# Just talked with Fred Seton ..



## patch53 (Dec 29, 2009)

I just to spoke to Fred Seton about the correct way to run his boilers. 

The consensus here seems to be that these units need to be run full bore a few times a day to keep the refractory temp up and to minimize creoste formation, and that the wood should be well seasoned with no more than approximately 20% moisture content.

Well, not according to Fred !

I told him that my burn times are only about 15 minutes max, and then idle for up to an hour, depending on heat demand. I told my concern was that the unit is not getting hot enough to prevent creosote from forming, altho my water tubes look relatively clean right now. He told me that 15 minute burn times were plenty long  enough to burn out any accumulated creosote.

He asked about my chimney and I told him I had about 20 feet of class A and he said that was more than enough. he said 16-18 feet is plenty, even tho the literature says a MINIMUM of 18 and up to 20 feet. I went with 20 feet because I wanted to be sure I had enough draw and I also have 1 elbow coming out of the boiler into the class A. I haven't taken flue temps yet, but when the stove is fired it seems to be really ripping inside, so at this point I believe I have plenty of draw.

He asked what I was burning. I told him red oak large splits and rounds. he said the rounds were better. I told him that even 2 year old rounds would likely hold much more moisture than splits and he said that high moisture content was NO PROBLEM ! Even relatively green wood is fine according to Fred. I disagreed somewhat and he insisted relatively high moisture content is not a concern, and that most of the moisture would be expellled on the first firing after loading. 

On the subject of storage he stated it was DEFINITELY NOT needed. He said it would probably only waste wood.

So, in a nutshell, Fred says that short burn times are no problem. Relatively wet/green wood is no problem. If your chimney is plenty high you will get no creosote formation, even with short burn times and extended idling. And storage is not needed and will likely only waste wood.

I told him the guys on this site would probably disagree with a lot of what he said regarding the operation of a gasification boiler. he said the Seton was not really a gasification boiler but a "pyrolezation" (sp) boiler. That the refractory "cokes" the wood and keeps it glowing even when the air is shut off to the wood.

Comments?


Pat


----------



## webbie (Dec 29, 2009)

Based on his advice, the boiler would have a relatively low efficiency. Sure, you CAN cook off moisture, but the laws of thermodynamics say there is no free lunch - it costs BTU's. 

In short, although it would beat OWBs and old boilers with no combustion tech, it would not approach the modern highly tuned downdraft fan-forced models with storage - IMHO.

Keep in mind that storage is not designed to increase the combustion efficiency as much as it is to balance out the delivery side of things. That is just common sense.

Think of a high mass Russian type fireplace. It STILL needs good wood AND it also burns at full blast and stores the heat in tons of mass...similar to water. Based on Freds advice, a Masonry Heater would burn green wood, not need to weight tons, and could have an air limiting control.


----------



## henfruit (Dec 29, 2009)

hello , it is about 5 f out here tonight in crntral nh. the wind is howling from the north and my 2 story  faces due north. right now iam burning straight out with a little idle time.so there wont be any creosote problem with this cold weather.


----------



## 91220da (Dec 29, 2009)

How awesome is it to talk directly to Fred Seton?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!    I thought I did alot of research before buying my Greenwood.  Why did I find Seton boilers about 2 weeks to late?  All in all the Greenwood is performing well but talking to the president and founder of Greenwood has, and will never be an option.


----------



## sgschwend (Dec 30, 2009)

Please call him back and ask him if he aware of any of the problems folks have listed?  

GW purchase the rights to build the wood fired boiler from Seton.  I don't know for sure but I believe they weren't the only ones to do this.


I am interested in hearing his thoughts.  I am sure others are too, and since you had a good start with him it would easiest if you could follow-up for us.  That would be great, perhaps he has suggestions that may help some of us.


As to his comment about gasification.  I believe his design does convert the solid fuel into a gas which is reported to start at about 1000F, 540C.  Which I believe is the definition of gasification.  I assume the gas is then chemically reacted with oxygen so that the heat energy can be used.  That would have been a big issue if it didn't work, a la, low efficiency, smoke...


----------



## patch53 (Dec 30, 2009)

sgschwend said:
			
		

> Please call him back and ask him if he aware of any of the problems folks have listed?
> 
> GW purchase the rights to build the wood fired boiler from Seton.  I don't know for sure but I believe they weren't the only ones to do this.
> 
> ...



Sure, what questions would you like me to ask him?


----------



## sgschwend (Dec 30, 2009)

1.  Draft value, is a draft fan necessary?
2.  There has been Seton Design users who have had a black liquid seeping out of the bottom of the boiler and the chimney, what does he think causes this?
3.  There has been cases where the boiler output nipple has developed leaks, what does he think causes this?
4.  What is causing the creosote buildup on the heat exchanger?
5.  Are there certain no-nos in material selections for his design?

