Part 9 of Mega-Query: Quadra-fire—Doubts, Apologies and Questions

[RonB]

Well color me confused. Is it a furnace or is it a heat pump?

It's an open loop Geothermal Heat Pump (extracts heat from my well water). Its actually "fairly" economical but we prefer the warmth of the old wood stove.

 

[jtp10181]

I can vouch for the secondary burn on the quad units. I've has a couple customers talk to me about how when they really get it going they can see the fire burning down from the top. If you look on Page 2 of the brochure it depicts the QUAD Burn system with a cut away. (broken link removed)

 

[elkimmeg]

A return outlet can not be located with in 10 feet of a fuel burning appliance? thats code found in the International Mechanical code.s The international mechanical code comentary explanation is that a return air should not be removing air needed for combustion air make up. Tmonster being a PE should know this code. The other factor you are using your hvac system from an open combustion source from which it is not designed to do. There are no safe guards, like a smoke damper or automatic smoke detection shut down. By pulling air from an open combustion appliance, you risk rapid spread of smoke and carbon monoxides to your living space. with no safe guardes to prevent it. Also forbidden. is returning air outside you closed loop system from a basement .Unless the basement ins insulated conditionedliving space. then there is code about returning air in hazzardeous locations . Proximity of an open combustion appliance qualifies as hazardeous location. All modern code expound comfinement. An open duct system defeats all other efforts of confinement. Is you hvac exchanger listed to pull heat from a wood stove?
One cannot use an appliance for another purpose in which it is not listed to preform. Tmonster jump in here if you believe if you think I have missinterpoeted code here.

 

[TMonter]

I like the fact that Quadrafire puts the 1" of kaowool on top of the ceramic fiber baffle. This seems to make a much better seal to contain gasses rather than just the ceramic baffle like my englander.

 

[TMonter]

I'll check Elk, but I thought that code only applied to systems that pull combustion air from inside the room. If the stove had an OAK I believe it would meet the code. In either case I certainly would try to locate the stove away from the furnace air intake. I'll have to check my IBC copy at work.

 

[5555555]

Guys,

I posted pics of my istall at the link below. I tried to get pics of the secondary burn, but the pictures really don't capture the flames well. It's going strong though.

Ron,

The main floor is about 1900 sf, and the "basement" is really the ground floor with a tuck garage. The master bedroom and a loft is really the 3rd floor and it only covers a portion of the main floor. That gives the living room a 2-story ceiling.

https://www.hearth.com/talk/threads/6852/


Jim

 

[restorer]

5X6,
Don't ever apologize for your wood. Take all the DougFir you can get. Look for some Tamarack and load that, too. Although we in the West don't have the advantage of "hardwoods", we have the advantage of 150ft trees relatively limb free for the first 50 ft. easily cut easily bunked and easily split. Dries in a good Summer heat to 12-15% and ready to burn. Why would anyone not want a Montana wood lot.

 

[elkimmeg]

I'll check Elk, but I thought that code only applied to systems that pull combustion air from inside the room. If the stove had an OAK I believe it would meet the code. In either case I certainly would try to locate the stove away from the furnace air intake. I'll have to check my IBC copy at work.

This issue surfaces all too often after a while I get tired of cut and pasting the same code. yYu do not have to check your code book I cut and pasted from the International Mechanical code, the last time this topic occured here, Its like Prego its in there. Then there is the common sense the same ease of heat extraction can equally extract smoke or carbon monoxides especially if drawing air from the imediate vicinity of the fuel burning appliance no code need her just common sense Today roufh frame inspections are more than just the framing we inspect fire stopping and draft stopping.Having an open return near a fuel burning appliance in a cellar ,defeats all means of containment. One does not need code to see this point.

Why to I take thes stand? Because this is not a well thought out approach.. Supply without return is useless, but compromising personal safety for heat, is not a choice I would make for me or put my familly in greater danger. , It has been well document here, that stove intallations in basement are not all the effective They are area heaters. They are best served heating the space that is occupied. Basements concrete draw out huge amounts of heat that never get to the living space Modern codes require that the concrete wall be insulated ot the basement ceilings. If your walls are not insulated then I doiubl much heat gets threw the insulated basement ceilings to the living space.

To answer Ron I am a national certified building and Mechanical inspestor which include HVAC or what is included in the internationa codes for building inspections and Mechanical inspections but only in the jusisdiction I am hired. 70% of my inspection I deal with HVAC systems. Only a small percentage is wood/pellet stoves. Basicall I deal with any thing that is ducted or vented..

Nobody likes to be told what they are doing is wrong. I would not be telling you this, if there were not a potential greater danger currently not addressed. Your not in my town so I do not have to deal with your issue. but I do not feel it right to advocate this application for others to follow suit.

 

[TruePatriot]

struggle:

Re:

Have you ruled out soapstone for any reason??

In an earlier post (Mega #2) I explained my rather idiosyncratic preferences for steel stoves:

I’m Only Interested in Steel Stoves….
No offense to cast iron stove owners/companies/retailers, etc…, but I simply do not want a stove that is put together with refractory cement. I weld, and appreciate the integrity of welded construction. And I’m lazy. My distrust of bolt-together and cemented stoves is probably based in an OCD-neurosis, but…it is what it is. I don’t want to be worrying about air leaks I can’t see, and trying to decide when to re-cement the stove.

