# Kent Tile Fire (and Sherwood) stoves



## precaud

I just finished installing a Kent Tile Fire in superb condition that I bought last weekend. I (and many others) had a very positive experience with this stove back in the mid/late 80's. It also has a unique place in stove design history: It is the progenitor of all of the modern steel EPA stoves with glass fronts, airwashes, and secondary combustion. Besides all that, it was robustly built and should be extremely durable under normal use. So I decided to start a thread to go over some of its important details, and to see how it stacks up against the Quad 2100M ACT, a modern, extremely efficient and clean-burning EPA stove which just happens to have the exact same firebox dimensions. The Quad has been the primary heater in the upstairs of my home for most of the last 4 years, so it's a very familiar quantity, and will provide a very tough compare.

I also included the Sherwood in the thread title. The Sherwood doesn't have the Tile Fire's convection shell and has a different rod/handle to control the damper. But other than that, they are functionally identical stoves.

Attached is a pic of the TF installed on my hearth and ready to burn. Definitely straight from the 80's! I burned a small fire in it this afternoon to drive any moisture out of the bricks. First "real" fire will be tonight - in a couple hours or so.


----------



## BrotherBart

Enchanting.


----------



## precaud

First, a few technical details not mentioned in the manual that should be useful for understanding. maintaining, and troubleshooting a Tile Fire/Sherwood.

The first pic is the secondary chamber baffle at the top of the firebox. There's a lot going on in this chamber so it deserves a close look. The air/flame/smoke gets mixed together while being pulled through the holes on their way to the chimney pipe. This 'forced mixing' is not common in more modern stoves, which instead provide an excess of air to aid secondary combustion.

The next pic is a tad out of focus and requires some explanation. It is looking through the chimney connector to the inside of the secondary chamber. The mirror is positioned so you can see inside toward the front of the chamber. There you can see a steel plate (B) which is placed a couple inches behind the holes and covers all but the outer 2.5" on either side. The flames/air/smoke gets pulled through the holes and is forced to mix in this 'mini-chamber' before exiting through the small openings (A) on either side of the plate into the larger chamber and then out the chimney. Simple but effective.

Tom Oyen gave good instructions on checking the damper control rod in this thread:
https://www.hearth.com/econtent/index.php/forums/viewthread/65588/#748929

The next two pics show the bypass damper in open and closed positions. Yours should be able to move between these two positions easily. The steel plate serves as a stop for the damper in full open position. The damper "puck" floats on the baffle surface and on the control rod end (i.e. it is not attached to the rod) so it should accommodate a reasonable amount of warpage of the chamber bottom.

One thing about this secondary chamber is that a significant amount of fly ash accumulates up there with use. My stove accumulated 3 shovels full of very fine ash in 10 or so seasons of mild use. That's quite a lot. Cleaning/vacuuming out the ash should be a part of your annual maintenance.

I first used a plastic kitchen spatula to scoop the ash into the firebox below. While doing so, I unknowingly pushed some of the ash between the damper "puck" and the steel plate. I then tried operating the damper control rod, and it was binding toward the full open position. Odd, since it wasn't binding before I cleaned. So I vacuumed out the area behind the puck, and then it operated smoothly again. So if yours is binding, clean out this area in front of the plate before you pronounce your baffle warped.


----------



## begreen

Nice stove indeed. It will be interesting to see how your modern tweaks improve operation. Fire her up!


----------



## precaud

I have the doors open, cooling the house down so I can fire it up! It was a sunny day here, and the solar heaters had the place up to 76F...


----------



## precaud

The Tile Fire firebox and secondary chamber are made from 1/4" steel - great for efficient heat transfer; not good for maintaining the high firebox temperatures needed for clean burning. The bottom of mine is the only surface that showed any signs of warpage, so clearly it could use some protective insulation.

I have some Thermal Ceramics K-28 lightweight insulating fire brick (2800F service temp, 51 lbs/cu ft density, K=0.97/in. @ 1000F, standard size, better shock resistance than pumice bricks). I sliced them in half on a tablesaw using a 10" masonry blade to 1-3/16" thick, just slightly less then the standard "splits" used in other wood stoves. These bricks are much lighter (less than 1.5 lbs each) and have far superior insulating characteristic compared to standard bricks. It took 18 splits to line the stove sides, back, and bottom to a 9" height. I may try lining the remaining top part of the sides and back after I see how this works out.

The Tile Fire weighs 230 lbs (about 30 of which is the tiles), plus 27 lbs of added firebrick = 257 lbs. This compares to the Quad 2100 listed at 320 lbs. The weight difference was obvious when moving them. This should enable the TF to produce useable heat more quickly, and the Quad to retain heat longer. But the Quad's firebox is better insulated, so that gives it some advantage in warmup. We shall see.


----------



## BrotherBart

Did you mic the plate steel in that stove? How in the heck does that much quarter inch plate only weigh 200 pounds? Most of that Quad is 3/16".


----------



## precaud

No way to mic the shell, the brochure says it's 1/4". Just measured the 2ndary chamber baffle, it is 9mm which is just under 3/8".

Remember, the Quad has steel channels inside and outside the firebox for its four air sources. That adds a lot of weight. And a 5/16" top plate.


----------



## precaud

I've burned four loads in the stove, and can see its character emerging. I think it's best to describe it in two different contexts: first, as a heater, and second, as a wood burner (i.e. how well does the firebox work), both as compared to the Quad.

As a heater, and specifically as a convection heater, it is really quite impressive. It warms up and starts producing significant amounts of heat amazingly quickly. It's convection design is the best I've ever experienced: the brick walls of the hearth right next to it get barely warm to touch. I'd say the clearance figures given in the manual are on the conservative side. Most impressive is how much better it distributed heat to other rooms, raising them by 2-3 degrees compared to the Quad. This stove is an aggressive convector with comparatively little direct radiation. As a heater, it rocks.

As a wood burner, the situation is more complicated. In it's day, it was revolutionary. But fireboxes have evolved significantly since then. Compared to the Quad which, again, is also a north/south burner with the exact same firebox dimensions, the Kent is a fussier stove to use. You absolutely must leave an inch or so space between logs or else it will not burn in the back. With no separate secondary air, there must always be flames reaching up from the logs to ignite the gasses up above. There are no prolonged "floating secondary burns" like some EPA stoves can do. And this in turn means that the minimum burn rate is higher - no lazy, lingering flames with this stove. It needs a higher minimum airflow to keep things burning.

This compared to the Quad, which will eat anything and burn it clean. A load of two large rounds will give a nice, controlled flaming burn for 3 hours or more. The Kent won't do this at all. It generally prefers smaller splits and an absolute minimum of three at a time. This is where the Quad's doghouse air, secondary air, and fully insulated firebox makes the difference. Just as with a chimney, the insulation makes the most difference at low burn rates.

After closing it down before going to bed last night, there were plenty of coals to start up again this morning with just a few sticks of kindling placed on top to ignite. Very nice. Temps in the house this morning were the same as with the Quad, which suggests that the total heat output was not really different from the Quad's; the Kent just puts out more heat while it's burning. This is consistent with its lighter weight and less-insulated firebox.

I checked for smoke output regularly while it burned, and more often than not, there was some visible smoke coming out of the stack - not dense smoke, but visible. There was smoke until the front of the secondary chamber heated up; it was easy to tell when this happened - the carbon that collected on the front of the baffle around the holes started to burn off. From then, through most of the rest of the burn, it was cleanest, and then grew a little worse as it burned the wood at the rear of the box. This is where the lack of a separate secondary air source really took its toll. And it would have been worse without the firebrick I added. Just like other deep stove geometries I've seen which have no air at the rear of the firebox, you can't have combustion without air. I'd bet that adding even rudimentary secondary air inlets at the rear of the box would work wonders with this stove.

I'm not going to experiment any more with it for now. Insulating the top of the firebox isn't going to helps matters. Adding secondary air is what it needs.

It's been fun revisiting this old friend. It's a superb heater. The designer who created it back in the 80's deserves our thanks and a toast.


----------



## agartner

Awesome thread, very well done.   I can't argue with your observations - I also added the firebrick to the inside of my Sherwood with very good results as well.  As the Sherwood does not have the convection shell, it's mostly a radiant heater, and it does it well.  Adding the firebrick did make things a lot less harsh.  One experience I don't necessarily share is the "back-burn" of the stove.  I find that the back burning characteristics of the stove is good, and as long as the temps are right inside the firebox, you get a really nice secondary burn lightshow dancing off of the bottom of the secondary burn chamber.  I also find my stack is almost always smokeless, but I need to temper that statement with the fact that I am using Bio-Bricks instead of cordwood, which have a dead low moisture content and burn like nobody's business.  All in all, great observations.  I know last year I was really looking to replace the Sherwood with a more 'updated" EPA stove but instead decided against it.  I never knew about the additional plate in the secondary burn chamber.  That explains why the stove will bellow smoke out the front door if you don't open that bypass before cracking the door.  I've forgotten a few times but am always quickly reminded!

When I got a chance, I'll snap a few pics of the sherwood, for anything, to note the differences between it an the TileFire.


----------



## precaud

Pics of your Sherwood would be great Al, please do.

I can see how the bio-bricks might work well in these stoves. Their smaller size and controlled content would make for predictable fires load after load.


----------



## begreen

Great to see this information about these pioneering stoves. Thanks for the great info. 

It would be helpful to add an article to the Kent stove wiki. Anyone up for that? I can copy/paste, but it would be nicer as a full article both on the original stove and on the mods to bring it up to modern burning standards. If you need some help, let me know. 

https://www.hearth.com/econtent/index.php/wiki/Kent_Tile_Fire/


----------



## daleeper

Nice looking stove, looks like the hearth was made for it, and good writeup.


----------



## precaud

Did some digging last night, hoping to find some test data on the Kent stoves. I found this 1986 one, by the guy who I learned alot from back in the 80's, Jay Shelton. Pretty thorough test comparing the Tile Fire to a BK catalyst, Lopi, open fireplace, and some more conventional heaters, using different wood types, burn rates, etc.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/a3-122-32.pdf

I haven't read it in detail yet, only scanned quickly through it. The Tile Fire he used was a "Mk II" which had the firebrick and stainless steel shield inside. It also reminded me that I bought the Sherwood after hearing him speak enthusiastically about it. 

One thing I hoped to see but didn't are charts of output rate vs time for the burn cycle.


----------



## begreen

Jay also authored the Woodburner's Encyclopedia published in 1976. It went through several publishings and is still available used at book shops and via Amazon.


----------



## precaud

Yep. His Solid Fuels Encyclopedia has long been a reference for me. I just looked in the phone book; he still lives here.

I'd like to find out more about the SS plate that was part of the Mk II upgrade kit. If anyone has seen one, a description would be appreciated. A photo would be awesome!


----------



## Battenkiller

precaud said:
			
		

> Did some digging last night, hoping to find some test data on the Kent stoves. I found this 1986 one, by the guy who I learned alot from back in the 80's, Jay Shelton. Pretty thorough test comparing the Tile Fire to a BK catalyst, Lopi, open fireplace, and some more conventional heaters, using different wood types, burn rates, etc.



It's pretty cool that you got to hang with one of my wood burning heroes.  We had him back east in the 70s, but I never heard him speak.  His book "The Woodburner's Encyclopedia" that I got back in my hippie days is still the bible to me, and the source for 90% of the graphs and tables I post here on Hearth.

That study is pretty intense, and I'd recommend almost anybody who is interested in these things to take a few hours to go through it.  It appears to be one of the very few scientific comparisons between the old stoves and the developing new technologies.  Of special interest to me, an unnamed stove whose rough schematic identifies it as an early Vermont Castings downdraft design was used, but unfortunately, they used it only as a conventional updraft airtight, and as an open fireplace (i.e. Franklin stove).  Even then, as an airtight it didn't do so bad, especially with green oak (which it burned considerably cleaner than the dry stuff, but with a slight hit in the total efficiency department).  I really wish they tested it with the bypass closed and in secondary combustion mode.

Anyway, Precaud, I'm glad you get to enjoy some nice heat from a familiar friend.  As for me, I can't say I'd want to go back and burn in that oval sheet metal Ashley that got me started in all this.


----------



## precaud

Yes, "intense" is a good word for it. I still haven't made it all the way through.

About the VC stove: Since the stoves were chosen on the basis of the California chimneysweeps surveyed, along with the project manager, it's possible that 'updraft' and 'open' represent the ways it was most often used in that area. Back then, the downdraft mode had a reputation for being very finicky.

Some notes on the Tile Fire in the test: The doug fir blocks burned cleaner than the seasoned oak. The fir loads were four pieces, ~2.5 lbs each piece; the oak loads were five pieces ~3.5 lbs each. The fir loads are 2x4's with 1.5" space between them. This fits what I've seen so far: this stove likes to burn small, hot loads, with plenty of air space between each log. I filled it up tonight and that turns it into a smoke dragon - simply not enough free air for secondary combustion, and the air is unable to penetrate to the rear of the stove.

An altered procedure for cold start with fir was used with the Kent - the first main load was simultaneous with the kindling load. The reason is not explained.

After watching the TF burn the last couple days, I decided to line the rest of the side and back walls under the baffle. It definitely raised temps in the firebox, I could even feel more heat from the glass. And it brought the secondary chamber up to temps more quickly. However, it only helped clean up the burn in the stages where it already burned the cleanest. It did nothing to help the first 20-30 minutes, when the surface volatiles are being burned off. Not until after that does it settle down and burn more cleanly. And it doesn't help to give it more primary air - that only stimulates the fire more. With only one air source, that's the main Catch 22 with this stove.

This early-stage dirty burn is made worse if the wood length is near the maximum. The flames from the forward ends have nowhere to go but directly up and out the baffle, with no chance to mix with any air, producing prodigious amounts of smoke. Not good. The best results I've gotten were with wood no longer than the baffle - about 13". Not what one would think for this size stove. And not what I have much of in my wood pile right. Everything is cut 14-16" for the Quad.


----------



## Battenkiller

precaud said:
			
		

> About the VC stove: Since the stoves were chosen on the basis of the California chimneysweeps surveyed, along with the project manager, it's possible that 'updraft' and 'open' represent the ways it was most often used in that area. Back then, the downdraft mode had a reputation for being very finicky.
> 
> An altered procedure for cold start with fir was used with the Kent - the first main load was simultaneous with the kindling load. The reason is not explained.
> 
> After watching the TF burn the last couple days, I decided to line the rest of the side and back walls under the baffle. It definitely raised temps in the firebox, I could even feel more heat from the glass.
> 
> This early-stage dirty burn is made worse if the wood length is near the maximum. The flames from the forward ends have nowhere to go but directly up and out the baffle, with no chance to mix with any air, producing prodigious amounts of smoke. Not good. The best results I've gotten were with wood no longer than the baffle - about 13".



Yeah, I'm crushed that he didn't appear to burn the VC as designed, or even to name it.  Maybe it was a clone of identical design, like a Scandia?  I tracked the good professor down to a fancy prep school in NM and sent him an e-mail asking him about it.  He either is no longer there, or he hasn't had a chance to answer... or thinks it impudent of me to contact him there regarding this matter.  No word as of yet.

Seems all the test loads were much lighter than what we'd normally load our stoves with.  17.5 pounds of oak for the main loads?  I put individual rounds of shagbark hickory in my stove that are almost that big.  Sounds like there was plenty of room left above the charge for adequate mixing of gases and air, which might account for the higher efficiency numbers across the board than I expected.  But most folks don't burn that way.  They seem to load the stove to the gills to try to achieve the Holy Grail - the overnight burn.  I myself am often guilty of the same thing.

BTW while some emissions were lower with the fir in the Kent tests, the crucial PM and creosote factors were actually a bit higher.  Something a scientist would describe as "significant" (statistically speaking) but certainly not appearing to be substantial when looking at the charts.

The reason given for varying the way the Kent was loaded was in order to "more closely follow the testing procedure used in the Oregon-certified testing of the same stove (and hence enhancing the value of the inter-laboratory comparison of results)".  I don't like that at all.  If they wanted to do that, they should have made several separate runs with the different load method and shared that data with OMNI.  Smells of sloppy science to me, and I'm a bit disappointed with that aspect of the tests.  I'm not at all in favor of experimental design based upon expected outcome. I hope that wasn't behind this decision (we know he really liked the Kent), but like so many other things in science, we'll probably never know for sure.

