# Ahh the locust you gotta love



## gzecc (Feb 14, 2013)

Fresh split and stacked from Sandy blow down 24%. (yes it was resplit for this test)


----------



## blujacket (Feb 14, 2013)

Nice.  I have been burning 2 year seasoned and it is awesome! Locust is ready in a year for me here though. My favorite wood for sure.


----------



## Ralphie Boy (Feb 14, 2013)

Gotta love that locust It may take more time than you think to get the moisture content down below 20%
Nice meter! What kind and how much did it set you back, if you don't mind me asking?


----------



## corey21 (Feb 14, 2013)

I have a good stash for next winter glad to know it dries fast.


----------



## gzecc (Feb 14, 2013)

Ralphie Boy said:


> Gotta love that locust It may take more time than you think to get the moisture content down below 20%
> Nice meter! What kind and how much did it set you back, if you don't mind me asking?


 http://www.meter-depot.com/woodmoisture.htm
We'll see I will measure again next year.


----------



## alex johnson (Feb 14, 2013)

blujacket said:


> Nice. I have been burning 2 year seasoned and it is awesome! Locust is ready in a year for me here though. My favorite wood for sure.


 I have quite the fondness for freshly cut down Locust. its my favorite. have a pile thats seasoned, but i rather go get some green cranks the heat.


----------



## alex johnson (Feb 14, 2013)

corey21 said:


> I have a good stash for next winter glad to know it dries fast.


I have found once the bark falls off its good to go, the bark is awesome for kindling.


----------



## swagler85 (Feb 14, 2013)

alex johnson said:


> I have quite the for freshly cut down Locust. its my favorite. have a pile thats seasoned, but i rather go get some green cranks the heat.


Are you saying the green stuff cranks more heat?


----------



## Tuneighty (Feb 14, 2013)




----------



## ScotO (Feb 14, 2013)

Green wood puts out more heat?!?

Oh, man.....we got some work to do with you Alex......


----------



## Locust Post (Feb 14, 2013)

Scotty Overkill said:


> Green wood puts out more heat?!?
> 
> Oh, man.....we got some work to do with you Alex......


 
Educate him Scotty. PLEASE. Maybe just maybe he has found the secret to burning water. NAAAA !

Just havin fun Welcome Alex.


----------



## fabsroman (Feb 15, 2013)

Oh Lordy, these locust threads have me reeling.

To the OP, can you take a pic of that locust from the grain end, because it really looks like the stuff I have been trying to burn that you think is elm. Want to see if the grain on that new stuff is as tight as the grain you showed on your other locust.

To the rest of you that think locust seasons quick, if that is what I have in the rack (which 95% of people believe) and not elm like the OP believes, then it does not season quick. It has been split and stacked since September 2011 and it is burning like crap. So, I went out and bought a moisture meter and got a 37% reading, which shocked me. So, I split another piece and took another reading, 37%. I am about to start splitting it down some more and taking readings from every single split. We'll see if I get that motivated. Going to spend the weekend getting another cord or two of red oak, so the motivation for re-splitting and re-stacking locust might be lacking.


----------



## Tuneighty (Feb 15, 2013)

I just brought some dead standing locust home and split it up. Its reading under 17% on the MM. I find it doesn't do great on its own. It really likes to be mixed. My trouble may be with I have come accustom to burning kiln dried. But it definitely is harder to get going, now , once its going it goes forever. I am WELL behind on my stacking, but were on a stand that is open to others, lots of locust and trying to gather as much as we possibly can. Going at Sat and Sun this week to run the new saw.


----------



## gzecc (Feb 15, 2013)

fabsroman said:


> Oh Lordy, these locust threads have me reeling.
> 
> To the OP, can you take a pic of that locust from the grain end, because it really looks like the stuff I have been trying to burn that you think is elm. Want to see if the grain on that new stuff is as tight as the grain you showed on your other locust.
> 
> To the rest of you that think locust seasons quick, if that is what I have in the rack (which 95% of people believe) and not elm like the OP believes, then it does not season quick. It has been split and stacked since September 2011 and it is burning like crap. So, I went out and bought a moisture meter and got a 37% reading, which shocked me. So, I split another piece and took another reading, 37%. I am about to start splitting it down some more and taking readings from every single split. We'll see if I get that motivated. Going to spend the weekend getting another cord or two of red oak, so the motivation for re-splitting and re-stacking locust might be lacking.


 Fabsro, See the pics of the locust piled from tuneighty, that is unmistakingly locust. Take a picture of yours, with a lot of it either stacked or piled. I've been burning locust for only 6 yrs, but 37% mc makes no sense.


----------



## alex johnson (Feb 15, 2013)

swagler85 said:


> Are you saying the green stuff cranks more heat?


 It has a natural oil in it, that when still green it don't burn up as fast as seasoned. it takes alittle more for it to get started. I let a little more air into, then normal. It is the only wood that I will burn green, after the last four years of learning. I don't think that I will start another pile of wood, get it when I need it. Just my opinion. Alex


----------



## Jags (Feb 15, 2013)

Uh Oooh.  You hear that?  That is Dennis.  I can hear his foot steps coming up to the keyboard.  He is breathing heavy with a frown on his face....

Okay - I will start...
Welcome to the forum Alex.  Hang around, lots of knowledgeable people on this forum.  Fair warning, you are gonna receive many lashes claiming wet (green) wood burns better than seasoned wood.  I will start:

IT DOESN'T.  The physics proves it doesn't (actually can't because of the need to burn off water).  Does it change the burn characteristics of the fuel - absolutely.  For the better?  Not in any EPA stove that I am aware of.


----------



## swagler85 (Feb 15, 2013)

Being that Dennis has heated with wood for more than 50 years I will take his word on any experience I don't have personally. Many people complain about seasoned wood burning up too quickly, truth is if a person has an EPA stove and can control the air then in no way should it burn up too fast. Especially a decent hardwood, now many folks have never replaced gaskets and have loose doors/latches and can't control the air. They blame the wood being too dry because the simply don't know the real problem. Their experience has shown them that the dry wood burns up too fast. Kinda like practice makes perfect that seems like good advice,  truly only good practice makes perfect.


----------



## Jags (Feb 15, 2013)

Don't worry swags - I can hear Dennis typing.


----------



## wishlist (Feb 15, 2013)

Alex , your gonna get some more sound advice soon.  Take it in stride and remember all these nice folks on Hearth want to do is help people with any related wood burning topic.  So many old wives tales that are still around that are just not true. 

 The person (  Backwoods Savage)  that people are referring to has been burning wood before there was dirt!  He's been around  the block and will most certainly offer some friendly advice.  Be a good listener and your wood will give you more heat than it ever has!  Less wood ---more heat ----doesn't get any better than that!  Lol.....


----------



## fabsroman (Feb 15, 2013)

Jags said:


> Don't worry swags - I can hear Dennis typing.


 
Yeah, typing a treatise.


----------



## fabsroman (Feb 15, 2013)

wishlist said:


> Alex , your gonna get some more sound advice soon. Take it in stride and remember all these nice folks on Hearth want to do is help people with any related wood burning topic. So many old wives tales that are still around that are just not true.
> 
> The person ( Backwoods Savage) that people are referring to has been burning wood before there was dirt! He's been around the block and will most certainly offer some friendly advice. Be a good listener and your wood will give you more heat than it ever has! Less wood ---more heat ----doesn't get any better than that! Lol.....


 
Sure it gets better than that, with advice on cutting, splitting, and stacking more wood in less time. Use less and get what little you need quicker. More time for other things and less gas/energy spent processing firewood.


----------



## Backwoods Savage (Feb 15, 2013)

alex johnson said:


> I have quite the fondness for freshly cut down Locust. its my favorite. have a pile thats seasoned, but i rather go get some green cranks the heat.


 
Welcome to the forum Alex

I can understand your fondness for locust but certainly can not understand a fondness for burning green wood. Either you've heard too many old wives tales or listened to some extremely bad advice. But I can believe it because I've heard that same bunch of baloney many times myself.

For a little background on myself, we've burned wood for a few years now and fortunately I also grew up in a wood burning home. In fact, we were one of a very few folks we knew who burned dry wood. Most folks back then cut the wood in the fall and even into the winter and burned it right away. They knew nothing about how wood should be handled and burned. Sadly, there are many yet today and your post shows that you are one! Please do not think I'm attempting to run you down or put you down at all because that is not my intent. Hopefully though, we can reason things out a bit.

