# Does anyone run a Magic Heat reclaimer off an Encore?



## VCBurner (Mar 2, 2011)

I know this forum seems to be against heat reclaimers.  However, I feel that some people on this earth still may chose to run one.  I believe it would be helpful to have threads on this site that deal with operating one of these properly and *SAFELY*!

Whatever the general consensus may be, they are still available on the market.  So, this brings me to my title question.  Does anyone run a heat reclaimer off an Encore?  

Here's a link to my other "dead" thread concearning these things, in case anyone has any questions about one!
https://www.hearth.com/econtent/index.php/forums/viewthread/51519/P44/#835380


----------



## Battenkiller (Mar 2, 2011)

Too bad that one got closed, I just don't get the call on that particular one.  I had written a detailed response to the issue of appliance-induced negative pressure, but then had nowhere to post it.  Ya, ya, the thread had drifted a bit... like almost every other one on here after a while.  That's OK, I don't mind.  I'm old and my time has little value anymore. %-P 

I have nothing to add about the Magic Heat but to say, "To each his own."  I don't feel they are appropriate for a modern stove, but they aren't the Devil to me like they are to some others.  You gave it a fair try and found it was worth the trouble, but in the end, got rid of it.   Not sure exactly why, but I'll assume your logic told you it was a small gain for a lot of effort in maintenance.  Stove testers have all the real-world facts and figures about heating efficiency in their products, and I feel most will tell you that only about 20% of your heat goes up the flue, and that 19.5% of your heat is needed in your flue to drive the entire process.  If you have excess draft and a short stack (usually mutually exclusive), then I can seer the benefit of such a device.  With today's stoves being as restrictive to air flow as they are by design, I think a draft _inducer_ is needed in more cases that the other way around.

As far as the actual effectiveness of the unit... the claims of 30,000 BTU reclaimed?  Per _hour_?  BS on that if that is the case.  Per _cord_?  Well then, who cares?  That's like 5 pounds of wood at 25% MC... a single split.


----------



## begreen (Mar 2, 2011)

Have to ask why this is being brought up again and why the Encore? There are lots of devices available on the internet and in stores that may be unsafe or simply rip-offs. One can still buy an EdenPure heater and get taken to the cleaners, so?


----------



## VCBurner (Mar 2, 2011)

The reason why I brought up an Encore is because I have a #2190 sitting in my garage awaiting an install.  May I ask why this thread was moved to the pre EPA section?  The Encore was originally purchased in 1994 and is certainly an EPA rated catalytic stove!  I was wondering if anyone has used a MH on them and if so has it reduced the draft any?

In response to Battenkiller's reply, I took the MH off the Dutchwest in order to learn how to burn the stove in an ideal chimney set up.  I felt as if I had to have a pure set up and see how it works first.  This winter I moved the DW upstairs into the fireplace and had no chance of hooking up the reclaimer in the basement.  But, now with another stove in the works, I may reclaim again! Oh, and by the way BK, I don't get why the thread was taken out of circulation either.  I guess it is up to the Moderators to make these calls and they may feel as if heat reclaimers don't belong on this site?  This is too bad, some people running these things would benefit from reading all the comments and concearns posted about these units here on the site.


----------



## begreen (Mar 3, 2011)

Moved because these units shouldn't be used on a modern stove. However, if you can find a single, EPA stove manufacturer recommending one of these unit to be put on their stove, that kind of endorsement would be worth discussing. To answer the question, any device that is put on the flue, diverts it through multiple channels, and cools the exhaust temps by a couple hundred degrees is going to affect draft. I can't tell you how much without proper testing and suspect very few other folks are going to be able quantify how much either, especially on a modern stove. The prime application appears to be on older stove users with hot flue pipes and that like to brush them out a lot.


----------



## BrotherBart (Mar 3, 2011)

Over the years I have stated my two concerns with the things.

1. That they have a device in them to try to knock the creosote accumulation off of them, thereby admitting that they are creosote traps.

2. The instructions on what to do in a power failure to keep from frying the damned thing. Anybody have in their DayTimer when the next power failure is gonna be?


----------



## VCBurner (Mar 3, 2011)

You guys both bring up some valid points. 
I am not trying in anyway to promote the use of the reclaimers. I just think there is a place for everything that is hearth related. If for nothing else, to expose potential users to valid points such as the ones both of you mentioned. Then, if someone wishes to still use the things, they at least have had a chance to hear those negative concerns. Most people who are thinking of using these probably have no idea of the negative affects that they cause. 

As to address the comments I'll say the following, again not to be argumentative, only to present a different side of the story:

BrotherBart:
1. The creosote does not cling on to the pipes that go through the reclaimer as long as the stove is being used with good dry fuel and not being smoldered to death. The cleaning device is there mostly to clean off fly ash and make it a more effective piece of equipment. If a person smolders their fuel to the point of creating the dangerous sticky peanut butter like creosote, the scraping tool won't even work! The sticky stuff is just stuck in there! Furthermore, all stoves and chimneys have a maintenance schedule that is to be followed as per the manufacturer and so does the MH. 
2. The power failure issue is a real problem. It should be addressed by anyone who uses one of these units. If the electrical components were to fry up during a power failure it would be sure to cause problems when the power does come back on. The question is how hot does the flue need to get to damage these components? Many people have blowers attached to their stoves, that are very similar in nature to the blowers on a MH reclaimer. What happens to these blowers during a power failure? Are they in danger of being damaged by the extreme heat? I also want to add that I burned my stove for a full burn cycle with the MH unplugged just to see what happened. In my case it was fine. 

