Jotul 550 Rockland Comments

[Jdowdle]

In the meantime I've installed a damper in the flue just above the stove. I considered devising some kind of linkage to operate the damper from the side, but this approach was the simplest, and it has a clean look. Yeah, it was a scary thought to drill a hole right through the face of the cast iron surround. Not going to get but one chance to mess that up! I used a standard cast-iron 6" damper and installed it in the flue just above the top of the stove, below the start of the liner. I had to weld a longer rod onto the one that comes with the damper to extend it out far enough to reach the front of the stove, no big deal there. I threaded the end of it, then drilled and tapped the handle (off-the-shelf at Lowes) to match it, and locked it in place with a jam nut. It wasn't very complicated and it works like a charm. The heat output is substantially improved, and the wood consumption is down by at least a third, maybe more.

 

[Jdowdle]

Welcome and don't take this the wrong way but, if your other stove wasn't broke why did you replace it? Why did you change out your stove that you were so happy with? Wanting a different look, smaller, neater appearance I can understand that.

The old stove was never properly installed, just set in the fireplace with two lengths of stove pipe running up into the flue. It also was a voracious consumer of wood, and it produced a lot of smoke when the fire was dialed down. And the windows in the front smoked up after about 20 minutes so there was no way to see the fire, either to enjoy it visually or to monitor how it was burning. I figured it was time to get a modern stove that burned cleanly, polluted less, was properly installed, and would let my wife and me enjoy the view of the fire. I think we made the right call. As I'm getting to know the stove better I'm more satisfied with it. By next year all my wood will have been drying for two seasons. And with the damper installed, I think this stove is going to make us pretty happy. We got through two nights with lows around 15f and it kept the main part of the house, about 1500sf, pretty comfy.

 

[jatoxico]

Clean looking job JD. Just would comment you might want to be careful with ashes. Some have reported having issues with their fans due to ash. An ash lip would be nice but we don't have one so I take the trouble not to crud up the fans and they're on their 9th year.

 

[Jdowdle]

Clean looking job JD. Just would comment you might want to be careful with ashes. Some have reported having issues with their fans due to ash. An ash lip would be nice but we don't have one so I take the trouble not to crud up the fans and they're on their 9th year.

Thanks! And thanks for the note about the fans. I was wondering about that. It's pretty hard to keep ask from getting sucked into grille and into the fans. I guess a good plan would be to turn the fans off before I open the door to put wood in the stove, since without any real ash lip some ash inevitable falls out.

 

[jatoxico]

Thanks! And thanks for the note about the fans. I was wondering about that. It's pretty hard to keep ask from getting sucked into grille and into the fans. I guess a good plan would be to turn the fans off before I open the door to put wood in the stove, since without any real ash lip some ash inevitable falls out.

Yes, if you can see that the ash is going to spill then turning it off will help a lot. I also keep a small vacuum nearby but that's just me. The good news is the fans are easy to access for cleaning. It's worth some effort because they ain't cheap.

On a related note, I have had the fans pull in burning embers and shoot them out the vent at me while loading or tending.

 

[Jdowdle]

On a related note, I have had the fans pull in burning embers and shoot them out the vent at me while loading or tending.

Yeah, me too! Yow!

 

[Ctwoodtick]

Yeah, I wish they came with the ash lip. I bet they figured it would have looked bad or something.

 

[Jdowdle]

Anyone have any thoughts about those two bumps they call andirons? I find them completely useless. They are so short the don't prevent wood from falling against the glass, and just tall enough to be a real PITA when its time to shovel out the stove. I'm thinking about cutting them off flush.

 

[Ctwoodtick]

Anyone have any thoughts about those two bumps they call andirons? I find them completely useless. They are so short the don't prevent wood from falling against the glass, and just tall enough to be a real PITA when its time to shovel out the stove. I'm thinking about cutting them off flush.

I hear you about the andirons. That said, I wouldn’t personally go making that adjustment. That’s just me though.

 

[Bad LP]

I hear you about the andirons. That said, I wouldn’t personally go making that adjustment. That’s just me though.