The first thing that happens when you put wood in the stove is that it has to get rid of the moisture. It has to evaporate and that goes up your chimney. When the chimney is a bit cool, that wet stuff creates lots of creosote. Of course this is a bit simplified but you know what we're talking about.

Typically, folks will state that the wood is a bit harder to get going and you have to give it more air. You say it cranks out the heat. It can give you some heat but the trouble is, there is probably as much heat going up the chimney as there is staying in the house. This means you will burn up to twice as much wood for the same amount of heat. I really try to not be lazy but at the same time, I don't like to work harder than is required, so that is a good reason we let our wood dry before burning it.


One winter we ended up in a bad way. I had been injured and, of course, could not cut any wood. So naturally we ran out of wood and ran out before I could get back to cutting. But I knew a fellow who cut a lot of wood and sold a lot. We've known each other for 60 years or more and I figured I could get some good wood from him. Wrong!

The first load he brought I about crapped myself. It had been cut that morning and split then delivered; all in the same day. Naturally I was a bit ticked but my hands were tied. Fortunately we got a really good price on the wood. But gee whiz. This was white ash and, as most folks know (that should be, they think they know), ash can be cut and burned right away. That is what makes ash so great! Right? Wrong!

Ash indeed is one of the lowest moisture content woods there are when cut. Still, it will be about 35% moisture when cut. That is way too much water to attempt to burn. But, we burned it all that winter. We did not freeze nor did our water lines freeze. But we were never warm that winter either. In addition, we cleaned our chimney many, many times that winter. We fought the fire constantly but learned to load the wood on a huge bed of coals. Let the coals burn down some and then it was a battle to get the wood burning.


But I grew up burning dry wood and I learned from many neighbors who did not burn dry wood that there is a big difference between burning dry or green wood and all favors dry. But let's compare that year we burned green wood with what we have been burning the past several years. And fwiw, wood heat is our only heat source in winter; we have no back up furnace.

We purchased our first epa stove in 2007 so this makes our sixth year for heating with this stove. The wood we've burned in this stove has been probably 95-98% white ash. So it is good to compare with that winter when we burned green wood.

That winter with green wood I do not remember for certain how many cord we burned but will guess around 7-8 cord. We also closed off part of our house to try to stay reasonably warm. Since installing the new stove we have never had to close off any part of the house. The most wood we've burned during any one winter in this stove is 3 cord. The least was a bit under 2 cord and that was last winter which was an unusual winter.

We did some remodeling before last winter adding a lot of insulation, putting in new windows and doors and we also put on a small addition. Of course we do not know yet how much wood we'll burn this winter but we are guessing it won't be much over 2 cord. That is a whole lot less work than burning 7 cord! And remember, we no longer close off part of the house. In addition, we keep the temperature in our house 80+ degrees. I just looked at the thermometer and at present it is exactly 80 in here.

Now let's look at the chimney. That year we burned green wood we were constantly cleaning the chimney and always got lots of creosote from it and the cap. After installing our present stove, we cleaned the chimney after 2 years just to see what was in there. We got about a cup of soot from it. No creosote. So when we are done burning this spring the chimney will be 4 years since being cleaned. We might clean it this summer but will determine that later.

My whole point is that if you give your wood time to dry and dry it properly (don't count drying time until the wood has been split and stacked out in the wind to dry), you will burn a lot less wood to get the same amount of heat so that will save you money and labor. In addition, you won't have to clean the chimney as often nor will you be fighting the fire. I also believe your stove will last longer and for certain it seems the gaskets last much longer.

Until we can come up with a good way to burn water, it is just not a good practice to burn wood before it has dried to a decent level of moisture. That takes time. We usually give our wood 3 years or more in the stack before we burn it. The benefits are numerous and we are very thankful because it saves us much labor and dollars.

Now I'd best quit before I really get carried away.


----------



## Jags (Feb 15, 2013)

Thatsallota typing.


----------



## Backwoods Savage (Feb 15, 2013)

No blisters yet on the fingers though.


----------



## fabsroman (Feb 15, 2013)

Backwoods Savage said:


> No blisters yet on the fingers though.


 
But has the smoke from the keyboard subsided yet?


----------



## Backwoods Savage (Feb 15, 2013)




----------



## swagler85 (Feb 15, 2013)

Jags u were right I should have just waited. Dennis you nailed it, Alex I have learned much from these guys. These guys love to help everyone who ventures through here. I hope you stick around and learn and contribute your experiences.


----------



## Locust Post (Feb 15, 2013)

Very good post Dennis. I have also burnt green wood and more specifically green locust. Yes you can get it to burn and the heavy bark will get it going but nothing like good dry locust. I have been burning locust for overnights a good bit this year and it is stuff that was down for several years. No bark and not one bit of sizzle. If somebody opened the stove in the morning that didn't know what I put in there they would think I was burning coal.


----------



## Paulywalnut (Feb 15, 2013)

Dennis is one of a kind. You have a great gift of being able to tell a man something
without belittleing him. Believe me I've learned plenty from the whole lot of forum guys
and gals.


----------



## alex johnson (Feb 16, 2013)

Backwoods Savage said:


> Welcome to the forum Alex
> 
> I can understand your fondness for locust but certainly can not understand a fondness for burning green wood. Either you've heard too many old wives tales or listened to some extremely bad advice. But I can believe it because I've heard that same bunch of baloney many times myself.
> 
> ...


 Good morning, I will keep this super short, you Are interesting? Green Wood, specifically locust. Have you ever heard of lava rocks being used in a wood stove? I bought a stove from a guy that uses lava rocks in the design above the combustion chamber. all the heat rises up as with the smoke, through the lava rocks hence heating them up, catching, absorbing the creosote. What i have found is that this lava area above the fire keeps a tremendous amount of the heat in the stove and does not let it out the flue. This guy can put toliet paper over the flue, without it catching fire. So i guess that this kinda sandwiches the heat between the upper lava rock area, and the coal bed. this requires less air to fuel ratio and a more efficient burn. I have placed seasoned wood in, and it burns up faster. do to the sandwich effect. Water, has the second highest heat carrying capacity, other than amonia. it will smoke for the first fifteen minutes, until the out side of the log is scorched then no smoke the lava rocks help, tremendously. After the outside of the log is burnt, the interior of the log still has moisture, gives me the longer burn. If there is no smoke, then there should be no creosote correct? I pulled my flue apart acouple of weeks ago, the only thing I found in there was fluffy carbon, scraped some off and took it to the incubator that I have been working with. I can tap on the pipe and it falls off. Hmmmm. I'm ready, no fear, with no disrespect. Lava rocks capture the particulates. and hold the heat in the stove. Alex


----------



## jatoxico (Feb 16, 2013)

alex johnson said:


> Good morning, I will keep this super short, you Are interesting? Green Wood, specifically locust. Have you ever heard of lava rocks being used in a wood stove? I bought a stove from a guy that uses lava rocks in the design above the combustion chamber. all the heat rises up as with the smoke, through the lava rocks hence heating them up, catching, absorbing the creosote. What i have found is that this lava area above the fire keeps a tremendous amount of the heat in the stove and does not let it out the flue. This guy can put toliet paper over the flue, without it catching fire. So i guess that this kinda sandwiches the heat between the upper lava rock area, and the coal bed. this requires less air to fuel ratio and a more efficient burn. I have placed seasoned wood in, and it burns up faster. do to the sandwich effect. *Water, has the second highest heat carrying capacity, other than amonia*. it will smoke for the first fifteen minutes, until the out side of the log is scorched then no smoke the lava rocks help, tremendously. After the outside of the log is burnt, the interior of the log still has moisture, gives me the longer burn. If there is no smoke, then there should be no creosote correct? I pulled my flue apart acouple of weeks ago, the only thing I found in there was fluffy carbon, scraped some off and took it to the incubator that I have been working with. I can tap on the pipe and it falls off. Hmmmm. I'm ready, no fear, with no disrespect. Lava rocks capture the particulates. and hold the heat in the stove. Alex


 
For starters I'm not sure how you think that waters latent heat capacity would benefit the system you describe. Water can only absorb heat reducing the transfer to the lava rock you believe is capturing heat and volatiles. Seems someone told you this fact but it has no relevance here except that it would be reduce efficiency of the burn.

If the system you describe has any real benefits it would function better with less water (dry wood). The fact that wet wood burns slower (and at a lower temp) is no mystery, it's wet. Better to burn dry wood and control your air.


