Air intake for Multi-fuel stove

[GUMPY]

9 hours ago, alistair1537 said:

The idea of a separate air feed is to minimise fuel requirements - keep a closed system to keep CO from the interior - the stove seals when the door is fully closed. If the system is closed there is little chance of a CO build-up within the boat. 

Don't you believe it!

Stoves crack with age that's how the CO gets out, been there done that and been woken up by the alarm at 0300.

Couldn't see the crack only found it later with a smoke pellet.

Edited September 21, 2020 by Loddon

[ditchcrawler]

2 hours ago, Loddon said:

 

Stoves crack with age that's how the CO gets out, been there done that and been woken up by the alarm at 0300.

 

I seem to remember that one  ended up in the cut, but the second one saved your life

[GUMPY]

10 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

I seem to remember that one  ended up in the cut, but the second one saved your life

Yes alarm one went off couldn't silence it so drowned it. Alarm 2 which was next to stove and silent moved to alarm one position where it also went off. I then emptied stove into cut and went back to bed.  Its still a mystery to me why the nearest alarm to the stove didn't go off.

[TheBiscuits]

3 hours ago, Loddon said:

Yes alarm one went off couldn't silence it so drowned it. Alarm 2 which was next to stove and silent moved to alarm one position where it also went off. I then emptied stove into cut and went back to bed.  Its still a mystery to me why the nearest alarm to the stove didn't go off.

 

It suffocated!

 

Seriously, it all depends on the position of the alarm relative to any leaking CO.  Your tale is an excellent example of why everyone should have more than one CO alarm (and smoke alarms too) and why it's critical that at least one of the CO alarms is nearby and at your head level when you are sleeping.

 

There's no point having a tidy CO alarm on the high shelf if you are getting poisoned 3ft below it!

[GUMPY]

7 hours ago, TheBiscuits said:

There's no point having a tidy CO alarm on the high shelf if you are getting poisoned 3ft below it!

The alarm in the bedroom is about 8" above mattress level all be it at our feet, the one in the lounge is about 3ft above stove level, which strangely is where the instructions says it should be

[mrsmelly]

16 hours ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

It suffocated!

 

Seriously, it all depends on the position of the alarm relative to any leaking CO.  Your tale is an excellent example of why everyone should have more than one CO alarm (and smoke alarms too) and why it's critical that at least one of the CO alarms is nearby and at your head level when you are sleeping.

 

There's no point having a tidy CO alarm on the high shelf if you are getting poisoned 3ft below it!

Very true and its why we have 4 co alarms. One needs to be at head level near ya bed so if you are asleep thats where you are breathing and thats what needs monitoring innitt.

[alistair1537]

On 22/09/2020 at 01:09, TheBiscuits said:

Seriously, it all depends on the position of the alarm relative to any leaking CO.  Your tale is an excellent example of why everyone should have more than one CO alarm (and smoke alarms too) and why it's critical that at least one of the CO alarms is nearby and at your head level when you are sleeping.

 

There's no point having a tidy CO alarm on the high shelf if you are getting poisoned 3ft below it!

CO is lighter than air, so having a alarm positioned fairly high is a good idea.

[dor]

4 minutes ago, alistair1537 said:

CO is lighter than air, so having a alarm positioned fairly high is a good idea.

CO is almost the same density as air.

[Rob-M]

9 minutes ago, alistair1537 said:

CO is lighter than air, so having a alarm positioned fairly high is a good idea.

Density of CO depends on temperature, density increases as air temperature decreases.

[Chewbacka]

3 hours ago, Rob-M said:

Density of CO depends on temperature, density increases as air temperature decreases.

But air also increases its density as it cools.

[LadyG]

Nostril height.

[Ally]

Only just caught up to this thread. Could the OP please let us know what stove exactly is fitted?  I see the thread started a couple of months ago, and he tells us we don't know his system so can't pull it apart , so i would like to understand what that system is exactly, and with which stove. 

