I Have My Base Burner (BB)

Thank's dj for the info and I agree. Nortcan, don't worry about the air tight issue. Your base burner is plenty tight enough to give excellent performance. The methods of running the base burner will be much different than operating the V.C stove. It will take you a good while to realize how many variables there are in operating these stoves. You have a lot more choices with the base burner as to how you want to run it. You'll see, trust me.

In a year or so you will be wondering why you had these apprehensions.

I agree with W, the base burner has a multitude of adjustments: primary air, secondary air, base burner valve, and MPD, as well as the ash bed which is nicely controlled by the triangular grates. That said, you will easily find your groove. Mine was primary open to a minimum, secondary closed except after loading, base burner mode, and MPD closed. As it got warmer (now), I have primary completely closed, secondary open a bit, MPD partially open, and base burner mode. Get that chimney built!

Hi. Me again.
I agree with you for the MPD but I believe that they are an heritage from the 188? to 191? of the old ranges, pot belly and may other ones. A lot of things were different at that time. The houses without insulation... different chimneys,windows...and the rope gasketting was not arrived yet. So the best way to reduce the draft was to have a MPD.
MPD was the way to control a stove at THAT time but I think it's not the one today IF the stove is as air tight as possible.
I send a photo showing inside of the ash pit from the Bride. There are 4 holes, 2 on the right and 2 on the left side. The foot rails are hanged in these holes with a sort of hooks. As you can see the gaps are to consider (the photos don't show exactly the gaps) specially in the ash pit. So as usual I closed them with caps. So the air control will be able to do his job :control the air volume needed for the combustion.

For the V.C. how a MPD could improve the stove performances: 2,200Sq Ft, one stove, same T* on the 3 levels, don't remember having see the T* on the pipe at more than 200*F at only 17" from the top of the stove, the ant. burning rate is about 1 pound/Hr, very very rare I had to put more than a full mesure 12Pds for the 12 Hrs time, never had a back puffing. If the Bride can do that with or without a MPD, I will be very happy with her.

But I still love these antique stoves

nortcan wrote:Hi. Me again.
I agree with you for the MPD but I believe that they are an heritage from the 188? to 191? of the old ranges, pot belly and may other ones. A lot of things were different at that time. The houses without insulation... different chimneys,windows...and the rope gasketting was not arrived yet. So the best way to reduce the draft was to have a MPD.
MPD was the way to control a stove at THAT time but I think it's not the one today IF the stove is as air tight as possible.
I send a photo showing inside of the ash pit from the Bride. There are 4 holes, 2 on the right and 2 on the left side. The foot rails are hanged in these holes with a sort of hooks. As you can see the gaps are to consider (the photos don't show exactly the gaps) specially in the ash pit. So as usual I closed them with caps. So the air control will be able to do his job :control the air volume needed for the combustion.

For the V.C. how a MPD could improve the stove performances: 2,200Sq Ft, one stove, same T* on the 3 levels, don't remember having see the T* on the pipe at more than 200*F at only 17" from the top of the stove, the ant. burning rate is about 1 pound/Hr, very very rare I had to put more than a full mesure 12Pds for the 12 Hrs time, never had a back puffing. If the Bride can do that with or without a MPD, I will be very happy with her.

But I still love these antique stoves

Your base burner will be able to do that and much more once you learn how to use it. For example my Stanley Argand is a simple direct draft stove and the doors on it are not air tight at all, and it holds maybe 25 pounds of coal tops. It took me two seasons to master the operation of it. I can easily get 12 hours out of it and maintain what ever temperatures I want on it by how much ash I leave on the grates. So the point is that you will have to learn how to run the stove and that will be a process. You won't figure it out all at once.