BeGreen:
I am not endorsing the use of the product. I'm merely asking if anyone has used it on a particular stove. If this question has any chance of being answered, it would have to be exposed to other such stove owners on the correct forum. The Encore 2190 is an EPA rated stove and I fear this question will only live in obscurity in the pre EPA stove forum. Again, I need to state that in my case the MH cooled the flue temps by about 75 degrees. I found while running the DW with a MH attached it did not greatly affect the operation of my EPA rated catalytic stove or add to the amount of creosote in my chimney. You are right about manufacturers not endorsing the use of this product. They don't. 

Again, exposing stove owners to issues such as this does not mean endorsing this product. It is a valid hearth related issue and should be treated as such. Thank you for answering my questions, I greatly respect your expertise and value your opinions on all hearth related problems. I have learned a great deal about stove operation in the past year, largely due to the contributions you and other experienced members of this site. I am still a proud member and will continue to be regardless of what happens with this thread.

I'd like to add one more remark on this long winded post:  The *Magic Heat is a UL listed heat reclaimer 915U*.  Which means that if operated and installed per intruction guidelines it is safe to use according to Underwriters Laboratories testing.


----------



## BrotherBart (Mar 3, 2011)

Can't answer anything but the blower thing. With my old insert the way it was designed it pulled enough convection air through the fans that during 21 years of power failures those plastic fan blades never had a problem. With my free stander in the fireplace now since the blower is actually mounted in the rear convection heat shield you can put your hand on top of it when the stove is at five hundred and the top of it is cool to the touch. Without the blower running. There is that much convection air being pulled up through the heat shield.

In fact the damn thing died from a bearing failure and I am just gonna leave it back there.


----------



## VCBurner (Mar 5, 2011)

Just figured I'd update the forum on this most hated subject.

I sent the following email to Nelson Products last night about concerns on their heat reclaimer:
"I have a Magic Heat reclaimer model MH-6-R.  Last year, it was being used on a pre EPA wood stove.  I bought an EPA rated catalytic wood stove that burns more efficiently and hooked up the reclaimer to it.  However, due to some concerns voiced to me on a hearth related forum, I discontinued using it.  I also wanted to learn how to operate my new stove with a flue that was uninterrupted by anything that could cool off the gasses and potentially slow down the draft.  I later decided that I would enjoy having the reclaimer hooked up again the following year.  This year came and I brought the stove to the fireplace upstairs from the basement install where it was last year.  There it was connected to the fireplace flue and had no way of connecting the reclaimer.  I now have another EPA rated catalytic stove, which will be taking place of the other stove in the basement.  It is a Vermont Castings Defiant Encore model 2190.  I have a couple of  questions regarding the Magic Heat.  Is it ok to use on modern EPA rated catalytic stoves?  Or will it cool gasses off too much and cause creosote and slow down the draft, thus deminishing the efficiency of these modern stoves?  
Another question is regarding potential power failures.  What happens if I run my stove while I'm away from home with the reclaimer hooked up and a power failure happens?  If I'm not home to remove the electrical components will they become damaged and cause a fire?  How hot does the flue need to get and for how long, in order to damage the electrical components if they are left in during a power outage?"

They responded at 9:45am this morning and are williung to discuss the MH.  

Chris


----------



## webbie (Mar 5, 2011)

I think they might work great on those non-cat everburns where the flue collars were glowing red!

But, frankly, MANY more people suffer from draft problems than seem to have excess draft.... although that may change as more chimneys are lined and insulated. 

I would never make a blanket statement that a MH would never be apropos, but considering....

1. Ugly - my wife would never go for it.
2. Electricity - noise - plug...again, no go in my living areas.
3. Draft problems...many people have.
4. Some modern stove have (or should have) relatively low stack temps.....

On the other hand, if I had a man-cave where anything goes and I had a Englander 30 in there with only a short pipe which was hitting 800 degrees regularly on the outside......and the chimney was overdrafting....and someone gave me one.....well, I might try it.

I think what everyone is saying is that this is a niche product that might work in some cases, but surely does not require books to be written on....


----------



## webbie (Mar 5, 2011)

To the above, you would have to add the fact that a MH might have a life of 5 years - blowers burn out, steel rusts, etc.
Add to that the original installation, the monthly electric use and having a harder time cleaning, etc....and then, in the end, calculate what the real payback would be....

In other words, the question/answer is not whether a MH can produce more heat from the same setup...because it can. The question is whether it is worth while!

You could get more heat from most installations by running more single stovepipe - or having a fan blow over the stovepipe, or putting a rear heat shield on a stove pipe which enhanced convection....some companies used to make little sheet metal thingys that fit around you stovepipe and added more surface area...same deal..I

In short, the MH should drop the name "Magic" from its brand. It is just a fan on the stovepipe.....


----------



## VCBurner (Mar 5, 2011)

Thanks for the thoughtful response Craig.  All your remarks make perfectly balanced sence.  The reason why I emailed the company, was to hear what kind of testing they do on these products or if they would back up their product with some scientific results that would change my mind about some of the concerns voiced on here about these units.  I was impressed however, at how quickly they responded with a contact number.  The rest remains to be seen.