Perhaps other folks will add their question too.  

Thanks again.


----------



## patch53 (Dec 30, 2009)

sgschwend said:
			
		

> 1.  Draft value, is a draft fan necessary?
> 2.  There has been Seton Design users who have had a black liquid seeping out of the bottom of the boiler and the chimney, what does he think causes this?
> 3.  There has been cases where the boiler output nipple has developed leaks, what does he think causes this?
> 4.  What is causing the creosote buildup on the heat exchanger?
> ...



Steve, I think I can comment on a few of these questions. #1, I'm sure he would say a draft fan not needed. he seemed to almost imply that my 20 feet of chimney was too much draft. #4, according to Fred, there should never be any concern about creosote, no matter how long your burn times or what kind of wood you use. He basically said that any time the stove is fired it will be eliminating any creoste that may have built up during idling. ( I completely disagree with that statement ) #5, he may not think there are any material changes that should be made, but after seeing what is happening to some of the galvanized side panels, he might want to go with SS instead?


I'll ask him all the questions anyway when I call. I'll wait a few days and see if any of the other guys chime in with questions of their own.  BTW, if anyone would like to call Fred, his # is 406-295-9902


Pat


----------



## NNYorker (Dec 30, 2009)

6. Stainless steel condensate drip pan-- where is it located and how does it work--only on next generation Seton


----------



## henfruit (Dec 30, 2009)

how about the bypass door to remove smoke when the boiler is not completely burned out?


----------



## Fsappo (Dec 30, 2009)

If you want to see creosote dripping from a gasification (losely defined) wood boiler, you should have played with the old wood guns in the 80'.  Good times, good times.  Almost any wood burner can burn wood.  Some can burn it clean.  My woodstove burns green wood with almost zero smoke and creosote.  I am, however, using a lot of energy created in the stove to combat the greeniness.


----------



## henfruit (Dec 30, 2009)

with good hot fires as it is this time of the year. the pipes only show  a shoot build up that i brush off with a round steel boiler tube brush. granted you can not get the section in the back after the 90 but 2/3 clean is better then nothing. also most of the fire is hitting the horizontal section of the pipes.


----------



## Jesse-M (Dec 30, 2009)

Make sure you clean them at least once a season, you don't want it to end up like this........


----------



## snowman49820 (Dec 31, 2009)

Jesse, did you ever fab an air intake for the front of your stove? If so, did that help with the huffing?


----------



## henfruit (Dec 31, 2009)

wow if that is after one year. i had nothing like that when i took mine apart.


----------



## Jesse-M (Dec 31, 2009)

snowman49820 said:
			
		

> Jesse, did you ever fab an air intake for the front of your stove? If so, did that help with the huffing?



I did. I stuck 1" pipe through the side with a high-tech valve device to open and close with the damper. It simulates cracking the door,(which is the only thing that will stop the huffing) and allowing some air in from the front. It helps a little, but is not the complete cure I was hopping for. I have found that it is very useful for sticking my ear on and listing for the slightest beginnings of the huffing scenario. I've actually become quite good at building and constructing a huffingless burn. The main part of which is blocking off the two center intake holes with a piece of wood. The air fuel problem works itself out long before the piece of wood covering the holes is burned away. At that point the holes are opened up and the remainder of the burn has all the air it wants. I also adjust the flue damper down according to how windy it is at the time...............what a deal huh?.............makes me think about the title of the thread I just saw "Could my wife run the boiler if I died"..............I won't let anybody come close to it now, I sometimes forget one of the many steps that I myself created.




			
				henfruit said:
			
		

> wow if that is after one year. i had nothing like that when i took mine apart.



I don't remember the time frame, but it was longer than a year and with some unusual circumstances. Those pictures came from a thread from last year. I can't find it... or I would post a link.


----------



## ISeeDeadBTUs (Dec 31, 2009)

patch53 said:
			
		

> The consensus here seems to be that these units need to be run full bore a few times a day to keep the refractory temp up and to minimize creoste formation, and that the wood should be well seasoned with no more than approximately 20% moisture content.
> 
> 
> I told him the guys on this site would probably disagree with a lot of what he said regarding the operation of a gasification boiler. he said the Seton was not really a gasification boiler but a "pyrolezation" (sp) boiler. That the refractory "cokes" the wood and keeps it glowing even when the air is shut off to the wood.



Well, you can officially EXCLUDE me from the so-called consensus. 

I am burning 90% oak, most of which has only been blocked for a few months. In fact, some has only been blocked a week or so, even though it was severed from the stump about 7 years ago. In most cases the bark was still on when blocked. I have never measured my MC, but I'm sure it's not 20 or less.

