As far as I’m concerned, the coal buildup “problem” you’re having is the reason I’ll never have another “EPA” firebox… the huge PITA ain’t worth the (supposed) benefits in my opinion. There ain’t nothing “efficient” about the way they “burn” the coal bed… I’d much rather have those coals burn fast and screamin’ hot instead of smoldering at little or no heat output. It’s flat ridiculous that they don’t burn on some sort of grate (I understand some do) so air can get under the coals and actually use the heat potential.
Here’s the problem… an 80% efficiency rating is meaningless if the temperature of the “burn” ain’t hot enough to keep the room warm during cold weather. 80% efficiency simply means only 20% of the heat is lost out the flue over the entire burn cycle! Well yeah, if it takes two frigging days to completely burn through the cycle… but if ya’ have to keep adding wood every 3 hours to keep the thing at peak heating ya’ ain’t gonna’ get anything near 80% efficiency. And that there is a fact! Again, it’s flat ridiculous to have to keep screwin’ around with the coal bed to keep them heating at even a moderate rate. Furthermore, that air entering from the secondary burn tubes/baffles just “cools” the firebox temperature when there ain’t any secondary burn happening.
My old “smoke dragon” fed air in the front directed under the grates… that keep the fire hot, hot, and hot completely through the burn cycle. I could load it, light it, and forget it for 6-10 hours depending… and it kept heating at a constant rate all the way through the cycle. When I’d open the door after an overnight burn there would be just a small pile of coals, everything else was ash that had fallen through the grates… and the firebox was still screamin’ hot. Again, 80 or 85% efficiency means absolutely nothing if the fire ain’t hot enough to heat… and that’s a fact. I will admit that during the “secondary burn” my EPA firebox makes more heat than the old “smoke dragon” ever did… but it’s short-lived and ain’t enough “hotter” to be worth the loss of “heating output efficiency” during the remainder of the cycle.
The claims made that the new EPA fireboxes are “better” or “more efficient” is nothing but a manipulation of the numbers. In my mind it is much more “efficient” to have a firebox heat at a constant rate all the way through a (shorter?) burn cycle, while nearly consuming the entire fuel load in the process. A burning efficiency isn’t the same as a heating efficiency… and that’s a fact also!
When I load my firebox with 35-pounds of wood (224,000 BTU’s) I’d much rather have it throw out constant heat for 6 hours at 60% efficiency (22,400 BTU’s per hour average) than I would have an EPA firebox throw out 80% efficiency for 12 hours (15,000 BTU’s per hour average). In reality, although the EPA firebox will provide much more than the 15,000 BTU average during the “secondary burn” (what, 2 hours, maybe 3 at most) after that its heat output is well under that 15,000 BTU average, like around maybe 5000 or less as the coals slow down… and that ain’t near enough to keep anything except a dog house warm during cold outside temperatures. A heating appliance has to make as much heat as is being lost just to maintain current temperature… if it can’t do that, efficiency is absolutely meaningless. And don’t anybody try and tell me the old “smoke dragon” wasn’t 60% efficient… they can be a lot more efficient than claimed if ya’ know how to run one properly.
If ya’ live south of the Mason-Dixon an EPA firebox would probably be just fine 95% of the time… north of the Mason-Dixon they are near worthless (IMHO) over 50% of the time. Up here we need something that makes heat, and keeps making that heat at a constant rate… not something that boils us for an hour and then freezes us for 8. At least with the old “smoke dragon” I had no problem keeping house temperature at a constant 70[sup]o[/sup] (give or take 1[sup]o[/sup]) from Halloween to Easter.
That ain’t the way it is now, first it’s hot, then it’s cold, then the firebox is so full of coals there ain’t any room for wood, then I’m screwin’ around stirring up the coals every hour so they’ll burn down… while the house cools off. It’s flat ridiculous! By next heating season I’ll either be making major design changes to my EPA piece-o-crap, or just flat replace it with an old “smoke dragon”.
The only thing “more” efficient about an EPA firebox is the (supposed) emissions (and maybe a cleaner flue, for those that don’t know how to run a non-EPA)… and I couldn’t care any less about emissions from a wood fire!
