mind is taking over, sorry about the sentence structure.) Is it a real option for those of us (remember I'm a pellet head) to help those with smoking dragons clean up their acts? The standards are set to minimize new polluters, but there are lots of good stoves that can be burned with very good efficiency if the owner/operators know how. Elk does it, and I am sure my pellets are not the state of the art, but they do the job, and they do it very well.

Maybe a straw poll of the non-certified burners will show how many concerned citizens we have on the forum who simply need to stay with the stove they have..........Hmmmm, is that the other line to, "....love the one your with....."?

 

[Gooserider]

As I've mentioned before, my GF and I are trying to do the "kid thing" and we are both old enough to require "technical assistance", possibly including donor egg, which gets incredibly expensive, especially when the insurance won't cover most of it (because of her age)... We would love to do an EPA stove, but until we get the kid thing worked out, it just isn't in the cards...

Gooserider

 

[pistonslap]

I went to the woodburner pure and simply to save money. I've already got 2 grand into my chimney. The furnace was given to me by a friend who was upgrading. I need a few more years for this to pay for a new one. I burn as clean as possible and I see many people who have newer stoves but are too lazy to cut, buying wet wood and smoking out the neighborhood. I blame most problems on the people who sell the wood, not the older stoves.

 

[begreen]

I just saw that yesterday. Brand new installation and brand new stove, yet it was smoking like a cigar in spite of being a breezy day. I'll probably be introducing myself to them soon if this keeps up.

 

[jpl1nh]

UR, right now I'm spending all my mental energy on learning how to burn my non-EPA Jotul combifire effectively. That leaves me with little intellectual capacity to do better financially so I could afford to buy a better stove. %-P But seriously, my stove works so well for me that I'm going to have seperation anxiety when I upgrade. We will upgrade when the kids are out of college, when we win the lottery, when I sell my business, one of those scenerios and I think I'm looking forward to it

 

[stoveguy2esw]

burning a pre-epa unit clean is not a trivial exercise. burning it hot literally on the edge of having it run away is as close at it gets. but you go through wood like crap through a goose (no offense goose). dry wood is an absolute must, but unless you can actually get the firebox ambient temp hot enough to cause "midair secondary" under the smoke shelf, there is no way to possibly get a fire as clean as an average epa phase 2 cert unit. it just aint happening, one, to get that kind of heat , the unit has to be run literally wide open, two, the "smoke" must linger in this environment long enough to be incinerated. the two criteria contradict each other. to get hot enough the stove is run wide open , which means draft open , the flue will pull harder and move more air (which is needed) but the air movement will pull the smoke from the unit before the incineration process is complete. cert units , or reburn units with secondary combustion systems do one of the following, they either trap heat under a material with a high refractory capability, or pull exhaust through a "smoke path" or down through the coals into a secondary chamber, or through a cell catalyst.in all of these ionstances, the smoke (for lack of an easier term) is subjected to intense heat and in this mixture of fuel and heat oxygen is also introduced. this is "unburned air" in the best of cases the secondary burst of flame in a pre epa unit will be incomplete simply because of the "dirty air" which is simply unburned oxygen from the primary intake which has been through the fire already. there is not going to be an ample steady supply of enough oxygen to complete secondary burn.

bottom line: smoke dragons will always be smoke dragons, but smart woodburning techniques minimize emmissions even from these older , but still proud, veterans of winters past

 

[restorer]

UR, right now I'm spending all my mental energy on learning how to burn my non-EPA Jotul combifire effectively. That leaves me with little intellectual capacity to do better financially so I could afford to buy a better stove. %-P But seriously, my stove works so well for me that I'm going to have seperation anxiety when I upgrade. We will upgrade when the kids are out of college, when we win the lottery, when I sell my business, one of those scenerios and I think I'm looking forward to it

JPL,

I'm not criticizing you or Goose or anyone else doing a good job of burning. Look at my signature and you can see I'm burning older pellet - manual units that require as much tweaking as an old woodburner. That said, we have, by necessity, been able to fine tune the stoves to burn efficiently, maybe not as good as some new stoves, but pretty damn good. My best friend has a new 2007 Chevy pick up with a 350 V8, I have the same engine in my ratty old 1990 Chevy van. I passed the emissions test the same level as his, and I get 15mpg and he gets 10mpg. He says it's because he has the tow package in his 3/4 ton, but I have the 1 ton and can tow 3,000lbs. more. His is pretty and mine works well :red: Point being is I need to make due with what I have.

So, what I'd like to see is information for those of us "old burners" that will make us even "better burners." I'd like to see more of the great unwashed stand up and make their marks on the forum, and then do as BeGreen thought about, go see that new neighbor with the smoker and help him become a better burner.