Another thing to consider is the controlled draft setup (see attached photo below).  Necessary, of course, in order to get repeatable results, but not representative at all of the way most folks will burn.  Sluggish draft at startup, leading to excessive draft as flue temp rises during warmup, then a reduction in draft as temps stabilize during secondary combustion, then dropping to very low levels during the coaling stage.  I'll be willing to bet that the guy who stuffs his stove to the burn tubes then shuts it down for the night with the primary barely open is spewing out a lot more particulate matter than his "clear" flues gases exiting the stack tell him.  Cleanest burns reported in this study were during the highest burn rates - something most folks fastidiously avoid in their attempts to extract the last blessed BTU from their wood.

Most perplexing of all is how these stoves were able to burn green oak (41% MC) so cleanly and efficiently, particularly without a very substantial firebox full of burning wood to get it going.  Again, Shelton describes the green oak burns as significantly less efficient (mostly because of the excess air needed, not because of reduced combustion efficiency), but looking at the charts, the green oak burns are not substantially different from the seasoned oak.  Why?  And perhaps the most head-scratching result of all, the fact that green oak deposited only _1/4 of the creosote_ (and by extension, 1/4 of the PM) as seasoned oak when burned at high burn rates in a conventional air-tight stove.  This is the opposite of what has anecdotally been reported for years now.  This result might be expected (and was observed) in the open stove, where the creosote is so diluted with excess air that it exits the stack before it has a chance to collect on the flue walls, but not in an air-tight design.  Seems high burn rates are the key. 


If everyone burned their wood at high burn rates when the air-tights first hit the scene instead of stopping them down to try to get more heat out of the wood, we probably wouldn't be stuck with all the EPA regs we have now.  New product development might have proceeded along the lines of increased efficiency with reduced emissions as a side benefit, rather than the other way around.


My rudimentary knowledge of forge design tells me that by increasing the insulation and decreasing the available volume of the firebox, internal temps will get a lot higher with the same energy input.  Gas forges used for hammer welding of iron need to get close to 2500ÂºF inside.  The standard procedure is to decrease the interior space while adding an extra wrap or two of Kaowool on the outside.  Gets you hotter temps with the same size burner.  Yup, I'll bet you get a _lot_ more heat out the front of that stove with the IFB.  What better place to exit other than the flue?


----------



## precaud

Battenkiller said:
			
		

> Yeah, I'm crushed that he didn't appear to burn the VC as designed, or even to name it.  Maybe it was a clone of identical design, like a Scandia?



Yes, it is a shame, and curious, that was the only stove not positively identified. But again, given that several people had input in the selection process, it's a stretch to think the exclusion was intentional. But who knows.



> I tracked the good professor down to a fancy prep school in NM and sent him an e-mail asking him about it.  He either is no longer there, or he hasn't had a chance to answer... or thinks it impudent of me to contact him there regarding this matter.  No word as of yet.



Santa Fe Prep - high school for wealthy families. My son went there for one year (money on his mom's side of the family). It was ridiculously expensive in the 90's - can only imagine what it is now. Knowing the school, chances are it's not a full-time gig for him.

I also emailed him on Sunday, at the same email address, with questions about the emissions kit. No reply as yet.



> Seems all the test loads were much lighter than what we'd normally load our stoves with.  17.5 pounds of oak for the main loads?  I put individual rounds of shagbark hickory in my stove that are almost that big.  Sounds like there was plenty of room left above the charge for adequate mixing of gases and air, which might account for the higher efficiency numbers across the board than I expected.  But most folks don't burn that way.  They seem to load the stove to the gills to try to achieve the Holy Grail - the overnight burn.  I myself am often guilty of the same thing.



Yes, I think I made that point earlier - the piece sizes were small given the load weight. But then, I almost never stuff my stoves to the gills. I learned to burn smaller loads hot back in the 80's and still basically do that. But then, it's hard not to burn pinon hot. Also, our wood isn't as dense as what you have out east. As BG aptly noted, out west, we hoard hardwoods (when we can find it) and save it for the times when it's really needed. Most of the time we're cruising on softwoods. A typical load for me in the Quad (1.5 cu ft) is 10-15 lbs of pinon. Burns in 2-3 hours.



> BTW while some emissions were lower with the fir in the Kent tests, the crucial PM and creosote factors were actually a bit higher.  Something a scientist would describe as "significant" (statistically speaking) but certainly not appearing to be substantial when looking at the charts.



That has to do with the weighting of the Oregon averaging, which emphasizes the low burn rate results more. He discusses that in the text. In the Kent, 0.8 kg/hr is basically a smoldering burn. A truer picture is in the PM vs burn rate charts.



> The reason given for varying the way the Kent was loaded was in order to "more closely follow the testing procedure used in the Oregon-certified testing of the same stove (and hence enhancing the value of the inter-laboratory comparison of results)".  I don't like that at all.  If they wanted to do that, they should have made several separate runs with the different load method and shared that data with OMNI.  Smells of sloppy science to me, and I'm a bit disappointed with that aspect of the tests.  I'm not at all in favor of experimental design based upon expected outcome. I hope that wasn't behind this decision (we know he really liked the Kent), but like so many other things in science, we'll probably never know for sure.



Agreed, I have discomfort about that part of it too. And basically what I've distilled it down to is what I've seen in using it; the Kent's emissions behavior changes dramatically after the first 20-30 minutes, especially in the first load from a cold start. It goes from looking very pre-EPA to right up there with the cleanest after that initial period. Merging the kindling phase with the first full load no doubt helped.



> Another thing to consider is the controlled draft setup (see attached photo below).  Necessary, of course, in order to get repeatable results, but not representative at all of the way most folks will burn.  Sluggish draft at startup, leading to excessive draft as flue temp rises during warmup, then a reduction in draft as temps stabilize during secondary combustion, then dropping to very low levels during the coaling stage.



True, but I think the EPA test rigs all use controlled draft setups. One can only have so many variables floating at once - it makes total sense to me they'd tie the draft down.



> I'll be willing to bet that the guy who stuffs his stove to the burn tubes then shuts it down for the night with the primary barely open is spewing out a lot more particulate matter than his "clear" flues gases exiting the stack tell him.  Cleanest burns reported in this study were during the highest burn rates - something most folks fastidiously avoid in their attempts to extract the last blessed BTU from their wood.



Absolutely. Is that not true for your VC too? That's one area where EPA stoves have made big strides - clean burn at low burn rates. See notes above about the Oregon weighting.



> Most perplexing of all is how these stoves were able to burn green oak (41% MC) so cleanly and efficiently, particularly without a very substantial firebox full of burning wood to get it going.



Where are you getting that from? Green oak was ONLY tested in the Blaze King and conventional stoves (open and closed), none of the others.

It's telling me I have 0 characters remaining...


----------



## precaud

> And perhaps the most head-scratching result of all, the fact that green oak deposited only 1/4 of the creosote (and by extension, 1/4 of the PM) as seasoned oak when burned at high burn rates in a conventional air-tight stove.  This is the opposite of what has anecdotally been reported for years now.


The only thing I can think of is, this is also a side-effect of the Oregon weighting. I can't imagine what else would do that statistically.



			
				Battenkiller said:
			
		

> If everyone burned their wood at high burn rates when the air-tights first hit the scene instead of stopping them down to try to get more heat out of the wood, we probably wouldn't be stuck with all the EPA regs we have now.  New product development might have proceeded along the lines of increased efficiency with reduced emissions as a side benefit, rather than the other way around.



Perhaps. But many felt (and still feel) the same way about digital audio - saying audio wasn't "ready" for digital. I disagree. BTW, take a look at the Xeoos Twinfire - it's hitting high marks on both sides of the equation.



> My rudimentary knowledge of forge design tells me that by increasing the insulation and decreasing the available volume of the firebox, internal temps will get a lot higher with the same energy input.  Gas forges used for hammer welding of iron need to get close to 2500ÂºF inside.  The standard procedure is to decrease the interior space while adding an extra wrap or two of Kaowool on the outside.  Gets you hotter temps with the same size burner.  Yup, I'll bet you get a _lot_ more heat out the front of that stove with the IFB.  What better place to exit other than the flu?



Yup. And all exposed metal in the firebox burns so clean you could eat off of it. But if you're going to super-insulate the firebox, the load gassifies more quickly and the secondary air system has to be substantial to handle it. That's the way the new generation of Euro stoves are going - highly insulated fireboxes with robust secondary air systems burning small loads hot and fast. No attempt to prolong the burn - instead, lots of post-secondary heat exchanger surface area (Twinfire) or lots of thermal mass (thick Skamol liners).

And this points to one thing that I want to explore further; the impact of "excess air" on efficiency. One thing is clear to me - EPA stoves burn clean in part because there is a large amount of excess of air available at all times. Sheldon shows pretty emphatically that overall efficiency is lowest on the two appliances that have the highest air-to-fuel ratio - pellets and open stove. I'd like to see similar figures on some EPA stoves. I bet it's a big deal, and that the efficiency numbers being published by marketing departments are fudged to the hilt to hide it. I bet your VC scores very well in that department - very little excess air inside. If Sheldon's right, that is a major differentiator in the overall efficiency score between stoves.


----------



## Battenkiller

precaud said:
			
		

> Battenkiller said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ]Most perplexing of all is how these stoves were able to burn green oak (41% MC) so cleanly and efficiently, particularly without a very substantial firebox full of burning wood to get it going.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where are you getting that from? Green oak was ONLY tested in the Blaze King and conventional stoves (open and closed), none of the others.
Click to expand...


Right.  I was thinking I had already posted a graph that showed the stoves that burned green oak, but that was in another thread.  Still, both stoves did admirably with the green when given enough air.  The VC may not have fared quite so well if they burned it with the bypass closed.  Might not get enough air (although my Vigilant handles it without indigestion).  But that doesn't explain the spectacular results with the Blaze King.  Less than 5 points drop in overall efficiency?  Who'da thunk?

I know you love the physical solutions, but you gotta respect the power of a catalytic combustor used wisely.  Maybe it's the frustrated boy chemist in me, but knowing how catalysts work makes me feel they should still have some place in future stoves, even if just as an adjunct to the high-technology burn profiles of the newest designs.


----------



## precaud

Battenkiller said:
			
		

> Right.  I was thinking I had already posted a graph that showed the stoves that burned green oak, but that was in another thread.  Still, both stoves did admirably with the green when given enough air.  The VC may not have fared quite so well if they burned it with the bypass closed.  Might not get enough air (although my Vigilant handles it without indigestion).  But that doesn't explain the spectacular results with the Blaze King.  Less than 5 points drop in overall efficiency?  Who'da thunk?



Two thoughts: First, see note in "wet wood" thread about the burn cycle. Long time spent in the charcoal phase, where all stoves perform about the same. Second, lower PM with green oak in the closed VC test says to me there was TONS of air pouring through that sucker in order to get it to burn. That is confirmed by the air-to-fuel ratio chart. Lots of dilution going on.



> I know you love the physical solutions, but you gotta respect the power of a catalytic combustor used wisely.  Maybe it's the frustrated boy chemist in me, but knowing how catalysts work makes me feel they should still have some place in future stoves, even if just as an adjunct to the high-technology burn profiles of the newest designs.



They do and they probably will. But yes, you're right, I prefer other solutions, if for no other reason than the challenge to discover them and make them work.    Add in to that a basic discomfort about the sourcing of the elements used in catalysts.


----------



## Battenkiller

precaud said:
			
		

> Two thoughts: First, see note in "wet wood" thread about the burn cycle. Long time spent in the charcoal phase, where all stoves perform about the same. Second, lower PM with green oak in the closed VC test says to me there was TONS of air pouring through that sucker in order to get it to burn. That is confirmed by the air-to-fuel ratio chart. Lots of dilution going on.



I'll go back to the green wood thing again only because of what your comments imply about the test results, but I don't want to continue to hash this out here on your thread about the Kent stove itself.  Maybe on another thread...?


Yes, the green wood needed more air to achieve maximum burn rates, he even says so in the text.  However, the overall efficiency numbers don't lie.  There was _not_ a significant loss of sensible heat up the flue due to the extra air being introduced.  Yes, some dilution effect is evident, especially is the open stove, but that doesn't support anecdotal evidence of massive amounts of creosote deposition in residential chimneys venting stoves burning green wood.  Just the opposite is reported here, and the dilution effect is clearly aiding this... to the benefit of green burners everywhere.  

If you examine the air:fuel ratios, there was not a significant amount more air actually needed to burn the green oak in either stove tested with it.  Even at a burn rate as low as 0.7 kg/hr, the conventional air-tight was using _less_ air burning green oak than the Lopi used burning the dry fir test load.  Except for a few outliers, the data set shows that the Blaze King used almost an identical amount of air at all burn rates with either the green or the seasoned oak.  Which, as I mentioned above, is reflected in the overall efficiency numbers.

Similarly, if massive amounts of PM were exiting the flue unburned, this would have been reflected in both the combustion efficiency and overall efficiency numbers, and this is clearly not the case.  Besides, the sensors and filters catch _all_ of the emissions, so dilution wouldn't affect either the g/hr or g/kg numbers.  

One last thing to say is that, although it was called "green" oak in the report, that doesn't mean it was fresh-cut.  Newly harvested oak generally has a MC of about 80%, not the 41% stuff they used in the tests.  And 41% dry-basis is not 41% water by weight, it is 29% water by weight.  That's only 9% more water per pound of wood than the "seasoned" stuff.  I find it frustrating that, even in a scientifically controlled study, the author included both ways of expressing moisture content in different places within the same report.  No wonder everybody gets confused about this essential bit of information.

And that's all I have to say here about burning green wood.


Considering the stated +/-25% uncertainty in the Oregon weighted averages, the only really significant fuel factors across all the tests and burn cycles was for the production of elemental carbon (soot), and NOx production (assumed... based _solely_ the performance of the Blaze King - a catalytic stove commonly thought to produce high NOx anyway).  The major contributing factor in this study was the _appliance_ effect.  The better stoves burned both cleaner _and_ more efficiently regardless of the fuel type - green oak, seasoned oak, or doug fir.  Seeing as how that was what was being investigated to begin with, we have a clear winner: 


The stove is much more important than the quality of the wood... at least in this study.




> Add in to that a basic discomfort about the sourcing of the elements used in catalysts.



I hear you, mate, but we are pretty much stuck using precious metals as long as the population continues to increase and the technology necessary to reduce our contribution to pollution lags behind.  The fact is that catalysts are a crude but highly effective club that can be applied after the fact to cleanup the mess left behind from inferior design.  As long as financial motives are the driving force behind scientific development, industry will continue to use whatever crude and inelegant solution they come up with providing that it satisfies the bottom line.  The nice thing about the metals themselves is that they are recoverable once the appliance craps the bed.  The combustors and converters themselves decline in efficacy with use, but the metals themselves can be largely recovered during recycling of the spent devices.

Anyway, keep working on your projects, they may lead to the next breakthrough in this technology.  Me... I'm more of a thinker than an inventor.  I like to know how things work, but leave it to the smarter guys to figure out how to make them work better.


----------



## precaud

Battenkiller said:
			
		

> I'll go back to the green wood thing again only because of what your comments imply about the test results, but I don't want to continue to hash this out here on your thread about the Kent stove itself.  Maybe on another thread...?



Good idea. I'll have to wait until later to reply to the rest, I don't have the Sheldon paper on this computer to refer to.


----------



## precaud

Non-Kent-related discussion of the Shelton study is continuing in this thread:
https://www.hearth.com/econtent/index.php/forums/viewthread/67756/


----------



## precaud

OK, back to Kent-related things. As I weigh which direction to go for the next mod, here's where things stand. Adding the upper row of insulation raised firebox temps and clean up combustion inside of it, but it didn't reduce smoke production in the early burn. So I'm going to concentrate on two things: adding some above-fire air, and increasing turbulence before it exits into the secondary baffle.

First experiment is with the air. Where should it be introduced - at the front, rear, middle, or all three? I'd prefer to keep it simple and add just one source. It just so happens that my Quad, which has the same size firebox, has a "startup air" source. It consists of one hole at the bottom rear, and a row of holes across the back just under the baffle. There's even a separate control so I can very the air amount. So I can use the Quad to emulate rear-only secondary air in the Kent. I plugged the bottom hole and the doghouse air, and now I can compare how it burns with one secondary air source at the back, to the three burn tubes above. With separate controls for both, I can switch back and forth in a few seconds.

The result can easily be summed up as: the fire follows the air. Compared to the standard 3 burn tubes, introducing all of the secondary air from the back caused the fire to burn more from the back. And turbulence (mixing) also occurred more in the back and disappeared toward the front. (I had seen these same things with the Morso 2110 and Jotul F602, so it wasn't totally unexpected.)

Since the primary aim is to improve combustion in the first part of the load, adding air at the back is not going to do that all by itself. The good thing about the rear air is, there is no excess - it all gets used before it exits. So it may help some, but it's not sufficient. More overfire air at the front is needed.