----------



## fabsroman (Feb 16, 2013)

alex johnson said:


> Good morning, I will keep this super short, you Are interesting? Green Wood, specifically locust. Have you ever heard of lava rocks being used in a wood stove? I bought a stove from a guy that uses lava rocks in the design above the combustion chamber. all the heat rises up as with the smoke, through the lava rocks hence heating them up, catching, absorbing the creosote. What i have found is that this lava area above the fire keeps a tremendous amount of the heat in the stove and does not let it out the flue. This guy can put toliet paper over the flue, without it catching fire. So i guess that this kinda sandwiches the heat between the upper lava rock area, and the coal bed. this requires less air to fuel ratio and a more efficient burn. I have placed seasoned wood in, and it burns up faster. do to the sandwich effect. Water, has the second highest heat carrying capacity, other than amonia. it will smoke for the first fifteen minutes, until the out side of the log is scorched then no smoke the lava rocks help, tremendously. After the outside of the log is burnt, the interior of the log still has moisture, gives me the longer burn. If there is no smoke, then there should be no creosote correct? I pulled my flue apart acouple of weeks ago, the only thing I found in there was fluffy carbon, scraped some off and took it to the incubator that I have been working with. I can tap on the pipe and it falls off. Hmmmm. I'm ready, no fear, with no disrespect. Lava rocks capture the particulates. and hold the heat in the stove. Alex


 
Yeah, the fluffy stuff is creosote and my furnace is set up the same way. There is a plate on top of the firebox that traps the heat in the firebox with an opening just to the left of the firebox for the smoke to exit up into the smoke pipe. The firebox in the furnace gets so hot sometimes that I cannot even get close to it when it is open and I have to literally throw the logs into it from outside the furnace. The manufacturer still suggests that all wood be seasoned to 20% or less moisture content. There is even a warning sticker on the side of the furnace stating this.

Not only do you have to deal with the creosote factor, but you have to deal with the loss of energy factor. Energy is used to transform the water into heat. That is energy that could have been used to heat the firebox instead. The question is, how much energy is lost in this process and does the hot steam make up for the energy lost. So far, I greatly prefer burning seasoned wood that lights right up and burns hot. Anything that is above 20% MC sucks in my book. I am burning some 24% red oak right now that is alright, but not great.


----------



## Backwoods Savage (Feb 16, 2013)

Well, we may have to see if we can talk some stove manufacturers into putting lava rocks in the stoves. Still, they, like soapstone or cast, can store only so much heat. As for the lava rocks soaking up the creosote, something just does not sound right there. How much can it soak up? Can the rock really soak it up at all? Would you have to remove this rock every so often to clean it, much as you would clean a chimney? Would it not be better to not have any creosote to "soak up?"

"After the outside of the log is burnt, the interior of the log still has moisture, gives me the longer burn."  You are correct in that the moisture is throughout the whole log. It gives you a longer burn simply because it can't burn very fast at all. Where most folks seem to go wrong on the theory of burning green wood vs burning dry wood is that they claim the dry wood burns too fast. Well for sure if they attempt to burn the wood in the same way, the dry will burn faster. But that is one of the beauties of burning dry wood in that you do not have to burn it fast; you do not have to give it as much air as you do to keep wet wood burning. Therefore, you keep more of that energy (heat) in the house rather than sending it up the chimney.

I have no problem with folks who want to burn green wood so long as they aren't affecting their neighbors and it really can have some bad effects. For one, what about those with breathing problems? Is it right to send dirty smoke into the air and have those folks breath it? Isn't this one of the things folks have fought and are still fighting about smoking tobacco? Would it not be better to burn fuel that is more efficient and less polluting?

I'm still not convinced so I'll continue to burn good dry wood. I make every attempt to burn good fuel in all the engines we have and will also make that attempt in the heating department. Dry wood rocks!


----------



## alex johnson (Feb 17, 2013)

jatoxico said:


> For starters I'm not sure how you think that waters latent heat capacity would benefit the system you describe. Water can only absorb heat reducing the transfer to the lava rock you believe is capturing heat and volatiles. Seems someone told you this fact but it has no relevance here except that it would be reduce efficiency of the burn.
> 
> If the system you describe has any real benefits it would function better with less water (dry wood). The fact that wet wood burns slower (and at a lower temp) is no mystery, it's wet. Better to burn dry wood and control your air.


Yes, young man, but you said it all. Water holds, the heat, correct? which is creosote, creosote sticks to stuff. as in the lava rocks, the heat transfers to the basalt lava rocks, and then they heat up and burn the creosote. I took a video yesterday of this. Yes, dry wood fires up faster, but like i was saying the fact that I have a solid layer of lava rocks above the fire, it trapping the heat inside the combustion chamber, burning the dryer wood up faster. I also burn tires, trash in my stove with no smoke, the lava rocks. I am going over to my mothers house to post this video that i took yesterday, you may find it interesting, or not. The choice is yours. I will post the video on youtube with the title being this thread. "Ahh you gotta love the locust"   If there is no smoke then there can't be CREOSOTE.


----------



## jatoxico (Feb 17, 2013)

alex johnson said:


> Yes, young man, but you said it all. *Water holds, the heat, correct?* which is creosote, creosote sticks to stuff. as in the lava rocks, the heat transfers to the basalt lava rocks, and then they heat up and burn the creosote. I took a video yesterday of this. Yes, dry wood fires up faster, but like i was saying the fact that I have a solid layer of lava rocks above the fire, it trapping the heat inside the combustion chamber, burning the dryer wood up faster. I also burn tires, trash in my stove with no smoke, the lava rocks. I am going over to my mothers house to post this video that i took yesterday, you may find it interesting, or not. The choice is yours. I will post the video on youtube with the title being this thread. "Ahh you gotta love the locust" If there is no smoke then there can't be CREOSOTE.


 
Yes correct but it's not benefitting _you_. Waters high latent heat capacity (which you cited) means it absorbs heat (energy) without a concurrent rise in temperature. That means it is sapping energy from the system without providing anything useful. The water eventually boils once the latent heat capacity is overcome (after sucking up enough energy) which occurs at a very low temp relative to the type of heat you should achieve in a wood stove (500+) and then floats off up the stack. If you are equating creosote with water or believe that the lava rock is also retaining the water then you would have to run at very low temps but I doubt that that is the case even with wet wood.

To take advantage of waters high latent heat capacity water is heated in a closed system (like a boiler with baseboard heat). In your setup the water vapor goes out the stack at a low temp before you can get that heat back.

You may have a viable system but the point is if you could control the air better it necessarily must work better without excess water. Water after all is used to put out fires because it cools the fire and displaces O2.


----------



## fabsroman (Feb 17, 2013)

All I know is that this morning my wife was complaining that the house was at 67 degrees (because the logs I put in last night before getting to bed extinguished themselves over night. She found two charred logs in the furnace this morning) and that the wood currently in the house SUCKS for starting a fire. Looks like I am going to have to split this 24% MC oak down a little smaller to help get fires started and to help them continue burning.

Yeah, wet wood is for the birds, ants, and termites. By the end of the spring, I am going to have wood stacked all over the place. Enough of this wet wood burning for this guy here.


----------



## swagler85 (Feb 17, 2013)

Alex your getting way to complicated for something very simple. All this you are going through and not getting the heat you could be. Lava rocks may be helping you with creosote and retain the water. But the reason people are saying different is not to argue. They are simply trying to help because all here have burned wet wood and know the difference in heat output once you learn how to burn dry wood. As far as burning tires, that's a whole different conversation.


----------



## Backwoods Savage (Feb 17, 2013)

alex johnson said:


> Yes, young man, but you said it all. Water holds, the heat, correct? which is creosote, creosote sticks to stuff. as in the lava rocks, the heat transfers to the basalt lava rocks, and then they heat up and burn the creosote. I took a video yesterday of this. Yes, dry wood fires up faster, but like i was saying the fact that I have a solid layer of lava rocks above the fire, it trapping the heat inside the combustion chamber, burning the dryer wood up faster.* I also burn tires, trash in my stove with no smoke,* the lava rocks. I am going over to my mothers house to post this video that i took yesterday, you may find it interesting, or not. The choice is yours. I will post the video on youtube with the title being this thread. "Ahh you gotta love the locust" If there is no smoke then there can't be CREOSOTE.


 
I has suspected it before but that post by our new friend Alex Johnson sort of spelled it out free and clear. Alex is a troll and only trying to stir up the clan. This thread does not deserve even one more post.

So go ahead Alex and burn your tires in your stove. Just tell it somewhere else.