dlj wrote: ...>8... But take a look at the volume of the passageway in the V.C. and your Bride. Are the diameter of those internal passageways smaller than the chimney pipe diameter? About the same? On my Vermont, and my Glenwood, those passageways are smaller diameter that the chimney. So yes, there is a restriction in flow. Now here comes the kicker, if you look at basic laws of physics, you'll find that the gases are traveling at a higher linear velocity than when they reach the chimney pipe. Higher velocity = less time to transfer heat to the walls. Now, put a restriction into the chimney pipe beyond the stove (MPD) and you will now be able to lower the linear velocity within the stove passageways. Slower air flow = more time for heat to transfer to stove walls to heat house...8<...
dj

dj, I've been following the excellent discussion in this thread. I follow nortcan's logic and your description of velocity. rewinder uses baros on his VCs and has improved operating results. The difference is, IIRC, that an MPD reduces volume and a baro reduces velocity. Your good explanation of increased linervelocity with respect to the Vigilant II is spot on in respect to the gas speed as it passes through any one of the two outlet slots on the Vigilant. The high speed exit of the gases on either side will create turbulence in the combustion chamber, much like the hot blast ring in the BBs, a benefit to combustion efficiency. Once the gas is through the slot it enters the Vig's two separate (respective to left and right) side chambers and one common chamber in the back of the stove. The combined volume of the chambers allow the velocity to slow and contact with the large combined surface area promotes enhanced heat exchange. In this respect, the BBs and the Vigilant appear very similar in design.

As nortcan's said, his coal usage and temperature measurements show good heat exchange. My Vigilant II isn't modified and I use much more coal than he does but I'm heating a larger space. My temperature readings are very similar to nortcan's even though I might be using 3x more fuel. It seems to me this demonstrates efficient heat exchange near the edge of the stove capacity. From what I've been reading, the old and new designs and execution of their purpose are very similar. IMHO, the newer design benefits from modern air tight technology, as nortcan's previously stated. The older 'air tight' technology of the BBs benefit from the slowing effects of an MPD.

Will, I'm very glad about your last post and I think that the Bride may be a new school for me but a lot here seem to be there if some questions get me in troubles with the stove.
Although all what I said about antique stoves, I consider them the most advanced in the technology side

Vig II PB,
I like the way you described the Vig II S.B.(sides back) working mode.
I think that instead of searching how to make a new ant. stove, 2 models could be selected: the Vig II but improved and easy to fit in some houses/deco... and the antique ones for peoples searching a different look. For the look, I can tell that these antique stoves create a special attention. If there could be a methode to have the antique stoves approved/certified or equivalent, the ant. stoves market would increase rapidly. Except for the inspection? certification? that wouldn't be expensive at all. Sure the antique stoves should be tear apart and rebuild to meet the inspection needed. All that could be done and have a retail price like some other stoves.
Having antique stoves back where they are supposed to be would be a real respect for the patrimony.

VigIIPeaBurner wrote: dj, I've been following the excellent discussion in this thread. I follow nortcan's logic and your description of velocity. rewinder uses baros on his VCs and has improved operating results. The difference is, IIRC, that an MPD reduces volume and a baro reduces velocity. Your good explanation of increased linervelocity with respect to the Vigilant II is spot on in respect to the gas speed as it passes through any one of the two outlet slots on the Vigilant. The high speed exit of the gases on either side will create turbulence in the combustion chamber, much like the hot blast ring in the BBs, a benefit to combustion efficiency. Once the gas is through the slot it enters the Vig's two separate (respective to left and right) side chambers and one common chamber in the back of the stove. The combined volume of the chambers allow the velocity to slow and contact with the large combined surface area promotes enhanced heat exchange. In this respect, the BBs and the Vigilant appear very similar in design.

As nortcan's said, his coal usage and temperature measurements show good heat exchange. My Vigilant II isn't modified and I use much more coal than he does but I'm heating a larger space. My temperature readings are very similar to nortcan's even though I might be using 3x more fuel. It seems to me this demonstrates efficient heat exchange near the edge of the stove capacity. From what I've been reading, the old and new designs and execution of their purpose are very similar. IMHO, the newer design benefits from modern air tight technology, as nortcan's previously stated. The older 'air tight' technology of the BBs benefit from the slowing effects of an MPD.