Agreed. Next to useless and doesn't allow "full loads" but still the nicest looking insert I found. Nice idea of the damper and would like an update after the winter burning season is done.

 

[Jdowdle]

Agreed. Next to useless and doesn't allow "full loads" but still the nicest looking insert I found. Nice idea of the damper and would like an update after the winter burning season is done.

I have to say, the addition of the damper has totally changed my opinion of this stove. I've only had it installed for a couple of days, but they have been cold days and I'm working the stove a lot. I've been keeping it almost completely closed most of the time and the difference is amazing. With the draft substantially restricted much more heat stays in the stove and has a chance to get conveyed out into the room instead of up the chimney.
Wood consumption is way less, and heat output is significantly higher. This was a great modification. I highly recommend it! And you're right, it is a really attractive stove!
I found something similar with the previous freestanding stove. The manual that came with it said that it was designed to use without a damper. I tried it that way for much of the first winter, and was not happy with the heat output. I finally decided to try it with a damper and the difference was night and day. Way more efficient and effective with the damper. I'm wondering if no damper is necessary for EPA certification. One way or another, conventional wisdom wins. The damper is a good idea. When you slow down the passage of air through the stove, more heat is retained in the stove, and after all, isn't that the whole point?

 

[jatoxico]

Good deal. Lucky for me I haven't had any control issues myself since modifying my primary.

 

[Bad LP]

I have to say, the addition of the damper has totally changed my opinion of this stove. I've only had it installed for a couple of days, but they have been cold days and I'm working the stove a lot. I've been keeping it almost completely closed most of the time and the difference is amazing. With the draft substantially restricted much more heat stays in the stove and has a chance to get conveyed out into the room instead of up the chimney.
Wood consumption is way less, and heat output is significantly higher. This was a great modification. I highly recommend it! And you're right, it is a really attractive stove!
I found something similar with the previous freestanding stove. The manual that came with it said that it was designed to use without a damper. I tried it that way for much of the first winter, and was not happy with the heat output. I finally decided to try it with a damper and the difference was night and day. Way more efficient and effective with the damper. I'm wondering if no damper is necessary for EPA certification. One way or another, conventional wisdom wins. The damper is a good idea. When you slow down the passage of air through the stove, more heat is retained in the stove, and after all, isn't that the whole point?

I'm interested if the damper causes a creosote issue by running a cooler flue temp.

 

[bholler]

I have to say, the addition of the damper has totally changed my opinion of this stove. I've only had it installed for a couple of days, but they have been cold days and I'm working the stove a lot. I've been keeping it almost completely closed most of the time and the difference is amazing. With the draft substantially restricted much more heat stays in the stove and has a chance to get conveyed out into the room instead of up the chimney.
Wood consumption is way less, and heat output is significantly higher. This was a great modification. I highly recommend it! And you're right, it is a really attractive stove!
I found something similar with the previous freestanding stove. The manual that came with it said that it was designed to use without a damper. I tried it that way for much of the first winter, and was not happy with the heat output. I finally decided to try it with a damper and the difference was night and day. Way more efficient and effective with the damper. I'm wondering if no damper is necessary for EPA certification. One way or another, conventional wisdom wins. The damper is a good idea. When you slow down the passage of air through the stove, more heat is retained in the stove, and after all, isn't that the whole point?

The EPA certification is done with a set draft of .05 usually. So if you exceed that by much your performance will suffer.

 

[bholler]

I'm interested if the damper causes a creosote issue by running a cooler flue temp.

If run properly it should not

 

[Woody Stover]

I'm interested if the damper causes a creosote issue by running a cooler flue temp.

Contrary to what some people think, the damper doesn't "hold heat down in the stove" on its own, but flushing less heat up the flue, the chimney will be cooler. Shouldn't be a problem with a properly insulate liner or Class A double-wall insulated chimney.

 

[Jdowdle]

Contrary to what some people think, the damper doesn't "hold heat down in the stove" on its own, but flushing less heat up the flue, the chimney will be cooler. Shouldn't be a problem with a properly insulate liner or Class A double-wall insulated chimney.