I also burn un-split rounds. IMO the 6-10" rounds work best, with the +12" used for night burns.

Though I have never checked the draft, the GW manual spells out where it should be. IMO, before I would go messing with chimney height, I'd measure the draft.

On the smoke issue . . . if you wait till there is only a bed of coals and the damper is open, you will not get smoke out the load door. But as soon as you put fuel in, PREPARE YOURSELF FOR SMOKE. Not a huge issue for those of us that put the GW outside, but I think the design could benefit from a bypass of some sort.

I think you missed the REAL issues with this style boiler when you queried Fred . . .

1)The refractory cracks and busts to hell, and
2)The skins and anything they touch are being eaten alive

Those of you - including the Webby - that have never run these style should stick with what you know :-S 

I have no scientific proof, but I believe these units are probably somewhere between an OWB and a state-of-the-art Euro style, downdraft unit. We have talked about the use of the term 'gassification' here before . . . pretty misleading term.

Some of you like to point out that it takes BTUs to boil off the water. While that is true, the large mass of super-heated refractory is what drys the wood out, and much of this happens during 'idle'. Yes, it then still takes BTUs to heat the refractory back up, but is quite different from your Euro-style boilers.


----------



## henfruit (Dec 31, 2009)

Jimbo, go for it . my refractory does have a couple of cracks. i hope it holds up for a few years. pro fab in canada that built the green woods still has some in stock if you want to replace it?   my skins are all good. just a couple of rust blistors on the top. i dont know how you could get condensation on the skins? my are about 150 f. and the refractory is 700 to 1200 f to dame hot for water to stay around. idi notice the other night with the wind blowing like hell from the north and temps at O f there was not much idle time.


----------



## ISeeDeadBTUs (Dec 31, 2009)

Idle time can be minimized with proper loading.

Attempting 10, 12, etc hour burns will result in idle time without storage.

Though storage is just a theory to me, I would guess tha Fred is correct that storage is not as much an efficiency savings with these units as it is with others.

And I think its great when a member here gets something to work and posts it. But for 'huffing' I can't do any better than  . . .



			
				heaterman said:
			
		

> Understanding the cause of huffing, puffing, chugging or what ever a person may call it may help. Simply put, sufficient oxygen is not present in the combustion chamber to support the rate of burn the fuel load is capable of. As you noted, it happens when a load of dry wood or a very large load is used. I have seen this happen on fan forced, assisted draft and natural draft boilers. You want to see something impressive load up a Garn with a full chamber of dry wood and cardboard. The overhead garage doors in the building were moving in and out about an honest inch and dust was blowing in/out under the door seals. Needless to say, the owner didn't do that again.
> 
> While a draft assist fan may  pull enough air into the combustion chamber to "make it burn right", you have to think about what is going on there. Assuming you have the correct air flow or draft through the appliance, adding more air to an oversized fuel load simply blows more heat out of your exhaust. The boiler is designed with a given heat transfer surface area that will support its rated output. When you burn at a rate higher than the transfer area will effectively deal with you are simply wasting it up the flue.


----------



## tigermaple (Dec 31, 2009)

"Though storage is just a theory to me, I would guess tha Fred is correct that storage is not as much an efficiency savings with these units as it is with others."
I agree, the refractory is storage in itself.

I love my GW and probably will build my own with improvements when it dies. It is on it's 4th year now. The 1st year I had all the problems everybody talks about, climbing the learning curve. Now it runs so smoothly(knock on wood) I have time to do other stuff besides plumbing. And my oil guy didn't send me a calendar this year, I guess the split is final. 
Anyway, if you talk to Fred again, please thank him for his innovation. 
Pat


----------



## ISeeDeadBTUs (Dec 31, 2009)

Pat(tigermaple) . . . how are your skins doing? Any rust bubbles?

Jimbo


----------



## sgschwend (Dec 31, 2009)

[/quote]


Those of you - including the Webby - that have never run these style should stick with what you know :-S 

[/quote]

Jimbo, I don't know who you are referring too?  If it is me then I would disagree with your assessment.  

Furthermore you had/have problems with your unit including creosote buildup on the heat exchanger tubes and a failure to the heat exchanger.  


As you have suggested, you burn green wood.  Don't you think it is your choice to burn that way has caused these problems?  The Greenwood manual recommends mixing seasoned wood with the green wood to avoid creosote formation. 

I interpret the Greenwood NOTE to mean: 
burning 100% green wood is going to cause problems.  


I remember you saying the oak trees you use for firewood were down for five years or so.  There certainly should be some moisture loss there, certainly not fully green, too bad you haven't measured the moisture content; then other board users could benefit from your experiences.