----------



## alex johnson (Feb 17, 2013)

jatoxico said:


> Yes correct but it's not benefitting _you_. Waters high latent heat capacity (which you cited) means it absorbs heat (energy) without a concurrent rise in temperature. That means it is sapping energy from the system without providing anything useful. The water eventually boils once the latent heat capacity is overcome (after sucking up enough energy) which occurs at a very low temp relative to the type of heat you should achieve in a wood stove (500+) and then floats off up the stack. If you are equating creosote with water or believe that the lava rock is also retaining the water then you would have to run at very low temps but I doubt that that is the case even with wet wood.
> 
> To take advantage of waters high latent heat capacity water is heated in a closed system (like a boiler with baseboard heat). In your setup the water vapor goes out the stack at a low temp before you can get that heat back.
> 
> You may have a viable system but the point is if you could control the air better it necessarily must work better without excess water. Water after all is used to put out fires because it cools the fire and displaces O2.


The byproducts of complete combustion, there are only two. Co2 and h2o. I find that kind of odd, that a fire that is burning at optimum efficiency, it puts out water and carbon dioxide. Yes, Your right, I'm not going to throw a cup of water in everytime, that i throw in a hunk of wood. But, when you have a tree as in only locust, that is freshly cut down. water is just not oozin out of it. Locust starts to dry check itself within the first two days. I wood like for you toi watch the video that I made just for this, I want for you to see it. its on youtube, ibought this stove from a guy. under you gotta love the locust. With your fire, fire is put out by water, lets say there is a 100 year old two story house, ya know the one that is made out of true 2 by 4' and its on fire. I have a water hose from the next door neighbor house tryin to put it out, in reality I am just fueling it. Ok, then the fire department comes they more than likely will have 3 to four 3 inch lines and they will get it out, but it takes a whole hell of alot of water to make that happen. Its funny that you talked about, water putting out fire. When alex looks at water i see a fuel, oxygen combo. Hydrogen fuel cell cars, to put it bluntly, there will come a day that we put water in are cars to create in essesnce a fire to make them go. What 2 molecules make up water, 2 hydrogen atoms and a single oxygen atom. Hydrogen is a fuel and oxygen is a oxidizer, which reacts with hydrogen, or methane, butane, acetelyne  and on and on..........


----------



## alex johnson (Feb 17, 2013)

Backwoods Savage said:


> I has suspected it before but that post by our new friend Alex Johnson sort of spelled it out free and clear. Alex is a troll and only trying to stir up the clan. This thread does not deserve even one more post.
> 
> So go ahead Alex and burn your tires in your stove. Just tell it somewhere else.


My friend i can burn tires in my stoves, with the lava rock filter. Its on youtube. One day you will see, that this so called troll. Look up mcguire stoves on youtube, and you will feel like a schmuck, my friend. I have patience for people, who speak, what they know.... I am hear to spread the word about lava rocks, Just think and let yourr mind swell, with knowledge. do you realize that 600 years ago, we thought the world was SQUARE.  Good day my friend!


----------



## AppalachianStan (Feb 17, 2013)

I like to know how long it takes locust to dry so you can burn it with out worrying about creosote?


----------



## Backwoods Savage (Feb 17, 2013)

alex johnson said:


> My friend i can burn tires in my stoves, with the lava rock filter. Its on youtube. One day you will see, that this so called troll. Look up mcguire stoves on youtube, and you will feel like a schmuck, my friend. I have patience for people, who speak, what they know.... I am hear to spread the word about lava rocks, Just think and let yourr mind swell, with knowledge. do you realize that 600 years ago, we thought the world was SQUARE. Good day my friend!


 
Alex, I had not planned on posting to this thread any more but just wanted to warn you about one thing. You are posting that you burn tires in your stove. I can not tell you about where you live but will tell you that in most places, someone could turn you in and you would be facing a huge fine for burning those tires. How much? Last one I know of who was fined had to pay the State $10,000.00. So you might be well advised to stop with these posts lest you get yourself into some big time trouble.


----------



## tbuff (Feb 17, 2013)

Good replies Dennis, don't waste anymore time on this guy. I'm getting dumber just by reading his posts...


----------



## fabsroman (Feb 17, 2013)

Yeah, I think he really lost me when he stated that using a garden hose on a house fire would be fueling the fire. How can putting water on a fire fuel it whatsoever, unless the garden hose is hooked up to a tank of gasoline.


----------



## cptoneleg (Feb 17, 2013)

AppalachianStan said:


> I like to know how long it takes locust to dry so you can burn it with out worrying about creosote?


 
If it is a green tree 2 or 3 yrs,    But a dead one well thats a different story, deepends.


----------



## jatoxico (Feb 17, 2013)

alex johnson said:


> The byproducts of complete combustion, there are only two. Co2 and h2o. I find that kind of odd, that a fire that is burning at optimum efficiency, it puts out water and carbon dioxide. Yes, Your right, I'm not going to throw a cup of water in everytime, that i throw in a hunk of wood. But, when you have a tree as in only locust, that is freshly cut down. water is just not oozin out of it. Locust starts to dry check itself within the first two days. I wood like for you toi watch the video that I made just for this, I want for you to see it. its on youtube, ibought this stove from a guy. under you gotta love the locust. With your fire, fire is put out by water, lets say there is a 100 year old two story house, ya know the one that is made out of true 2 by 4' and its on fire. I have a water hose from the next door neighbor house tryin to put it out, in reality I am just fueling it. Ok, then the fire department comes they more than likely will have 3 to four 3 inch lines and they will get it out, but it takes a whole hell of alot of water to make that happen. Its funny that you talked about, water putting out fire. When alex looks at water i see a fuel, oxygen combo. Hydrogen fuel cell cars, to put it bluntly, there will come a day that we put water in are cars to create in essesnce a fire to make them go. What 2 molecules make up water, 2 hydrogen atoms and a single oxygen atom. Hydrogen is a fuel and oxygen is a oxidizer, which reacts with hydrogen, or methane, butane, acetelyne and on and on..........


 
I saw the video of your inefficient and dangerous setup.

Be careful you don't hurt yourself and BTW did you say... "choochin' "?


----------



## fabsroman (Feb 17, 2013)

AppalachianStan said:


> I like to know how long it takes locust to dry so you can burn it with out worrying about creosote?


 
Well, there is some debate as to whether I have locust in my pile of wood. 90% say it is locust, 8% say it isn't, and 2% say it is Siberian Elm. All I know is that the wood has been split and stacked since August/September 2011 and it burns like crap and two MC measurements from fresh splits last month returned 37% water. Plenty of people have said on here that even when it is dry, it still burns really slow and long. Me, I am going to take a couple more MC readings sometime soon, but am pretty sure they are still way too wet. They are just so much heaver than the same sized red oak splits I stacked at the same time.

So, for me it is going to be 2 to 3 summers worth of seasoning before the locust is worth burning. Others swear that it only takes 6 months. You are going to have to experiment on your own to see what works for you.


----------



## AppalachianStan (Feb 17, 2013)

We got some cotton wood the first year we got our stove that was cut and stacked for 6 months then we split it. 3 weeks later it was good to go. So each wood is different.


----------



## fabsroman (Feb 17, 2013)

AppalachianStan said:


> We got some cotton wood the first year we got our stove that was cut and stacked for 6 months then we split it. 3 weeks later it was good to go. So each wood is different.


 
No doubt about that. Every different species is different. This season I burned a lot of poplar, sweet gum, and cherry that was split and stacked the fall of 2011. The stuff burned great. It was super dry, lit right up, and put out a ton of quick heat. Did not last very long and the sweet gum stank/stunk and left a ton of ash. The oak and locust stacked around the same time frame lights up under protest and the locust will not stay lit if it is the only thing in the furnace and there isn't a deep coal bed underneath it. Going to get through this season and then things should be much better for next year. Really need to get 3 years ahead though so I don't have to worry about all this stuff.


----------



## alex johnson (Feb 18, 2013)

Backwoods Savage said:


> Alex, I had not planned on posting to this thread any more but just wanted to warn you about one thing. You are posting that you burn tires in your stove. I can not tell you about where you live but will tell you that in most places, someone could turn you in and you would be facing a huge fine for burning those tires. How much? Last one I know of who was fined had to pay the State $10,000.00. So you might be well advised to stop with these posts lest you get yourself into some big time trouble.