Having said that, I must confess that the best-running, most impressive stove I’ve been able to spend time around is my good friend Harry’s Hearthstone Mansfield, up near Canada. (Although, to be fair, I’ve not been around a lot of post-1990/EPA stoves, period. But the Mansfield is a--yes, I know—a cast iron (and soapstone) stove! My goal is to find a steel stove that runs as effortlessly as that stove, and heats as well. My friend Harry puts in 2-3 rounds at night (N-S loading) and gets overnight burns routinely, and has gotten 14 hour-burns which allowed relighting on coals alone.

Also, my friend’s Mansfield’s soapstone cracked but it did not cause a leak. I’m not knocking the Mansfield—it’s a great stove! I just like the security afforded by the welded construction of steel more than I value the beauty of some of the cast stoves.

And lastly, I guess I don’t fully understand the benefits of soapstone, (other than it’s beauty) if a person plans to run the stove 24/7. In other words, if there’s always fire in it, the benefit of soapstone’s superior ability to store slowly release (more) heat, after the fire dies down, seems less important than if a person wasn’t burning 24/7? I dunno…just my .02. No doubt soapstone is beautiful and Hearthstones are great stoves.

I do appreciate the feedback.
>

Corie:

Re: this:

You’re talking about the differene of two grams like its a monumental failure for the quadrafire. These stoves are fired by humans during these tests, and sometimes the person firing the stove has an effect on the emissions. Sometimes over-stiring the ash bed on the reload sends enough particulate matter up the stack to alter the numbers.
So take those emissions values with a grain of salt.

Perhaps you missed this, from my "Mega #8: Emissions..." post:

Emissions are not really a serious criteria for me, as these are all post-1990, EPA-certified stoves. In other words, they’re as good as it gets, and they’re far better than the pre-1990 stoves. And I suspect, just from my own research, that despite the EPA’s insistence on lab-testing for emissions, that there is not enough standardization in mfr.’s listings of performance, capacities, etc…, for one to be too concerned about variations in emissions ratings. So, for anyone trying to help me, who does not have unlimited time, please skip this section, lest I frustrate you needlessly. I’m just curious about a couple of things re: emissions, for those who have the time.[/b]

I bolded the sections of my quote (above) which are relevant to the bolded sections of yours....

And perhaps you missed this, from the beginning of the thread we’re both reading right now?

It’s just that [Quadra-fire's) literature goes on about these four burn zones resulting in “reducing emissions, improving efficiency and increasing the amount of heat transferred to your home” and yet this stove has the highest emissions in the group!???

IOW, Corie, I am not

…talking about the differene of two grams like its a monumental failure for the quadrafire…

as you suggest. Rather, as I explained at the beginning of this post we’re in, “And again, my concern here is not about whether or not there’s “four fires”—I’m just trying to figure out if the Quadra-fire company is bull******** us in their literature, which I suspect. ”


So, again, in case anyone else missed it: I’m not concerned about emissions g/hr. per se—rather, I’m interested in them more for what they might say about the integrity of the company’s marketing claims, and for any other insights such a measurement might offer, in comparing one stove’s overall performance to another’s. (And I also "get" that due to multiple variables, including human error, such conclusions may be dubious at best, and do need to be taken with a grain of salt.)

But I do appreciate this:

Yes quads do give a nice secondary show. I don’t own one, but I’ve had the pleasure of watching one operate at the local hardware store for a while now. Very very attractive hovering flames out of those tubes.

Does anyone have, or would they be willing to take, pics of a Quad 5700’s secondary burn flames? I know 6x5 attempted to do so, but I think it’s difficult to get such pictures to come out well.


Stoveguy2esw, re:

you missed a couple stoves, a VC unit which comes in at less than 1 GPH, and our 30-ncp at 3.5 CF firebox that came in in epa testing at 1.63 GPH

I definitely missed the Englander--thank you. But re: VC, I didn't know they had an all-steel, non-cat. stove in the 3.0 cu.ft. class? Which one?
>

Jim:

Re:

My 5700 works great. Lots of secondary burn and a large window to watch it through! I haven’t had to clean my glass in a month and there’s not a bit of buildup on the glass, even in the corners.

Glad to hear it! You have an INCREDIBLE home, btw! My g.f. and I really enjoyed the pics!

Thanks, all! Peter

 

[stoveguy2esw]

I definitely missed the Englander--thank you. But re: VC, I didn’t know they had an all-steel, non-cat. stove in the 3.0 cu.ft. class? Which one?
>

Jim:

Re:

bottom line, you want a steel stove welded construction, i assume you want along lasting unit as well, the 30 series we build is rated at up to 2200 sq ft , emitted 1.63 gph at interteck when epa tested (this made it the lowest gph above 3.0 available regardless of price on the market) we have in house tested the unit (we have a lab that literally dulpicates intertecks) and hit close to 70K btu output with 45 lb charge of VA red oak. and have also hit 13 hour burn times (when banked) with similar loads. i'd have one if it werent for the anal insulation that i have added to the home, the unit would melt snow off the neighbor's roof (i cant use that much stove)


i dare you to find a better unit at the price