I see three possible ways to get this. The obvious way is to add a burn tube there, with separate air inlet. A second way would be to add some holes in the airwash manifold and "bleed off" some of the primary air into the exhaust stream. The old Jotul 602 (pre-EPA) did this. And the Quad does it massively. A third way, and the least invasive, would be to alter the shape of the airwash manifold's front edge, using the diffraction to "tune" how much air gets pulled away from the airwash main stream. I'm not sure how much of a difference one can make doing this, it will take some study. But I know this principle works in acoustics.

Another thing I want to play with is the alleged "swirl" pattern which is shown in the promo drawings for the Kent firebox. The simplified drawing below was taken from the Shelton paper. It shows that gasses make two trips through the fire before exiting. Well, I have never seen this happen with this stove or the Sherwood I used to have. (I do see it all the time with the X33...). The Kent behaves just like any other stove with a flat horizontal baffle, with the classic "S"-shaped flow. So I'm going to add a lip at the front of the baffle to try to create this double swirl flow there. I have some 1" Kaowool M board that should work fine. Should be interesting.


----------



## precaud

Here is a photo of the "lip" at the front of the baffle, with some side insulation added, using 1" Kaowool M board. My camera didn't have enough wide angle at this distance so the pic only shows one side. Vermiculite would have worked fine too, I just don't have any on hand that is 17" wide. This idea is based on details that Resiburner, a former Sherwood owner, remembered about what Kent's emissions kit looked like. Besides creating turbulence near the mixing point, by moving the effective draft point forward and down a little, this piece will pull a little more air up from the airwash. 

If this works, then adding some bleed air from the airwash manifold will probably be the next step.


----------



## precaud

This stove continues to impress. At 6pm this evening I relit from coals from a medium-size load started at 8pm last nite. That's 22 hours.

I replaced the small insulation pieces shown in the above pic with a single piece cut to fit the whole area on the sides in front of the baffle. That definitely helped raise the temps there and clean up the early-stage burn. If there's interest, I'll remove one and post a pic of it. I also experimented with the placement of the piece at the lip. The results are inconclusive. So I've kept it pretty much flush with the front of the baffle. My preference would be to cover the whole baffle with 1/2" fiber board but this is working well.

I can see there are definite advantages to having all of the air come from one source at the front. Besides giving a true front-to-back burn and the glass staying amazingly clean, all of the air washes over the coals from the prior load, burning them down. There is no coals buildup. And as it does so, the air gets under the wood, maintaining a very lively fire without a doghouse to stimulate it. And as I explained in another thread, with no "always on" secondary air, live coals last MUCH longer. All this leads to a stove that is very pleasant to use and very user-friendly. And very efficient, too. I can't prove it empirically, but it's heating this space better than the Quad did, with smaller loads. And the Quad had handily trumped every other stove I've had in here before. Very impressive.

It's now to a point where it's in the same class as a modern EPA stove as far as visible smoke emissions. All you have to do is burn it hot, as it was designed to be burned, and leave some spacing between the logs so the air can penetrate to the rear of the stove. We don't need no stinkin' secondary air to burn clean.


----------



## begreen

Sounds like the rekindling of a beautiful friendship.


----------



## madrone

The double-circulating flow drawing is amusing. Magical.
Thanks for a very interesting thread. I'm assuming your burn times are shorter than those of us with EPA II stoves are used to. What I'm getting from this experiment is that most stoves are using multiple rows of secondary air as a way to meet emissions with reduced air intake? i.e. cleanest possible longer burns? How do those first 20-30 minutes compare with the Quad? I'm guessing they're both dirtier on start up?


----------



## madrone

Just another thought...
In light of the trend in Euro stoves, is it inevitable that we'll be reinventing the masonry heater?


----------



## precaud

madrone said:
			
		

> The double-circulating flow drawing is amusing. Magical.


Truly. One wonders how they got away with it.



> I'm assuming your burn times are shorter than those of us with EPA II stoves are used to.


It depends how you define "burn time". Some like to use a certain value of stovetop temperature. That really measures heat storage, not burn time. The two that make sense to me are a) the length of the flaming period of the burn cycle, or b) how long the stove can maintain sufficient live coals for a 'warm startup'. I prefer the latter. And clearly the Kents are exceptional at that. But most EPA stoves can be easily modded to do very well. It's all about air control.



> What I'm getting from this experiment is that most stoves are using multiple rows of secondary air as a way to meet emissions with reduced air intake? i.e. cleanest possible longer burns?



Yes, they essentially reduce the primary air and move it over the fire. Total air throughput is likely higher on most EPA stoves. But doing so doesn't necessarily equate to longer flame periods. Many other variables at play there.



> How do those first 20-30 minutes compare with the Quad? I'm guessing they're both dirtier on start up?



Like other stoves with lots of lightweight insulating material in the firebox, the Quad burns clean almost immediately. With a top-down startup, visible smoke time is measured in seconds, not minutes.

The Kent can't do that. Too much exposed metal in the firebox. But the mods I've made help a great deal. Before adding the upper-front insulation, the first 20 minutes or so had plenty of visible smoke - not belching/disgusting, but enough to make me uncomfortable. Now, it's thinned out and a shorter period. Getting that area warmed up more quickly is the key.



> In light of the trend in Euro stoves, is it inevitable that weâ€™ll be reinventing the masonry heater?


Some stoves are going in that direction. But the Kent doesn't fall in that category. The ceramic tiles aren't great heat storage.

What I do see in some recent Euro stove entries that mimic the masonry heater approach is minimal use of secondary air. I'll find some videos later and post the links. But it's hard for me to get excited about a stove that can only store and dribble out a couple thousand btus/hr...


----------



## Todd

Have you noticed any difference in your stack temps compared to the Quad?


----------



## precaud

For the same burn rate they're in the same ballpark, though I discount that some because the Kent convects nearly all of its heat out the top, and my thermometer is only mounted six inches above the stove top due to the short vertical section on the chimney.


----------



## precaud

Well the Kent has a shortcoming. It doesn't handle sappy pieces of pinon as good as the Quad does. That's one situation where an excess of secondary air comes in handy. I'll have to make sure to burn those pieces one at a time.


----------



## precaud

Round 2 of the mods begins. The added insulation around the secondary baffle holes is definitely beneficial. Getting the temps up in this little area in front of those holes is essential to getting a cleaner burn. Next step is to give it a little more air for more complete combustion.

It's important to understand going in that, broadly speaking, non-cat EPA stoves burn cleaner by providing an excess of air to the fire at all times. Only at the highest burn rates do they make good use of all that air. At other times, the excess air just dilutes the exhaust and cools the stove. Knowing this, and since the Tile Fire works so well as is, I'm not going to add enough air to cover the highest firing conditions. I want to optimize the "cruise" phase, where the stove settles in and spends the most time with flames present. I'm guessing it won't take much air to do that. So I'm not going down the road of adding a burn tube. I want simple, strategically-placed mods that can be easily reversed if they don't work.

So the first thing I'll try is bleeding off some of the primary air directly into the area that was just insulated. The air will get mixed with the flames as they get pulled through the baffle holes, and should clean up the burn.

To do this, as you can see in the pic below, I drilled seven 13/64" holes symmetrically across the air manifold. These may need to be bigger, but this seemed like a reasonable starting point. Air pulled through these holes will get dispersed some by the lip on the underside of the manifold, so it shouldn't appear as discrete tongues of flame.

I'll fire it up this evening and report the results.


----------



## precaud

The short version is, another successful mod. This is working pretty much as hoped/expected. For details, read on.

In the first fire, the only difference I saw was that the flames _seemed_ to fill the area on front of the baffle holes a little more. But nothing decisive. So for the next fire I enlarged the bleed holes up to 1/4". Now I could definitely see that there was in fact a small amount of air coming through these holes, and that flames in front of the baffle were making good use of it. Smoke emissions from the chimney were definitely improved for the first, say, 3/4 of the flame cycle, and for a good chunk of it were totally transparent, as good as the best EPA stoves I've seen. Stack thermometer is reading a good 50 degrees higher than before. All this points to more complete combustion in the secondary chamber. I've burned four loads in it like this, and these observations hold true in all of them.

If I could do it over again, I'd move the bleed holes up by 1/2" or so. That would allow the air to come out in more coherent "tongues" like we often see from secondary burn tubes. That would increase turbulence and mixing. As it is, it's like a gentle "sheet" of air that hugs the primary air chamber and "pulls" nearby flames into it.

Where this modification makes no difference is toward the end of the burn. Remember, this is a true front-to-back burner, and there is no air source in the rear of the stove at all. So once the burn gets to the point where flames are not actively rolling up into the secondary baffle, this added air is useless, and may even be counterproductive. A small amount of over-fire air at the very rear would feed those end-of-cycle flames and may be in order.

If I had to pick one spot, I think the optimum location for introducing secondary air into this stove would be a burn tube located approx. 3" behind the baffle holes. That would have the highest chance of being effective in all burn phases. But that would require preheating channels on both sides, etc. and defeat some of the benefits of this simple yet very effective heater.


----------



## begreen

Nice progress. This would make a great video if possible. 



> Smoke emissions from the chimney were definitely improved for the first, say, 3/4 of the flame cycle, and for a good chunk of it were totally *opaque*, as good as the best EPA stoves Iâ€™ve seen.



Did you mean transparent? Opaque flue emissions are not desirable.


----------



## precaud

Sorry, my bad. Mistake edited. Sometimes the mind slips into reverse while moving forward!


----------



## reality

Hi,

Sorry for my ignorance, I'm in NZ and have one of these type fires, no tiles etc just the cast iron shell.

After doing some research and finding the info on this forum I have now worked out we have been using the fire wrong, never really closing the damper puck, no wonder the fire was going through a large amount of wood, and all the heat going up the chimney.....!

Anyway, how do you clean out the secondary chamber baffle? our fire is inside which was an old open fire so access it tight, do you need to take the chimney connector off to do this? if this is the case I may need to do a lot of dismantling   or can you suck out with a vacuum at the front where the holes are?

Thanks.


----------



## begreen

Welcome reality. If you don't get a response, try posting the question again in a new thread with the question in the title. I think pulling the connector is correct, but have not run or cleaned one of these stoves.


----------



## bjkjoseph

my brother has been using his same kent tile stove since the 80's...


----------



## precaud

reality, you need to clean the chamber through the chimney connector. Vac'ing through the front holes will only clear the first inch or two.


----------



## tobydwyer

I was delighted to find your website.  I didn't know there were connisseurs of Kent wood fire stoves.  This is my second.  I have just had a 1989 tile fire installed, cost AUS$150 secondhand.  I dismantled what I could, and cleaned and painted it (stove black) where appropriate.  hit it with hammer to loosen sheets of surface rust.  I have made a beautiful tile base for it, and will shortly fit it with black (low sheen) tiles.  I will post a photo when this is done.  

When I found your site, and this forum, I had a question about the baffle.  Having read 90% of this topic, further questions arise, to do with economy and efficiency.  I'll start with the baffle:

1. This fire has a different baffle system to that which you all describe.  It is a square plate with 1" gap between the fire box sides, and is open at the front with about 2" to door.  The 4 edges of the plate hang down 1" (are bent 90 degrees), a bit like an upside down tray (probably designed to minimise slumping of the cast iron plate).  It seems to butt against the back of the fire box.  It is suspended on 4 supports welded to the fire box (2 on each side).

On the top of the plate is a "V" shaped strip of iron, 1.5" high, standing on short (0.5") legs at the 3 corners/ends.  The length of the "arms" of the "V" are about 11" each. There are 4 square holes about 3/8" square through the plate, some 3â€ apart in a square formation; similar holes on other parts of the fire box are for dome headed bolts.  Itâ€™s as though something is missing.

This fire does not have a damper on the flue.

I will try to attach a picture.  I am assuming the "V" is to create turbulence.  I don't know, however, whether I have installed it back to front, or correctly.  The plate has drooped along one side, and I am guessing this is the front.

Can anyone advise me?  Also, the drooping is about 1" at the lowest point, is this a problem?


2. I was aware that wood needs to burn with sufficient air to burn cleanly, but have always focussed on economy, that is, scarcity and cost of wood.  So I normally reduce the air flow to the lowest level to maintain hot coals and a slow burn.  Another reason I do this is that our temperatures here only fall below zero celsius about 10 days a year, and the fire is so warm that I have to shut it down.

Your discussions show that I am probably neither encouraging the secondary burn, nor minimising smoke pollution.  What to do?  Yesterday evening the temperature fell to about 5degrees C, and with the fire going I was walking round in shorts only, and my wife had all the windows open to cool the house down.

[Next day] I have observed that a single quick burn of about 5 pieces of wood (hardwood) will heat the house, and no more fuel is needed for many hours.  Maybe I have solved my own problem?


----------



## precaud

Toby, can you post a pic of the ID plate on the back of the stove? I don't think this version was ever brought to the US.


----------



## tobydwyer

Thanks precaud

I donâ€™t think youâ€™ll get much off this ID plate.  I hope my photos of the baffle, along with the sketch and description will be enough for you to comment/advise on.


----------



## precaud

Thanks Toby. That is definitely not a version that was brought into the USA. Some thoughts:

Your baffle is installed backwards. The purpose of the "V" is to stop the exhaust from going straight up the chimney, and distribute it across the whole top surface. So the point of the "V" should be toward the front of the stove, and the baffle plate should be flush with the rear.

That said, it sounds like this is too much stove for your space, and you're forced into burning it slower (and dirtier) than it should be. You can try burning smaller, hotter fires less frequently. Or consider replacing it with a smaller stove.

EDIT: I just increased the contrast of your pics so I could see details more clearly, and it doesn't look like the baffle can be reversed. You are probably going to have to live with it as it is. This is definitely a counter-intuitive geometry.


----------



## tobydwyer

thanks, i will reverse it tomorrow, can be done!   :red:


----------



## tobydwyer

I have turned the baffle around.  it now burns hotter, and sounds different, more of a roar.  the drooping of the baffle is now against the back of the fire box, giving greater room for wood, and probably forcing the entering air down the glass (and has cleaned the glass overnight), rather than partly up the flue.  the four holes mentioned in my first post are now directly below the flue - makes me wonder whether there was another plate attached to the baffle directly below the flue? thanks for your advice thus far

Toby


----------



## precaud

Sounds like it's working better now, Tony. It's quite possible there was something attached to the baffle underside. A ceramic fiber baffle board, perhaps?


----------



## Wodburner

Mr. Pyro,
I was wondering after you drilled the holes in the air manifold if that affected the air wash for the front glass on the TF?
Thanks,
Rick


----------



## precaud

Rick, I see no difference. It's a really small amount of air bleeding off through those holes. I recently made some of them a little larger.

Very cool you have two Tile Fires. I just ran into another owner last week, he bought his new and it has been his primary heat source ever since, still in beautiful shape.


----------



## Wodburner

Thanks for the reply. I bought the Nordic Bronze one new in '88. I put in back in service in '05. I found the Gray one on Craigslist in '08 and had to have it. It is in great shape too. I have been looking to buy a cabin in north Ga. and figured it would be a great addition to it.
So would you suggest me doing that modification ? Did it make that big of a difference?


----------



## precaud

Rick, yes, it made a big difference, it burns visibly cleaner and measurably hotter. But I'm not sure how to advise you on just doing the air part of the mod; that is just one of the ingredients. Raising the temps in front of the baffle is the other, which is done by insulating the firebox and especially the area right around the secondary holes.


----------



## precaud

By the way, I've made the insulation around the baffle more permanent, so it won't move around if a piece of wood bumps it.


----------



## Wodburner

After re-reading this thread again I remember something that struck me as odd when I first got my TF. Being the curious person that I am,I had to stick my head inside the firebox and look around. In the secondary mini-burn chamber just behind the holes there was a white insulation type fiber that ran all the way across the holes. I thought to myself why would this be there....it is just going to burn up. After several fires I looked up there again and it was still there....just not as white anymore. 
Well, I just looked up there again and it is gone....no telling how long it has been missing.

Was this some type of ceramic fiber aiding in the secondary burn process? Can it be replaced? Should it be replaced?


----------



## precaud

Hmmm... that sounds odd. There is not much benefit to having insulation inside the chamber, and how it got up there is a mystery too, with no way to access it for maintenance or replacement. Next time you have your chimney pipe disconnected for cleaning, I'd do a good cleanout of that chamber. If you see anything unusual. snap some pics and post them so we can see.


----------



## agartner

Precaud, I've been following your mods quite intently.  I'm curious about the strip of insulation across the bottom of the baffle.  Is the insulation buying you anything, or is it there just as an obstruction to add some turbulence to the airflow?  I'm thinking  a piece of steel angle or even curved stock (if I can find some) in the same place might garner the same effect?


