Epa to smoke dragon conversion
- Thread starter Dunmyermowingllc
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil.
I will keep updated as we start to burn more. If it's a failure I will gladly share that with pics. Good news is they are a perfect fit so easy in and easy out
I like to tinker, I think I can do better than us stove co. This stove has proved itself so bad I'm factory form there is nothing to lose by experimenting
@bholler I admit defeat on the baffle idea. We are doing a small fire tonight and with my genius mower blade baffles alot of heat was going up the chimney. Original baffle back in. Gonna buy another cut to fit ceramic fiber board to put on top and extend forward a bit to slow it down more. Still dead set on the "smoke dragon" conversion for now. There is no air to secondary tubes and she's running nice and steady. A much more controllable burn I have a feeling I will get some long long burntimes like this but time will tell when the cold weather comes.
![[Hearth.com] Epa to smoke dragon conversion](https://www.hearth.com/talk/data/attachments/315/315440-a1338f4dddf118fca1b4b2d62af0450b.jpg?hash=v-WKLivI-z "[Hearth.com] Epa to smoke dragon conversion")
This has been a very interesting saga to follow. I remember reading through the first thread as it was playing out. Curious to see how it’ll run this time around
No secondary air at all? I wonder if letting a little in would help with a little more efficiency and cleaner burn? I know the EPA doesn’t care about efficiency or burn times they just want to see a clean burn. I think many manufactures know this and just dump more air into the stove to achieve the EPA requirements. They tune the stoves to run on a 15’ chimney in ideal weather conditions. There’s just too many variables for every setup so I can see where some stoves will not act as advertised. If people had more control over primary and secondary air into their stoves they could fine tune it better to work on their own chimney. Blaze King has a thermostat to control air, PE has an EBT to control secondary air and a few other manufacturers are tweaking secondary air as well.
I’ve been watching a guy over in the UK on YouTube testing Euro stoves and they all are non cats and seem to have way better control than what I see over here. Usually the baffles are slanted upwards with no secondary air tubes underneath. The secondary air seems to come from holes in the rear of the fire box. When he turns the air down there is an immediate slow down to a nice lazy flame. These stoves probably have better secondary control? Maybe they burn a little dirtier than ours over here but I bet the efficiency is similar.
That control over the flame is extremely impressive. I also found it a little funny how he said it was a large stove where over here it would be considered tiny. I wonder what the clearance requirements are on it as it’s only a few inches off everything with no hearth pad or protection.
EbS-P
Minister of Fire
See what others have done here. Secondary combustion I think is always a good thing of you can keep the correct primary/secondary air ratio correct. In my tinkering with a stove that has only primary air control a damper or three was the only way to keep the ratio correct.
DIY turbulator anyone?
So I’m considering a DIY turbulator. What is it? See Jotuls diagram #73. It’s a structure that increases turbulence above the baffle to increase heat transfer to the stove top. Why? I’m trying to dial in a self diagnosed over drafting insert. It has a damper but I’m still not convinced...
www.hearth.com
Yeah that stoves is really dialed in! Seems like most of the stoves he’s tested are like that. Those slow lazy flames are hard to come by on most non cats I see but I’ve seen them often in cat stoves. The cat also acts as damper or restricts the flow from the firebox. I think he’s good on clearances, he has a how to video on his hearth.
brenndatomu
Minister of Fire
Nope...you need the fuel (woodgas), the heat, and the oxygen (preferably superheated) take one away and you just get smoke.
That's why the baffle and tubes design works so well, it puts all 3 in the right place at the right time.
On your stove you just need to tweak how much secondary air there is...and on your particular stove, maybe how much primary/etc too...
EbS-P
Minister of Fire
And this thread.See what others have done here. Secondary combustion I think is always a good thing of you can keep the correct primary/secondary air ratio correct. In my tinkering with a stove that has only primary air control a damper or three was the only way to keep the ratio correct.
DIY turbulator anyone?
So I’m considering a DIY turbulator. What is it? See Jotuls diagram #73. It’s a structure that increases turbulence above the baffle to increase heat transfer to the stove top. Why? I’m trying to dial in a self diagnosed over drafting insert. It has a damper but I’m still not convinced...
Dialing in the Drolet Escape (1500, 1800 and inserts)
The great value of these two stoves means lots have been sold. The intent of this tread is to help owners figure out the best/ most efficient way to run their stoves or inserts. I think the simple design is great but I am wondering if the easy breathing nature of this design results in an over...
www.hearth.com
This thread and watching that guy over in the UK got me wanting to fiddle fart with my stove again. Since I plugged my unregulated primary boost air I have more control, my internal flue temps are usually in the 400-600 range but I still see occasional spikes with certain weather conditions of 700-900. They don’t stay up there long but I think that’s a waste of heat up the flue due to lack of secondary air control. It would be nice to be able to shut that secondary air down when needed. I’ll give magnets over the air inlet first and see if does anything then maybe rig up something more permanent.
That's stove is cool, if I could have about 4 of those my house would be warm lol. Serious question for me to learn, for example my stove, let's say exact same load. How does having secondaries make a stove more efficient? With the unregulated air blocked I can make it run slower. So how is having secondary tubes more efficient?
If you have a fire burning correctly like a campfire all the smoke is burnt anyway. I guess that's what I'm having a hard time understanding. If a smoke dragon style stove is burning correctly there shouldn't be smoke, so how are the tubes any more efficient
brenndatomu
Minister of Fire
A campfire is never really that clean, or efficient...if the fumes were collected you see plenty of "smoke" and unburnt fuel.
Running the way you have it now, you will have to sweep the chimney often.
I would disagree, as long as his wood is dry and his fires are hot enough he won't be producing excessive creosote just because he doesn't have a secondary burn. It's certainly not running as clean as it would, but shouldn't be making more creosote than it would.
brenndatomu
Minister of Fire
I'm talking about with no baffles or anything...just a "campfire in a steel box".
brenndatomu
Minister of Fire
So make your secondary air regulated...many people who have added secondary air to old stoves have some sort of valve on the intake...often a ball valve
@brenndatomu the ceramic board baffles are back in.
@weee123 if the government mandates it then yes. Take the vg3200 for example. Sure it had tubes in it but it's unsafe to use in reality, but it meets emissions. Just like newer diesel engines, the gov. Mandated less emissions and now we have unreliable, expensive to maintain diesels that get less fuel mileage then the old mechanical injection ones.
I sweep once a month regardless just for peace of mind, I think there will actually be less creosote because on this particular stove in factory form you had to choke it out to keep it from going nuclear,
@weee123 if the government mandates it then yes. Take the vg3200 for example. Sure it had tubes in it but it's unsafe to use in reality, but it meets emissions. Just like newer diesel engines, the gov. Mandated less emissions and now we have unreliable, expensive to maintain diesels that get less fuel mileage then the old mechanical injection ones.
I sweep once a month regardless just for peace of mind, I think there will actually be less creosote because on this particular stove in factory form you had to choke it out to keep it from going nuclear,
Think of smoke as dirty natural gas. It can go up the chimney unburnt or you can burn it with the secondary tubes. Yes it is possible to get some limited secondary burn in some non epa stoves, but for very brief times and at very High heat. So it's the same thing you are trying to do, but way worse than if you just use secondary tubes. I'd guess 10 to 50 times less burning of smoke with no secondary tubes.
Get a different stove or figure out how to control your secondary burns if you want the most heat from your wood without being out of control.
Keep checking craigslist etc, you may get lucky.
Get a different stove or figure out how to control your secondary burns if you want the most heat from your wood without being out of control.
Keep checking craigslist etc, you may get lucky.