Long Burn vs Efficiently

Arborist Forum

Help Support Arborist Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

mopar969

ArboristSite Operative
Joined
Nov 26, 2012
Messages
380
Reaction score
77
Location
Southwestern PA
Here we go:

I am a newbie to wood burning and found this on jotuls website and it has me stumped especially the last line.
http://jotul.com/us/home/pre-epa-airtight-stove-vs-non-catalytic-clean-buring

"Non-catalytic woodstoves use secondary combustion air in order to burn off wood gases before they can leave the firebox. Because of this, they are not as controllable as a pre-E.P.A. “airtight” woodstoves. It was possible to “turn down” a pre-E.P.A. woodstove and achieve a long low smoldering fire. This was often perceived as being highly efficient. From an emissions viewpoint nothing could be further from the truth. From a user-friendly viewpoint, I fully understand why this was perceived as being efficient. For example, let’s load a non-catalytic woodstove with six sticks of wood. Over a period of 4 hours let’s say it produces 30,000 btu’s of heat per hour with less than 7.5 grams of particulate emissions per hour. Now let’s load the same six sticks into a pre-E.P.A., “airtight” woodstove. This stove may burn for 8 hours producing 10,000 btu’s per hour with around 80 grams of particulate emissions per hour. 4 X 30,000 = 120,000 btu’s; 8 X 10,000 = 80,000 btu’s. You see a difference here of nearly 40,000 btu’s. The E.P.A. stove has produced more heat from the same amount of fuel. The “airtight’ burned longer (more controlled) than did the E.P.A. certified stove but wasted 40,000 btu’s of energy up the chimney in the form of wood smoke (unburned wood gas). Some of it went into the environment and some of it condensed in the form of creosote in the chimney. I’m making numbers up but under the identical conditions (same chimney, same house, same fuel, different stoves) these numbers are accurate. An E.P.A. certified woodstove should produce about the same amount of heat with a third less wood than an old “airtight” but it does it at a price. It will burn much faster and for a shorter period of time than the old “airtight”."

If that last line is true why do so many on here say they get longer burn times?
 
Obviously, burn time does not = usable heat!
Just because you still have coals in the firebox doesn't mean you are able to keep your house warm! This would be my biggest fear in buying a new certified stove. Put all that money in to something and it doesn't keep my house warm. All the time, not just for a couple hours here and there.

I know, I know, the flamers will be along shortly! :eek: :ices_rofl:

Ted
 
I believe that article represents the "not so good way" to burn the old stoves. I can make my old stove burn for three days but I won't get any heat out of it, my flue will be plugged and the neighbors will be pissed at the stench all the time.
The article says," It was possible to “turn down” a pre-E.P.A. woodstove and achieve a long low smoldering fire. This was often perceived as being highly efficient. From an emissions viewpoint nothing could be further from the truth".

This is all past tense verbiage. No one thinks like that anymore. Hopefully no one even burns like that anymore.
Pretty much throw out all that old timers mentality. Burn it right, burn it clean and it will most likely not have a longer burn time compared to anything in it's size class.
There are always exceptions to the rules and there are always different definitions of burn time. If you want some reading just use the search box with words like, 'burn tim', EPA vs Non-Epa, or just go read all of Spideys posts! If you can't find info in those then it doesn't exist!
 
The article does seem to contradict itself.

The "lack of control" is also debatable. You do have to be a bit more attentive after reloading a newer stove as to not miss the point where you start shutting the air down.

I think perhaps the reason people think they get longer burns times is that they stuff the stove full of wood, get it going and walk away for 6-8 hrs (or more in some cases). With older stoves alot of people would add a split or 2 at a time every hour or 2. The newer stoves like to run a complete burn cycle while older stoves you could run at a more constant temp.
 
I should have never even put wood in my stove tonight. I just automatically put wood in it when I get home from work. I mean it hell it's been 12 hours so it must need wood.
Then I went upstairs and it was still 70 according to the stat.
Now I'm roasting in here. With a stove full of awesome coals it is ripping out the heat. The temp just keeps climbing. I suppose thats what I get for "doing the norm" on a day that wasn't normal for this winter so far.
31 degrees today?
Like a heatwave out there! First time I've seen the blacktop on my road in two months. They flat out just quit salting and plow only when we are down to one lane!
I got her wide open, trying on purpose to send all the heat up the flue!
LMAO
How's that for a long burn time?
Fast and furious!
 