----------



## precaud

agartner said:
			
		

> Precaud, I've been following your mods quite intently.  I'm curious about the strip of insulation across the bottom of the baffle.  Is the insulation buying you anything, or is it there just as an obstruction to add some turbulence to the airflow?  I'm thinking  a piece of steel angle or even curved stock (if I can find some) in the same place might garner the same effect?



Hi agartner. Yes, the insulation bought me a cappuccino this morning. You can imagine my surprise.  

Seriously, yes, both insulation and redirecting the flames forward are important. Remember, the goal was to increase the temperatures in front of the baffle holes, to make this increase happen more quickly, and then add some air into it for more complete secondary combustion. The insulation there does that. If you watch the flame pattern, you'll see alot of it hits the front 3-4" of the baffle. The steel soaks up alot of that heat. Insulating there lessens that and allows more flame to move to the front, with a little added turbulence as you noted. Then it can benefit more from the bleed air from the front holes provide.

Drilling and tapping the two mounting holes up into the baffle plate was a pain in the butt.


----------



## precaud

agartner said:
			
		

> When I got a chance, I'll snap a few pics of the sherwood, for anything, to note the differences between it an the TileFire.



Did you ever get around to snapping those pics? It would be great to have them here.


----------



## agartner

Finally got around to snapping a pic of the Kent Sherwood.  You'll notice the Kent is not nearly as ornate as the Tile Fire - it's your basic black box, no fancy tiles here, it's all about generating the heat.

You'll also notice mine is missing it's pedestal.  That was me - I took it off in order to fit it into the existing hearth.  I've also drilled out the airwash plate in a similar manner to what Precaud did earlier in this thread.  I just did it earlier this evening - I've been kind of reluctant to take power tools to a perfectly good heating appliance, but my curiosity finally got the better of me.  I think I'm glad I did...although it's not obviously noticeable, I think I can see where allowing a little "top air" in is resulting in better combustion and higher stovetop temps.






And yes, that's an EcoFan atop the box.  With the stove set back in the hearth, that fan does a great job aiding the convective currents around the stove and getting warm air into the room.


----------



## precaud

Thanks for posting the pic, Al, it looks great. I'm sure the fan helps alot in that situation. Some questions:

How many holes and what size did you drill?

I'm curious about the biobricks -  how you load them, do you load it full all the way to the back?

Is that where you normally have the air control?


----------



## agartner

Heya Precaud - 5 holes, 11/64ths I think was what I used.  Don't think I'm going to open them up any or add any more holes at this point.  Seems like I'm getting slightly better flame action on the top of the box and stovetop temps are higher than previous.

I essentially do the biobricks just like they describe on the website - biopellet.net.  Push and stack all the coals to the back of the stove, load the new bricks in the front - snugging them up against the coal mass.  My loadouts are anywhere from 4 to 11 bricks, depending on how long of a burn I want.  If I burn 4, I just stack 2 on the floor with 2 laid on top.  for 6, I do the same, but stand two more "on end" in front of the 4.  8 bricks are just two stacks of 4, and then, the "mother-load" is adding three more bricks on top of the block of 8, but these are cross-laid so the "short sides" are facing front to back, opposite of how the rest of them are.  Doing this tends to keep the bricks in place so they don't topple forward and fall off the stack during the burn, which happens a lot on the 8 brick loadouts.

And yes, that's where the air control normally is and I usually don't touch it if the stove top is at least 250-300 when I reload.  That changed from last year, with the chimney unlined, the furthest down I could bring it was about an 1/8th open, but now with the insulated liner, I can literally take the airslide down to just about a sliver.


----------



## precaud

Hey Al, thanks for the info. Yeah, I was thinking that the biobricks wouldn't need as much bleed air as the stuff I burn. The Kents may be the perfect stove for biobricks.

I'm amazed you can get a clean burn with it closed down that far. May be the differences in the fuel here too. I run mine just under half open.

I recently started loading mine like the manual says, with logs only an inch or two away from the glass, and I do see the benefit of it, especially with larger pieces. More turbulence and mixing up in front of the baffle holes. I'm still amazed how clean it burns with no secondary air system to speak of. I never would have thought it possible.


----------



## agartner

The burns are clean.  Nothing but puffy white foo-foo's off the top of the stack that just dissipate into the air.  Haven't cleaned the glass since the beginning of the burn season.  Last year, with the chimney unlined, I had to clean the glass once or twice, but with that insulated full liner, the draft on this thing could suck a golf ball through a garden hose.  No visible accumulation of creosote in the liner either that I can tell - at least right above the stove - I've used a flashlight and mirror to inspect on a few occasions - nothing but ashey greyness in the first few feet of flex.

Not too shabby for a stove that was designed, what, almost 30 years ago?


----------



## precaud

agartner said:
			
		

> Not too shabby for a stove that was designed, what, almost 30 years ago?



More than 32. They started to be imported into the US in 1980.

I would still like to know whose brainchild this was. He/she deserve some time on the pedestal. It would be fascinating to get an interview with them. Not many people have as big an influence on the direction of an industry in the way they did.


----------



## begreen

I wonder if Betty Hume is still around?

https://www.hearth.com/econtent/index.php/wiki/Kent_Tile_Fire


----------



## precaud

Dunno, but if she still lives in Portland and still has a Kent, chances are she's burning it today...


----------



## agartner

Did a bit of splunking, apparently the Kent name lives on - no mention of the original designer, but it looks as if it's still basically the same design.  

http://kent.co.nz/faqs.php?id=anytime4b1da76f238f5&question=anytime4b1da79672324


----------



## precaud

Yeah, the designer is forgotten, the corporation lives on... sigh.

The model that comes closest to the old stoves is the "Tilefire Rural":
http://kent.co.nz/products.php?section=SH&category=038&id=anytime4b28136b35434
Apparently it does not pass NZ emissions requirements and can not be used in urban areas. As you can see:
http://www.aber.co.nz/edit/uploads_products/anytime4b28136b35434b314.pdf
the internal baffle is not the same, and it uses a single secondary air tube (located just about where I wrote a while back I'd put one). The secondary air does not have a dedicated preheating channel, it draws air from the main convection channel.


----------



## begreen

I sent an email to them this morning asking for some historical info. Hope to hear back from them.


----------



## precaud

Great idea! It's summer down under so they should have plenty of time on their hands...


----------



## Wodburner

Hey Precaud, I finally got around to taking some pics of the second burn chamber in my Nordic Bronze Kent Tile Fire and look what I found. I have a baffle there and that is where the ceramic fiber is located.


----------



## Wodburner

I also have that baffle on the Gray Tile Fire. Here is a pic. Now if I could only find the blower attachment for these two I would be in business.


----------



## precaud

Very interesting, Would. So that's what the infamous stainless piece looked like... thanks for posting it! You may have the only two known to currently exist


----------



## MCPO

precaud said:
			
		

> Very interesting, Would. So that's what the infamous stainless piece looked like... thanks for posting it! You may have the only two known to currently exist



My Kent has the same baffle bolted onto the air chamber. I stuck my finger in the end and felt insulation inside.


----------



## precaud

Cool, Gio. I'm wondering if those "bolt-on's" were field retrofits, as they're different from what was described by a former user and one published paper. Those had the stainless baffle piece held in place by two stainless pieces mounted on either side in front of the baffle. Those pieces had insulation under them as well. My mods have been fashioned after that setup.


----------



## MCPO

Yeah, obviously it`s either a factory mod or dealer retrofit. I think near the end of the model cycle or import cycle since it isn`t common to all models.
 I doubt very much it was available as an "option" since it appears to have a significant impact on the burn.


----------



## precaud

Last season was the first complete heating season using the modified Tile Fire. I just did my annual chimney cleaning, so I thought I'd post an update in this thread, and compare it to what I used to get with the Quad 2100M.

Creosote cleaned from the pipe was 7.9 ounces (about 1/2 a plastic grocery bag). Wood burned in it last season was 0.95, or just under a cord.

In 2008, I burned the Quad for the whole year: https://www.hearth.com/talk/threads/annual-chimney-cleaning-results.16638/#post-16638

It also produced 1/2 a bag and 7.7 ounces, almost identical... except that was for 1.75 cords.

So the modified Kent makes a little less than twice the creosote per cord as the Quad, 8.3 vs 4.4 oz. (The Quad is rated at 2.1gm/hr emissions...)

Not bad for an old smoke dragon...


----------



## lumbajac

I've become Interested in this King found on C.L.:  http://up.craigslist.org/mat/3282727969.html  What would be a fair price for this package?  Some pics of the firebox and "puck" sent to me look good; no apparent warpage even though no firebrick.  I missed out on an Elm stove for $200 bucks recently so don't wan to miss this if a good stove.  Otherwise it's off to Menards for a $500 Vogelzang Defender, but they just seem so cheaply built!  Only looking to heat my 400 sq.ft. deer camp that is poorly insulated, but still want the best quality I can swing for around $500.

Thanks.


----------



## begreen

It looks to be in pretty good shape. That would be a nice heater if it is as good as it looks.


----------



## precaud

That's a Sherwood, radiant model. Looks like they took good care of it. A LOT of stove for 400 sq ft, I'd say! I wonder how much value they're giving to the pipe. I'm not a big fan of the air-insulated pipe. The Kents run hot in that first few feet of pipe so I'd definitely use single wall up to the ceiling connector. If you don't need the pipe, see if they'll sell without it for 350-ish.


----------



## lumbajac

precaud said:


> That's a Sherwood, radiant model. Looks like they took good care of it. A LOT of stove for 400 sq ft, I'd say! I wonder how much value they're giving to the pipe. I'm not a big fan of the air-insulated pipe. The Kents run hot in that first few feet of pipe so I'd definitely use single wall up to the ceiling connector. If you don't need the pipe, see if they'll sell without it for 350-ish.



400 sq.ft of 6"x6" stacked timbers for walls - nothing else in terms of insulation so the heat pretty much pours out of the cabin.  Plus, it's about as far north as you can get in the U.P. of Michigan so cold outside temps.  I've got a large Vogelzang boxwood stove and it can't heat the place up in the winter unless you feed it every hour or two + I'm heating from dead cold starts only on the weekends so looking for quick heat.  I'm to the point where I'd rather overheat the space so as long a burn time as possible is desired as I'd rather open a window or two as needed rather than feed the fire.

I could use the stovepipe on a future wood-fired sauna for the camp that I plan to build this summer so it would be useful.  Was thinking of offering $400 for the package since the posting is over a month old and I'd have to drive about 1 1/2 hours to get it  - take it or leave it.

Thanks.


----------



## precaud

Sounds like a plan - good luck with it.

The Sherwood certainly heats up fast, compared to anything else its size  - you'll absolutely love that!


----------



## lumbajac

precaud said:


> Sounds like a plan - good luck with it.
> 
> The Sherwood certainly heats up fast, compared to anything else its size  - you'll absolutely love that!



Thanks!  And thanks for the entire thread regarding mods - will incorporate them if I score the stove.


----------



## tlc1976

Thanks for the very interesting thread.  Am still trying to digest it all.  It might be interesting to try some mods on mine. I never really knew much about mine but I am familar with that upper chamber and how it fills up with crud.  I clean it by a piece of flat bar I bent that will get in there from the chimney area and I can pull the material out for the most part.

I always liked the looks of the Tile Fire.  At times I have thought about removing the screen from the heat shields of the Sherwood and adding bars and ceramic tiles to turn it mostly into a Tile Fire.


----------



## precaud

tic, I like your idea about the bar shaped for the cleanout. Post a pic of yours when you have a chance.

Don't know what you have, but your Sherwood will do better than a Tile Fire in a big, open room with high ceilings.


----------



## tlc1976

My stove was put in for the easiest installation and shortest pipe.  It is in probably the worst location for heating the house.  The upstairs only goes halfway, the rest is a cathedral ceiling.  Way in the back downstairs are the bedrooms.  The stove is in the far corner of the living room, which is a little low ceiling addition totally opposite the bedrooms.  There is a shelf behind the stove pipe and I have to keep a fan on HI pushing the heat out or the corner will overheat and the rest of the downstairs will stay cold.  Even with that and an additional fan, it is tough to get the heat to the back bedrooms.  But if it was in the wide open area, it would require 20+ feet of pipe which would probably need side supports and would require a scaffold to replace.  Right now it is easy because I just slide the stove to the side and remove the house pipe, then run my brush up to clean the rest of it.

I only was thinking of adding the tiles to make it look like a Tile Fire.  I haven't processed the operating differences of them yet.

I'll try to get a pic but it's really nothing fancy.  Just a piece of 1/8 x 5/8 flat bar that we often have laying around at work.  It is stiff enough to work but flexible enough to get in there.  I have wanted to do a better job.  I have actually thought of using an air nozzle to blow the crap out from the front after loosening it with the bar.  Or making a small flexible attachment so the shop vac can get in there.


----------



## Deuceman927

I realize this thread hasn't been touched in a few months.  I'm a rank beginner and I just purchased a house with 2 wood stoves and a fireplace.  One of the stoves is the Kent Sherwood.   I cleaned it up and got it lit (with some help from an eagle scout friend of mine).  It started up ok, but I found with the door closed, there seems to be some smoke leakage from the front where the air intake is.  In checking the chimney, there is some white smoke coming out.  Have any of you had problems like this? The cover for the front air intake is loose and can be removed quite easily.  Not sure if there is some adjustment I should make, etc.   Any of your input is greatly appreciated.


----------



## tlc1976

#1 make sure the chimney is clean if you haven't done so already.

If the inside and outside temps are similar you might have a tough time getting an updraft started and the smoke will come out the front.  It doesn't happen to me too much but it does happen.  In which case I try to get some heat going to create an updraft as fast as possible with newspaper, cardboard, etc.  Also if the wind is blowing hard enough in the right direction and the fire is not going strong I will get a puff of smoke too.  Not much you can do besides burn hotter (which is a better idea anyway whenever you can because it burns a lot cleaner).  Whenever possible, I find it much better to burn a small fire wide open rather than choke down a big fire.

Yes the little cover over the air intake is just a loose slip fit.  No biggie.


----------



## tagboy

precaud said:


> First, a few technical details not mentioned in the manual that should be useful for understanding. maintaining, and troubleshooting a Tile Fire/Sherwood.
> 
> ..........
> 
> Tom Oyen gave good instructions on checking the damper control rod in this thread:
> https://www.hearth.com/econtent/index.php/forums/viewthread/65588/#748929
> .............
> The next two pics show the bypass damper in open and closed positions. Yours should be able to move between these two positions easily. The steel plate serves as a stop for the damper in full open position. The damper "puck" floats on the baffle surface and on the control rod end (i.e. it is not attached to the rod) so it should accommodate a reasonable amount of warpage of the chamber bottom.
> 
> .............
> I first used a plastic kitchen spatula to scoop the ash into the firebox below. While doing so, I unknowingly pushed some of the ash between the damper "puck" and the steel plate. I then tried operating the damper control rod, and it was binding toward the full open position. Odd, since it wasn't binding before I cleaned. So I vacuumed out the area behind the puck, and then it operated smoothly again. So if yours is binding, clean out this area in front of the plate before you pronounce your baffle warped.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  This old thread and pictures were a great help to me with my Kent Tile Stove. As mentioned in these threads, my damper rod was binding with a hot stove. In my case the plate does appear to be warped. The puck is able to float over the warp but not the puck pin. With the damper closed I was able to prop the puck up off the end of the pin (rod)  and from inside the stove, grind the pin slightly shorter. This has solved the binding rod problem (so far).


----------



## precaud

I haven't been in the forum much lately, I hope everyone here is well. It's really nice having stoves that are sized right and a pleasure to use. I never thought I'd say it, but new stove lust has all but disappeared. (Although, if anyone wants to offer a TwinFire to me at a great price, said lust could be rekindled quickly  )  I thought I'd post my annual report on creosote production after cleaning the chimneys.

I don't have weight on the Nestor Martin's creosote because the residue falls right into the fire chamber while brushing (very convenient...), but I didn't see any quantitative difference from prior years. It continues to be an excellent, trouble-free, enjoyable, clean-burning stove.

The Kent, however, was much worse this year .Last October I reported 7.9 oz for .95 cord burned for 2011-2012. Just now I weighed 16.5 oz for .75 cord burned for 2012-2013. That's almost 2.4x the creosote production per volume of wood used. The increase was easily visible in the chimney pipe - 2' above the stove, the i.d. of the pipe was easily an inch smaller because of it. So what caused this? Several things.

