Smoke With An EPA Stove?
- Thread starter Stax
- 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. -
Super Cedar firestarters 30% discount Use code Hearth2024 Click here
- Status
For us old farts "banking" is covering the coals with ashes for longer heat output. Which I still do on moderate days.
BrotherBart said:
I'm 36(old to some) and that's how I've always used the term. For me it comes from burning fires when camping and "banking" them with dirt when it's time to turn in. Uncover in the morning and have a great coal bed to start the days fire off.
rdust said:
Got a pair of socks olde than that. %-P
Yeah. I learned banking the fire from Grandpa when he would cover the coals in the fireplace with ashes at night before we went to bed in that really cold old farmhouse. And he never swept a chimney in his life. Or had a chimney fire that I know of.
I have never seen any adverse accumulation from banking the fire in the 30. I do it sometimes before noon and have a good coal bed for a reload at six or seven at night. And a two hundred degree stove in the house in between.
My neighbor is an old time wood burner. He burns in an old monster all winter long. I almost never see smoke coming out of his chimney. What's that about? I thought those old monsters were supposed to be smoke dragons? I also know for a fact that he burns a lot of unseasoned wood. Curious to me? Anyone have any feedback on this?
rdust said:
My tackle box is almost that old!
I've heard the term used both ways, banking to close down the air or banking to cover the coals.
Milt said:DaFattKidd said:
Go over and ask him, and get back to us. The whole forum wants to know.
What's the big mystery?
This was taken last year, and the wood in the stove wasn't exactly what you'd give to Mom when she runs out in February. Black birch, maybe a week after it was cut and split and brought inside to dry. The 45-minute time mentioned was just when I happened to get around to taking the video. I've looked outside many a time and saw the same blue background behind the chimney only 15 minutes after a similar reload. "Smoke dragon" my arse, give it the right amount of air and getting it burning hot and it'll burn pretty clean. Takes a bit more skill and experience, but it can be done and has been done by many before me.
Battenkiller, I have been able to do the same with my old buck for many years. You really have to know your stove and have good wood, but it can be done. Now that I have both an old stove and new stove, I am amazed though, at the difference in the entire process of burning a load of wood in the 2 stoves, to achieve the same thing.
I'm with BK on this one, if you knew what you were doing the old wood burners were far from "smoke dragons", ya gotta be smarter than the wood you are putting in the stove to get a good clean burn EPA or not.
oldspark said:
I guess old Larry next door really knows what he's doing. I'm telling you, I never see smoke coming out of that guys chimney.
*Last winter in early February I saw he was real low on his wood supply, so I brought over a couple of wheel barrows of seasoned locust. He's getting on in years so I wanted to make sure they were taken care of. That week it didn't break out of the mid twenties and one day we had a high of 9*. That's pretty friggin cold for around here.
That smokeless, smoke dragon seems to do a good job heating his house.
Some of what does it is running them hot. With no air control, or minimal air control, they burn wayyy hotter than you'd really want to be.
I had a cooler flue temp with my Nashua then with the summit, but I never turned it down and let it smolder, burnt in the yellow range (300 to 550) on the flue temp sensor for 30 years with that stove and no creosote to speak of and I could control the fire nicely. Too bad some of the old stoves get a bad rap, and as you well know some of the new stoves get bad reviews also.Danno77 said:
There we have it, I guess, run the sucker flat out, and combustion is more complete, therefore, no smoke. Who needs technology?
Oldspark, I ve heard u talk a lot about your old nashua. Do you still miss that old stove? Is there a part of you still wishes you were still burning in that old beast?
New chimney going in for the Summit so I plan on falling in love with the Summit this winter just like I did with the Nashua.DaFattKidd said:
Woody Stover said:
Gee... and I had a response all ready to post. :lol:
Gist of it is, I never said anything about "all that air". I said to give it the proper air.
