[at-l] OT Outdoor Furnaces was Geo-Exchange -OT

[Bob C]

The only environmentally wise way to burn wood is to burn it hot with the drafts wide open so that most of the smoke is consumed. The only way to do that and still have a comfortable house is to store the heat generated by the fire -- either in water or masonry -- and take the heat needed for the home out of the storage medium, rather than directly from the fire.

I heated my home with such a device for 18 years. I stopped because of age, and the need for expensive repairs.

Mine was a special unit, no longer being made. But most any good heating technician/plumber can make any wood boiler work pretty much the same way. JUst send all the heat from the wood boiler to a thousand gallon tank of water, and draw energy from the tank to heat the house, rather than directly from the boiler.

AS for passive solar, it should be virtually free for a home with south facing windows and an absence of trees or other obstructions to the sun. My house gets 40 percent of its energy from the sun because I designed it with the long side running east to west, and most of the windows facing south. One can increase the percentage of solar energy by a few percentage points by installing storage in the form of rock beds, concrete or tanks of water, but I don't find that to be worthwhile, given the cost, and the clogging of valuable living space with storage devices.

WEary 




> ------------Original Message------------
> From: "Jim Bullard" <jim.bullard at gmail.com>
> To: "RoksnRoots at aol.com" <RoksnRoots at aol.com>
> Cc: AT-L at backcountry.net
> Date: Mon, Jan-1-2007 12:52 PM
> Subject: Re: [at-l] OT Outdoor Furnaces was Geo-Exchange -OT
>
> On 1/1/07, RoksnRoots at aol.com <RoksnRoots at aol.com> wrote:
> 
> >        Just a slight follow-through on a previous OT topic:
> ...clip...
> >
> >            Also, the Times had and article telling how wood furnaces 
> are
> > becoming a problem because of their popularity. These furnaces burn 
> at low
> > temperature and oxygen rates, therefore emitting acrid-smelling, 
> particulate-laden
> > smoke into the local surroundings. Many communities are creating laws 
> to limit
> > their use because of this. Wood furnaces are a small shed-like unit 
> placed
> > outside the home that burn cut wood. Persons with a cheap supply of 
> wood save on
> > expensive heating oil or gas.
> 
> The "controlled draft" wood stoves of the 1980s burned in the same
> fashion but weren't as direct a problem because they used a
> traditional flue that exhausted the combustion fumes high enough for
> the wind to dissipate them. Just as your clothing and even the hairs
> on your body create an insulating envelop of air around you, so the
> buildings and trees create an envelop of air close to the ground.
> Traditional wood stoves have chimneys that extend above your roof
> exhaust above that envelop but outdoor furnaces have short (or no)
> stacks and exhaust directly into that lower envelop where the fumes
> remain trapped.
> 
> The house behind mine has an outdoor furnace with no stack and when
> the wind blows my way the smoke comes though my yard at 5-8' off the
> ground. If I don't have my windows closed and sealed (I caulk them in
> the winter) the smoke goes right through my house. It is like living
> inside a chimney.
> 
> I sympathize that he has his money invested in that system and can't
> afford to replace it right away but I had to complain because it makes
> my house unlivable unless I keep it sealed tight. The current
> compromise is that he only uses it in the winter months when my
> windows are all sealed. If my town moves to ban outdoor furnaces in
> populated areas however, I will be favoring the ban.
> -- 
> Jim Bullard
> http://jims-ramblings.blogspot.com/
> _______________________________________________
> AT-L Mailing List.  
> 
> Go here to unsubscribe or change your options:
> 
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/at-l
> 
>