1. Last winter was a bit warmer than prior years, so I ran the stove less often and less hot.
2. Burning more "single-load" fires. As I get better at managing the production of the passive solar heaters, the stove ends up being used for fewer long burns. And most creosote is produced while the stove is warming up.
3. Burning high-pitch pinon for a couple weeks. Last fall I was invited to take some free wood that had been sitting in a pile for 10+ years. As I cut and split it, I could see that what kept it rot-free was it's higher pitch content. Some pinons are like that, especially near the base of the tree. And I could see that this stuff definitely didn't burn as cleanly, and was hard to control. Despite seeing the signs to stop, I ignored them - it was free wood and I was intent on using it! That was a stupid mistake on my part. 
4. In the never-ending quest for increased efficiency, I tried running the Kent leaner last season, reducing the air control to lengthen the burn and lower the output. On a stove with no secondary air source, that too was a mistake.

Other than that, the Tile Fire continues to be a near-perfect heater for the main floor, a joy to use and an excellent convector.

Adjustments this year: No pitchy logs in the pile. And I sized the wood a bit larger than last year to slow down the burn. And it remains to be seen what this winter will bring temp-wise, but the signs suggest that it will be longer, colder, and wetter than normal. I'm seeing it already and that's what I've prepared for.

Happy burning!


----------



## Woody Stover

Nice to hear from you, precaud! 

From what I've seen on the BTU charts, that Pinon is some really high-test fuel. I guess the pitch contributes to that. I'd imagine that the species you have to pick from a somewhat more limited than what we have here in the central states. My Sis and BIL live in Socorro and I saw a good number of trees there, around the Rio Grande. I wasn't a wood nut last time I was there, so didn't ID 'em. Next time.... As far as I know, they burn a good amount of Pine; Don't know if they get much Pinion or not.
Glad the stoves are working out well; It's nice to hear about some less well-known stoves, and how they run.


----------



## precaud

Thanks Woody, I hope all is well with you. Yes, pinon on average has a higher pitch content than most pines. I burn mostly pinon but the stuff I was describing is really more like fatwood. It was a rookie mistake to burn it!  

I would guess that species growing along a river in Socorro would be SIberian Elms, cottonwoods, and the like... nice looking trees but not what you'd want to burn if you had other choices...

I just noticed this thread has over 12,800 views... wow! I guess there's a lot more interest in the Kents than normal post topics on this site would suggest...


----------



## Woody Stover

precaud said:


> 12,800 views... wow! I guess there's a lot more interest in the Kents than normal post topics on this site would suggest...


The name 'Kent Tile Fire' mystifies and intrigues....all are compelled to click on it in an effort to find out more.


----------



## aqua

precaud said:


> Thanks Woody, I hope all is well with you. Yes, pinon on average has a higher pitch content than most pines. I burn mostly pinon but the stuff I was describing is really more like fatwood. It was a rookie mistake to burn it!
> 
> I would guess that species growing along a river in Socorro would be SIberian Elms, cottonwoods, and the like... nice looking trees but not what you'd want to burn if you had other choices...
> 
> I just noticed this thread has over 12,800 views... wow! I guess there's a lot more interest in the Kents than normal post topics on this site would suggest...


Hi, Ive been following this thread for awhile. I too own an example of the lost tribe of Kent. I have been burning this stove for 20 years. At first I hated it as it was a dirty burner and not very stylish with its base. About 12 years ago I took some steps to change our relationship and they worked. I lined the inside with full sized fire white fire brick from a glass kiln. Next I drilled another 1/2# hole into the air intake. The brick made the stove so hot that the previously always dirty glass cleaned right up and the heat out the front is impressive. The extra air helped to clean up the smoke during the initial warm up burn. I also burn sappy pine and the extra air really helps to burn the excess black smoke. Was it my mods(totally worth it) or just age that has caused my baffle plate to warp and crack? Maybe both. Funny thing is that with a very broken baffle the stove burns cleaner than it ever has, but seems to be using more wood. I found another Kent in the garbage of our local woostove store and am getting it ready for a trade off as it is in good shape. I am going fire brick it and drill the holes in the airwash shield. I might leave the intake stock this time. My question is do you think that adding some steel round bars on the bottom of the baffle plate(for strength against warpage) would mess with the flow of smoke in a negative way? Also on the front edge of the baffle do you believe that I need insulation or could a simple defector work?


----------



## precaud

aqua, it sounds like your reasoning has led you in similar directions as mine. I'm puzzled on the extra intake air hole, and wondering about your chimney. Do you have good, strong draft?

Sorry to hear about the baffle warping. The steel bars on the bottom wouldn't be a biggy for "smoke flow", but they would likely warp unless welded in place. The insulator across the first 4.5" of the baffle has less to do with directing the smoke and more to do with insulating that area to keep temps high in the region where the bleed air is introduced. A deflector won't do that.


----------



## aqua

precaud said:


> aqua, it sounds like your reasoning has led you in similar directions as mine. I'm puzzled on the extra intake air hole, and wondering about your chimney. Do you have good, strong draft?
> 
> Sorry to hear about the baffle warping. The steel bars on the bottom wouldn't be a biggy for "smoke flow", but they would likely warp unless welded in place. The insulator across the first 4.5" of the baffle has less to do with directing the smoke and more to do with insulating that area to keep temps high in the region where the bleed air is introduced. A deflector won't do that.


The bars I spoke of would be welded. The extra air intake was added with the thought that more air would make a faster burn on initial start up=less smoke. My other stove is a Fisher and has a lot more intake volume and less start up smoke. Since I added the bricks and the air hole at the same time I am not sure if it made a big difference. The hole is drilled right in the center of the intake slider and is only open under full throttle, and closed at about 3/4 open on the slider. I can say for sure that it boosts the fire. What I cant say for sure is if the boost overheats the stove and warped the baffle or if the new intensity of the much smaller and hotter bricked box did it. My stove came with the add on front baffle insulator other posters have shown. It looked like a cheesy add on and was promptly ripped off in my foolish earlier days.(not to be confused with foolish present days) Sorry if I overlooked but what was the material you used for your  insulator? Do you feel that is durable? Would a piece of thin fire brick work or would that be more reflective than insulating?     My chimney is 17 ft. triple wall and draws well.    I was getting ready to trash this stove and buy a new EPA clone when I decided to do a search and found this thread, justifying my earlier mods and adding more. I now look at this stove more fondly, loving that window and still hating the base.     thanks for posting your work


----------



## aqua

aqua said:


> The bars I spoke of would be welded. The extra air intake was added with the thought that more air would make a faster burn on initial start up=less smoke. My other stove is a Fisher and has a lot more intake volume and less start up smoke. Since I added the bricks and the air hole at the same time I am not sure if it made a big difference. The hole is drilled right in the center of the intake slider and is only open under full throttle, and closed at about 3/4 open on the slider. I can say for sure that it boosts the fire. What I cant say for sure is if the boost overheats the stove and warped the baffle or if the new intensity of the much smaller and hotter bricked box did it. My stove came with the add on front baffle insulator other posters have shown. It looked like a cheesy add on and was promptly ripped off in my foolish earlier days.(not to be confused with foolish present days) Sorry if I overlooked but what was the material you used for your  insulator? Do you feel that is durable? Would a piece of thin fire brick work or would that be more reflective than insulating?     My chimney is 17 ft. triple wall and draws well.    I was getting ready to trash this stove and buy a new EPA clone when I decided to do a search and found this thread, justifying my earlier mods and adding more. I now look at this stove more fondly, loving that window and still hating the base.     thanks for posting your work


 Ok after cleaning and looking at the stove for a good part of the day, I have more questions. What do you think about locating the air wash bleed holes up higher? It would be possible to drill them through the rectangular intake ports. In your opinion would there be any advantage to having them up higher and closer to the baffle holes? I also found the front baffle add on piece that I tore off, complete with insulation. Looking at more modern stoves I have seen some with fire brick instead of steel for baffle material. What do you think of insulating the whole underside of the plate with Kaowool or thin sliced brick? I really dont want the new stove to warp. It seems to me if it were insulated the steel wouldnt get hot enough to burn off the gasses. Is my thinking off? I always assumed the burn off was happening above the plate in the secondary chamber.But if it is burning off the gasses in the fire box then brick lining the plate would make sense????? I used full 2 1/2"  bricks on the sides and bottom,with split bricks for the back wall. As I said before the box is smaller and the heat is intense. Intense enough to be the probable cause of the warped baffle plate. I would sacrifice some more space if bricks on top would reflect more heat, burn more unburnt gasses and stop the warp. Whatcha think? I have tools and a fresh stove laying in the shop and am willing to consider any ideas you might have and didnt do  to your own.


----------



## precaud

As I wrote when I did mine, I think the holes could maybe be 1/2" or so higher but not more than that.

It's great you found the original add-on piece. I think your warpage was caused by insulating the sides of the firebox too much. So much heat concentrated in a smaller area, the only places for it to go are out the front door and up into the baffle. Try splitting the side bricks into half thickness to gain back the lost firebox volume and it will radiate more heat out the sides as well.

I thought a lot about insulating the bottom of the baffle, but decided against it. IMO, it would change the operating nature of the stove drastically. The consequence of adding more insulation is increased rate of gasification of the wood load. The air system of the stove is not sophisticated enough to handle it, let alone control it. There's no air in the back of the firebox. Insulated on the bottom and sides with splits, the stove still retains its well-balanced character. Read the post early on where I used the Quadrafire stove to mimic the firing and air conditions of the Kent.

Tweaking a firebox is a balancing act.

If you watch the stove burn, you'll see the flames are always licking up against the front 4"-5" of the baffle. That's where you want the insulation. Until the steel becomes super-heated, flame in contact with steel will always kill the flame. The whole point of the mods is to move those flames forward, in front of the baffle holes, which is insulated and where the bleed air is waiting for them. It's a pre-arranged collision of all the ingredients needed.

Have fun and keep us posted.


----------



## precaud

Here's an interesting tidbit, a Kent advertisement from a Feb 27, 1983 Sydney, Australia newspaper:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...51WAAAAIBAJ&sjid=BucDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4050,8529954


----------



## Kent Tile Fire Newbie

Precaud...I cannot thank you enough for this wealth of information!  I myself just got a Kent Tile Fire and had it installed today!  I am gathering the necessary materials to modify it as you specified in this thread.  One question comes to mind though that was not addressed.  Should I put the logs on a fireplace grate, or should I just put them directly on the bottom fire bricks?  I should be burning my first load this weekend if all goes well.

Thanks and have a happy Thanksgiving!

- Phil


----------



## begreen

Logs directly on the firebrick. No grate should be used.


----------



## precaud

Thanks Phil. Congrats on your stove, and I'm glad you found the info useful. I'm hoping to put together a video showing the mods in better detail, will post a link if/when I get it done.

If you haven't already, you might want to download the operating manual:
https://www.hearth.com/images/uploads/kentmansm.pdf

Page 3 says "Do not use a grate or elevate fire. Build fire directly on hearth."

Something to pay particular attention to, especially if you burn hardwoods, is from a separate booklet titled "Knowing your Kent Woodstove" (published later than the manual), under the section "Normal Operations after Fire is Established":

"Place logs close to the front of the stove (about an inch or two away from the glass)."

In many respects, this has the same effect as elevating the fire a bit, because it burns away the hot coals under the logs quickly, and "under-fire air" tends to accelerate the burn.

Enjoy your Tile Fire!


----------



## Kent Tile Fire Newbie

Wow...the operating manual  Awesome and thank you again!  Any idea where to find the "Knowing your Kent Woodstove" booklet you mentioned?


----------



## precaud

No, I don't. It mostly duplicates the manual. One other piece of relevant operational advice in it has to do with the setting of the air control:

"5. Set air slide for desired heat output. The lowest setting recommended for conditions when wood is not completely charred, is near midpoint of slide."

That's what I find as well. During the flaming part of the cycle, the air control on mine is 1/2 to 2/3 open.


----------



## dougand3

Thanks for all your knowledge and experience, precaud. Great ad from 1983. I put a Kent Tile Fire in my relative's house. I love the stove - easy to run and long burn times. Here it is on this Thanksgiving morning
	

		
			
		

		
	




	

		
			
		

		
	
 .


----------



## precaud

That's an interesting install, doug.


----------



## dougand3

Yes, precaud...relatives wanted an insert but didn't want to pay for one. I bartered for Tile Fire. So, a freestander in masonry FP/chimney with insulated liner. IT draws well at just 14' height. Would be so much better out in the room but with our temperate climate (even this past week - teens for lows), it does an admiral job keeping heat pump off.


----------



## begreen

doug Is there a damper sealing,  block-off plate in the chimney?


----------



## dougand3

Yes, BG...I made fitted sheet metal block off plate with 2 layers of ceramic blanket insulation overlying plate. Roxul would have been thicker and MAYBE better. Also put 2 ceramic blanket layers at top chimney plate.


----------



## begreen

Sounds like you are set and on the path to a beautiful friendship. Enjoy that stove.It's a legend.


----------



## Kent Tile Fire Newbie

Just gave my KTF a thorough pre-ignition cleaning and noticed that I have a metal cover bolted to my baffle.  Sandwiched between the cover and the bottom of the baffle is some type of white fluffy insulation.  I believe this is the spot where precaud installed 1" Kaowool M Board, and I purchased some as well not knowing the insulation was present.  So...can someone please comment if they think the cover/insulation will suffice for the purpose of creating double swirl flow or should I remove those pieces and replace with the Kaowool I purchased?  Thanks!


----------



## dougand3

Here's a homemade blower for the Kent Tile Fire. I like to adapt what's lying around. Built lots of computers over the years. You have many 120mm fans left over when power supplies blow. 5 of those in a sheet metal bracket - L brackets attach to lower rear shroud of Kent Tile Fire. 1 amp 12vDC adapter powers. Air flow is the same as convection currents. The verdict - air flow is maybe 25% more than the strong convection currents. Not worth it. LOL. 
If anyone with a Tile Fire wants to play with it - pay for shipping and you can have it. PM me.


----------



## Exmark

I am new to the forum,  Thanks to all  who have shared the  great advice.

Have what appears to be an early model KTF.   Always good stove.  My parents did some research when they bought it...  

Learning the fine points of loading and which settings give longer burn and such,  while  discussing the stove with Dad.  Two points of interest.

 He said they  were advised to put sand in the bottom to increase the longevity.   Now after reading this I think I am going to find a different insulator

Second,  my dad said they wished they always had purchased the original optional fan.   He even had the original sales brochure.  Fan is mentioned,  no part numbers  or pictures of the fan though.

Anyone that could possibly share a photo or specifications on one ?


----------



## Wodburner

Here is a website for Kent. Really good website they have. It gives the history of Kent and other cool info.There are part #'s for all the new and old stoves. Look under " Information Downloads". My KTF is going strong. Temps here in GA have gone below 0 with wind chill. I just found a different website that sells some spare parts for Kent. Check it out.

"I don't always  burn wood, but when I do.... I use a Kent. Stay warm my Friends"

Welcome to a Warm Home - Wood Fires | Gas Fires | Heat Pump Space Heaters

http://www.direct2you.co.nz/147-kent-spare-parts


----------



## russb

Great thread, great forum. Based on the reviews here, I'm going to (hopefully, assuming it passes my inspection) pick up a Kent TF on Thursday. $200 with some pipe and as much wood as I can load into my 2004 Silverado 2500HD (sadly, six foot bed only).


----------



## Wodburner

russb said:


> Great thread, great forum. Based on the reviews here, I'm going to (hopefully, assuming it passes my inspection) pick up a Kent TF on Thursday. $200 with some pipe and as much wood as I can load into my 2004 Silverado 2500HD (sadly, six foot bed only).


If you get it post some pics....good luck


----------



## russb

I'm actually now questioning whether it's actually a Tile Fire. I don't have it, and this was the only pic in the advertisement. Can anyone positively identify which Kent this stove is?


----------



## Wodburner

That is a KTF alright....a Nordic Bronze one in fact.


----------



## Wodburner

Here are a couple pics of mine.


----------



## begreen

Why the Magic Heat? The stove is already fairly efficient.


----------



## Wodburner

It just makes it that much more efficient....I have a lot of space to heat and Magic Heat helps greatly.


----------



## begreen

How often are you clean it? How often for the chimney?


----------



## Wodburner

Every two years...no chimney....single wall to triple wall pipe.


----------



## Exmark

Load the Kent as a copilot and build some sides.  LOL  you  will have to make sure the tire pressure is up to snuff...

I brought a load of oak home.  Had to go slow.   Forgot to add some air to the tires, with  AL  rims and  winter.   My normal  55 PSI  turned into  32  real fast...

I read the baffle is a great modification.  Does it need to be stainless ?  Or just that just increase life of the material ? I saw one pic with no metal, just  brick ?  Could not determine what the fastener was though...      I wonder if that baffle is more beneficial than any other insulation...