In the past I think folks were trying to point out that burning seasoned wood saves a lot of human fuel production time and money.  Certainly bucking up a log and stacking it is even less labor.  But seasoned wood will provide nearly twice the heat; the user would only need to have half as much.


----------



## ISeeDeadBTUs (Dec 31, 2009)

Well, I actually had reference to a couple of posters. If the shoe fits, as they say, wear it.   I will say that the way you talk about these units, a reader here could think you have run one for a while. But I think you said you have not. Please correct me if I'm wrong on that.

Despite the crappy company that GreeWood was, they never said anything to me that indicated I could/should burn 'green' wood. 

My definition of 'green' wood is cut it and burn it. I don't do that. But due to the nature of my wood (oak tops left on the forest floor) I would bet that my MC is greater than what most Euro style units guys here are burning. One of the reasons I chose the GW was it's ability to handle higher MC wood. I think we all know there is some trade off with the higher MC. But in practise I don't think it's as much as you think.

LOL, everyone knows what problems I've had with the unit. Running higher MC wood may have aggrevated the corrosive action under the skins, but the problem is the skins were not designed to be able to handle the environment that they are subjected too. Making no provision for cleaning the HX tubes also was poor design in my opinion.

While I don't think I have all the answers, I hope some of my ideas for enhancements will improve the design. Since I don't anticipate mass marketing, I don't have to cut corners on production costs.

The only real point I'm attempting to make is that telling Seton that "'we' have decided that 'we' think his unit should have dry, small splits and storage" is counter=productive. Use these units for a while and you will understand that.


----------



## ISeeDeadBTUs (Dec 31, 2009)

sgschwend said:
			
		

> But seasoned wood will provide nearly twice the heat; the user would only need to have half as much.



Interesting statement . . . what leads you to that conclusion?


----------



## sgschwend (Dec 31, 2009)

Jimbo, yes I have run one, in fact I have installed one, designed the heating system it is in, including designing sheet metal and the extra controls to support loading wood and over temperature protection.    I ran this unit just a couple of days ago, I work in the shop it is in so I am around it all the time, if there are any problems or issues the owner and I deal with it.  Yes, you are wrong, but so am I, see next:

As to your question about heat loss:

Heat from season cord red oak: 24 M Btu,
Heat to evaporate water 2.1 M Btu
percent heat lost 9-10%

Did I say half?  Well I see that was in ERROR.  More like 5-10% depending on how much moisture is removed.


The Greenwood I worked on is not mine, but I supply the wood for it, have done extensive work on it and do run it from time to time.  It is approaching its fourth season has some black color above the door but beyond that looks new, and runs fine.  I like the insensitivity to loading wood in it, I just don't agree you can burn green wood in it.  

Happy Holidays


----------



## tigermaple (Dec 31, 2009)

Hey Jimbo,
No rust visible yet. When I burn green wood I will get a few drops of moisture come out each of the back corners. I should start looking for SS sheets soon, I guess. You really do have to operate one of these beasts to understand them. They will burn wood a Euro would choke on.
 GW should have mentioned at some point the importance of cleaning the fly ash out of the exhaust outlet and the horizontal stove pipe run. I clean mine twice a season. 
Pat


----------



## ISeeDeadBTUs (Dec 31, 2009)

tigermaple said:
			
		

> GW should have fired that a$$ Dave Barber and spent the money on enhancements.
> Pat



Amen, Brutha :coolsmirk:


----------



## ISeeDeadBTUs (Dec 31, 2009)

sgschwend said:
			
		

> As to your question about heat loss:
> 
> Heat from season cord red oak: 24 M Btu,
> Heat to evaporate water 2.1 M Btu
> percent heat lost 9-10%



Further clarification needed Steve . . . . That 'heat to evaporate water' figure . . . is that per percentage of moisure or what?


----------



## tom in maine (Dec 31, 2009)

Kinda funny that they called it the Greenwood!
Talk about truth in advertising.


----------



## sgschwend (Jan 1, 2010)

jimbo,

I used the energy value to evaporate cold water which is 1150 Btu per pound of water, the wood can be cold but not frozen, if so then use 1300 Btu/pound of water.

I looked up the weight of a season cord of wood and then extrapolated the pounds of water.  The range I posted was to accommodate how dry is dry.  
Here is some table information:  1 cord of Oak 12% MC: 2821 - 3625        40-60% MC: 4450 - 5725

So you take the temperature of your starting condition this helps to find the heat necessary to evaporate the water and multiply by the number of pounds of water you remove (which is based on the difference of starting MC (moisture content) and the final).