I have never come across such in a boat but am happy to investigate. I certainly wouldn't wish to put an extra 75mm hole (i think it was) in the side, for the joy of it. I do see this idea has been adjusted. Is it ducted now? How is it if so, or have plans changed?

[alistair1537]

On 15/11/2020 at 23:26, Ally said:

Only just caught up to this thread. Could the OP please let us know what stove exactly is fitted?  I see the thread started a couple of months ago, and he tells us we don't know his system so can't pull it apart , so i would like to understand what that system is exactly, and with which stove. 

I have never come across such in a boat but am happy to investigate. I certainly wouldn't wish to put an extra 75mm hole (i think it was) in the side, for the joy of it. I do see this idea has been adjusted. Is it ducted now? How is it if so, or have plans changed?

Hi Ally, 

 

I have a Waterford-Stanley Oisin stove fitted - it is a solid-fuel - It has a front mounted damper which has been shut off and a rear mounted external air damper - factory option - fitted. This allows me to duct in air from outside the boat to burn the fuel. I did consider "holing" the boat at the stove to duct this air in but better sense and help from Dor and the missus have persuaded me to duct from the engine bay which is sealed from the living area and has it's own vents, port and starboard. I have not completed the ducting yet, mainly due to laziness. The thing is, the ducting would be very easy to install and remove - so this experiment lends itself to an attempt at least. My understanding of safety and economy has pointed to other types of heating and I realised that other combustion methods of heating now involve a "sealed room" situation to pass safety requirements. So, why not extend this thinking to solid fuel stoves in boats? Unfortunately, there are a lot of naysayers. They certainly have a lot more experience than I do, but that doesn't mean they are all-knowing - none of them have tried to what I propose as far as I'm aware.

[bizzard]

My first car was a 1936 Ford 8 Y type. When it's engine heated up on a run I could smell oily fumes and exhaust coming up through the floor boards, same places water shot up through when I drove through puddles. I made a hole in the bulkhead and from the carburetter air venturi intake led a rubber hose into the hole in the bulkhead. Wonderful, it sucked out all the stinks completely. There were two drawbacks though, a bit unpleasant. Unless I had a window cracked open the suction tried hard to put me in a vacuum which made my adonoids swell up and gave me a headache. Secondly the incredible roar from the suction tube was too much, it sounded like a Jumbo jet taking off every time I accellerated, but I could have coped with that by wearing ear muffs. An amazing noise from such a small capacity 8hp engine. I took to accellerating very very gently but got hooted at by other impatient drivers. In the end I remove the suction tube, blocked up the hole and then of course the stinks resumed. But it was a good worthwhile experiment.

Edited November 18, 2020 by bizzard

[alistair1537]

26 minutes ago, bizzard said:

My first car was a 1936 Ford 8 Y type. When it's engine heated up on a run I could smell oily fumes and exhaust coming up through the floor boards, same places water shot up through when I drove through puddles. I made a hole in the bulkhead and from the carburetter air venturi intake led a rubber hose into the hole in the bulkhead. Wonderful, it sucked out all the stinks completely. There were two drawbacks though, a bit unpleasant. Unless I had a window cracked open the suction tried hard to put me in a vacuum which made my adonoids swell up and gave me a headache. Secondly the incredible roar from the suction tube was too much, it sounded like a Jumbo jet taking off every time I accellerated, but I could have coped with that by wearing ear muffs. An amazing noise from such a small capacity 8hp engine. I took to accellerating very very gently but got hooted at by other impatient drivers. In the end I remove the suction tube, blocked up the hole and then of course the stinks resumed. But it was a good worthwhile experiment.

I see you even took the time to edit your garbage.

[bizzard]

4 minutes ago, alistair1537 said:

I see you even took the time to edit your garbage.

Thanks for Barging Inn, I don't think.

 

5 minutes ago, alistair1537 said:

I see you even took the time to edit your garbage.

 

[tree monkey]

19 minutes ago, alistair1537 said:

I see you even took the time to edit your garbage.