Been spending lots of time with the Kent  with this remarkably warm weather....

I experienced diminished draft, so I cleaned the chimney and what a pain to clean the secondary chamber.  I will have to see if there is an easier way.  Single wall to a triple wall at the ceiling.  Is there an easy way to remove the single wall ?   

I used  compressed air and a vacuum.  There was so much "dust" or ash  in the secondary chamber...  Makes me wonder if the guy we hired actually cleaned it ??

Nice draft now.  No more smoke  while  loading....


----------



## russb

Exmark said:


> Load the Kent as a copilot and build some sides.  LOL  you  will have to make sure the tire pressure is up to snuff...



I got the stove this morning. Most of the wood was pine, which I grabbed anyway because I can mix it in or just burn it in the outside fire pit. Damper puck worked fine, and the baffles weren't warped as far as I could tell. Once I unload it after work or tomorrow I'll take a closer look and maybe some pics. 

Got some stove pipe and chimney pipe as well. Now I need to think about the install. Time to call the local sweep and get an estimate, before deciding whether to tackle it myself.


----------



## dougand3

russb said:


> Most of the wood was pine, which I grabbed anyway because I can mix it in or just burn it in the outside fire pit.



Good deal getting a Kent Tile Fire. Now, if you Cut/Split/Stack the pine for ~ 1 year, it will burn great in the Tile Fire. I put 3-4 splits of 6-8" size and get 8 hours of usable heat with a great coal bed for re-load.


----------



## russb

Here's the Kent I picked up (those are my tiles, I was just playing with it), and pics of the damper and baffle. Probably poor quality, just posting for anyone interested, since this forum seems to like pics. Again, for a data point, I got it for $200 with a truckload of wood (mostly pine), and some stovepipe and triple wall chimney pipe, with cap. After I finish a couple more projects on the house, I'll get to the install. Local chimney guy coming to chat with me this afternoon about my 100+ year old brick chimneys. 

Hopefully there'll be some cold weather left in NJ by the time I install it!

Edited to add: You can see I have nothing bolted to the baffle. Also, there's no firebrick at all in this thing! I plan to run it with the minimum amount of tampering, at least at first, but I will get some firebrick in there.


----------



## Wodburner

Not Bad for $ 200.00. I bought my KTF new and it did not come with fire bricks in it and I have never added any....and do not plan on adding any either.


----------



## russb

Wodburner said:


> Not Bad for $ 200.00. I bought my KTF new and it did not come with fire bricks in it and I have never added any....and do not plan on adding any either.



Interesting. Do you leave an ash layer in the bottom? I think the manual recommended that, I assume for some extra insulation?


----------



## Wodburner

Yes, I do leave a covering of ash in the bottom. Do you have to extra cover on the back of the stove ? It is the plate ( more like a heat shield ) that has the serial # and build date on it ?


----------



## russb

Wodburner said:


> Yes, I do leave a covering of ash in the bottom. Do you have to extra cover on the back of the stove ? It is the plate ( more like a heat shield ) that has the serial # and build date on it ?



Yep, it has the heat shield with the serial number and manufacture date, etc.


----------



## aqua

precaud said:


> As I wrote when I did mine, I think the holes could maybe be 1/2" or so higher but not more than that.
> 
> It's great you found the original add-on piece. I think your warpage was caused by insulating the sides of the firebox too much. So much heat concentrated in a smaller area, the only places for it to go are out the front door and up into the baffle. Try splitting the side bricks into half thickness to gain back the lost firebox volume and it will radiate more heat out the sides as well.
> 
> I thought a lot about insulating the bottom of the baffle, but decided against it. IMO, it would change the operating nature of the stove drastically. The consequence of adding more insulation is increased rate of gasification of the wood load. The air system of the stove is not sophisticated enough to handle it, let alone control it. There's no air in the back of the firebox. Insulated on the bottom and sides with splits, the stove still retains its well-balanced character. Read the post early on where I used the Quadrafire stove to mimic the firing and air conditions of the Kent.
> 
> Tweaking a firebox is a balancing act.
> 
> If you watch the stove burn, you'll see the flames are always licking up against the front 4"-5" of the baffle. That's where you want the insulation. Until the steel becomes super-heated, flame in contact with steel will always kill the flame. The whole point of the mods is to move those flames forward, in front of the baffle holes, which is insulated and where the bleed air is waiting for them. It's a pre-arranged collision of all the ingredients needed.
> 
> Have fun and keep us posted.


----------



## aqua

Quick pics of my old and over fired stove. Then some of the new old stove. The old stove burned very clean as it had top bottom and side air due to almost every seam being cracked. New old stove received the holes in the air wash, split brick throughout, including the bottom of the baffle. The are held in place by angle iron and can be moved for and aft or just removed easily.


----------



## aqua

aqua said:


> Quick pics of my old and over fired stove. Then some of the new old stove. The old stove burned very clean as it had top bottom and side air due to almost every seam being cracked. New old stove received the holes in the air wash, split brick throughout, including the bottom of the baffle. The are held in place by angle iron and can be moved for and aft or just removed easily.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 123643
> View attachment 123644
> View attachment 123645


You can see I also made a retainer for the bottom of the bricks to keep them in place. I used the lightweight white brick on the sides and the heavy brick from ace hardware on the back wall, bottom, and top as it is less fragile and those are the areas most likely to get hit when loading. Maybe of some interest is the Oregon test cert.(pic).      Installed and running. Oh so well mannered! Stove burns clean, after warmup and uses way less wood with very even heat.  Me happy     I am having trouble uploading the pics I will try again in a new post


----------



## russb

Waiting for my newly ordered Insulflex Magnaflex 30' chimney liner kit (ordered from theheatelement, member here, and recommend contacting him if you need a liner) to get here so I can install my Kent Tile Fire.

The entrance to the chimney, where I'll run my stove pipe to, is really low. Once I have the Kent up on a hearth pad (probably just the width of a brick like the manual requires, I think I'll pretty much need to connect a 90 degree elbow, have a short horizontal run (<20"), then into the chimney liner. How does the Kent draft? Once in the chimney it's 27' straight up, so I'm hopeful this setup won't be too terrible. Any thoughts?

Also, about the hearth pad. The manual lists asbestos and brick. I basically need a really cheap, quick solution until I get a chance/the funds to build a nice brick hearth pad that does our 150 year old house justice. Maybe just cement board on the floor and a layer of brick on top? Or cement board and sheet metal? This stove doesn't seem to need much, judging by the manual.

Edited to add: I have some left over porcelain tile around, can I just use a layer of cement board and tile to start with? The manual really only lists 3/8" asbestos and 2 1/4" brick as hearth material.

"The Tile Fire must be installed with the floor protected by a UL listed Floor Protector of 3/8" Asbestos Mill Board or 2 1/4" Masonry Brick. The floor protector must extend at least 16" in fornt of, and at least 5 7/16" to either side of the appliance."


----------



## russb

Any Kent owners out there? Can this thing really sit on one layer of brick like the manual and rear of the stove say? If so I can then do the calculation and figure out how much durock i need before the tile layer to match the R or K value of the brick.

Also, I have a Tile Fire C.H. model, for the record, per the plate on the back of the stove. According to this old thread (https://www.hearth.com/talk/threads/kent-tile-fire-model-question.5437/), it seems it's a rarity.

Edited to add: Just found this resource--http://www.hearth.com/econtent/index.php/articles/hearth_design

So I can extrapolate that I only need a pad with an R Value of 0.45, since that's the R value for 2 1/4" thick brick.


----------



## Wodburner

I actually bought a tile hearth from a stove store. It is 1 1/2 inches thick and does very well....never smelled anything burning or smoldering.


----------



## aqua

If you are building to code then you will of course have to look up codes for your area. If you are talking plain common sense safety, then a brick base would be plenty. I would grout the bricks so there are no cracks. My stove is fire bricked on the inside and there for a bit more insulated than a stock stove, but with the factory base and a fire 24/7 for weeks on end, it only gets warm enough to make it a cat sleeping area,or a good place to slowly dry your wet boots. My base is a layer of 3/4" sheetrock followed by durarock then 1/2" of clay tile. Side clearances are another thing....I am only talking bases.


----------



## russb

My setup will have no combustibles anywhere near the sides. Following manufacturer recommendations for the rear clearance, plus a little (but not much).

Think I'll just use a plywood layer, two layers of 1/2" Durock NextGen (think these are R=0.39 per layer), and then my porcelain tile. That might leave me with enough vertical space to put the stove legs (leveling bolts) on tile scraps and allow a bit of an air gap. That's dictated by the height of the wall thimble. I unfortunately need to use a 90 degree elbow right form the stove to go into my chimney liner. I'll (also unfortunately) need to cut away part of the wood mantle, since it will be dangerously close to the stove pipe where it goes through the wall.


----------



## russb

Burning in my Kent TF now. Since I started so late in the season and had nothing split, my wood isn't well seasoned, but once I have enough hot coals it's burning fine. I have some good dry pine that I'm using to get it hot. The rest of my wood is oak, which was from a tree that's been down for over a year (maybe two years) and cut into rounds for several months, but it had been sitting on the ground under the snow. I'll just need to keep an eye on the flue with the way I'm burning. I've had no problems drafting, even though I have a 90 degree elbow coming from the stove with about 20-24 inches of horizontal run after that before it turns up the chimney (which is 27' of insulated flexible liner--what a bear to install--went with pre-insulated Magnaflex liner, good stuff).

I went with a layer of 5/8" OSB, two layers of 1/2" Durock NextGen, and a layer of tile for the hearth pad, which is more in R-value (almost 0.8) than a course of brick would have been (0.45 if I remember right). Just added a couple inches to all the clearances suggested in the manual. I also had to tear down the wall around where the stove pipe passes into the chimney (via an old terracotta crock) since the lathe was mortared to the crock! Glad I did a little exploration before burning. There's one stud about 8" from the stove pipe, but with the wall opened up I can feel that it hardly gets warm to the touch while I'm burning. Not to code, but safe nonetheless. My living room is now ugly, but warm, since I also had to tear down the wood mantle. Oh well, plan to build a brick mantle/hearth for next year. And burn seasoned wood. I have access to a bunch of oak that's been down for over a year. If I cut it in the Spring I should be good to go for next year.

one issue with the stove: my damper rod does bind a bit near the full open position. Not sure why, but I saw some discussion of this in other threads, with a conclusion that if the top plate has begun to warp the stove's on its way out. I was just curious as to the explanation of this. So what if it binds a little bit? I can still get it moving just fine.

Here's the thread:
https://www.hearth.com/talk/threads/mal-functioningkent-tile-fire-damper.59631/

I'll try to get a pic of the stove burning in here soon. It's not a looker how as I have it set up, but I was focused on speed and economy. It's me and my fire versus the oil company now.


----------



## golddustsilver

Wodburner said:


> Here is a website for Kent. Really good website they have. It gives the history of Kent and other cool info.There are part #'s for all the new and old stoves. Look under " Information Downloads". My KTF is going strong. Temps here in GA have gone below 0 with wind chill. I just found a different website that sells some spare parts for Kent. Check it out.
> 
> "I don't always  burn wood, but when I do.... I use a Kent. Stay warm my Friends"
> 
> Welcome to a Warm Home - Wood Fires | Gas Fires | Heat Pump Space Heaters
> 
> http://www.direct2you.co.nz/147-kent-spare-parts



Hello,
   I have a Kent woodburner that looks a lot like the one pictured in this post. We are actually looking to get rid of it and in doing some research online I found your post. You seem to be well informed. I am wondering if you know if there is still a market for these? Should I try to sell it? I have no idea for how much? We have never used it since living in this house...probably 8 years. I think it is from the 80's, and we didn't install it. t is in our dining room and not a place where we really hang out much. We have a fireplace in our living room. I am going to transform the room into a children's play area. Anyway....should I call a contractor to uninstall? Or are there special people who do this? I am a little clueless on this. Any help you can give would be much appreciated. Thanks!


----------



## russb

golddustsilver said:


> Hello,
> I have a Kent woodburner that looks a lot like the one pictured in this post. We are actually looking to get rid of it and in doing some research online I found your post. You seem to be well informed. I am wondering if you know if there is still a market for these? Should I try to sell it? I have no idea for how much? We have never used it since living in this house...probably 8 years. I think it is from the 80's, and we didn't install it. t is in our dining room and not a place where we really hang out much. We have a fireplace in our living room. I am going to transform the room into a children's play area. Anyway....should I call a contractor to uninstall? Or are there special people who do this? I am a little clueless on this. Any help you can give would be much appreciated. Thanks!




Hopefully you'll get the reply you're looking for, but here is some sales data. I bought mine for $200 a month ago. I saw another for sale on CL in ME for $350. Another, I think in CT, for $225.  Then again, I saw a post on here about these stoves being illegal to install in OR unless there's an EPA sticker on it somewhere. So that might dampen the market. Then again, I know some people who would still install it regardless of the regs (looks nervously around, puts hands in pocket, meanders away).

Why not put it in your living room?


----------



## dougand3

golddustsilver said:


> Hello,
> I have a Kent woodburner that looks a lot like the one pictured in this post. We are actually looking to get rid of it and in doing some research online I found your post. You seem to be well informed. I am wondering if you know if there is still a market for these? Should I try to sell it? I have no idea for how much?



Here is some more info:
http://pasurvivalprods.tripod.com/kent.html

I'd think you could get $250, if OR law doesn't prohibit. I'd buy it if I still lived off the Sunset Hwy in Rock Creek.


----------



## golddustsilver

russb said:


> Hopefully you'll get the reply you're looking for, but here is some sales data. I bought mine for $200 a month ago. I saw another for sale on CL in ME for $350. Another, I think in CT, for $225.  Then again, I saw a post on here about these stoves being illegal to install in OR unless there's an EPA sticker on it somewhere. So that might dampen the market. Then again, I know some people who would still install it regardless of the regs (looks nervously around, puts hands in pocket, meanders away).
> 
> Why not put it in your living room?



Thanks for the reply and information! I also read something abut the EPA sticker in OR which I don't believe we have. We already have a built in fireplace in our living room. We do have a  downstairs finished basement area that may work. Not sure how safe it would be to have in the basement, although we did just install an egress window down there so it may be to code.


----------



## golddustsilver

dougand3 said:


> Here is some more info:
> http://pasurvivalprods.tripod.com/kent.html
> 
> I'd think you could get $250, if OR law doesn't prohibit. I'd buy it if I still lived off the Sunset Hwy in Rock Creek.



Thank you, very helpful. Sorry you moved away, unless you like it better where you live now. : )


----------



## Kent Tile Fire Newbie

golddustsilver said:


> Thanks for the reply and information! I also read something abut the EPA sticker in OR which I don't believe we have. We already have a built in fireplace in our living room. We do have a  downstairs finished basement area that may work. Not sure how safe it would be to have in the basement, although we did just install an egress window down there so it may be to code.


 
My KTF is installed in my basement, and it makes a very real difference in the upstairs temperature while burning, not to mention the added bonus of a warm basement when doing laundry or working in my workshop.  I cut some vents in floor, and the heat rises right up.  Definitely recommend looking into a basement installation!


----------



## russb

Finally uploading a picture of my Kent TF in action. I might have the most aesthetically pleasing setup of anyone. Next year I hope to have a nice hearth/mantle and slightly more seasoned wood.


----------



## jumby181

wow, lots of good info. i'll make this as brief as i can. early 80's my sister and her husband built a log cabin, jim barna kit. she researched and ended up getting a kent tile fire. they liked it so much that when friends of theirs was looking for a wood stove for a parents lake house they also got a kent tile fire. fast forward about 20 years and the one in my sisters house finally wore out. it was all they used to heat the cabin since the day it was built. when she went to get a new one found out the company had gone out of business due to a longshoreman strike in nz which meant they couldn't export their stoves and their biggest market was here in the us(as best i recall). so she got another stove. a few years ago i finally got tired of my heat pump running all winter long and started looking into a wood stove. as it turned out the one in the friends lake house was available and over the years had barely ever been used. took me a while to get it installed but last fall i did. my house is now warm and my heat pump hasn't run all winter. but i have a question...

any idea what may cause the air vent slide to bind? i can only get it half closed at best and if it really gets heated up it frequently jams and i have to smack it with a log to get it to move. any help appreciated and i am going to do my best to read all of this information and comprehend it!