----------



## 4acrefarm (Jan 1, 2010)

just a comment on huffing from someone who has never experienced it, and does not own, and has never seen a greenwood, or seton. ( though, I would like to). It sounds like a similer situation to putting a blower on a street car with mutiple carbs. When they idle they huff because they run rich then lean and back again the longer they idle the more extreme it gets to the point of it sounds like an on off swich being toggled.


----------



## mole (Jan 1, 2010)

Patch53,
It sounds from your discussion with Fred that you're doing everything right and everything is working right. So is your boiler is running well and burning clean now? I had a couple of discussions with him a few years back. I was doing everything OK too. I heard the same comments about storage definitely not being needed or even desirable. Unfortunately the positive reinforcement didn't stop the creosote from forming on my boiler tubes. Fred didn't think it was a big deal. He suggested squirting a little kerosene on the tubes (once furnace is fairly cool) and burning it off. It didn't work. In fact, I tried one of those propane "weed" torches that you connect to a 20lb propane bottle and blasted the hell out of a few spots. Got the tubes hot enough (180deg)to cycle the boiler off, but even that wouldn't burn it off. I think the water in the boiler tubes prevents the creosote from getting hot enough to burn closer than about 1/8", similar to the way water in a copper pipe prevents you from getting it hot enough to sweat a joint. In retrospect, I think my expectations were different. Fred was most likely referring to burning thicker amounts of creosote than I had on my tubes. I know the efficiency drops off dramatically when the tubes build even a thin (1/16' - 1/8" maybe )layer of creosote as can be seen by higher stack temperatures. And even this amount annoyed the hell out of me. You either accept lower efficiency or clean tubes a lot. I think most people don't worry about it and opt for the lower efficiency, judging from some of the pictures I've seen of people's boiler tubes. It also seems like you reach sort of an equilibrium where most of the creosote will burn off, once you've built up an initial 1/8"+ coating on the tubes (and lost some efficiency). But the efficiency was one of the main reasons I bought the boiler 

I'm not trying to bad-mouth Fred. I have a lot of respect for him and his invention. I think he's generally a good and honest guy, and genuinely tries to hlep his customers. I also know my boiler is oversized for my house, which created a lot of my problem. I do think maybe the efficiency and performance claims are a little exaggerated relative to real world performance and I also think what goes on inside the boiler during the cycling isn't well understood. I have my own thoughts on the "pyrolysis" and "coking" concepts but that's enough for a separate thread. 

My question to other Seton style users: Is there anyone who is a Seton type user out there WITHOUT storage who DOES NOT get creosote on their tubes? Pictures please? Is my experience the exception of the rule? 

BTW, here's a link to some info I found on wood combustion that shows the relationship between moisture content and available BTU's/lb wood:
http://www.mha-net.org/docs/v8n2/docs/WDBASICS.pdf

JR


----------



## patch53 (Jan 1, 2010)

Hi Mole, I just got done cleaning the ash out about an hour ago. While I was in there I thought I might as well check the tubes, chimney etc.  The tubes had some soot build-up, altho not very bad. I took a 1/4" piece of aluminum angle I had laying around and was easily able to just run it up and down the tubes and all the junk just fell right off. I'm not seeing really any creosote build-up anywhere. the chimney just had a thin soot coating that came right off when I wiped my glove over it. 

However, I can see that the vertical part of the tubes in the back look a little shiny, so maybe a little creosote there, and have more build-up on them, but not bad. I am going to try to design a device that I can slide up and down the tubes ocassionally, even down the vertical sections, that would keep the tubes relatively clean. 

My Seton is definitely oversized as well, but so far I'm pleased with the way it performs. My wood consumption is going to be WAY down from years past with my Aquatherm. I still think I want to go with storage next year, I think it will help keep the unit operating even more efficiently and most importantly, cleaner.

I'm burning red oak that was cut almost 2 years ago and was cut up, split and stacked last May, so I think its fairly dry. Haven't checked the MC, but its a hell of a lot lighter then when I stacked it I can tell you that ! I have a lot of dying white birch around here I'm going to cut, split and stack in early spring to use during the day so I can save more of the oak for when I need it most. I probably have enough oak for at least 2 seasons now, and I could probably extend that to 3 seasons by mixing in some birch/soft maple. Then I only have to cut up about 2-3 cords of oak every year to replenish what I use.


I'm not sure what kind of wood you're burning, but I have to think that dryer wood will help keep the creosote build-up to a minimum, altho Fred seems to think it doesn't matter. He reiterated that large rounds, pretty much regardless of MC, were the best for burning in the Seton. I don't really agree with that, but haven't tried it yet either?