Hey Woody, don't mean to be flippant, but it seems to me like those two are effectively the same thing. Air entering the stove is heated, which requires heat (of course) which would otherwise be available for the heated space, and then that air goes up the chimney, taking that heat with it. If the flow of air is reduced, the amount of heat taken up the chimney is thereby reduced. I've known stoves where, when you closed the damper, you IMMEDIATELY felt more heat radiating from the stove.

Also, I think there is a difference between restricting the draft at the top of the flue, and restricting the draft just above the firebox. Restricting the flue at the top still allows a lot of heat into the flue, where it radiates and convects away ineffectually, rather than keeping it in the stove where it can radiate and convect more effectively, where you want it. I know, there are lots of opinions about these things, and even some facts if you can find them, but 30 years of heating with wood has taught me to trust my judgement. I suspected this stove would be more efficient with a damper just above the firebox, and indeed, it is. I agree, there is a question concerning running the flue colder. But mine is an insulated, double-wall, stainless steel flue liner, inside a heavy masonry chimney which is in good shape, which I expect to have cleaned every year. Not thinking that's going to be much of a problem. We'll see... ;-)

 

[Jdowdle]

Another good point for using an adjustable damper just above the stove, as opposed to only restricting the inlet air or restricting the top of the flue to reduce draft - with an adjustable damper I can choose just how much I want to restrict the airflow, based on a number of conditions, such as how much heat I want, how well the wood is burning, how long I want the burn to last, where in the burn I am, etc. For max heat I can allow good inflow but still restrict outflow, which results in a very hot fire and lots of heat available for heating the space. It also lets me open the damper a moment before I open the stove door, increasing the immediate draft to clear combustion gasses from the stove which might otherwise come out into the room. I'm sure other folks have other opinions... ;-)

 

[bholler]

Hey Woody, don't mean to be flippant, but it seems to me like those two are effectively the same thing. Air entering the stove is heated, which requires heat (of course) which would otherwise be available for the heated space, and then that air goes up the chimney, taking that heat with it. If the flow of air is reduced, the amount of heat taken up the chimney is thereby reduced. I've known stoves where, when you closed the damper, you IMMEDIATELY felt more heat radiating from the stove.

Also, I think there is a difference between restricting the draft at the top of the flue, and restricting the draft just above the firebox. Restricting the flue at the top still allows a lot of heat into the flue, where it radiates and convects away ineffectually, rather than keeping it in the stove where it can radiate and convect more effectively, where you want it. I know, there are lots of opinions about these things, and even some facts if you can find them, but 30 years of heating with wood has taught me to trust my judgement. I suspected this stove would be more efficient with a damper just above the firebox, and indeed, it is. I agree, there is a question concerning running the flue colder. But mine is an insulated, double-wall, stainless steel flue liner, inside a heavy masonry chimney which is in good shape, which I expect to have cleaned every year. Not thinking that's going to be much of a problem. We'll see... ;-)

Well no you wanted to increase the output of the blowers and install a magic heat. Some of us talked you out of that and suggested a damper. You are welcome.

 

[Woody Stover]

Hey Woody, don't mean to be flippant, but it seems to me like those two are effectively the same thing. Air entering the stove is heated, which requires heat (of course) which would otherwise be available for the heated space, and then that air goes up the chimney, taking that heat with it. If the flow of air is reduced, the amount of heat taken up the chimney is thereby reduced. I've known stoves where, when you closed the damper, you IMMEDIATELY felt more heat radiating from the stove.
Also, I think there is a difference between restricting the draft at the top of the flue, and restricting the draft just above the firebox. Restricting the flue at the top still allows a lot of heat into the flue,

Yeah, I kinda see where you're coming from. But the only heat in the chimney is coming from hot air. The damper isn't reflecting back radiant heat, or anything like that. Whether it's restricted at the top of bottom, or with the air control, the only heat escaping is with the air. The reason the stove gets hotter when you close the damper is that less room-temp air is flooding into the box.
I don't quite understand all the factors at play, but it seems that trying to control the burn with the air control, with high draft, makes the stove burn differently than if you moderate the draft (at the top or bottom.) Maybe with high draft, when you cut the air control, then the high draft is focused on the secondary air, altering the ratio between secondary and primary air, causing the stove to burn differently than the maker designed it to run.