I quite agree with you, and it is why I have prefaced the suggestion to Nortcan with it MAY increase his efficiency. It's a simple and inexpensive test to run. Now a bit on the baro, and the reasoning why I think it may actually be better to run both an MPD and a baro...

The baro gives you the ability to control the pressure in the chimney, which in turn gives you a set velocity in the heat exchanging part of your stove. However, I don't feel it's feasible to design a stove to have a single velocity that optimizes the heat exchange at all levels of heat output. So there is likely a range at which the stove performs very well, but when you lower the burning temperature, or go above a certain point, you loose that efficiency. I think if you use both the baro and the MPD on a modern stove, you can extend the range over which the stove runs quite efficiently. Now, I actually think you can do this with just the MPD, but you have to fuss with it all the time, so the combo would be more stable.

dj

dlj wrote:I quite agree with you, and it is why I have prefaced the suggestion to Nortcan with it MAY increase his efficiency. It's a simple and inexpensive test to run. Now a bit on the baro, and the reasoning why I think it may actually be better to run both an MPD and a baro...

The baro gives you the ability to control the pressure in the chimney, which in turn gives you a set velocity in the heat exchanging part of your stove. However, I don't feel it's feasible to design a stove to have a single velocity that optimizes the heat exchange at all levels of heat output. So there is likely a range at which the stove performs very well, but when you lower the burning temperature, or go above a certain point, you loose that efficiency. I think if you use both the baro and the MPD on a modern stove, you can extend the range over which the stove runs quite efficiently. Now, I actually think you can do this with just the MPD, but you have to fuss with it all the time, so the combo would be more stable.

dj

dlj, what you state makes sense and it sure sounds like it should work. More control over the draft variables. Similar to the old days with carbureted engines when one could fine tune with jets, analogous to the MPD, and the old SU carbs controlling velocity.

Just one question relating to the Vigilant or any thermostatically controlled air inlet on a modern stove, how much would the MPD setting influence the draft flow volume when the stove warmed & the thermostatic air inlet' restricted intake? As air tight as the modern thermostatically controlled stoves are, this flap limits flow at the inlet - like a misplaced/repositioned MPD. It seems one would have to watch closely an learn all over again. With more control points, one should get better control. It could be a lot fussier as you hone in on the sweat spot but you'd have to have a strong drawing chimney. I'm thinking that's why rewinder uses just a baro - there's essentially an MPD on the stove masquerading as a thermostat flap.


Sorry... guilty of thread drift.

But I will say like Fred: keep it simple. No bothering with a baro or MPD, today, 4 pounds at 8 AM and 6 pounds at 8 PM. Low heat demand. Just a little more ant. on colder days. Imagine an ant. new comer. Simpler = better. Sorry but I don't see any improvement possible with MPD or Baro if the stove is "air tight" and has an internal damper. Just read all posts from peoples having difficulties with these "gadgets" ! Maybe crude but true.

VigIIPeaBurner wrote: Just one question relating to the Vigilant or any thermostatically controlled air inlet on a modern stove, how much would the MPD setting influence the draft flow volume when the stove warmed & the thermostatic air inlet' restricted intake?

Going in that direction, it shouldn't make any difference at all. The difference arises when you get the stove all set up to run low temperature and then you change the thermostat to run hotter and don't open the MPD to accommodate the new setting. Then you might not get the stove to heat up as much as you might expect as you'd not get the same air flow to bring the fire up.

VigIIPeaBurner wrote:As air tight as the modern thermostatically controlled stoves are, this flap limits flow at the inlet - like a misplaced/repositioned MPD. It seems one would have to watch closely an learn all over again. With more control points, one should get better control. It could be a lot fussier as you hone in on the sweat spot but you'd have to have a strong drawing chimney. I'm thinking that's why rewinder uses just a baro - there's essentially an MPD on the stove masquerading as a thermostat flap.