Totally agree about the efficiency issue. I was burning 10-12 cords every year in my Aquatherm, so anything under 7-8 cords for me will be a HUGE improvement. But I also want a stove that I don't have to worry about. With OWB's you really don't have to worry about creosote, but they are grossly inefficient. With these things you need to keep an eye on it, and if they are building up creosote then something isn't right, obviously. The last thing I want is to lay awake at night wondering when I'm going to have a roaring creosote fire erupt. So far it looks good, so I'm sleeping pretty well!  LOL

take care, Pat


----------



## 2.beans (Jan 1, 2010)

this stove was built and tested around soft wood for a heat source. where fred lives there is no hard wood readily available. ive  learned this from speaking to fred and from friends of mine that live in the same town, so with that said i think you could get less build up on the vessel running just soft wood. i burn alot of soft wood and have good results alltough i also have to clean my vessel even though i run wide open for the most part of my burns.


----------



## patch53 (Jan 1, 2010)

2.beans said:
			
		

> this stove was built and tested around soft wood for a heat source. where fred lives there is no hard wood readily available. ive  learned this from speaking to fred and from friends of mine that live in the same town, so with that said i think you could get less build up on the vessel running just soft wood. i burn alot of soft wood and have good results alltough i also have to clean my vessel even though i run wide open for the most part of my burns.



Yup, when I first started talking with Fred about building a Seton he said he burns pine in his, mainly because he didn't have many choices, other than perhaps Aspen or spruce. No true hardwood species to speak of in Montana that I know of. 

How often do you have to clean the tubes?

Pat


----------



## mole (Jan 1, 2010)

Patch53, 
Sounds like you've got a good dry wood supply.  That's a great way to start off.  I burned 1 yr seasoned rounds my first year and I think it was a contributing factor to my issues.    I burn all 2yr+ wood now that was dried outdoors for the first year and inside my woodshed for the second summer.  I burn whatever I can scavenge.   This year I have an assortment maple, black locust, black walnut, and spruce.  At this moment I'm burning two big maple lunkers, about 12-14" in dia.  No doubt that's what burns best.   I have a whole collection of tube-scraping tools I experimented with to reach from various angles.   Just about all I use now is the bottle brush...to dust the ash off the tubes.


----------



## 2.beans (Jan 2, 2010)

patch53 said:
			
		

> 2.beans said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


i clean mine in the spring, this will be my fourth year and i didnt clean it after the first year, so this spring will be my third time. i cut the side panel open for easy access to the bottom of the vessel. i do sometimes through the season clean the ash ash off the tubes that i can reach thru the feed door. the ash can build up in the back also. if that was get get wet with creosote that can also make things rot out real fast.


----------



## mole (Jan 2, 2010)

Beans, 
By the time it's that fouled, aren't you losing a whole lot of heat up the stack? That's what I mean about the choice of efficiency or routine tube cleaning. I used to take the back off of mine almost once a month to scrape the rear tubes. I didn't let it get quite as bad as your end of season picture but here's some ball park performance numbers: Before I added storage, when the boiler cycled regularly, I would see average peak stack temperatures of about 500-550deg before the boiler cycled off when the rear tubes were fouled. After cleaning, it would only reach about 400-450F. It was like night and day. With my storage setup, it's easy to calculate BTU/hr transferred to the tank. There is a visible drop in efficiency as ash gathers about on the rear tubes and the air inlet tubes that prewarm the incoming air. I typically charge my tank at about 60K BTU/hr with a 450-500F stack temp. Right after dusting the tubes off, I see about 70KBTU/hr for the first few days.  

I think that when efficiency claims of 80-85% are made, calculations are all based on data gathered from clean tubes. But in real life, they don't stay clean very long. Real world efficiency is lower. In that regard, I'm envious of the downdraft boilers since the air-tubes are more easily cleaned. On the positive side though, we don't have to do all that nasty wood splitting that those guys do!!


----------



## in hot water (Jan 2, 2010)

more heat exchanger than fire space.  

I attended a seminar on boilers design last year.  The engineer presenting has 30 plus years in combustion design, testing and forensics.   While not solid fuel specific he claims boilers soot or plug, even oil and gas fired, when there is too much HX surface for the amount of fire.

I would imagine with solid fuel boilers that formula is hard to predict or engineer to.  As the fire size and quality is always changing in a wood boiler.

Owners tell me the large water tube boilers are notorious for soot and creasote issues as the fire box can not support enough "fire" for the amount of HX surface the manufacturers have designed into the equipment.

Soot on the outside, or scale on the inside, even a few thousands of an inch drives the heat exchange efficiency down and perpetuates the sooting or fouling problem.

The solid fuel boiler combustion efficiency tests I have seen are always on new equipment.  They measure and control the fuel closely 4" blocks of dry red oak in one case.  Be interesting to see the same test performed on the equipment after 6 months or so in typical use.  A simple BTU meter would be an easy way to watch those numbers and could be added to any boiler.

 hr


----------



## tigermaple (Jan 2, 2010)

BTU meter, is there such a thing?