Dennis, With much respect, I will leave and not come back. I am a open minded more than most, I know this. I live in the state of missouri, In Saint Joe, I have been working with the local university, actually Missouri Western State University. They have been taking Infrared Spectroscopy Samples. we have been capturing, flue gas samples. In the state of missouri, it is in violation to "The open burning of tires" but it states that you can burn tires in a apparatus that has a stack. I can guarantee you this there are people that do it, regularly. Im not one of them because they create way to much heat, specially when there is no smoke. I have had the lava rocks up to 2400F. What i found, while doing research for my project, there are few states that allow for one tire to be burnt in a stack configuration. I have found a away for this to be done smoke free, I achieved the complete combustion, with the aid of a 4inch thick lava rock filter to pass the particulates through. I truly apologize to all of you, if i have ruffled feathers. That was not my intentions, my intentions were wanting to talk to some people kinda like me. Black locust is my favorite wood, its a weed  tree. I had a meeting with a local coal fired electrical producer, about my concepts. Did you know that every full load of coal in a single train car, over half will be wasted. sub critical power plant, 38% efficient, Super Critical 45%, Ultra Super critical 45.6% efficient, that's ridiculous gentleman. I still love Black Locust for heat, and hickory for smokin Respectfully Alex, peace be with you gentleman.


----------



## alex johnson (Feb 18, 2013)

Backwoods Savage said:


> Well, we may have to see if we can talk some stove manufacturers into putting lava rocks in the stoves. Still, they, like soapstone or cast, can store only so much heat. As for the lava rocks soaking up the creosote, something just does not sound right there. How much can it soak up? Can the rock really soak it up at all? Would you have to remove this rock every so often to clean it, much as you would clean a chimney? Would it not be better to not have any creosote to "soak up?"
> 
> "After the outside of the log is burnt, the interior of the log still has moisture, gives me the longer burn." You are correct in that the moisture is throughout the whole log. It gives you a longer burn simply because it can't burn very fast at all. Where most folks seem to go wrong on the theory of burning green wood vs burning dry wood is that they claim the dry wood burns too fast. Well for sure if they attempt to burn the wood in the same way, the dry will burn faster. But that is one of the beauties of burning dry wood in that you do not have to burn it fast; you do not have to give it as much air as you do to keep wet wood burning. Therefore, you keep more of that energy (heat) in the house rather than sending it up the chimney.
> 
> ...


The lava rocks self clean by means that they can handle extreme heat, they burn the smoke as it passes through, they do have flyash on the tops of them. But, were the gases pass by they stay clean. Its, quite neat. Locust is the only wood I will burn green. The rocks act as a catch for the creosote, just more place for the tars to stick to, inside the stove. and not the flue. They absorb alot of heat, and can hold it and then release it slowly, my round stove that I took the video of. I have been working with a fire inspector he came over and seen. We filled it up plum full of seasoned black locust, and left the ash door opened the entire burn. The chiminey never got above 500, the skin never got above 700, the lava rock area got up to 1700F. The lava rocks can handle the extreme heat. Backwoods, ifeel your mind is kicking in, I have a provisional patent on the use of lava rocks in a wood burning apparatus, and for incineration purposes. One day my friend, I am more then willing to help with the build of a stove that uses lava rocks. I have videos on youtube, type in lava rocks 44 videos. Good day, its crazy but it works.


----------



## alex johnson (Feb 18, 2013)

alex johnson said:


> The lava rocks self clean by means that they can handle extreme heat, they burn the smoke as it passes through, they do have flyash on the tops of them. But, were the gases pass by they stay clean. Its, quite neat. Locust is the only wood I will burn green. The rocks act as a catch for the creosote, just more place for the tars to stick to, inside the stove. and not the flue. They absorb alot of heat, and can hold it and then release it slowly, my round stove that I took the video of. I have been working with a fire inspector he came over and seen. We filled it up plum full of seasoned black locust, and left the ash door opened the entire burn. The chiminey never got above 500, the skin never got above 700, the lava rock area got up to 1700F. The lava rocks can handle the extreme heat. Backwoods, ifeel your mind is kicking in, I have a provisional patent on the use of lava rocks in a wood burning apparatus, and for incineration purposes. One day my friend, I am more then willing to help with the build of a stove that uses lava rocks. I have videos on youtube, type in lava rocks 44 videos. Good day, its crazy but it works.


 I had a Daka furnace, that first winter it smoked and the neighbors did not like it nor did I. Now I have my lava rock stove and no smoke, i set out to burn smoke free, and i have. in that process i stumbled upon something pretty amazing actually. I want you to be skeptical, but if you think you will see, and then I have alot of videos that prove what I am saying. You will believe.. Im done Good day sirs, Dennis, I apologize. peace


----------



## tbuff (Feb 18, 2013)

alex johnson said:


> I had a Daka furnace, that first winter it smoked and the neighbors did not like it nor did I. Now I have my lava rock stove and no smoke, i set out to burn smoke free, and i have. in that process i stumbled upon something pretty amazing actually. I want you to be skeptical, but if you think you will see, and then I have alot of videos that prove what I am saying. You will believe.. Im done Good day sirs, Dennis, I apologize. peace


 
 Oh, I bet your neighbors love breathing in the fumes from your tire/garbage eating lava rock stove.


----------



## ScotO (Feb 18, 2013)

Alex, while this is an interesting concept, it's still not "perfection" as you claim it to be.......I don't see anything monitoring the temperature on your stove in your demonstration (no flue probe, no firebox probe, etc.).  Hard to say that this stove is ultra efficient when we don't even have any idea what temperature it is running at in your video.  Throwing 6 dozen eggs, in any fire, is going to throw the temperature in the dirt.

Then you have the by-product problem, with burning those tires and such......you realize when you burn plastic/tires etc, that you are releasing dioxin into the air, whether you see it or not, and that has been proven to be one of the most cancerous poisons known to man......very very bad stuff.

I like the fact that someone can experiment and try things out, no one is bashing you for that.  But to say that throwing 6 dozen eggs in a fire with lava rocks (I'm assuming they are on a grate ABOVE the fire) is putting out efficient heat?  I don't buy that.  I'd have to see honest temperature readings from both the firebox and the flue........and I can guarantee you they will not be very high, because water doesn't burn.....


----------



## tbuff (Feb 18, 2013)

It is a very interesting concept, but seems to be a bit unsafe how it is installed and operated. I'd at least take the towel and clothes that are hanging 2 inches away from it down and put up some real wall protection.


----------



## tbuff (Feb 18, 2013)

gzecc said:


> Fresh split and stacked from Sandy blow down 24%. (yes it was resplit for this test)


 
I actually thought that locust seems to season a little quicker also compared to oak or other hard woods. I think most of the locust I have was standing dead before it blew down.


----------



## ScotO (Feb 18, 2013)

tbuff said:


> It is a very interesting concept, but seems to be a bit unsafe how it is installed and operated. I'd at least take the towel and clothes that are hanging 2 inches away from it down and put up some real wall protection.


 If you look at the flue where the gasses come out, there is no real 'pressure' from exiting heat or gasses.....just whispy smoke.  Which indicates that the fire isn't stoking or putting out any heat whatsoever.  As I said in my last post, if he put some real temp probes on that stove and in that flue, you'd see it isn't making any real heat at all......until he opens the door and oxygen hits that garbage in the firebox....


----------



## fabsroman (Feb 18, 2013)

Yep, I would really be interested in some scientific data/testing. Have not looked at the videos, but from what I am reading they aren't very scientific at all. Temp readings would be nice. An infrared video would be awesome too if it could possibly show the difference in extreme temps. The data from smoke readings in the flue would be nice too. I am intrigued by the concept, but want to see the data.

Cold fusion is intriguing too.

Burning tires efficiently for electrical power:
http://www.alternet.org/story/90943/burning_tires_for_power:_green_energy_or_health_hazard

I have heard of cement companies burning tires. Even saw a segment on Dirty Jobs with Mike Rowe about how the junk tires are cut up into very small chunks for this very purpose. It would be really cool if they could take all these tires we go through and do something useful with them. Can only imagine how many old tires are sitting out there.


----------



## alex johnson (Feb 18, 2013)

Scotty Overkill said:


> Alex, while this is an interesting concept, it's still not "perfection" as you claim it to be.......I don't see anything monitoring the temperature on your stove in your demonstration (no flue probe, no firebox probe, etc.). Hard to say that this stove is ultra efficient when we don't even have any idea what temperature it is running at in your video. Throwing 6 dozen eggs, in any fire, is going to throw the temperature in the dirt.
> 
> Then you have the by-product problem, with burning those tires and such......you realize when you burn plastic/tires etc, that you are releasing dioxin into the air, whether you see it or not, and that has been proven to be one of the most cancerous poisons known to man......very very bad stuff.
> 
> I like the fact that someone can experiment and try things out, no one is bashing you for that. But to say that throwing 6 dozen eggs in a fire with lava rocks (I'm assuming they are on a grate ABOVE the fire) is putting out efficient heat? I don't buy that. I'd have to see honest temperature readings from both the firebox and the flue........and I can guarantee you they will not be very high, because water doesn't burn.....