----------



## webbie (Mar 5, 2011)

My assumption is that there is not much science to be had about these......the same units have existed since way back.....

I'd say you are going to be dealing with mostly one customers story or another. 

Way back, we did have an industry scientist named Jay Shelton who ran a test lab. He wrote some good books on Wood Heat Safety - using actual testing and science as a guide. My suspicion is that he thought somewhat along the lines of my above posts, but I will check inside the copies I have of his books.

I do remember this much. He claimed...and I assume verified, that even blowing air around a stove firebox (typical fan on double wall stove) affected combustion inside the stove in a negative way! He had drawings showing how this worked - the flame might hit the side of the stove when no fan was used - thereby transferring the heat to the room - but when the fan was turned on the flame did not hit the (relatively) cold surface of the inside of the firebox, therefore sending more heat up the flue!

The problem with all this stuff is that you are going to only get anecdotal information.......and, remember, a sugar pill in placebo tests sometimes scores as high as 70%.

Without a test over vast amounts of time and conditions...taking electric use and chimney cleaning and product life into account....it would be impossible to reach a conclusion. I think, in this case, we have to use common sense and say that unless a particular stove is putting out a VERY hot and VERY clean exhaust into a strong chimney, the equation is probably on the side of even-steven or negative. If, however, said Englander (hot burning non-cat) was running at full boat and putting clean exhaust up a strong insulated chimney...sure, there are lots of ways you could get more heat from it. Heck, you could use a Y on the exhaust and break it up into two stovepipes and then back into one! There have been some units over the years which contained upright firetubes  - effectively 6-8 3" pipes, which did the same thing....I can't find pics, but remember these......


----------



## Fsappo (Mar 5, 2011)

I had a customer buy one for an Encore up in the Warrensburg area, this is a good 20 years ago or so.  I remember talking about the creosote with him and my pop and then decided that since that Encore really didnt make any creosote and considering it was a radiant stove and a little convection heat is nice, what the hell.

It never gave him a creosote issue (straight up Metalbestos 8" chimney thru the roof).  It does NOT make 35K btus. It does add heat though and get the air movin a little bit.  I think it lasted a few years, but the guy ended up buying a second one.  I think they were about $100 bucks or something back then.

As squeaky clean as those old cat Encores burned, I wouldnt see an issue with it, providing the customer understood that no stove manufacturer endorses it and it was an "At your own risk" type of purchase.


----------



## begreen (Mar 5, 2011)

Good info Franks, what are the typical flue temps on these stoves? This seems to be key. On a basement stove that burns clean and doesn't have a blower, it is an option, with caveats. For the reasons Craig outlined above (and with an emphasis on noise) these units are not ideal for a living room use on most modern stoves. On our stove (and on the Castine when we had it) flue gas temps are in the 4-500ÂºF range once the fire is burning at a steady state with the primary air closed. I wouldn't want to reduce that a lot. The concern being with the exiting flue gas temps once the classA exits the house envelope. I have yet to test the flue exit temps at the cap on our system to determine the differential between 24" above the stove and at the cap, but will do this sometime soon, maybe tomorrow. I want it to be well above the point of creosote condensation.

 I looked up comments from Shelton in the Woodburner's Encyclopedia and they confirm Craig's recollections. Shelton's main concern was that the units be kept very clean both for safety and efficiency reasons. He also thought it important that one understands how running the unit may reduce combustion efficiency in certain stove configs. He concludes stating that there are alternative methods that achieve similar results. Increasing the length of the stovepipe from 4-5 ft to 10 ft or blowing a fan across the top of the stove will bring a similar increase of 3-8% heating efficiency at a lower and quieter cost.


----------



## WES999 (Mar 5, 2011)

Here is something I posted in another thread.

When I moved in my house there was a Fisher Grandma Bear in the basement. Sitting behind it was a stove pipe heat reclaimer ( not a MH but essentially the same thing.) One day I figured I would install it and see how it worked. Well, with the MH the stove would not draft well at all. I could barely get a fire going, so off it came. It sat around for a while until I got tired of looking at it, and then threw it in the trash.

This stove has a somewhat marginal draft to begin with, basement location, outside chimney, rear exit, 2 90*, the MH was just not going to work.

On a another topic my oil furnace has a heat reclaimer ( it was there when I moved in) and it works quite well. Itâ€™s an older, not so efficient model and the reclaimer is able to reclaim some of the heat that would otherwise go up the chimney.

As others have said, probably best to avoid using one on a EPA stove, I certainly would not put one on my EPA Regency stove. May work OK an older stove that has very good draft.


----------



## VCBurner (Mar 5, 2011)

Wow!  Some really stimulating posts made here on this subject.  This site never fails to amaze me.  I guess we can all thank the internet (and Craig,) otherwise, we may not have this conglomerate of knowledge and viewpoints.  