----------



## tom in maine (Jan 2, 2010)

The way the HX fouls makes me wonder about the fact that a control like a Ladomatt might be a good add-on to these units.
The buildup on the HX has to be due at least in part to a cool hx. Isn't this why the Tarm/Eko etc. use this valve, to keep the hx from having 
condensation buildup.

Most gasifiers have some means of regular cleaning of flyash off the HX. The fact that this is not simple (at least for the back of the HX) is a 
big flaw, no?


----------



## mole (Jan 2, 2010)

deepheat said:
			
		

> Congratulations Mole
> Your posts are so informative on this style boiler.
> Iam tearing my hair out  about adding storage.
> It is going to be a big project for me & wouldn't
> ...



Thanks, Deepheat.  I've sponged so much off of the people here, it's nice to be able to give a little back!


----------



## webbie (Jan 2, 2010)

A mixing valve can assure relatively hot water returning to the boiler - say 160 degree or so - instead of 120 degrees. However, the jury is out as to whether either of those temps would discourage creosote formation. After all, both are relatively cool compared to the smoke and fire.


----------



## tom in maine (Jan 2, 2010)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> A mixing valve can assure relatively hot water returning to the boiler - say 160 degree or so - instead of 120 degrees. However, the jury is out as to whether either of those temps would discourage creosote formation. After all, both are relatively cool compared to the smoke and fire.



I would assume that the downdraft folks specify them for a reason. I agree that is not much of a temp difference.
The gasifier boiler that I am running has no low temp control and is pumping tank water--as low as 100F through the unit without any buildup,
other than some occasional flyash.


----------



## 2.beans (Jan 2, 2010)

mole said:
			
		

> Beans,
> By the time it's that fouled, aren't you losing a whole lot of heat up the stack? That's what I mean about the choice of efficiency or routine tube cleaning. I used to take the back off of mine almost once a month to scrape the rear tubes. I didn't let it get quite as bad as your end of season picture but here's some ball park performance numbers: Before I added storage, when the boiler cycled regularly, I would see average peak stack temperatures of about 500-550deg before the boiler cycled off when the rear tubes were fouled. After cleaning, it would only reach about 400-450F. It was like night and day. With my storage setup, it's easy to calculate BTU/hr transferred to the tank. There is a visible drop in efficiency as ash gathers about on the rear tubes and the air inlet tubes that prewarm the incoming air. I typically charge my tank at about 60K BTU/hr with a 450-500F stack temp. Right after dusting the tubes off, I see about 70KBTU/hr for the first few days.
> 
> I think that when efficiency claims of 80-85% are made, calculations are all based on data gathered from clean tubes. But in real life, they don't stay clean very long. Real world efficiency is lower. In that regard, I'm envious of the downdraft boilers since the air-tubes are more easily cleaned. On the positive side though, we don't have to do all that nasty wood splitting that those guys do!!


the top left pic is the first time, the second time was alot better top right, so this year im hoping will be even better. im sure my efficiency drops thru the year but this year im burning alot drier wood. im not cutting it out of a frozen pile and throwing it in the boiler.


----------



## patch53 (Jan 2, 2010)

I was thinking last night of a way to be able to access the vertical section of the draft tubes in my Seton without having to take the entire back panel off. What about cutting say a 16" x 16" hole in the back panel about 6" from the top? Then cut another piece of galzanized panel to slightly overlap that hole. Weld on a few SS pins and reinsulate.  Attatch that piece where the cutout was with some self tapping SS screws or other fasteners that can be removed easily. 

I would think you should be able to access all the rear (vertical) tubes and also the top row of tubes on the horizontal section. You could probably also stick a shop vac hose in there and suck up all the soot/ash down around the draft tubes and near the chimney outlet. I know the new Setons come with removable small side panels too, but it would probably be difficult to clean the top row tubes on the horizontal section from there. The bottom row tubes on the horizontal section are pretty easy to clean from the feed door. 

I don't know, what do you think? Seems like it would work?

Pat


----------



## sparke (Jan 3, 2010)

I run a Greenfire (now called Green Horizon).  Very similar to Seton design.  Anyway, I have often wondered how the unit and hex would perform if the tubes were totally encased in refractory.  It would change the combustion dynamics and I don't know if the hex would be able to extract the btus properly.  If the design worked , it certainly would take care of the dirty hex issue...


----------



## NNYorker (Jan 3, 2010)

Sparke, I like how you're thinking... the water vessel cast in the refractory with ceramic/ ?? spacers between pipe and refrac. Was'nt there talk a year or two ago-- using high temp board below the vessel.... I wonder how a layered approach would work-- one on top and one below the vessel. I had issues when cleaning my tubes with a boiler brush--removal of the insulation from the top panel.