This last section is what I don't quite agree with. The inlet control limits the amount of air you get into the fire to support combustion. This will in turn, also affect the velocity of the flow through the whole system, as you say. But, think about it this way: if I can increase the amount of air coming into my stove, thereby increasing my rate of combustion - I'll also increase the amount of gases I'm producing - but I slow down the rate at which those gases exit the system, I can increase the dwell time of the hot gases, extracting more heat out of them. I'm also increasing the dwell time of the combustion gases in the fire chamber thereby helping increase the efficiency of the burn... These two aspects are not controlled by the automatic air input, only by the control of the exiting gases...

dj

nortcan wrote:But I will say like Fred: keep it simple. No bothering with a baro or MPD, today, 4 pounds at 8 AM and 6 pounds at 8 PM. Low heat demand. Just a little more ant. on colder days. Imagine an ant. new comer. Simpler = better. Sorry but I don't see any improvement possible with MPD or Baro if the stove is "air tight" and has an internal damper. Just read all posts from peoples having difficulties with these "gadgets" ! Maybe crude but true.

Nortcan, What can I say? I'm basically in the same boat as you are, I keep thinking I should buy a Baro and put it in my set-up but heck, I have such good results without it, why bother??

dj

dlj wrote:

nortcan wrote:But I will say like Fred: keep it simple. No bothering with a baro or MPD, today, 4 pounds at 8 AM and 6 pounds at 8 PM. Low heat demand. Just a little more ant. on colder days. Imagine an ant. new comer. Simpler = better. Sorry but I don't see any improvement possible with MPD or Baro if the stove is "air tight" and has an internal damper. Just read all posts from peoples having difficulties with these "gadgets" ! Maybe crude but true.

Nortcan, What can I say? I'm basically in the same boat as you are, I keep thinking I should buy a Baro and put it in my set-up but heck, I have such good results without it, why bother??

dj

dlj, the best thing we can do now is to buy a bigger boat cause a lot will come rapidly and see how it could be easier.. Then we will make the stoves LOL.
Happy Easter to all the boat peoples.
nortcan

dlj wrote: ...8<..

VigIIPeaBurner wrote:As air tight as the modern thermostatically controlled stoves are, this flap limits flow at the inlet - like a misplaced/repositioned MPD. It seems one would have to watch closely an learn all over again. With more control points, one should get better control. It could be a lot fussier as you hone in on the sweat spot but you'd have to have a strong drawing chimney. I'm thinking that's why rewinder uses just a baro - there's essentially an MPD on the stove masquerading as a thermostat flap.

This last section is what I don't quite agree with. The inlet control limits the amount of air you get into the fire to support combustion. This will in turn, also affect the velocity of the flow through the whole system, as you say. But, think about it this way: if I can increase the amount of air coming into my stove, thereby increasing my rate of combustion - I'll also increase the amount of gases I'm producing - but I slow down the rate at which those gases exit the system, I can increase the dwell time of the hot gases, extracting more heat out of them. I'm also increasing the dwell time of the combustion gases in the fire chamber thereby helping increase the efficiency of the burn... These two aspects are not controlled by the automatic air input, only by the control of the exiting gases...

dj

Again, in regards to a true air tight system: Keeping with the KISS system, if air can't get in, how can it get out? Agreed, while the t-stat is open and a new load is heating up, the dwell time is an issue. No doubt. But once it's at cruse temp, if air can't get in at a high velocity, it can't get out regardless of a baro or an MPD. If I recharge and the volatiles catch right away, the T-stat opens a bit and the stack temp rises slowly. Once the internal "damper" (an MPD to a design) is closed the stove temp quickly rises, the T-stat closes and the stack drops ~ 20* to maintain at ~ 170*F. I do see your point about increasing dwell time. I'd have to play with and MPD in my set up to track the delta between MPD control and only T-stat flap control.

Nortcan’s picture of the base burner bypass port appears to be smaller than 5” although I didn’t calculate the area of the opening. If I read his statements correctly, that’s why he questions the need to add an MPD. IMHO, nortcan, I’d add one given the possibilities of air infiltration as all those curved joints cycle through may heat cycles.

The antique stove does not have a thermostat, so has nothing to compensate for sudden high pressure with wind. Only a baro will compensate for that in a stove with manual air input.