 

[Jdowdle]

Well no you wanted to increase the output of the blowers and install a magic heat. Some of us talked you out of that and suggested a damper. You are welcome.

You guys did offer a bunch of good suggestions and helped me think through a number of options, and I'm much happier with the stove than I was when we started. Thank you indeed! ;-)

 

[Jdowdle]

I don't quite understand all the factors at play, but it seems that trying to control the burn with the air control, with high draft, make the stove burn differently than if you moderate the draft (at the top or bottom.) Maybe with high draft, when you cut the air control, then the high draft is focused on the secondary air, altering the ratio between secondary and primary air, causing the stove to burn differently than the maker designed it to run.

I see what you're getting at here. Too much draft, with the primary air closed down, sucks in more secondary air than might be warranted. Reducing the draft overall gets the primary and secondary air back into the proper ratio. Makes sense to me.

 

[Remdo]

Hello,

I don't know if anybody is still monitoring this post, but I will add my two cents. Reason I signed up for hearth.com was to check out any postings regarding Rockland 550. I recently purchased one myself after reading a lot of good reviews. Never bothered to check the negative reviews. I must say I agree more with the author of this thread and others like him. I have well well seasoned wood. it's 5 years, if not more, seasoned Oak and Maple that's been covered dry as a bone, and although the unit did bring up the temperature of the house to around 70 degrees, it's not as efficient as my friends Napoleon 1101 which is a smaller unit but Heats his bigger house hotter than mine. Not to mention I go through about three times more wood than he does. I blocked off the top of the flue with rockwool insulation and the bottom. I have tried everything with this insert, burning it on wide-open oxygen and on fully closed and in between. 4 hours is all I get at most. I even brought few bundles of my friends wood, just to see if my wood was the problem. Nope, same outcome. His Napoleon 1101 has entire Firebox covered with refractory brick, whereas this unit as only few bricks along the sides and the back. I wonder if that makes a huge difference. I'm going to pull the unit out and add rockwool insulation behind it and on the sides. Maybe I'll even put a bit of it on top. I am with you about being dissatisfied with the results of this unit. What really gets me more than anything is how much wood I burn compared to my both of my friends.

R

 

[tadmaz]

Hello,

I don't know if anybody is still monitoring this post, but I will add my two cents. Reason I signed up for hearth.com was to check out any postings regarding Rockland 550. I recently purchased one myself after reading a lot of good reviews. Never bothered to check the negative reviews. I must say I agree more with the author of this thread and others like him. I have well well seasoned wood. it's 5 years, if not more, seasoned Oak and Maple that's been covered dry as a bone, and although the unit did bring up the temperature of the house to around 70 degrees, it's not as efficient as my friends Napoleon 1101 which is a smaller unit but Heats his bigger house hotter than mine. Not to mention I go through about three times more wood than he does. I blocked off the top of the flue with rockwool insulation and the bottom. I have tried everything with this insert, burning it on wide-open oxygen and on fully closed and in between. 4 hours is all I get at most. I even brought few bundles of my friends wood, just to see if my wood was the problem. Nope, same outcome. His Napoleon 1101 has entire Firebox covered with refractory brick, whereas this unit as only few bricks along the sides and the back. I wonder if that makes a huge difference. I'm going to pull the unit out and add rockwool insulation behind it and on the sides. Maybe I'll even put a bit of it on top. I am with you about being dissatisfied with the results of this unit. What really gets me more than anything is how much wood I burn compared to my both of my friends.

R

Add a block off plate with rock wool above the plate. Add insulation to your attic if it's not quite R-49. I went from struggling to get the stove room to 74F when it was 15F outside, and now I maintained 74F in the stove room and it was -33F outside.

 

[EJL923]

Most fires/stoves will burn the same given the same amount of air, results will vary. I had to modify my stove quite a bit to make it respectable to my house setup. Would i buy this stove again, probably not, at least not a flush insert. BUT, I burn November 1 thru March 24/7 and only go through 4- 4.5 cords. Heating capacity, well it depends on your house. I keep my first floor warm, about 1200 sq ft.