EDIT - thanks to pictures on here(jpeg9.jpg specifically) i took the cover off the air vent and with the help of a large-ish flat tip bent the guides out slightly and now my vent has full travel.

will be getting some pics to add soon too. it looks like mine already has a baffle installed at the top front of the box just below the mix plate that precaud had added as a mod to his. found it interesting that mine already has one. will be looking into drilling the plate/baffle deflecting fresh air from the vent but want to be more certain of what i am doing first. thank you precaud for all the information and pictures


----------



## precaud

Greetings, fellow Kent burners! I trust everyone is well and ready for the coming winter. They're forecasting colder and wetter than normal conditions for this part of the US this winter. So even though my wood consumption has been going down steadily (only 7/10 cord in the Tile Fire last season), I've prepped a bit more firewood than usual this year. If the sun isn't shining, the solar heaters won't be producing, and the woodstove will have to make up the difference. Better to be safe than sorry.

Last year I reported that, in the prior season, the modified Kent had generated much more creosote than normal, and I guessed that one cause was burning some old pitchy pine that had been given to me. So last year I culled out all of the pitchy stuff from the pile, and the results are in. For 0.7 cords burned, creosote was 4.7 ounces. That's a huge improvement over the 16.5 oz for .75 cord burned in the prior season. So the Kent does not like the pitchy wood, which makes sense, since it does not have any secondary air feed. Keep the pitchy stuff out of the stove and it will reward you with very clean burns, almost as good as the Quad was (4.7 / .7 = 6.7 gm/cord versus 7.7 / 1.75 = 4.4 gm/cord for the Quad 2100).

The Nestor Martin X33 continues to perform well and be problem-free and a pleasure to use. So all is well in woodstove land down here. Looking forward to first fire sometime in the next few weeks.

Cheers.


----------



## begreen

Welcome back precaud!


----------



## BrotherBart

The Land of Enchantment is back!


----------



## precaud

Hi BG and BB, it's nice to see you guys are keeping things straight in the forums. We must be getting old, we haven't changed woodstoves in a few years... sigh..


----------



## begreen

Getting old?! That was the fun part, we *be* old now.


----------



## Woody Stover

I may be getting a new stove soon; I'll be closely following the beta tests of the Woodstock 211. I believe that to stay young, you've gotta keep mind and body active....and keep buying stoves.


----------



## begreen

We stay active. Picked and pressed over 500lbs of apples a couple weeks ago and last weekend helped pick 2.5 tons of grapes + pressing them. Drinking that nectar may not keep me young, but it sure makes retirement more pleasant.


----------



## Woody Stover

begreen said:


> We stay active. Picked and pressed over 500lbs of apples a couple weeks ago and last weekend helped pick 2.5 tons of grapes + pressing them. Drinking that nectar may not keep me young, but it sure makes retirement more pleasant.


If you tote them back a hundred pounds at a time, that's a good workout.  And I think grape juice (or wine??) contains resveratrol...you'll be a teenager again before you know it. 
Normally, I'd feel bad about the threadjack but I think by now, he's probably gone until next year.


----------



## precaud

Woody Stover said:


> I may be getting a new stove soon; I'll be closely following the beta tests of the Woodstock 211. I believe that to stay young, you've gotta keep mind and body active....and keep buying stoves.


Looks like your TF is already gone, you've removed it from your sig...


----------



## Woody Stover

That must be another member you're thinking of; I've never had the pleasure of running one....or other exotic stoves.


----------



## precaud

Isn't the first time I've been confused! But _exotic_? Kents surely aren't. Really, no stove is once a few fires have been burned in them. They're all dirty beasts at that point.


----------



## begreen

We've had a couple new (old) tile fires show up over the summer. Unfortunately one recently looked like it was ready to be put out to pasture. It was a later model where they used custom refractory on the interior sides and arched baffle.


----------



## precaud

Well that sorta answers a wondering I had some time ago about the later TF's that had the refractory interior and arched baffle. They allegedly burned cleaner (passed Phase 1 EPA) but would the internals be fragile over time? Apparently, the answer is yes...


----------



## Kent Tile Fire Newbie

Precaud & Elders of Wood Stoves - What do you suggest to correct downdraft issues in a chimney?

I had a bit of a miserable first burn season last year.  Prior to last year's initial firing, I had a new stainless steel liner and cap installed by a local chimney company.  Every time I fired the KTF, my entire basement filled with smoke until the fire got hot enough to overcome the downdraft and create updraft.  I used mostly biobricks, and I didn't get much longer than 2-3 hours burn time before I had to completely reload the stove.  I experimented with different positions on the air slide, and adjusting the knob did not seem to lengthen my burn times.  If I positioned the knob below half open, it seemed to choke the fire out and the bricks didn't burn completely.

After this year's chimney cleaning (which by the way had very minimal creosote), I disconnected the wood stove piping to install a magic heat unit.  With the piping disconnected, I could feel a good breeze blowing in.  I caulked shut the alumnimum clean out door on the exterior bottom of my chimney to prevent any air penetration from it.  Now the only opening to outside air is the chimney cap.  Is it possible that my chimney cap is the cause of this downdraft?

I looked into a draft inducing fan, but that's $1200 plus installation.  There has to be another remedy.  Anything you can suggest would be greatly appreciated.  Thanks...newbies like myself greatly appreciate the wisdom shared in this blog.


----------



## dougand3

KTF - you'll get more responses starting a thread like "Poor chimney draft in basement install"


----------



## begreen

Agreed. Sounds like negative pressure. It deserves its own thread. Can you copy and paste  this question into a new thread?


----------



## Kent Tile Fire Newbie

Thanks begreen!  Good call!  There was a topic on here already dedicated to poor drafting and negative pressure.  A forum member suggested opening windows for at least 15 min to equalize pressure before lighting.  I did just that, and no smoky downdraft!  Enjoying my first fire of the season tonight.  Happy burning everyone!


----------



## KathyGibbs

hi, y'all.  We have a Kent Tile fire we bought in New Hampshire in 1985.  But with several Army moves, we have lost a couple of parts, namely the two 'grates' on top that go around the exhaust pipe (if that's what you call it) and the support rails for the tiles on one side.  ANY idea where I could get these parts? I tried emailing the company, but was told they won't ship outside of New Zealand.  Does anyone know of anybody selling parts of old Kent Tile Fire stoves? It works fine, and we'd eventually like to sell it, so alternatively, if any one wants one in really good condition, but lacking those parts, PLEASE DO NOT HESITATE TO CONTACT US!!  Or if there is a better part of the forum to post this on, please advise.  thanks.
P.S. the stove is the type seen on my avatar picture.


----------



## precaud

I'm glad you liked the pic of my stove enough to use it for your avatar... (cough)...


----------



## Woody Stover

precaud said:


> I'm glad you liked the pic of my stove enough to use it for your avatar... (cough)...


 Hey, what's that fancy, modern unit in your avatar _now??_


----------



## precaud

Woody Stover said:


> Hey, what's that fancy, modern unit in your avatar _now??_



It's progress, Woody... progress ! No question, there is jealousy between them... so I keep them separated - one upstairs, one down - to keep them under control.


----------



## KathyGibbs

precaud said:


> I'm glad you liked the pic of my stove enough to use it for your avatar... (cough)...


Seriously? It's a pic I pulled off the internet prior to even coming to this site since it looks exactly like our stove.  Didn't mean to tread on your toes, and I'll change it if you wish, but I just need some info/parts.  Can you assist?


----------



## precaud

KathyGibbs said:


> Seriously? It's a pic I pulled off the internet prior to even coming to this site since it looks exactly like our stove.  Didn't mean to tread on your toes, and I'll change it if you wish, but I just need some info/parts.  Can you assist?



Yes, seriously. Look at the pic in the very first post of this thread and you'll see where it came from. No worries, you can use it if you like it. Just send me a share of the royalties.  
Sorry, I can't help with Tile Fire parts. You might have to buy a retired TF that has been burned out to get the parts you need. I don't understand how, but some folks seem to be able to warp the baffle on theirs. I run all my stoves hot (its almost impossible not to burning pinon pine) and have never burned out or warped anything.


----------



## KathyGibbs

Ah, royalties.  yes, of course.  So far, though, the amount of royalties is zilch.  I will, however, keep you informed should any come in.  ;-)


----------



## precaud

Greatly appreciated, thank you.


----------



## Emm

Hi, I have seen the Kent heater you installed it looks amazing. I have just purchased a second hand kent wood heater very similar to the one you posted. I am struggling to find a installation manual, how far the flue from the wall, our house is not brick so we need to ensure it is installed to specific installation rewuirements. Do have an electronic or a photos of a pictured manual?


----------



## precaud

Emm said:


> Do have an electronic or a photos of a pictured manual?



https://www.hearth.com/talk/wiki/kent-tile-fire/


----------



## j00fek

hi, its been a bit but i got my classic kent back going in camp.

i need to replace my door + window gasket but im stumped on the sizes to get.

anyone have suggestions?

thanks


----------



## Jan Pijpelink

I think it is 3/4" flat. Just looked at my Kent.


----------



## precaud

And here we are at the beginning of another heating season. I hope everyone is well and staying warm. I just finished chimney and heater maintenance and thought I'd make my annual check-in.

Last year NOAA had predicted a colder-and-wetter-than-normal winter for us, and it didn't pan out that way. Wood used in the Kent was pretty much the same as the prior year, about 3/4 of a cord. Looking down the chimney before cleaning, it didn't look bad at all. But creosote weight was way up - 11 oz. is more than double last year's 4.7 oz. But the volume was nearly halved. Much less fluffy stuff.

How to explain this? The only thing I can think of is, more 1-load fires from a cold start were burned. More moisture in the system before it completely warms up condenses the particulates more densely on the walls of the chimney. Got a better theory?

The X33 is still a joy to use and a keeper for life.

This year, NOAA is once again predicting much colder and wetter conditions here, due to the monster El Nino. Early evidence is that they are right this time. We have been in the path of every storm from the Pacific west of Mexico, and getting 3 times our normal average precip. It's going to be an "interesting" winter.

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/predictions/multi_season/13_seasonal_outlooks/color/page2.gif


----------



## begreen

Welcome back precaud. Sounds like sunny New Mexico isn't. In the meantime we had record sunshine way up north. That was until last week. Now the fog and rains begin here too.


----------



## precaud

Hi BG, hope all's well your way.  LOL, yeah, Sunny NM isn't,  maybe I should edit my location 

Looks like El Nino is going to have the opposite impact for your area, warmer and maybe a bit drier. Should make your winter prep easier.

I recently had a warm reminder of your description of the Zircar insulation board that I used in my stove experiments. Member "Nola Mike" recently bought the remaining whole sheet of RS-1200 I had leftover from those experiments, along with a couple other items to tweak out his F602. No longer will my stoves be the only ones with "gold-plated innards".   Hopefully he'll post his results.


----------



## precaud

First significant snow of the season today. Just posted a video of a nice, lazy burn of only two splits in the Tile Fire.


----------



## Peter Herrmann

precaud said:


> First significant snow of the season today. Just posted a video of a nice, lazy burn of only two splits in the Tile Fire.




Wow, I can't believe I missed this thread when I first got my tile fire from a friend 3 years ago.  I was wondering about the tiles on the sides. Mine did not come with any tiles, so I just used ceramic tiles. When you started this thread you said the tiles weigh 30lbs??  If that's the case I'm thinking the tiles on the sides are special thick tile? If so, anyone know what I could use, because then I've been using the wrong tiles this whole time.. Thanks for any info!


----------



## Peter Herrmann

Wodburner said:


> Here is a website for Kent. Really good website they have. It gives the history of Kent and other cool info.There are part #'s for all the new and old stoves. Look under " Information Downloads". My KTF is going strong. Temps here in GA have gone below 0 with wind chill. I just found a different website that sells some spare parts for Kent. Check it out.
> 
> "I don't always  burn wood, but when I do.... I use a Kent. Stay warm my Friends"
> 
> Welcome to a Warm Home - Wood Fires | Gas Fires | Heat Pump Space Heaters
> 
> http://www.direct2you.co.nz/147-kent-spare-parts



Hey Woodturner, I picked up a Tile Fire from a friend a few years ago, I love it. I clicked on the link to that website, seems they don't have any of the old parts any more? My stove did not come with tiles, are the tiles just regular ceramic tiles, or are they made for wood stoves? Thanks for any info!  Pete


----------



## precaud

Peter Herrmann said:


> Wow, I can't believe I missed this thread when I first got my tile fire from a friend 3 years ago.  I was wondering about the tiles on the sides. Mine did not come with any tiles, so I just used ceramic tiles. When you started this thread you said the tiles weigh 30lbs??  If that's the case I'm thinking the tiles on the sides are special thick tile? If so, anyone know what I could use, because then I've been using the wrong tiles this whole time.. Thanks for any info!



Peter, as long as your tile are the right size, you're good to go. Any contribution from their heat storage is minimal.


----------



## Peter Herrmann

precaud said:


> Peter, as long as your tile are the right size, you're good to go. Any contribution from their heat storage is minimal.




Great, thanks for the info. I'm thinking maybe after this season I'll try some of the modifications you've done.  I really love the stove.


----------



## TIDE-HSV

precaud said:


> Peter, as long as your tile are the right size, you're good to go. Any contribution from their heat storage is minimal.


We found the same. We purchased crimson and white to replace the originals.  I wondered if you could elaborate on your recommendation for single wall flue to the roof. We bought our TF in 1986 and originally had single wall all the way up to the cap. When that started to get thin, we replaced it with stainless double wall, which was supposed to last longer. The first thing we noticed was a dramatic drop in heat from the stove. Well, the SS flue did really last a bit longer, but it's now hard to clean, particularly at the transition at the roof line, so we're going to replace it. Any advice appreciated.

Another issue, which I thought deserved another paragraph. In the almost 30 years we've had the stove, about three times, I've had the section of flue above the roof (double wall) clog with creosote extraordinarily quickly. Each time, there has been a cold snap. I cleaned the flue around two weeks ago and the draft started suffering after a cold spell, when the temps got down to about 12F here on our mountaintop, cold, but not nearly as cold as it can become. We are burning a mix of very dry wood and some not as cured as I would like. It is not green. It came from a pignut hickory which had been dead on the stump for about 1 1/2 years. However, I only cut and split it about four months ago. It rings and produces no bubbles on the ends while burning. However, when I went up to clean, the flue top, down to the roof line was completely clogged. The flue was clear below the clog.


----------



## Don L

Thank you for this forum. We live is Maine and bought our first Kent stove in 1984. Our son is still using that stove. He is the one that showed me we need to vacuum the ash at the top of the stove. We bought our Tile Fire in 1986 and still use it to stay warm here where it can get cold. I just love to watch the fire. We have had zero problems with these stoves.


----------



## Huntindog1

TIDE-HSV said:


> We found the same. We purchased crimson and white to replace the originals.  I wondered if you could elaborate on your recommendation for single wall flue to the roof. We bought our TF in 1986 and originally had single wall all the way up to the cap. When that started to get thin, we replaced it with stainless double wall, which was supposed to last longer. The first thing we noticed was a dramatic drop in heat from the stove. Well, the SS flue did really last a bit longer, but it's now hard to clean, particularly at the transition at the roof line, so we're going to replace it. Any advice appreciated.
> 
> Another issue, which I thought deserved another paragraph. In the almost 30 years we've had the stove, about three times, I've had the section of flue above the roof (double wall) clog with creosote extraordinarily quickly. Each time, there has been a cold snap. I cleaned the flue around two weeks ago and the draft started suffering after a cold spell, when the temps got down to about 12F here on our mountaintop, cold, but not nearly as cold as it can become. We are burning a mix of very dry wood and some not as cured as I would like. It is not green. It came from a pignut hickory which had been dead on the stump for about 1 1/2 years. However, I only cut and split it about four months ago. It rings and produces no bubbles on the ends while burning. However, when I went up to clean, the flue top, down to the roof line was completely clogged. The flue was clear below the clog.



You can buy a moisture meter at Lowes for around $30. to test your fire wood. Split the wood one more time for a test and check the inside surface.
20% or less is ideal.


----------



## Kiwi Firemaster

Just a possibility for those in possession of, or contemplating, a Kent Tile Fire or Sherwood. IMO they are a well build fire that will last a long time, and they do make an excellent candidate to update to modern technology with an IntensiFire. 

But there are a few details to know if contemplating this. The internal damper has to be cut out, which generally requires oxy-acetylene. I have done one without removing the stove, the heat from cutting draws all the fumes up stack. The damper in the flue has to go also, and the hole where it fits through the outlet blocked off. 





I know that the IntensiFire will make a stove work at around 83% efficiency, and these old kents are likely below 50%. So a great performance boost for an old stove, and I there are many happy converts in New Zealand.


----------



## CorkThigh

Our beloved Tile Fire happened to be pictured in a recent article in the New Zealand Herald. Children are pictured preparing a meal on the firebox due to power outages. It looks like an early '80s model – still cooking!