I have 44 videos I just posted one yesterday with temps. Dioxins and furans, burn at temps above 1800 f. i am burning them. So, you have seen that video, burning tires and trash? That stove has been modified for a catalyitc stove thermometer. The only thing that should not be burnt is chlorinated plastics. I have learned alot, dioxins and  fruans from plastic burn at temps at and above 1800f, please look it up find out, knowledge is power!! Can you explain to me why when you open the door smoke rolls out, and when you close it no smoke comes from the flue? A lava rock filter does it, believe oit or not. I have probably 400 videos on my computer and on flash drives, I like, the fact that you brought up the dioxins and furans, Good day. Alex the ate up bonehead.


----------



## alex johnson (Feb 18, 2013)

fabsroman said:


> Yep, I would really be interested in some scientific data/testing. Have not looked at the videos, but from what I am reading they aren't very scientific at all. Temp readings would be nice. An infrared video would be awesome too if it could possibly show the difference in extreme temps. The data from smoke readings in the flue would be nice too. I am intrigued by the concept, but want to see the data.
> 
> Cold fusion is intriguing too.
> 
> ...


There are more than we can think of, the fact that they grind these tires up and put them on playgrounds, and then they scatter. My daughters school, has a playground with them as a cushion, but there everywhere, little pieces of tire everywhere. There is a gentleman that grinds tires into the little chunks, he says that some of the tires get burnt, for cement, coal fired plants, but the rest he said that ther eis a old quarry over in kansas that there throwing them into it, putting a couple feet of dirt, then another layer. an so on. He said they are doing it like this just in case in the future we can go and uncover it. oh well.


----------



## alex johnson (Feb 18, 2013)

fabsroman said:


> Yep, I would really be interested in some scientific data/testing. Have not looked at the videos, but from what I am reading they aren't very scientific at all. Temp readings would be nice. An infrared video would be awesome too if it could possibly show the difference in extreme temps. The data from smoke readings in the flue would be nice too. I am intrigued by the concept, but want to see the data.
> 
> Cold fusion is intriguing too.
> 
> ...


 I am in the process of getting more testing done, here this is the company AEROMET, they are a stack testing company out of Jefferson City Missouri, I have done more research, I'm trying, One day my friends, my concepts will save everybody money on there electrical bill. OOne day when i can afford a ir thermometer, I want to. My stoves burn clean, because of the lava rocks. Cold fusion, never looked into it? 10000 dollars for the test, already got a quote.


----------



## alex johnson (Feb 18, 2013)

Scotty Overkill said:


> If you look at the flue where the gasses come out, there is no real 'pressure' from exiting heat or gasses.....just whispy smoke. Which indicates that the fire isn't stoking or putting out any heat whatsoever. As I said in my last post, if he put some real temp probes on that stove and in that flue, you'd see it isn't making any real heat at all......until he opens the door and oxygen hits that garbage in the firebox....


I got ya'll thinkin that was my goal, I have videos with theremometers please look. you will be impressed.


----------



## alex johnson (Feb 18, 2013)

Scotty Overkill said:


> If you look at the flue where the gasses come out, there is no real 'pressure' from exiting heat or gasses.....just whispy smoke. Which indicates that the fire isn't stoking or putting out any heat whatsoever. As I said in my last post, if he put some real temp probes on that stove and in that flue, you'd see it isn't making any real heat at all......until he opens the door and oxygen hits that garbage in the firebox....


If you do it right there should be no pressure, as in smoke rolling out. Equlibrium, of the internal fire. That is a waste of wood to let the flue gases roll out. Just plain wasteful! Alex


----------



## alex johnson (Feb 18, 2013)

tbuff said:


> It is a very interesting concept, but seems to be a bit unsafe how it is installed and operated. I'd at least take the towel and clothes that are hanging 2 inches away from it down and put up some real wall protection.


 At first, i wood not put up the clothes then i became comfortable, if you look there is a piece of hardy backer that seperates the wall from the heat, with a ari gap behind it to keep the backside with air movement. I will never build a square stove, why do you say that. Round, there are no corners. Square, there are corners and then there are flat spots that are probably warped. It is harder for the heat to penetrate the corner, than the flat spot. Round, there are no corners, there are no flat spots. The heat radiates EVENLY, and internally the heat is reflected evenly back. More efficient, than square. That stoves name is CeCelia, after my grandmother. I have tried to over heat it, and at burn the outside paint off but I havent. The Lava Rocks absorb, and can handle the heat and then radiate it back into the room. I have a video were there are no coals inside but, the top of it si still hot enough to not be able to keep your hand on it. Believe it or not.  I have been experimenting for the last 4 years, with lavas rocks. I just finally got the provisional patent, one day my friends. Peace Alex. Ps, everybody got carried away, it's only locust that I will burn green.


----------



## fabsroman (Feb 18, 2013)

alex johnson said:


> At first, i wood not put up the clothes then i became comfortable, if you look there is a piece of hardy backer that seperates the wall from the heat, with a ari gap behind it to keep the backside with air movement. I will never build a square stove, why do you say that. Round, there are no corners. Square, there are corners and then there are flat spots that are probably warped. It is harder for the heat to penetrate the corner, than the flat spot. Round, there are no corners, there are no flat spots. The heat radiates EVENLY, and internally the heat is reflected evenly back. More efficient, than square. That stoves name is CeCelia, after my grandmother. I have tried to over heat it, and at burn the outside paint off but I havent. The Lava Rocks absorb, and can handle the heat and then radiate it back into the room. I have a video were there are no coals inside but, the top of it si still hot enough to not be able to keep your hand on it. Believe it or not. I have been experimenting for the last 4 years, with lavas rocks. I just finally got the provisional patent, one day my friends. Peace Alex. Ps, everybody got carried away, it's only locust that I will burn green.


 
Can you post some links to the videos? I would like to take a look at them. You might want to think about starting a webpage about this, looking for some venture capital, and seeing if this goes anywhere. It sucks to have somebody else profit from your idea (e.g., venture capitalists or partners), but it sucks even more never to be able to even give your idea a good run because you cannot afford to test it, produce it, and then market it.


----------



## swagler85 (Feb 18, 2013)

alex johnson said:


> At first, i wood not put up the clothes then i became comfortable, if you look there is a piece of hardy backer that seperates the wall from the heat, with a ari gap behind it to keep the backside with air movement. I will never build a square stove, why do you say that. Round, there are no corners. Square, there are corners and then there are flat spots that are probably warped. It is harder for the heat to penetrate the corner, than the flat spot. Round, there are no corners, there are no flat spots. The heat radiates EVENLY, and internally the heat is reflected evenly back. More efficient, than square. That stoves name is CeCelia, after my grandmother. I have tried to over heat it, and at burn the outside paint off but I havent. The Lava Rocks absorb, and can handle the heat and then radiate it back into the room. I have a video were there are no coals inside but, the top of it si still hot enough to not be able to keep your hand on it. Believe it or not. I have been experimenting for the last 4 years, with lavas rocks. I just finally got the provisional patent, one day my friends. Peace Alex. Ps, everybody got carried away, it's only locust that I will burn green.


Why not combine your idea with an efficient stove? You could burn dry wood getting longer burn times and increase heat.  Also what kind of burn times are you getting with your stove?


----------



## ScotO (Feb 18, 2013)

alex johnson said:


> If you do it right there should be no pressure, as in smoke rolling out. Equlibrium, of the internal fire. That is a waste of wood to let the flue gases roll out. Just plain wasteful! Alex


No, actually you need to understand that combustion needs three things.....ingnition, oxygen, and fuel.....
When you have those three things come together, you will get by-products (ash and carbon monoxide), so you definately need some sort of exhaust.  Not smoke, but carbon monoxide needs to exit the flue.  It will do so and create pressure up the flue (draw), which shows an efficient burn.  Your vids have very little pressure at the stacktop......then when you open the door of the stove, it bursts into flames.  That thing is choked down, you can tell by the stacktop.

One of the reasons I don't think you'll ever sell the idea to the major stove manufacturers.......but maybe I'll try making a rack for my Napoleon to put lava rocks in where the baffles are located to see if it helps in digesting the smoke and creating more heat.