I run my stove like OS and Steve ran theirs all those years. For some who never ran a conventional airtight, you really can't comment about how clean they burn or how much air they use or how much heat goes up the flue. No, they are not as efficient as modern stoves, but the best of them are damn good heaters that throw lots of readily available heat into the living space and send maybe a little more up the flue if you burn them right.
My stove is a downdraft design with a thermostatically controlled air intake. At night, I fill it to the top, get a good strong flame going in it, shut the bypass damper and let it go. I can tell by the sound of it (no glass in the doors) that is has a good, sustainable horizontal burn going across the bottom. The fuel higher up in the box doesn't get fully involved for a few hours. Instead, it slowly feeds down into the fire at the bottom by gravity, like a big split hopper. If the stove starts to overheat, the thermostat closes some to reduce the air. As the fire finally slows down hours later, the intake thermostatically opens again to allow more air in to fan the coals. There is always a warm stove with plenty of coals for starting a new fire 8-10 hours later.
It's a very simple and elegant design if you ask me. I can burn it pretty cleanly, maybe close to EPA clean at the best of times I'd be willing to bet. But today's stoves have to pass the EPA testing protocol. They don't burn stoves in that test like I do mine, they burn them how they assume most folks will. Modern stoves are designed to pass that test or they can't be sold in the U.S. The hearth industry folks I know and trust are folks who have bridged the gap between the older sophisticated designs like the VCs and the newer EPA designs. They tell me that in their opinion, the older stoves are potentially just about as efficient as the newer stoves, but cannot be shut down like the newer ones can be or they will smolder and make lots of creosote. Therefore, they are simply not well suited for smaller living spaces.
A Vigilant like mine used in a well-insulated parlor soon becomes a major creosote factory. No one sitting in that parlor could bear the heat it produces when burning properly, even with a fairly small load. People shut the air all the way down to control the fire and that snuffs out the flames. There is no real secondary burn in them, so if you shut the air down too far, it will stop burning cleanly and will smolder like any other stove. Even the thermostat won't help under those conditions.
Yes, they need to be run hot, but that doesn't mean you need to run them near overfire range. I keep mine up above 600º as much as I can, 650º is even better. Most folks with EPA stoves in my climate do that through much of the coldest part of the winter. How else will you heat the place with the same size stove as mine?
I think the old stove could/can burn clean. I think what we run into is some of the old stoves were huge. I think I remember quads measuring his firebox and it was 7 cubic feet, if you load that baby up you have no choice but to choke it down or it would drive you out. The old stove gave you the ability to choke them down so you could smolder a fire if you wanted.
I'd think some of the people who have good luck burning the old stoves clean have them placed in rooms that aren't their everyday rooms. If you have one of the big old stoves in a basement for example you can get it cooking pretty good before getting run out of the main level of the house.
I'd think some of the people who have good luck burning the old stoves clean have them placed in rooms that aren't their everyday rooms. If you have one of the big old stoves in a basement for example you can get it cooking pretty good before getting run out of the main level of the house.
oldspark said:
I don't think I've ever read a bad rap for the Nashua. That stove was built to the hilt and a premium design. However, all old stoves and for that matter old stove operators are not built equally.
Our old woodfurnace had a 6+ cuft firebox. It would burn up a load of locust rounds 24" long in 6-8 hours. If it was burning clean 6 hours. The furnace needed excessive air and high temperatures to burn cleanly. The EPA furnace we have now can easily be controlled and the burn times are much better as well as more even temps. Dads wood stove is a base burner built like a riteway. It burns for 12 hours on a full load pretty clean, but uses alot more wood. Design has everything to do with it. My old furnace had grates and a baffle. Anytime I hit over 450 on the face it would burn clean, but like I said it would eat wood like candy. I think the base burners were ahead of their time.
my father in law has a VC - I can't remember the model but it's a coal/wood stove designed in 1979 or 1978- and that thing is brilliantly designed. It seems to be way ahead of it's time. He actually just repainted repaired the chimney and redid his hearth. I should post pics. it looks brand new. Either way that thing burns wood very efficiently. It burns coal at an incredible rate. He has that thing mastered.
- Status
Similar threads