----------



## snowman49820 (Jan 3, 2010)

I have a homemade Seton. Instead of insulation I used 2" hi-temp refractory board. It works great. The top is a little warm but you can put your hands on the steel. When I made the water vessel, I made an extra plate that the water tubes weld to. The holes are slightly bigger so it can slide back and forth to clean the tubes. Unfortunately, I changed my mind and left it off before I welded it. I should have left it on.


----------



## 91220da (Jan 3, 2010)

I agree with Webmaster Craig,  I have a mixing valve that does not let my return water go below 140.  I have ash, soot and some creosote but nothing like the pictures some are posting.  Has anyone tried some of the creosote removal products?  I have been using Rutlands creosote remover.  You sprinkle a scoop full over hot coals maybe once a week.  Seems to work.  I run a round brush over the tubes in the top and were I can reach in the back and everything just seems to powder and fall off.   I often thought about throwing a Chimney sweeping log in their once a week but they are expensive.  Rutlands powder was about $6 for a pint size container at ACE hardware.   Anybody else tried chemical warfare?


----------



## NNYorker (Jan 3, 2010)

Good idea with the board. How about a mod on your idea -- use a screw drive similar to a garage door type to move an aggressive scraper/cleaner back and forth with a stop at the end of the vessel (where it starts to 90). Drive it with your 1/2" drill or ratchet..... Probably never hold up to the heat--just throwing ideas out there.


----------



## Jesse-M (Jan 3, 2010)

snowman49820 said:
			
		

> I have a homemade Seton. Instead of insulation I used 2" hi-temp refractory board. It works great. The top is a little warm but you can put your hands on the steel. When I made the water vessel, I made an extra plate that the water tubes weld to. The holes are slightly bigger so it can slide back and forth to clean the tubes. Unfortunately, I changed my mind and left it off before I welded it. I should have left it on.



Cut it in half and weld a handle on it you'll have a custom fit scraper.


----------



## Jesse-M (Jan 3, 2010)

91220da said:
			
		

> I agree with Webmaster Craig,  I have a mixing valve that does not let my return water go below 140.  I have ash, soot and some creosote but nothing like the pictures some are posting.  Has anyone tried some of the creosote removal products?  I have been using Rutlands creosote remover.  You sprinkle a scoop full over hot coals maybe once a week.  Seems to work.  I run a round brush over the tubes in the top and were I can reach in the back and everything just seems to powder and fall off.   I often thought about throwing a Chimney sweeping log in their once a week but they are expensive.  Rutlands powder was about $6 for a pint size container at ACE hardware.   Anybody else tried chemical warfare?



Two aluminum cans a week.


----------



## NNYorker (Jan 3, 2010)

91220da said:
			
		

> I agree with Webmaster Craig, I have a mixing valve that does not let my return water go below 140. I have ash, soot and some creosote but nothing like the pictures some are posting. Has anyone tried some of the creosote removal products? I have been using Rutlands creosote remover. You sprinkle a scoop full over hot coals maybe once a week. Seems to work. I run a round brush over the tubes in the top and were I can reach in the back and everything just seems to powder and fall off. I often thought about throwing a Chimney sweeping log in their once a week but they are expensive. Rutlands powder was about $6 for a pint size container at ACE hardware. Anybody else tried chemical warfare?




I used the Rutlands too with results similar to yours. I did not have a mixing valve but a temp gauge in a well directly behind the unit. Not as foolproof as the mixer but I could monitor my return temps. I still use it with my Econo in the same location. Never tried the the Chimney sweep. The Rutlands is not that expensive--I've seen where Tractor Supply and Home Depot will drastically reduce prices on this at the end of the season


----------



## Gooserider (Jan 4, 2010)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> A mixing valve can assure relatively hot water returning to the boiler - say 160 degree or so - instead of 120 degrees. However, the jury is out as to whether either of those temps would discourage creosote formation. After all, both are relatively cool compared to the smoke and fire.



My understanding has always been that the mixing valve or loading units, etc. were never really intended as a creosote prevention method, that any benefit of that sort was just a good news side effect...  The reason I've always seen given for doing return water protection was to prevent condensation of corrosive combustion gases on the boiler interior, especially right near the return water connection...  If condensation was allowed, it would cause the steel in the area to corrode, the corrosion would flake off exposing fresh steel, repeating until the HX rusted out from the firebox side in...  By getting the boiler HX up to temperature as rapidly as possible, the condensation would be kept to a minimum, and driven off before it could do a lot of damage...

Gooserider


----------