Don't misunderstand me, Alex.  I'm not here to bash you.  You've piqued my curiousity, but you also have to understand we have to be skeptical.......
Opinions (which is what your stove ideas are at this time until proven by a qualified testing facility) are like assholes.......EVERYBODY has one!


----------



## fabsroman (Feb 18, 2013)

Scotty Overkill said:


> No, actually you need to understand that combustion needs three things.....ingnition, oxygen, and fuel.....
> When you have those three things come together, you will get by-products (ash and carbon monoxide), so you definately need some sort of exhaust. Not smoke, but carbon monoxide needs to exit the flue. It will do so and create pressure up the flue (draw), which shows an efficient burn. Your vids have very little pressure at the stacktop......then when you open the door of the stove, it bursts into flames. That thing is choked down, you can tell by the stacktop.
> 
> One of the reasons I don't think you'll ever sell the idea to the major stove manufacturers.......but maybe I'll try making a rack for my Napoleon to put lava rocks in where the baffles are located to see if it helps in digesting the smoke and creating more heat.
> ...


 
Nah, opinions are worse. Some people have MORE than one opinion. Don't know of anybody with more than one of those holes in their rear.

I too am intrigued by this lava rock idea, but I would really have to see some hard numbers on it. Something I don't think the OP is in a position to accomplish at this time.

As far as the byproducts of combustion are concerned, Alex is correct. With PERFECT combustion, the byproducts are heat, light, and water.

With hydrogen and oxygen being the only two fuels present, you get complete combustion where the only byproduct is heat, light, and water. Problem is it is really, really, really hard to get just hydrogen and oxygen in the burn.



_Complete combustion is almost impossible to achieve. In reality, as actual combustion reactions come to equilibrium, a wide variety of major and minor species will be present such as carbon monoxide and pure carbon (soot or ash). Additionally, any combustion in atmospheric air, which is 78 percent nitrogen, will also create several forms of nitrogen oxides._

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combustion


----------



## Paulywalnut (Feb 18, 2013)

cptoneleg said:


> If it is a green tree 2 or 3 yrs, But a dead one well thats a different story, deepends.


I just cut up a good sized locust branch that had been hanging over a small creek for at least  10 years.
No bark, I cut a 17" piece out of the center, 17% moisture. It had a brown hue to it not yellowish. Got 12 17" pieces


----------



## alex johnson (Feb 18, 2013)

fabsroman said:


> Can you post some links to the videos? I would like to take a look at them. You might want to think about starting a webpage about this, looking for some venture capital, and seeing if this goes anywhere. It sucks to have somebody else profit from your idea (e.g., venture capitalists or partners), but it sucks even more never to be able to even give your idea a good run because you cannot afford to test it, produce it, and then market it.


Thanks, um posting a video on here, I can try


----------



## alex johnson (Feb 18, 2013)

fabsroman said:


> Can you post some links to the videos? I would like to take a look at them. You might want to think about starting a webpage about this, looking for some venture capital, and seeing if this goes anywhere. It sucks to have somebody else profit from your idea (e.g., venture capitalists or partners), but it sucks even more never to be able to even give your idea a good run because you cannot afford to test it, produce it, and then market it.


Hey, I am not smart enough to post it here. ON youtube, type in McGuire Stoves, that will bring you to all 44 videos, as for the investment, as in V.C.. I have been putting together a video for KICKStarter, a crowd funding platform, but hell yes testing is crazy, stealing my idea, I have a provisional patent, that should protect me. The main thing for me is the Coal fired power plants. Period. I know that I can bring them up in efficiency. The world as a whole mines 4.6 billion tons a year.


----------



## alex johnson (Feb 18, 2013)

swagler85 said:


> Why not combine your idea with an efficient stove? You could burn dry wood getting longer burn times and increase heat. Also what kind of burn times are you getting with your stove?


 Not trying to sound stupid, but my stoves are really efficient, I am taking a video of today, burn 9 to 10 hours. I built a fireplace insert that had 24 hour burn times, it was 28 inches deep by 23 wide by 23 tall. its on youtube, It went to the state of oregon. He say that it puts to much heat out.


----------



## Shane N (Feb 18, 2013)

I'm waiting for the Rick Roll link.


----------



## alex johnson (Feb 18, 2013)

Scotty Overkill said:


> No, actually you need to understand that combustion needs three things.....ingnition, oxygen, and fuel.....
> When you have those three things come together, you will get by-products (ash and carbon monoxide), so you definately need some sort of exhaust. Not smoke, but carbon monoxide needs to exit the flue. It will do so and create pressure up the flue (draw), which shows an efficient burn. Your vids have very little pressure at the stacktop......then when you open the door of the stove, it bursts into flames. That thing is choked down, you can tell by the stacktop.
> 
> One of the reasons I don't think you'll ever sell the idea to the major stove manufacturers.......but maybe I'll try making a rack for my Napoleon to put lava rocks in where the baffles are located to see if it helps in digesting the smoke and creating more heat.
> ...


Your correct, but I have already had interest. The reason it burst in to flame is because its airtight, in 2015 epa is tightening its restrictions. You will see lava rock stoves come to be, after you try to get your napoleon going with rocks, have patience. if you have questions ask and I can help if you choose to.


----------



## alex johnson (Feb 18, 2013)

fabsroman said:


> Nah, opinions are worse. Some people have MORE than one opinion. Don't know of anybody with more than one of those holes in their rear.
> 
> I too am intrigued by this lava rock idea, but I would really have to see some hard numbers on it. Something I don't think the OP is in a position to accomplish at this time.
> 
> ...


 your correct, yes I can not split the molecule into single atoms, but i have burnt all the volatiles, and at the end I have complete combustion. I seen the IR graph, and they pointed it out. I have a big hill to climb I know this, totally new concept. Even for the electrical company, but when I go in there and have everbodies attention from the word go, than I know my hill is getting smaller. You are correct, super hard to get the h20 to spilt, and then burn. I am not saying that I am doing that in no ways shape or form expressed or implied.


----------



## alex johnson (Feb 18, 2013)

fabsroman said:


> Nah, opinions are worse. Some people have MORE than one opinion. Don't know of anybody with more than one of those holes in their rear.
> 
> I too am intrigued by this lava rock idea, but I would really have to see some hard numbers on it. Something I don't think the OP is in a position to accomplish at this time.
> 
> ...


The only thing that we can not burn is the sox gases asin sulpher, The nitrogen, can be burnt down to nitrates, there is a certain heat range, were nox gases are burnt, but over I think 2400 on up it creates nox, I actuall think its up there at 2800 f. dont quote me.


----------



## Jags (Feb 18, 2013)

Complete combustion cannot even be obtained by a plasma generator. Impossible with known technology.


----------



## ScotO (Feb 18, 2013)

I just can't see how he's hitting these kiln temperatures with the stove in the videos.......that thing would be glowing red, especially the stovepipe.  I think that the lava rock thing could be a good idea, when combined with a baffle, in a secondary burn stove(have the lava rock up where the secondary air comes in, it would act as a sort of catalytic converter......).  But there is no way he's hitting 2400 degrees fareheit in that stove.....it'd be near melting.....


----------



## Jags (Feb 18, 2013)

At 2400 degrees, the internal parts of the stove would have the integrity of warm jello.

Complete combustion suggests 100% efficient = does not exist.


----------



## Waulie (Feb 18, 2013)

Sounds like a neat concept.  People are going to be skeptical though, when you claim you get more heat from wet wood.  Dry wood can "burn too fast", but not if you have a controllable stove.  Since your stove is "airtight", I can't see how that could possibly be an issue.

The fact that water has a high specific heat does not in any way mean that you get more heat from it.  It means you're wasting more energy turning the liquid into a gas.  This takes tremendous (relatively speaking) energy to do.  This is energy that could be converted to heat but instead is being wasted in the H2O phase change which is necessary before you can get rid of the water and burn the fuel. 

There is a point where you can have too little water, but it's way below the moisture content of green wood.


----------



## jatoxico (Feb 18, 2013)

swagler85 said:


> Why not combine your idea with an efficient stove? You could burn dry wood getting longer burn times and increase heat. Also what kind of burn times are you getting with your stove?


 
That's the point right there. Control the air to improve burn time not lousy wood. _If_ the system has any positive benefits it will be improved in the right setup.


----------



## Flatbedford (Feb 18, 2013)

This lava rock things sounds to me like a primitive catalytic combustor.