> I had a customer buy one for an Encore up in the Warrensburg area, this is a good 20 years ago or so.  I remember talking about the creosote with him and my pop and then decided that since that Encore really didnt make any creosote and considering it was a radiant stove and a little convection heat is nice, what the hell.
> It never gave him a creosote issue (straight up Metalbestos 8â€ chimney thru the roof).  It does NOT make 35K btus. It does add heat though and get the air movin a little bit.  I think it lasted a few years, but the guy ended up buying a second one.  I think they were about $100 bucks or something back then.
> As squeaky clean as those old cat Encores burned, I wouldnt see an issue with it, providing the customer understood that no stove manufacturer endorses it and it was an â€œAt your own riskâ€ type of purchase.



Thanks Franks, just the answer I was looking for when I posted the original question.  An Encore with an MH.  
     I found on the Dutchwest last year, it didn't create any more creosote than without it.  It was hooked in the basement on a top exit then into a 90 and into the 8x8 chimney.  It did not slow down the draft enough to make the stove operate differently.  It did get the heat out very fast, due to the high flue temps the DW creates during ignition periods.  I had way higher flue temps with the DW than with the old Surdiac in the same chimney set up.  The chimney has above average draft and I could not burn coal in it because the draft was stronger than recommended for the Surdiac to burn coal.  




> My assumption is that there is not much science to be had about theseâ€¦...the same units have existed since way backâ€¦..
> Iâ€™d say you are going to be dealing with mostly one customers story or another.



Thanks Craig,
I'm hoping that they can give me some answers on how hot the stove pipe needs to get and for how long in order to damage the electrical components.  There must be some sort of concrete testing done on this subject, some sort of number back up to their product.  It had to be tested somehow in order for UL to list the product, right?  I'm not familiar with the UL testing, maybe you can shed some light on this Craig?  The creosote issue I'm not so concerned about,  I can clean the chimney anytime I need to and there was not a problem when I had it connected in the past.  



> BeGreen Posted: 05 March 2011 12:48 PM
> Good info Franks, what are the typical flue temps on these stoves? This seems to be key. On a basement stove that burns clean and doesnâ€™t have a blower, it is an option, with caveats. For the reasons Craig outlined above (and with an emphasis on noise) these units are not ideal for a living room use on most modern stoves. *I agree with the noise factor, I hated the noise the MH crated when it was in the basement.  On the other hand, with the Encore not having a fan option it may come in handy to have a blower located above the stove. *On our stove (and on the Castine when we had it) flue gas temps are in the 4-500ÂºF range once the fire is burning at a steady state with the primary air closed. I wouldnâ€™t want to reduce that a lot. *As I stated before the MH decreased flue temps by about 75 degrees, I don't know how much that would affect the creosote formation.  But I find interesting what you say about the eefect this temperature change would have in the upper sections of the chimney.*The concern being with the exiting flue gas temps once the classA exits the house envelope. I have yet to test the flue exit temps at the cap on our system to determine the differential between 24â€ above the stove and at the cap, but will do this sometime soon, maybe tomorrow. I want it to be well above the point of creosote condensation.
> 
> I looked up comments from Shelton in the Woodburnerâ€™s Encyclopedia and they confirm Craigâ€™s recollections. Sheltonâ€™s main concern was that the units be kept very clean both for safety and efficiency reasons. He also thought it important that one understands how running the unit may reduce combustion efficiency in certain stove configs. He concludes stating that there are alternative methods that achieve similar results. Increasing the length of the stovepipe from 4-5 ft to 10 ft or blowing a fan across the top of the stove will bring a similar increase of 3-8% heating efficiency at a lower and quieter cost. *I have been also thinking about an eco fan on top of the Encore.  This is a much more charming and economical way of spreading the heat around, I imagine way quieter too!  I agree the look of the MH is also one of the major downfalls as well as the noise.*


Thanks for the input BeGreen!



Thank you all for the comments.  Very cool stuff we are doing here.  Actually discussing the issues and not just shunning and discounting a subject!  I look forward to speaking with Nelson Companies armed with all sorts of questions brought up by these posts.


----------



## Battenkiller (Mar 6, 2011)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> I looked up comments from Shelton in the Woodburner's Encyclopedia and they confirm Craig's recollections. Shelton's main concern was that the units be kept very clean both for safety and efficiency reasons. He also thought it important that one understands how running the unit may reduce combustion efficiency in certain stove configs. He concludes stating that there are alternative methods that achieve similar results. Increasing the length of the stovepipe from 4-5 ft to 10 ft or blowing a fan across the top of the stove will bring a similar increase of 3-8% heating efficiency at a lower and quieter cost.



BG, I know that you must read at least a few of my posts, so you probably know I'm a big Shelton fan.  He was a big believer in the fact that every "improvement" brings about some negative result as well.  For example, heavily insulating fireboxes created higher combustion efficiency but worse heat transfer, so in the end, it was somewhat of a wash regarding overall heating efficiency.  However, he also felt that pursuing secondary combustion as a way to clean up the burn was not very effective (he was a big cat fan).  He was as wrong as wrong could be on that one, turns out.

I'll have to look at the books later to verify what you are saying, but I see no difference in the method used to cool down the exhaust.  Either the MH or the extra single-wall should theoretically affect the combustion efficiency if lower flue temps alone are the cause.  Seems to be faulty logic at play here... or maybe the six beers I've had are affecting my own thinking.


----------



## begreen (Mar 6, 2011)

After 6 beers I stop thinking period.