Totally consistent with what I have said recently. The heat output vs time profile of the two are very different. This is also why I advocate having a large thermal mass near the stove so that the large amount of heat produced over a shorter time can be stored and re-released over a longer time. The secondary combustion stove is extracting more of the energy in the firebox, but the output rate varies over time. The efficiency and total particulate emissions numbers don't tell you anything about rate. It is most certainly not magic, merely the flow of energy.

So if you use it to heat air with near zero thermal mass and blow that around the structure, when the secondary burn is done your heat disappears.

My secondary combustion stove is down in the basement in an large old cook fireplace surrounded by stone. The old furnace blower pulls hot air off the top of the room, controlled by a thermostat on the wall. I have not loaded it for hours, but the room is still hot and the blower is still on. The room has cooled off some, but not enough to kick the thermostat off. It's about time to go down, rake out the coals and throw more splits in. They'll take right off.
 
Similarly, my little Morso is in a room that sees temps from ~70 to 90-something. Acts like an accumulator, buffers things thermally for "connected" rooms. In those rooms, you really don't sense that there's heating going on, and the temp swings are really slow.

The block walls store lots of heat. Time to take a look. Don't believe in magic.
 
Who cares what a guy from jotul says in a hypothetical situation . I'll take my magic furnace over my old un - magic furnace any day of the week
 
Here we go:

I am a newbie to wood burning and found this on jotuls website and it has me stumped especially the last line.
http://jotul.com/us/home/pre-epa-airtight-stove-vs-non-catalytic-clean-buring

"Non-catalytic woodstoves use secondary combustion air in order to burn off wood gases before they can leave the firebox. Because of this, they are not as controllable as a pre-E.P.A. “airtight” woodstoves. It was possible to “turn down” a pre-E.P.A. woodstove and achieve a long low smoldering fire. This was often perceived as being highly efficient. From an emissions viewpoint nothing could be further from the truth. From a user-friendly viewpoint, I fully understand why this was perceived as being efficient. For example, let’s load a non-catalytic woodstove with six sticks of wood. Over a period of 4 hours let’s say it produces 30,000 btu’s of heat per hour with less than 7.5 grams of particulate emissions per hour. Now let’s load the same six sticks into a pre-E.P.A., “airtight” woodstove. This stove may burn for 8 hours producing 10,000 btu’s per hour with around 80 grams of particulate emissions per hour. 4 X 30,000 = 120,000 btu’s; 8 X 10,000 = 80,000 btu’s. You see a difference here of nearly 40,000 btu’s. The E.P.A. stove has produced more heat from the same amount of fuel. The “airtight’ burned longer (more controlled) than did the E.P.A. certified stove but wasted 40,000 btu’s of energy up the chimney in the form of wood smoke (unburned wood gas). Some of it went into the environment and some of it condensed in the form of creosote in the chimney. I’m making numbers up but under the identical conditions (same chimney, same house, same fuel, different stoves) these numbers are accurate. An E.P.A. certified woodstove should produce about the same amount of heat with a third less wood than an old “airtight” but it does it at a price. It will burn much faster and for a shorter period of time than the old “airtight”."

If that last line is true why do so many on here say they get longer burn times?


I am really not interested in efficiency, emissions etc, etc. When I still worked I was gone from the house for 13 hrs, when I walked in the door I wanted a good bed of coals to start throwing dry wood onto and have a blaze going in 5 minutes, if the house had cooled down to 55 that was quite fine because it would be back to 70 in about 15 minutes. Had no desire to come home and start with kindling and do the Boy Scout thing. Did the same thing the other night when it got down to -19. Burn down to bed of coals, fill the wood box and shut the air down, get up at 7am and open the draft, roaring fire in 5 minutes
 
nice bob eubanks reference....epa or no epa when we load our stoves with however many pounds of wood they hold that's the max no. of btu ur getting. efficiency of the stove and the house is a whole different story. I can easily burn my epa stove for 12 hours but the amount of btus it holds will not heat my house for that time. if its in the teens outside I have to load it every 3 hours to get the 30000-40000 btus/hr that I need and when my epa stove gets to 200 it requires more attention to get it where it burns efficently
 
I had forgotten just how little wood you need to burn when it's not below zero. High of 28* today - 15" of snow. Free insulation ---- again!
 

Latest posts

Back
Top