----------



## alex johnson (Feb 19, 2013)

Scotty Overkill said:


> I just can't see how he's hitting these kiln temperatures with the stove in the videos.......that thing would be glowing red, especially the stovepipe. I think that the lava rock thing could be a good idea, when combined with a baffle, in a secondary burn stove(have the lava rock up where the secondary air comes in, it would act as a sort of catalytic converter......). But there is no way he's hitting 2400 degrees fareheit in that stove.....it'd be near melting.....


Steel begins to soften at 2800, Ding Ding your a winner with kinda how I do it, and the only way for me to get up to the high temps are with a chunk of tire in it. Period. I can do it, do more research before you come back, Small secret, the part that surrounds the lava rocks is made out of refractory cement, hmmmmmmmmmmmm.... Do you realize 65 years ago they said that we cant put a man on the moon, and we did keep fueling me gentleman.


----------



## alex johnson (Feb 19, 2013)

jatoxico said:


> That's the point right there. Control the air to improve burn time not lousy wood. _If_ the system has any positive benefits it will be improved in the right setup.


your on it, Spot on!   Lets hear what they got to say about this, I made probably the first, lava rock muffler for a 220 cummins.


----------



## tbuff (Feb 19, 2013)

Is there a video with one of your stoves actually operating correctly? or are they all of you rambling on for 20 mins, calling your dog and burning your lunch? I'd actually like to see how the burn times and heat output are with dry wood, controlled air, etc...


----------



## alex johnson (Feb 19, 2013)

Jags said:


> Complete combustion cannot even be obtained by a plasma generator. Impossible with known technology.


How is what I am talking about known, not one of you believed that lava rocks could do this. Nor did the engineers at the power plant, not one stove company that i have contacted ever thought or even hear. THIS IS A NEW CONCEPT. and there are alot of people in this world that feel, that they have reached there peak of intelligence. I strive to learn at least one new thing a  day. Also, through my research the space shuttle tiles, for rentry into earths upper atmosphere, 95% sure they could have been used there. LAva is made in the  center of the earth, under extreme variables, ther is no way we can duplicate that by man made methoids.    Look up KOMATIITE, it is a form of lava. Has the highest heat melting point 1700 c, I think?


----------



## alex johnson (Feb 19, 2013)

tbuff said:


> Is there a video with one of your stoves actually operating correctly? or are they all of you rambling on for 20 mins, calling your dog and burning your lunch? I'd actually like to see how the burn times and heat output are with dry wood, controlled air, etc...


I have 44 videos, on there go to my channel and you will see, and  i step by step build one with video. What exactly is operating correctly, supposed to mean? it's burning wood, cavemen did.


----------



## alex johnson (Feb 19, 2013)

Jags said:


> At 2400 degrees, the internal parts of the stove would have the integrity of warm jello.
> 
> Complete combustion suggests 100% efficient = does not exist.


It does exsist, educate yourself. You can completely burn something up to the molecular level. Two seperate people with masters degrees in chemical engineering, said it was happeneing.   This is how it went. Took the samples from the flue, toook them and put them on the IR machine, and about 2 or 3 minutes later. the graph came up, and i looked at gary, he had a smile on his face and said this, its doing what you thought it was doing. Actually the high temps are inside the lava rock compartment.


----------



## alex johnson (Feb 19, 2013)

Waulie said:


> Sounds like a neat concept. People are going to be skeptical though, when you claim you get more heat from wet wood. Dry wood can "burn too fast", but not if you have a controllable stove. Since your stove is "airtight", I can't see how that could possibly be an issue.
> 
> The fact that water has a high specific heat does not in any way mean that you get more heat from it. It means you're wasting more energy turning the liquid into a gas. This takes tremendous (relatively speaking) energy to do. This is energy that could be converted to heat but instead is being wasted in the H2O phase change which is necessary before you can get rid of the water and burn the fuel.
> 
> There is a point where you can have too little water, but it's way below the moisture content of green wood.


Your smart, i like intelligence  This is how i do my wood, I do a fall cut, after the the leaves have fallen off the tree. this is how i know the sap is n ot flowing through the tree. feel me. It will be dryer from the word go. When you do a spring cut, got to do it before the buds on the tree show. if ther are buds on the tree then you know that there is water flowing through it. I leave the door open for a while to get the outside of the log toasted and burn the residual water, then shut it down. the interior of that log still has moisture, yes. but, all that water can not all come otu at the same time. it slowly releases itself. the fire can keep up with that. Bet. there are tricks to my madness. they work for me.  All this started BECAUSE I LOVE BLACK LOCUST. the only wood I will burn green.


----------



## swagler85 (Feb 19, 2013)

alex johnson said:


> Steel begins to soften at 2800, Ding Ding your a winner with kinda how I do it, and the only way for me to get up to the high temps are with a chunk of tire in it. Period. I can do it, do more research before you come back, Small secret, the part that surrounds the lava rocks is made out of refractory cement, hmmmmmmmmmmmm.... Do you realize 65 years ago they said that we cant put a man on the moon, and we did keep fueling me gentleman.


Man actually landing on the moon is a HUGE debate  have you seen the flag blowing in the wind


----------



## alex johnson (Feb 19, 2013)

swagler85 said:


> Man actually landing on the moon is a HUGE debate  have you seen the flag blowing in the wind


 yes, i have seen the flag blowing, weightless enviroment, the same reason they have to pee into a vacuum. if you took a sheet from your bed, do you think its gonna turn into a ball. there are cosmic winds!


----------



## alex johnson (Feb 19, 2013)

tbuff said:


> Is there a video with one of your stoves actually operating correctly? or are they all of you rambling on for 20 mins, calling your dog and burning your lunch? I'd actually like to see how the burn times and heat output are with dry wood, controlled air, etc...


Type in McGuire Stoves on youtube, 44 of them. there are ones with thermometer.


----------



## Jags (Feb 19, 2013)

alex johnson said:


> It does exsist, educate yourself.


Sorry, but no.  Educate yourself.  Nothing...absolutely nothing in the cosmic universe is 100% efficient. Period.


----------



## ScotO (Feb 19, 2013)

I've seen enough of this thread, its starting to make me want to burn my vinyl siding, windows, and even my dog in my limestone-bathtub hybrid stove with a 2' smokestack and wet toilet paper on top for a rain cap......

I'm out........


----------



## tbuff (Feb 19, 2013)

Jags said:


> Sorry, but no. Educate yourself. Nothing...absolutely nothing in the cosmic universe is 100% efficient. Period.


 
Scotty's limestone-bathtub hybrid stove with a 2' smokestack and wet toilet paper on top for a rain cap is 118% efficient.


----------



## ScotO (Feb 19, 2013)

tbuff said:


> Scotty's limestone-bathtub hybrid stove with a 2' smokestack and wet toilet paper on top for a rain cap is 118% efficient.


it's around 125% efficient when you put fresh (green) poop in it......but he neighbors HATE me now....


----------



## Boog (Feb 19, 2013)

Locust ...................... the one wood that my property is devoid of........................... have never found a single one on the place!


----------



## ChrisNJ (Feb 19, 2013)

And here I thought all the pending Dennis reply posts were exaggerating about his response :-O But anywho, 80 degrees Dennis ? Really ? holy cow when it gets to 76 in my house I start opening windows its so dry and hot


----------



## Shane N (Feb 19, 2013)

I love trolls. Especially ones with blue pointy hair.


----------



## JustWood (Feb 19, 2013)

jatoxico said:


> I saw the video of your inefficient and dangerous setup.
> 
> Be careful you don't hurt yourself and BTW did you say... "choochin' "?


This may well be Pooks cousin Chooch !
Me thinx .


----------



## swagler85 (Feb 19, 2013)

alex johnson said:


> yes, i have seen the flag blowing, weightless enviroment, the same reason they have to pee into a vacuum. if you took a sheet from your bed, do you think its gonna turn into a ball. there are cosmic winds!


Just gettin yr goat man, tryin to lighten the mood in this thread, too much heat in here. (Pun intended)


----------



## tbuff (Feb 19, 2013)

swagler85 said:


> Just gettin yr goat man, tryin to lighten the mood in this thread, too much heat in here. (Pun intended)


 
Too much heat from the Lava Rocks.


----------



## firefighterjake (Mar 4, 2013)

LEES WOOD-CO said:


> This may well be Pooks cousin Chooch !
> Me thinx .


 
Hehheh . . . glad to see I wasn't the only one thinking along the same vein.

Long live the Magic Heat


----------



## mecreature (Mar 4, 2013)

Cool thread guys.


----------