----------



## webbie (Mar 6, 2011)

Battenkiller said:
			
		

> However, he also felt that pursuing secondary combustion as a way to clean up the burn was not very effective (he was a big cat fan).  He was as wrong as wrong could be on that one, turns out.
> 
> I'll have to look at the books later to verify what you are saying, but I see no difference in the method used to cool down the exhaust.  Either the MH or the extra single-wall should theoretically affect the combustion efficiency if lower flue temps alone are the cause.  Seems to be faulty logic at play here... or maybe the six beers I've had are affecting my own thinking.



1. I wonder if he was really wrong - he did detail out designs like the Jotul early non-cat models, but the problem was often stack temps. In my experience, the early...and many existing non-cats put quite a lot of heat up the flue! Remember, there is almost no such thing as a complete study of the actual efficiency of these in houses under regular use. We know they are cleaner than then old stoves, but not anywhere near as clean as they could or should be. Woodstock and VC and maybe others are coming up with hybrid cats.....for the reason that either a cat with no other tech, or the first non-cat designs...are not as efficient as could be and might not even pass future standards.

2. I don't think BG is saying that the same problem(s) would not occur with extra stovepipe - but it has the advantage of lower cost, quite operation, no electricity, etc.....

There has been as much BS thrown around in this industry as in many others! For instance, people will do calcs on wood heating using 8000+ BTU per pound and 75% efficiency, etc......when the real calc might be as low as 30 or 40% lower than that! 

It is possible to engineer a really efficient wood heating system - which would consist of a perfectly matched stove, chimney, room, operator, wood and other factors. Central heaters which burn only at high (gasifiers) probably come closest to this.

I remember meeting the lady who was instrumental in the development (at Corning) of the first cat stoves. She really blew my mind...back in about 1984, with her understanding that the only way a cat would really perform properly would be with a perfectly stabilized chimney....which, of course, for most of us would be pure luck.


----------



## VCBurner (Mar 6, 2011)

Guys, I'm glad that this has turned into a scientific discussion. I'm a big fan of science, though I'm really into simple science and not too complex theoretical stuff. I also like math, though I never made it past my third semester in college due to the birth of our first son. I had to become a man and support a family. I still think of going back to school someday. I think if science is made simple and practical it is often more enjoyable. Battenkiller, I've always enjoyed your posts here. I'll have to read some of the books by Jay Shelton and see what you guys are talking about. Sounds like a cool guy!


----------



## Battenkiller (Mar 6, 2011)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> After 6 beers I stop thinking period.



Well, I can't stop thinking, but I prolly oughta stop drinking. Or at least drinking and posting... a very dangerous combination.


----------



## VCBurner (Mar 6, 2011)

Hey BK, is that pic in your Avatar of your Vigilant?  I really like it!  Hey drinking and posting may be dangerous, just watch the drinking and loading that beast of yours!   :lol: 
Hope you have really long gloves! :bug:


----------



## BrotherBart (Mar 6, 2011)

I am always fascinated by the conversations on the forum trying to make a science of burning random chunks of very large random weeds in random metal or stone boxes with random chimneys in random building envelopes.

Einstein would have said that you are nuckin futs to try to quantify any of it.

Science is what led to all the other ways of heating.  :lol:


----------



## Battenkiller (Mar 6, 2011)

BrotherBart said:
			
		

> I am always fascinated by the conversations on the forum trying to make a science of burning random chunks of very large random weeds in random metal or stone boxes with random chimneys in random building envelopes.



I am always fascinated by folks trying to make a science out of studying machines whose sole purpose is to burn random chunks of animal and vegetable matter, in squishy bags of organic material that are supported by frameworks composed of calcium and phosphorus, which vary randomly and quite dramatically from each other in size, design, efficiency and operating environment, and whose only commonality is that they are all tubes that put fuel in one end and exude waste matter from the other end.

Both woodburning and medicine are practiced arts, but science helps in either case if you want to learn how best to practice them, _especially_ when things aren't going quite right... unless you're still a big believer in blood-letting and leeches. %-P


----------



## Battenkiller (Mar 6, 2011)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> Remember, there is almost no such thing as a complete study of the actual efficiency of these in houses under regular use. We know they are cleaner than then old stoves, but not anywhere near as clean as they could or should be.
> 
> There has been as much BS thrown around in this industry as in many others! For instance, people will do calcs on wood heating using 8000+ BTU per pound and 75% efficiency, etc......when the real calc might be as low as 30 or 40% lower than that!




Craig, I love it when you occasionally pull your head out of your "Ash Can" and drop in with us ordinary folk on the hearth-related forums.  Your experience and viewpoints are always welcome.  ;-) 


What's the financial incentive to do real-world efficiency testing?  These studies are rarely funded by the industry.  Last thing they want is for folks to find out that half their computed fuel may be going up the chimney.  The government(s) paid for a lot of the old studies way back when, and the EPA used the results of these tests to formulate a strategy to reduce emissions into the environment.  There is very little work of this kind being done in academia since both funding and interest simply aren't there any more.

It would be a pretty expensive study to install flue-analysis equipment in a variety of homes and see how they do in the real world of common users.  There have been, however, numerous studies done under controlled conditions in laboratories using cordwood burned in the theoretically most efficient manner inside special calorimeter rooms, and the results were a lot better than 35-45% efficiency.  Combustion efficiency in a conventional airtight wood heater a lab setting can be almost 90%, and overall heating efficiency well over 60% in the same stove when using the very best and scientifically sound burn methods.  Surely the new stoves have tweaked that by at least a few percentage points, wouldn't you think?  But to do that in any stove requires understanding what the most efficient burning conditions really are.  The closer you can get your stove to work like it was being tested in a lab, the better the results should be.  Either that, or the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on real-time sensing equipment used at places like OMNI was a total waste of coin.  