Here’s the problem… an 80% efficiency rating is meaningless if the temperature of the “burn” ain’t hot enough to keep the room warm during cold weather. 80% efficiency simply means only 20% of the heat is lost out the flue over the entire burn cycle! Well yeah, if it takes two frigging days to completely burn through the cycle… but if ya’ have to keep adding wood every 3 hours to keep the thing at peak heating ya’ ain’t gonna’ get anything near 80% efficiency. And that there is a fact! Again, it’s flat ridiculous to have to keep screwin’ around with the coal bed to keep them heating at even a moderate rate. Furthermore, that air entering from the secondary burn tubes/baffles just “cools” the firebox temperature when there ain’t any secondary burn happening.
My old “smoke dragon” fed air in the front directed under the grates… that keep the fire hot, hot, and hot completely through the burn cycle. I could load it, light it, and forget it for 6-10 hours depending… and it kept heating at a constant rate all the way through the cycle. When I’d open the door after an overnight burn there would be just a small pile of coals, everything else was ash that had fallen through the grates… and the firebox was still screamin’ hot. Again, 80 or 85% efficiency means absolutely nothing if the fire ain’t hot enough to heat… and that’s a fact. I will admit that during the “secondary burn” my EPA firebox makes more heat than the old “smoke dragon” ever did… but it’s short-lived and ain’t enough “hotter” to be worth the loss of “heating output efficiency” during the remainder of the cycle.
The claims made that the new EPA fireboxes are “better” or “more efficient” is nothing but a manipulation of the numbers. In my mind it is much more “efficient” to have a firebox heat at a constant rate all the way through a (shorter?) burn cycle, while nearly consuming the entire fuel load in the process. A burning efficiency isn’t the same as a heating efficiency… and that’s a fact also!
When I load my firebox with 35-pounds of wood (224,000 BTU’s) I’d much rather have it throw out constant heat for 6 hours at 60% efficiency (22,400 BTU’s per hour average) than I would have an EPA firebox throw out 80% efficiency for 12 hours (15,000 BTU’s per hour average). In reality, although the EPA firebox will provide much more than the 15,000 BTU average during the “secondary burn” (what, 2 hours, maybe 3 at most) after that its heat output is well under that 15,000 BTU average, like around maybe 5000 or less as the coals slow down… and that ain’t near enough to keep anything except a dog house warm during cold outside temperatures. A heating appliance has to make as much heat as is being lost just to maintain current temperature… if it can’t do that, efficiency is absolutely meaningless. And don’t anybody try and tell me the old “smoke dragon” wasn’t 60% efficient… they can be a lot more efficient than claimed if ya’ know how to run one properly.
If ya’ live south of the Mason-Dixon an EPA firebox would probably be just fine 95% of the time… north of the Mason-Dixon they are near worthless (IMHO) over 50% of the time. Up here we need something that makes heat, and keeps making that heat at a constant rate… not something that boils us for an hour and then freezes us for 8. At least with the old “smoke dragon” I had no problem keeping house temperature at a constant 70[sup]o[/sup] (give or take 1[sup]o[/sup]) from Halloween to Easter.
That ain’t the way it is now, first it’s hot, then it’s cold, then the firebox is so full of coals there ain’t any room for wood, then I’m screwin’ around stirring up the coals every hour so they’ll burn down… while the house cools off. It’s flat ridiculous! By next heating season I’ll either be making major design changes to my EPA piece-o-crap, or just flat replace it with an old “smoke dragon”.
The only thing “more” efficient about an EPA firebox is the (supposed) emissions (and maybe a cleaner flue, for those that don’t know how to run a non-EPA)… and I couldn’t care any less about emissions from a wood fire!
What the heck I'm I going to do now?! 61* tomorrow and 62* on Tuesday is just not looking so good. I thought I'd never see a day in the winter (technically still fall, yes) that I'd be unhappy to see temps above 50. Could this insert be a life-changing appliance? Well, I don't think so but if it get me through winter without obsessing about how cold it is outside, so be it. I'm going to try to keep coals going till evening then get'er back up with a smaller fire overnight. I saw the temps hit 80* down here last night so I doubt I'll be loading as I did. I guess I'll just have to take the day off tomorrow and enjoy another frig'n birthday. These damn things coming every year's getting older than me. 
