Our Glenwood 109

scalabro · Post by **scalabro** » Tue. Jan. 12, 2016 12:21 pm

tcalo wrote:As soon as I removed the baro and installed the cap I noticed a huge diffference in draft. I like that idea Scott. I put the baro back in and set the weight at -.05. Trying to find the sweet spot!!!

The sweet spot will be whatever baro set number that bleeds just enough draft off to let the MPD allow a range from .01-.04

tcalo · Post by **tcalo** » Tue. Jan. 12, 2016 12:50 pm

I'll figure this stove out one of these days...

KingCoal · Post by **KingCoal** » Tue. Jan. 12, 2016 1:34 pm

scalabro wrote:
tcalo wrote:As soon as I removed the baro and installed the cap I noticed a huge diffference in draft. I like that idea Scott. I put the baro back in and set the weight at -.05. Trying to find the sweet spot!!!
The sweet spot will be whatever baro set number that bleeds just enough draft off to let the MPD allow a range from .01-.04

for the sake of conversation, having been of the same opinion ( sweet spot, .01- .04 ) I dropped my stove from .045- .055 and 598F barrel to .03 for an hr. in that time the barrel went to 566.

so, in my current conditions the sweet spot is just a tad higher and seems to support the other thing I've been sure of. every stove, even on the same chimney in the same house is a little diff. and will take time to sort.

joeq · Post by **joeq** » Tue. Jan. 12, 2016 5:28 pm

Been there with the baro experiment Tom. My baro weight was very sensitive to adjustment, so for me, when the temps were frigid or single digits, to get my draft higher, (and stove hotter), I found it easier to just block it off. I remember experimenting with the foil, but think I ended up with the close pin. It wasn't needed very often, but I remember having to do it once in a while. But most of the time the baro was a Godsend.

.JPG | 106.1KB | IR readings 003.JPG

tcalo · Post by **tcalo** » Tue. Jan. 12, 2016 6:15 pm

joeq wrote:Been there with the baro experiment Tom. My baro weight was very sensitive to adjustment, so for me, when the temps were frigid or single digits, to get my draft higher, (and stove hotter), I found it easier to just block it off. I remember experimenting with the foil, but think I ended up with the close pin. It wasn't needed very often, but I remember having to do it once in a while. But most of the time the baro was a Godsend.

This may be my fate as well with the G109. I have the baro installed with the weight set to -.05. This should allow me the draft I need to ramp up the stove and still protect it from high winds. Trial and error my friend. I'll find my groove one of these days, hopefully by seasons end...

KingCoal · Post by **KingCoal** » Wed. Jan. 13, 2016 7:45 am

The sweet spot will be whatever baro set number that bleeds just enough draft off to let the MPD allow a range from .01-.04

[/quote]

for the sake of conversation, having been of the same opinion ( sweet spot, .01- .04 ) I dropped my stove from .045- .055 and 598F barrel to .03 for an hr. in that time the barrel went to 566.

so, in my current conditions the sweet spot is just a tad higher and seems to support the other thing I've been sure of. every stove, even on the same chimney in the same house is a little diff. and will take time to sort.

[/quote]

i'd like to return to this idea and set of my previous comments. I have been pretty solid in the believe that -.03 should be more than enough draft for any decent stove in average conditions and have run that way the last 2 seasons with great results.

this yr. I converted a stove I had no previous experience with and have been having some issues figuring out just what it's telling me. so, for the most part, I settled on a very generic balance of draft and primary settings that has given acceptable heat and econ. but that has not helped clear up some of the nagging "whys" that keep coming up.

Soooooooo, this morning i'm running an unattended experiment with the stove locked down at -.03 and the primary wide open. by wide open I mean 6.8 si. of unobstructed opening.

before I left home this setting was providing pretty much the same burn rate as my other settings but the stove was doing better at releasing heat from all check points.

we're supposed to have wind at 10-20 today so at noon i'll go back over and see if the house is still there. currently 3 F , wind at 9 mph, chill -13.

i chose to put this here rather than my own thread because this is where I had made other contradictory comments, in the hopes that the outcome would be more agreeable hope that's OK.

steve

joeq · Post by **joeq** » Wed. Jan. 13, 2016 5:29 pm

I'm assuming the pros here already know these outcomes, but I was always curious about your test too Steve. If you put in more primaries, but regulate the draft, will there be any substantial temperature change, in comparison to
1- primaries full open draft .03
2- primaries 1/2 open draft .03
3- primaries 1/2 open, draft .06
In examples 1+2, will 1 be hotter than 2? (I would think so)
Comparing 1 to 3, will they differ, or be close to the same temps?
And lastly, in examples 2+3, will 3 be hotter there too? I would think so.
I think Tom could benefit from this question or experiment Steve, and shouldn't mind.