Me... I trust the lab results and try my best to adapt their burning parameters to my home situation.  If I got even 75% of the way there, I'd consider it a complete success.  Considering that I'm burning about 100 million BTU of wood fiber in a home that theoretically needs 80 million BTU of heat energy to maintain room temps around the clock for the entire heating season, I think I'm doing OK.  The extra few percentage points I might get out of the newer technologies hold little interest for me, not as long as nice old VC stoves and such are still available.  Now if you can come up with one that takes whole logs, cuts, splits, dries, and feeds them automatically to the fire and leaves nothing but blue skies behind the view of the chimney top... well, I'm all over that one.   

To me, it's obvious that these new heaters aren't achieving real-world efficiencies even close to the advertised claims just by looking at the wood consumption reports here on the forum.  There are folks here burning more wood in a season in their little EPA stoves that I do in my 2.5 cu.ft. pre-EPA stove that's never been rebuilt in the 25 years since it was made.  Operator effect is huge with wood stoves, and none of these new marvels are intuitive to run like the old ones.  Seems to me that the most efficient use is coming from the same people who successfully burned cleanly and efficiently using the old technologies.  In short, long experience, careful observation and a very open mind are needed in all cases to really master the art.  The stove itself just ain't gonna do it for ya.


----------



## BrowningBAR (Mar 6, 2011)

Battenkiller said:
			
		

> To me, it's obvious that these new heaters aren't achieving real-world efficiencies even close to the advertised claims just by looking at the wood consumption reports here on the forum.  There are folks here burning more wood in a season in their little EPA stoves that I do in my 2.5 cu.ft. pre-EPA stove that's never been rebuilt in the 25 years since it was made.  Operator effect is huge with wood stoves, and none of these new marvels are intuitive to run like the old ones.




I politely disagree with this entire statement.


----------



## VCBurner (Mar 6, 2011)

Battenkiller said:
			
		

> I am always fascinated by folks trying to make a science out of studying machines whose sole purpose is to burn random chunks of animal and vegetable matter, in squishy bags of organic material that are supported by frameworks composed of calcium and phosphorus, which vary randomly and quite dramatically from each other in size, design, efficiency and operating environment, and whose only commonality is that they are all tubes that put fuel in one end and exude waste matter from the other end.
> 
> Both woodburning and medicine are practiced arts, but science helps in either case if you want to learn how best to practice them, _especially_ when things aren't going quite right... unless you're still a big believer in blood-letting and leeches. %-P



Dude!  Brilliant, just brilliant! :lol: 

Now as far as this statement:


> To me, itâ€™s obvious that these new heaters arenâ€™t achieving real-world efficiencies even close to the advertised claims just by looking at the wood consumption reports here on the forum.  There are folks here burning more wood in a season in their little EPA stoves that I do in my 2.5 cu.ft. pre-EPA stove thatâ€™s never been rebuilt in the 25 years since it was made.  Operator effect is huge with wood stoves, and none of these new marvels are intuitive to run like the old ones.  Seems to me that the most efficient use is coming from the same people who successfully burned cleanly and efficiently using the old technologies.  In short, long experience, careful observation and a very open mind are needed in all cases to really master the art.  The stove itself just ainâ€™t gonna do it for ya.


It's sort of unfair to take it out of context and single out as if it were the only part of another brilliant post.  I agree with most of what you said in that post.  However, operators affect efficiency just as much as their machines can.  By that I mean, if you for example were to burn the same wood in the same efficient minded manner in a newer stove,  you'd certainly be better off.  Which is not to say that it would be worth the cost and effort of replacing the Vigilant.  Another point that can be made is the fact that the old Vigilant is a downdraft stove correct?  Has it ever been tested to see what kind of emissions you get with it?  I bet if it were tested it would do better with emissions than some moder EPA rated stoves.  I also think that sometimes we can get carried away in overgeneralizing things. 




> Webmaster - 05 March 2011 08:51 PM
> Remember, there is almost no such thing as a complete study of the actual efficiency of these in houses under regular use. We know they are cleaner than then old stoves, but not anywhere near as clean as they could or should be.
> 
> There has been as much BS thrown around in this industry as in many others! For instance, people will do calcs on wood heating using 8000+ BTU per pound and 75% efficiency, etcâ€¦...when the real calc might be as low as 30 or 40% lower than that!


 

Just because some industry members are willing to bend facts to fit their needs, doesn't mean that we should discount all studies.  We just have to take the numbers as a part of the equation.  Not the end all say all.
The truth is, we all use a lot of numbers while talking about our stoves and others, but we really have no way of knowing how they compare unless we were to use them CORRECTLY under the very same conditions with all the same variables at play. Near impossible right?  People such as yourself and other dealers may have the advantage of being able to play with all sorts of stoves in a shop where you can compare them all to each other in similar conditions.  Have you ever tried to hook up a reclaimer to any of your EPA stoves?