----------



## TIDE-HSV

I have an early 80s Kent Tile, unmodified. Once thing we have learned over the years is not to overstuff it. Last night, I made that mistake. My wood varies from around 12% (front of woodshed) to around 20% in the back. I rank it according to when I split it and what it measured in moisture content. We have had a much-delayed heating season here in the southeast and we've relied on our gas logs for AM heat. Last night, I overstuffed, using the heavier, damper wood from the back of the woodshed and was awakened by the smell of smoke. As it usually does when overstuffed, it was burning in the back. I raked the considerable remaining amount of wood forward and observed. I noticed there were flames licking around the intake to the baffle, something not seen before. After a couple of minutes, there was a small explosion and smoke blew out around the door, which has a brand new gasket. The flames around the baffle intake then went away. Anyone else experience this? Also, is there a chance the modification would prevent it? TIA...


----------



## bshapton

We bought a home 28 years ago and it came with a Kent Tile Fire. It has served us well over the years but is not heating well any more. The bottom plate of the upper chamber is now badly warped (downward) both at the front below the series of holes and below the flue shut off plate. Is this stove now scrap? Or can it be repaired? If replacement is in order what equivalent stove would be recommended?
Thanks!


----------



## Sharpinv

We bought a house 25 years ago with a Kent Tile Fire that we have enjoyed to the point where we are going to take it with us to another house - in fact I may be buried with this stove!  I've done a lot of things wrong over the years (apparently), the damper as always been very difficult to move (vice grips to open, hammer to close), so I have burned 25 years of fires with the damper fully open and then just close it seasonally.  After poking around on this site I gather either it is warped or full of ash.  So what is the downside of burning with the damper fully open?  Loss of efficiency?   Also, did not even realize there is a secondary chamber so obviously have never cleaned that out.  Since we are moving it would it be insane to just rinse all the ash out after we take it out of the house (as opposed to vacuuming) with a pressure washer?  Last - the black enamel finish doesn't fit in the new local - can it be repainted with some of the heat paint available?  I've painted woodstoves but they were more of a matte gunmetal type of finish so took paint - no idea if the baked on enamel can be painted.     

So I've had this stove for half my life and have really enjoyed it, but now that I'm moving it would love to get some advice from some of you superusers!  Thanks!


----------



## Jan Pijpelink

Sharpinv said:


> We bought a house 25 years ago with a Kent Tile Fire that we have enjoyed to the point where we are going to take it with us to another house - in fact I may be buried with this stove!  I've done a lot of things wrong over the years (apparently), the damper as always been very difficult to move (vice grips to open, hammer to close), so I have burned 25 years of fires with the damper fully open and then just close it seasonally.  After poking around on this site I gather either it is warped or full of ash.  So what is the downside of burning with the damper fully open?  Loss of efficiency?   Also, did not even realize there is a secondary chamber so obviously have never cleaned that out.  Since we are moving it would it be insane to just rinse all the ash out after we take it out of the house (as opposed to vacuuming) with a pressure washer?  Last - the black enamel finish doesn't fit in the new local - can it be repainted with some of the heat paint available?  I've painted woodstoves but they were more of a matte gunmetal type of finish so took paint - no idea if the baked on enamel can be painted.
> 
> So I've had this stove for half my life and have really enjoyed it, but now that I'm moving it would love to get some advice from some of you superusers!  Thanks!


Member precaud https://www.hearth.com/talk/members/precaud.482/ is a Kent expert. We have one too and we love it.  But I am far from an expert.
I lubricate the damper rod with graphite powder every 2 years or so. The best way to clean the interior and the 2nd chamber is when you sweep the liner, remove the stove from its location (disconnect the liner) so you have access for vacuum the entire stove.  It is not that heavy.


----------



## begreen

Sharpinv said:


> We bought a house 25 years ago with a Kent Tile Fire that we have enjoyed to the point where we are going to take it with us to another house - in fact I may be buried with this stove!  I've done a lot of things wrong over the years (apparently), the damper as always been very difficult to move (vice grips to open, hammer to close), so I have burned 25 years of fires with the damper fully open and then just close it seasonally.  After poking around on this site I gather either it is warped or full of ash.  So what is the downside of burning with the damper fully open?  Loss of efficiency?   Also, did not even realize there is a secondary chamber so obviously have never cleaned that out.  Since we are moving it would it be insane to just rinse all the ash out after we take it out of the house (as opposed to vacuuming) with a pressure washer?  Last - the black enamel finish doesn't fit in the new local - can it be repainted with some of the heat paint available?  I've painted woodstoves but they were more of a matte gunmetal type of finish so took paint - no idea if the baked on enamel can be painted.
> 
> So I've had this stove for half my life and have really enjoyed it, but now that I'm moving it would love to get some advice from some of you superusers!  Thanks!



Start a new thread on what you want in the new stove and provide some details on what you are heating, budget, style, etc..


----------



## bshapton

bshapton said:


> We bought a home 28 years ago and it came with a Kent Tile Fire. It has served us well over the years but is not heating well any more. The bottom plate of the upper chamber is now badly warped (downward) both at the front below the series of holes and below the flue shut off plate. Is this stove now scrap? Or can it be repaired? If replacement is in order what equivalent stove would be recommended?
> Thanks!



Here's a pic of the situation. If I were to cut away the warped portions would I be able to replace just those sections (front half behind plate with holes and rear half with flue hole), or should I try to replace the whole plate - including small holes at front, large flue hole, and internal baffle plate (not at all sure how I would be able to weld the internal baffle plate in place). It also appears that the internal baffle has prevented that part of the firebox roof from warping so may be best to leave it there and just weld new plates fore and aft of it? I would probably try to incorporate a narrow downward sloping lip just below the rows of holes to try to direct flame and forestall future warpage, similarly a reinforcing ring around the flue hole.?


----------



## Sharpinv

Jan Pijpelink said:


> Member precaud https://www.hearth.com/talk/members/precaud.482/ is a Kent expert. We have one too and we love it.  But I am far from an expert.
> I lubricate the damper rod with graphite powder every 2 years or so. The best way to clean the interior and the 2nd chamber is when you sweep the liner, remove the stove from its location (disconnect the liner) so you have access for vacuum the entire stove.  It is not that heavy.


Thanks!  So you just take the grill off the stove top and sprinkle graphite powder on the visible part of the rod?


----------



## Sharpinv

Jan Pijpelink said:


> Member precaud https://www.hearth.com/talk/members/precaud.482/ is a Kent expert. We have one too and we love it.  But I am far from an expert.
> I lubricate the damper rod with graphite powder every 2 years or so. The best way to clean the interior and the 2nd chamber is when you sweep the liner, remove the stove from its location (disconnect the liner) so you have access for vacuum the entire stove.  It is not that heavy.


Also, I see multiple references to vacuuming out this secondary chamber - anytime I've tried to use a shop vac to vacuum out ash, most of it comes out the back end of the shop vac!  I just use a grain (short) shovel to empty ash from the primary chamber but don't know how any of you can vacuum ash without either ruining the vacuum or filling your room with ash dust.  I was in the direct path of Mt. St. Helens ash fallout in 1980 and the only way we could contain it was to get it wet which is why I'm considering that when we pull the stove.  Thanks!


----------



## Jan Pijpelink

Sharpinv said:


> Thanks!  So you just take the grill off the stove top and sprinkle graphite powder on the visible part of the rod?


That is what I do. Rub it on a bit.


----------



## tlc1976

Sharpinv said:


> Also, I see multiple references to vacuuming out this secondary chamber - anytime I've tried to use a shop vac to vacuum out ash, most of it comes out the back end of the shop vac!  I just use a grain (short) shovel to empty ash from the primary chamber but don't know how any of you can vacuum ash without either ruining the vacuum or filling your room with ash dust.  I was in the direct path of Mt. St. Helens ash fallout in 1980 and the only way we could contain it was to get it wet which is why I'm considering that when we pull the stove.  Thanks!



Use a fine dust filter or bag in your shop vac.  Sometimes they say for drywall dust.  A hepa filter/bag will work too.


----------



## Lusher

Hi moved into old farm house .I think this may be a Kent but not sure?It also has 2 controls a slider on left side and a handle in middle can someone explain the function for these there are no markings on it ..any information would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## tlc1976

Lusher said:


> View attachment 260561
> 
> Hi moved into old farm house .I think this may be a Kent but not sure?It also has 2 controls a slider on left side and a handle in middle can someone explain the function for these there are no markings on it ..any information would be greatly appreciated.



Not sure but the door and door sill looks like my old Sherwood. The lever on the left is probably the air intake control. The rod in the middle probably moves a plate over the flue. Pull the rod out to start the stove. Once it’s going close the door and push the rod back in to send the exhaust through a chamber on top of the stove. The top burn chamber should have a bunch of holes in a plate on the inside roof of the stove.


----------



## Lusher

tlc1976 said:


> Not sure but the door and door sill looks like my old Sherwood. The lever on the left is probably the air intake control. The rod in the middle probably moves a plate over the flue. Pull the rod out to start the stove. Once it’s going close the door and push the rod back in to send the exhaust through a chamber on top of the stove. The top burn chamber should have a bunch of holes in a plate on the inside roof of the stove.


Thankyou very much


tlc1976 said:


> Not sure but the door and door sill looks like my old Sherwood. The lever on the left is probably the air intake control. The rod in the middle probably moves a plate over the flue. Pull the rod out to start the stove. Once it’s going close the door and push the rod back in to send the exhaust through a chamber on top of the stove. The top burn chamber should have a bunch of holes in a plate on the inside roof of the stove.


Thankyou
So air intake controls the air flow so by adjusting it to lesson the air flow will slow down how quickly the wood burns?
It has no markings left on it so do you know if slide to right is that more or less?


----------



## Jan Pijpelink

Lusher said:


> Thankyou very much
> 
> Thankyou
> So air intake controls the air flow so by adjusting it to lesson the air flow will slow down how quickly the wood burns?
> It has no markings left on it so do you know if slide to right is that more or less?


I had a Kent Tile Fire. The air intake lever; to the left less air, to the right more air. When adjusting it, watch the flames and you know exactly what and how.


----------



## tlc1976

Lusher said:


> Thankyou very much
> 
> Thankyou
> So air intake controls the air flow so by adjusting it to lesson the air flow will slow down how quickly the wood burns?
> It has no markings left on it so do you know if slide to right is that more or less?



Don’t know which way is which but you’ll figure it out when you build your first fire. If you’re not familiar with burning wood then please take some advice from forum members before you do so.

I would start your own thread on this. Others may be able to better identify your stove and give good advice.


----------



## Tinymoose

Hi,
After many hours this morning I have determined that I have an old Kent TileFire, I think from around 1980. I've had the house for around 4 years, and have used the fire to varying amounts for about three winters. I had the fire checked when I bought the house, someone came out to see if it meets the current standards for my state (Western Australia). This winter I've felt like it has been using a lot more wood.

This morning I noticed that the ceiling on the wood burning area looked really bad. I think I've now worked out that this is the baffle, and I'm pretty sure mine is, well, destroyed. The plate that should have nice holes in has missing pieces at the bottom of the holes, and the plate is dropped. Looking very much like teeth and gaping jaw from a Stephen King novel..

From reading it appears that the baffle in the TF is welded in, and isn't a simple replacement job. I have a sad, sad feeling that my fire may just be at the end of its life, but I wanted to try a last ditch hopeful query.

I've attached two photos, one is from the OP and is what I think I should be seeing,the second is what I am actually seeing. Apologies for photo clarity, the fire is on and quite scalding. I suspect, now that I've actually read up on fires, that I've been overburning, and probably using logs too long for the TF.

1) is my TF cactus and I need to replace it?

2) Any suggestions for a similar fire for replacement? This thing is a beast and without any type of fan or anything it heats my rather large home.

3) How likely is it that I destroyed my poor baby? Any chance of making me feel better and saying that damage isn't so likely to be from just me? The house was built in 1980, I used the fire in 2017, 2018, and this year. This year has definitely had more wood go through it than any previous year.

Thank you for any help. Bonus thank you's for emathatetic replies that don't make me feel like a fire destroying monster


----------



## Abuelo

Greetings Everyone,

Well, I've read the entire forum twice, circling back multiple times to revisit the spicier sections (Yeah, baby!).  That this forum on Kent Stoves began on Christmas Day, 2010, and marched forward with diligence nearly ten years, is prima facie evidence of the magnificent design and construction of the Kent Stove.  All hail the Kiwi genius whose design birthed a legend (whoever he/she was).

First of all, my heartfelt thanks to each and every stover who posted pretty much real time narratives and photos of their Kent.  This long, retrospective look over the shoulder is SO helpful!

My short history with Kent:  Installed a brand new Kent Sherwood in a new active/passive solar home in the DFW Metroplex in 1987.  That soldier performed flawlessly until we sold the home 28 years later.  (Still going strong, as far as I know.)  We burned mainly live oak and red oak, with some pecan and chinese pistache as well.  All well seasoned.  Nice, clean hardwood.  The flue was triple wall, going straight up 37 feet. 

What I am about to write is going to bounce the chin of every stove owner in the world off the floor.  But, under penalties of perjury, I affirm that every word is true.  After moving into the house and using the stove every winter, we did not clean the chimney for 12 years.  Right, ten plus two.  And when the flue WAS cleaned, the sweep dropped a pitiful cone of dust onto the floor of the stove that surmounted perhaps four inches.

To say that the Kent burns clean, properly operated and fueled, is a world class understatement.  

Fast forward to 2020.  We built a new active/passive solar home on the western petticoat of the Sangre de Cristos.  I call it Solar 2.0 -- all the lessons of the first house were incorporated into the second design.  (Kinda like Supermarine's Spitfire Mark II vs. the original aircraft.)

Anyway, my stove guy removed a pretty sweet 1984 Sherwood from a local house when he upgraded their stove.  We both thought it would be ideal for the shop.  A couple of weeks ago I started to break it down and rebuild it.  That's when I spotted the crack in the forward edge of the afterburner plate (see the avatar photo).  And, if you look closely, you can see moderate, linear cracks in the plate just forward of the bypass port in the back of the stove.

In future posts I will describe:  (1) repairs to the extant cracks, and (2) design solutions to address the inchoate failures (i.e., weakest points) of the Kent design.  So, stay tuned....

Your lagniappe for reading to the end of the post:  a super mega effective way to clean the afterburner chamber.
1.  Seal a shop vac hose into the flue opening with plastic bag, duct tape, cable ties, etc.
2.  Inject compressed air (we be loving 120 psi) into MULTIPLE holes in the forward polka dots of the afterburner chamber.  Extra love to the holes near the sides -- straight shot to the anteroom.  
Pro Tip:  An Oneida Dust Deputy inline will scavenge 99 percent of the schmutz before it clogs the shop vac filter.

Peace, ya'll.


----------



## tacarlso

"At 6pm this evening I relit from coals from a medium-size load started at 8pm last nite. That's 22 hours." (precaud, Jan 19, 2011).

This is rather impressive, but I am not getting the same results.  Can someone explain how this is possible?


----------



## aroshtr

I also wanted to thank all the previous members efforts on this thread and keeping the Kents alive. Especially to Precaud for sharing his mods.

I recently purchased a Sherwood from 1984. It needed a little love, and I picked it up for $150. It had a small crack in the heat exchanger near the damper, but definitely worth fixing. (don't judge my welding, as I am an amateur with crappy equipment, but tried to make do) I added a few firebricks to better insulate the firebox. I also tried a makeshift dam like others have used. I simply used some firebricks and scrap steel. It's not what I would consider permanent, but will work for now. I also drilled 7 holes in the airwash plate to allow more direct air into the upper part of the firebox. A little cleaning and paint, and she is ready for my work shop.

Mostly wanted to share that  this post and forum are still doing good for the new guys and made me knowledgeable, and comfortable saving an old Kent.


----------



## Nick Thylacine

Hi 
So glad to have come across this website.
I‘ve got a Kent, installed in our house in 1980. Has done a Stirling job for the past 42 years but is now looking a little tired. The baffle plate has rusted through and needs some serious attention. I looked into replacing it with a new wood heater but upon reflection and through reading the blogs I’ve decided to fix the problem myself. It’s winter here in the Antipodes and the old thing is still functioning and throwing out prodigious amounts of heat so I’ll keep it going until the weather warms up. I’ll install a new flue and take the heater into the workshop and dismantle as much as I can. Looks like I’ll have to attack it with the gas axe and fabricate and install a new plate. While I’m at it I’ll raise the pedestal so I don’t have to bend down so far to load it with wood. Will keep you posted on progress, any advice will be well received.
Buying new pants with seriously long pockets seems to have helped.
Cheers Nick


----------