KingCoal · Post by **KingCoal** » Wed. Jan. 13, 2016 6:44 pm

joeq wrote:I'm assuming the pros here already know these outcomes, but I was always curious about your test too Steve. If you put in more primaries, but regulate the draft, will there be any substantial temperature change, in comparison to
1- primaries full open draft .03
2- primaries 1/2 open draft .03
3- primaries 1/2 open, draft .06
In examples 1+2, will 1 be hotter than 2? (I would think so)
Comparing 1 to 3, will they differ, or be close to the same temps?
And lastly, in examples 2+3, will 3 be hotter there too? I would think so.
I think Tom could benefit from this question or experiment Steve, and shouldn't mind.

thanks Joeq, these things all need to be run and logged which I haven't been able to do but, i'll try to answer to the best of my ability based on my experience today.

1- set up yielded a similar amount of heat for 6 hrs. just enough to hold the IAT constant

2- I haven't run yet but, my feeling is that it will produce more heat than 1 because, it seemed to me that 1 was over ventilating the fuel bed and carrying excessive heat straight out of the stove.

3- which is what I did at noon when I was here, except primaries 3/8's open. developed and released more heat from the stove to the tune of raising IAT by 4 * in 5.5 hrs. very noticable when coming back this evening.

1-2, i'm sure 2 will be hotter

1-3, 3 will be much hotter

2-3, very sure 3 will be hotter.

all this HAS to be taken as what it is, the results i'm getting from a unique stove in my set up application. i'm expecting some input from an engineer with chemical, mechanical and combustion science experience of the very highest order, with that I hope we will be better able to draw some wider conclusions and refine our practice and results.

fair enough ?

steve

joeq · Post by **joeq** » Wed. Jan. 13, 2016 7:09 pm

"Capich"

One thing Steve. I'm not understanding your opinion on the example comparing 1 against 2, wouldn't 1 be the hotter burn, seeing the primaries are wide open, and the draft is the same? you mentioned 2 would be hotter, but the primary is only 1/2 open, compared to 1.

KingCoal · Post by **KingCoal** » Wed. Jan. 13, 2016 8:10 pm

joeq wrote:"Capich"
One thing Steve. I'm not understanding your opinion on the example comparing 1 against 2, wouldn't 1 be the hotter burn, seeing the primaries are wide open, and the draft is the same? you mentioned 2 would be hotter, but the primary is only 1/2 open, compared to 1.

i understand your view but, if I may redirect your attention to my comment on arrangement 2, I said that in arrangement 1 I was quite sure the stove was being over ventilated and loosing ground.

part of this pursuit is that I have long been concerned that in many cases we tend to use a good deal more primary than is actually needed for full combustion and so are not getting all we could.

in my experience with this set up under -.04 opening the primary beyond a certain point starts to have an adverse affect. just the same, above that point it seems to be broadly true that opening the primary more and more will give a higher burn.

time will tell if there is in fact any science behind this observation.

joeq · Post by **joeq** » Wed. Jan. 13, 2016 8:30 pm

As Artie Johnson use-ta say, "Very Interesting".

KingCoal · Post by **KingCoal** » Thu. Jan. 14, 2016 7:34 am

well I went further with this premise this morning.

with a settled fire, primary at about 25% open and the draft set to -.08 ( enough velocity to show results in the fire quickly ) I opened the primary further and saw no degree of decrease or increase in the draft pressure AND the fire was clearly starting to be suppressed as in slow down.

then I returned the primary to the original setting for a couple mins. to stabilize again then closed it until the Mano. showed an increase in pressure. at that point I stopped and watched and sure enough, the fire picked up and more heat started coming off the stove.

hardly scientific but it was repeatable and was still showing the same result when I left for the day. my conclusion is that it is far easier (and probably more common ) to over ventilate the fire bed and flue to the point of retarding the performance of the stove than to get it just right.

further, since we know that -.08 WC converts to .00289 psi acting outside the primary damper we shouldn't be too surprised that it takes very little opening , and therefore air, to satisfy it.

lobsterman · Post by **lobsterman** » Thu. Jan. 14, 2016 8:41 am

KingCoal wrote:well I went further with this premise this morning.

with a settled fire, primary at about 25% open and the draft set to -.08 ( enough velocity to show results in the fire quickly ) I opened the primary further and saw no degree or increase in the draft pressure AND the fire was clearly starting to be suppressed as in slow down.

then I returned the primary to the original setting for a couple mins. to stabilize again then closed it until the Mano. showed an increase in pressure. at that point I stopped and watched and sure enough, the fire picked up and more heat started coming off the stove.

hardly scientific but it was repeatable and was still showing the same result when I left for the day. my conclusion is that it is far easier (and probably more common ) to over ventilate the fire bed and flue to the point of retarding the performance of the stove than to get it just right.

further, since we know that -.08 WC converts to .00289 psi we shouldn't be too surprised that it takes very little opening , and therefore air, to satisfy it.

KingCoal · Post by **KingCoal** » Thu. Jan. 14, 2016 8:54 am

lobsterman, did you miss getting your comment included with that quote ?

thanks,
steve

windyhill4.2 · Post by **windyhill4.2** » Thu. Jan. 14, 2016 8:56 am

Our Glenwood 109