----------



## VCBurner (Mar 6, 2011)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> My assumption is that there is not much science to be had about these......the same units have existed since way back.....*This could be true, there's no way of knowing until I ask. *
> 
> I'd say you are going to be dealing with mostly one customers story or another. *Again, you may be right, but what if there are studies, that can answer the questions I had?  I'm cirious to find out if I'll just get the anecdotes or some facts to back up the product.*
> 
> ...


----------



## begreen (Mar 6, 2011)

You can pick up Shelton's work at used bookstores online or from Amazon. 

As for fires from oil or gas furnaces, or more importantly injury or death related to them, there are lots. This is because there are so many installations out there that the odds are just greater. Does this make them unsafe? No. But anytime there is a 1000F fire raging in the house, there is the potential for problems. The more complex the system, the more possibilities there are for failure. It comes down to design, installation, operation and maintenance. Same as for wood heating. 

For example, when we moved into our house there was a high-efficiency, propane furnace. The unit was fine, but the jerks that installed it must have been drunk. Fortunately I spotted some glaring errors right away and fixed them before someone got killed. I found a smashed elbow on the PVC exhaust that was completely missing its backside. It wasn't the fault of the system at all, it was a dangerous installation. You have installed the MH in a conscientious fashion and have carefully maintained it and monitored it carefully. And the results speak well for you. Unfortunately, a lot of these units are not maintained and run on dirty stoves burning poorly seasoned wood. They install the MH as a bandaid, treating the symptoms instead of the problem and often end up with a significantly more serious problem as a result.


----------



## VCBurner (Mar 6, 2011)

Isn't that the truth!  I saw some utube videos of a guy who had a boxwood like stove in his basement that had a top exit pipe into a 90 that ran into about 12 feet of hgorizontal pipe and the dude had  a reclaimer attached to the horizontal pipe!  He was modifying his short run of vertical pipe to be able to heat water there.  He had a coil of copper pipe around the six inch and covered it with an eight inch pipe.  He was later going to connect his contraption into a used water storage tank he found somewhere.  I'd be surprised if this guy's house is still standing.  

I agree all these things we use too heat our homes have some potential danger, and understand the warnings from people here are just showing care about safety and well being of other members on this site.  This is a safe haven for information on safe heating!  I appreciate all the posts on this thread.  Thank you all.


----------



## begreen (Mar 6, 2011)

VCB, I just checked the top and bottom flue temps. With a flue gas temp of 485ÂºF in the pipe, about 20" above the stove, I am getting ~300F at the top with 43ÂºF ambient temp. This is with about 7 ft outdoor exposed pipe.


----------



## VCBurner (Mar 6, 2011)

Quite a difference huh?  If you had a reclaimer on the pipe you'd be at around 225 at the top!  Certainly would be condensating there!  A cap would be pretty quick to clog under those conditions.  Thanks for the info BG!


----------



## Battenkiller (Mar 6, 2011)

VCBurner said:
			
		

> By that I mean, if you for example were to burn the same wood in the same efficient minded manner in a newer stove,  you'd certainly be better off.



Correct.  That's exactly what I mean by the importance of operator effect.  But when I see countless photos and videos of "spectacular" secondaries that are really just air jets hitting an overly dense wall of smoke inside the box, I know that that particular operator isn't getting the cleanest and most efficient burns regardless of what he thinks, or how clean his chimney is.  I'd love to see somebody dump that mess into my 25' tall masonry chimney for 4-5 cord of burning and give me the cleaning report then. ;-) 



> Another point that can be made is the fact that the old Vigilant is a downdraft stove correct?  Has it ever been tested to see what kind of emissions you get with it?  I bet if it were tested it would do better with emissions than some modern EPA rated stoves.



It might be so, but that doesn't matter.  The way the Vigilant is set up so that you can shut the air entirely off to choke it down, it would never be allowed on the marketplace.  It has to pass the emissions test at the lowest burn possible on the appliance, and the Vig would fail that test miserably.  Burned to the best of its abilities it is a pretty clean heater, but it also has a well-deserved rep for being one of the dirtiest stoves ever when burned improperly.  I intuitively feel that the best burns on almost any new EPA stove would be cleaner and have higher combustion efficiency than any of the older VC non-cat stoves, but again, no way to prove that without comparison testing.

Personally, I think the EPA test results can speak for themselves as far as what is possible to attain, because they actually do obtain those results.  They produce less PM at an hourly rate, and that is what the EPA mandates.  I have no idea of how well they compare as far as overall heating efficiency, something that the EPA doesn't seem to give a hoot about.  All I know is what the dealers try to convince me of, and what I hear from the reports on the forum.  I hear over and over again how they produce twice the heat from half the wood.  I'll never believe such ridiculous claims unless they are confirmed by the proper instrumentation.  Claims of results that lie outside the laws of physics are difficult to substantiate... even for a scientist. :coolsmirk:

FWIW I think buying both of Shelton's books and taking the info contained to heart is the wisest investment a new burner could make.  Yes, there is a lot of technical info in them, but (at least with "The Woodburner's Encyclopedia), it is presented in a manner that any layperson with a high school education can get through all of the important stuff and be that much the wiser when they are done.  There is simply no other literature that I am aware of that covers burning in such a thoughtful, thorough, and accessible manner.


----------



## Battenkiller (Mar 6, 2011)

VCBurner said:
			
		

> Quite a difference huh?  If you had a reclaimer on the pipe you'd be at around 225 at the top!  Certainly would be condensating there!  A cap would be pretty quick to clog under those conditions.  Thanks for the info BG!



Yeah, and it's about 50Âº F out his way today.  Imagine how much lower the flue temps would be in our neck of the woods in mid-February with the outside temps maybe -15Âº or so some nights.


----------



## kettensÃ¤ge (Mar 7, 2011)

VC burner,
You can always try it to see how it works. My dad had 1 one his old Fisher GM bear. It was installed below the damper, not sure if this was on purpose but, it had to have been a lot hotter there than above. 
I think you would be able to compensate for lost flue heat with it installed this way, maybe monitor flue temps before the MH and then above the damper?
I can remember the middle of the tubes glowing dull red at times, Could not have been much creosote build up there but there sure was alot in the rest of the chimney. 
Biggest problem was the cleaning plate rod attachment point. The threaded end of the rod would pull out of the plate.
Don't want to get off subject but why not try to get it to work, monitor closley and remove if there are any ill effects seen. 
If I had a free standing set up I wouldn't use one because of the noise. I also think it's better to harvest heat from the firebox but I understand that can't always be done. 

There are a lot of creative people here, might be worth a look, then again it might not.


----------



## Fsappo (Mar 7, 2011)

BG, I'm goin back maybe 20 years with that Encore with the MH.  I dont remember the flue temps.  Just that there were no chimney cleaning issues or complaints about noise.


----------



## begreen (Mar 7, 2011)

Battenkiller said:
			
		

> VCBurner said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ambient temp was 43F when I measured it. My first thought was hmm, what would this read at 23F? My second thought was, I am not getting up on this roof when it's frost covered.  :smirk:


----------



## begreen (Mar 7, 2011)

Franks said:
			
		

> BG, I'm goin back maybe 20 years with that Encore with the MH.  I dont remember the flue temps.  Just that there were no chimney cleaning issues or complaints about noise.



Eh? Speak up. I don't have my hearing aids on.  %-P


----------



## Battenkiller (Mar 7, 2011)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> My second thought was, I am not getting up on this roof when it's frost covered.  :smirk:



Sounds like a good, rational decision to me. ;-) 

As I continue to learn the intricacies of burning in this stove, I'm finding that the longer I run it in updraft mode the better it seems to run in downdraft mode.  I am still getting used to the whole flue thermometer thing after almost 20 years of knowing what my flue temps _should_ be, but never knowing what they really were.  Last year I was waiting until it hit 600Âº on the pipe then shutting it down right away, but the flue temps would eventually drop below 250Âº, so even with that being assumed to be 500Âº gas temp, by the time it exits 25' above, I'll bet it was way below 200Âº.

This season I've been shutting down the primary air and letting the stove cruise with 500-600Âº flue temps while the bypass is open (for at least 30 minutes, sometimes up to an hour) to pre-warm the clay tiles, and that seems to make a big difference.  The stove settles in now with a pipe temp at about 400-425Âº with the primary air open about 1/4 of the way, and that's how I've been told it need to burn it for a clean flue.  Another noticeable effect of doing that for me is that my upstairs walls that enclose the chimney are about 10Âº hotter, and over a bigger surface area as well.  That puts out lots of heat into my main living space (living room on one side of chimney, kitchen on the other side), so I still get some benefit from that extra heat going up the flue.  

I'm burning significantly less wood this year, even though intuition might suggest I'd burn more with the extra heat in the flue.  Thinking about it some more, I believe that even though the actual temp is higher, being able to close down the air entering the stove more is allowing longer residence time inside the flue, so there is not as much air going up and therefore less heat really lost.  Does that seem plausible?  May be other factors as well, but I'll come in with close to a cord less than I did last year when all is said and done, and this was a brutal winter compared to last, and I started burning earlier in the season.  Apparently, this operator is getting smarter, at least with this stove.

So, for me, even if somebody gave me a MH I wouldn't try it, because it would probably just ef up what's been proven to work for me.  Very last thing I need is more dang heat in the basement, I can hardly even work down there as it is.


----------



## VCBurner (Mar 8, 2011)

This has nothing to do with the original post.  But!  Do we think that lower outside temperatures = increased draft = less temperature variance from top to bottom, due to the flue gasses traveling faster?  Or am I just too tired to think straight right now?  Of course the obvious thing to think would be lower temperatures outside more variance, but can we say this for sure.  There must be some sort of formula for this sort of question!


----------



## pen (Mar 8, 2011)

If I follow what you are asking, the greater the temp difference from indoor to outdoor the greater the draft.  So, generally speaking, the colder it is outside the harder the chimney will pull.

pen


----------



## VCBurner (Mar 8, 2011)

Yes, and if the gasses are moving faster up the flue.  So maybe there will be less of a decrease in flue temperature from 24 inches above the stove to the top of the flue?  Of course this would be off set by the lower temperature of the exposed part of the chimney.


----------



## begreen (Mar 8, 2011)

I'm not so sure about this. True the draft will be stronger, but usually that mean the fellow running the stove is backing down the air to compensate.


----------



## VCBurner (Mar 8, 2011)

Just a thought!  Maybe a bit of a stretch.


----------