A touch unnecessary I think

[Mad Harold]

19 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

A touch unnecessary I think

Agree. The thread drift on the forum makes the posts even more interesting.

I find Bizzard's posts most entertaining.

[blackrose]

1 hour ago, alistair1537 said:

Hi Ally, 

 

I have a Waterford-Stanley Oisin stove fitted - it is a solid-fuel - It has a front mounted damper which has been shut off and a rear mounted external air damper - factory option - fitted. This allows me to duct in air from outside the boat to burn the fuel. I did consider "holing" the boat at the stove to duct this air in but better sense and help from Dor and the missus have persuaded me to duct from the engine bay which is sealed from the living area and has it's own vents, port and starboard. I have not completed the ducting yet, mainly due to laziness. The thing is, the ducting would be very easy to install and remove - so this experiment lends itself to an attempt at least. My understanding of safety and economy has pointed to other types of heating and I realised that other combustion methods of heating now involve a "sealed room" situation to pass safety requirements. So, why not extend this thinking to solid fuel stoves in boats? Unfortunately, there are a lot of naysayers. They certainly have a lot more experience than I do, but that doesn't mean they are all-knowing - none of them have tried to what I propose as far as I'm aware.

 

I'm also interested in how you get on. I kept an open mind about the idea from the start. There are going to be quite a few forum members with egg all over their faces if it works! ? ?

Edited November 18, 2020 by blackrose

[Ally]

1 hour ago, alistair1537 said:

Hi Ally, 

 

I have a Waterford-Stanley Oisin stove fitted - it is a solid-fuel - It has a front mounted damper which has been shut off and a rear mounted external air damper - factory option - fitted. This allows me to duct in air from outside the boat to burn the fuel. I did consider "holing" the boat at the stove to duct this air in but better sense and help from Dor and the missus have persuaded me to duct from the engine bay which is sealed from the living area and has it's own vents, port and starboard. I have not completed the ducting yet, mainly due to laziness. The thing is, the ducting would be very easy to install and remove - so this experiment lends itself to an attempt at least. My understanding of safety and economy has pointed to other types of heating and I realised that other combustion methods of heating now involve a "sealed room" situation to pass safety requirements. So, why not extend this thinking to solid fuel stoves in boats? Unfortunately, there are a lot of naysayers. They certainly have a lot more experience than I do, but that doesn't mean they are all-knowing - none of them have tried to what I propose as far as I'm aware.

I hope you do get round to ducting it, and come back to report the results, be they positive,  negative,  or mixed. How else do we learn. Its quite a potent stove, assuming you are heating a narrowboat (?) Not a widebeam...i may have missed that point when I first scanned through. I might be inclined to add to my venting with a larger stove, but to be fair I would just add another fixed vent. Interesting though.

[ditchcrawler]

44 minutes ago, Ally said:

I hope you do get round to ducting it, and come back to report the results, be they positive,  negative,  or mixed. How else do we learn. Its quite a potent stove, assuming you are heating a narrowboat (?) Not a widebeam...i may have missed that point when I first scanned through. I might be inclined to add to my venting with a larger stove, but to be fair I would just add another fixed vent. Interesting though.

As I said earlier that is how the Baxi works and should reduce floor draughts

[alistair1537]

Alright, feedback time - so I had the stove already fettled for a external duct - that allowed me to "feel" the draught being pulled in by the stove at various levels of burn and damping - it really is a minimal amount - I expected way more draught to be honest. The factory suggests the 75mm ducting supplied be Tee coupled to a 100mm pipe that runs to an outside wall - usually in either direction. Seeing as this is a barge and my route was to the engine room, I planned the pipe to fit under the gunnel - I connected and tested 100mm plastic waste pipe - it works fine - no noticeable difference what-so-ever. Happy days - the problem lies in routing the pipe.

 

So I thought a narrower pipe might work too - so I tried a 75mm gutter down pipe - same result. I am currently burning the entire day today through a 43mm plastic drain waste pipe - works like a charm - the length of the pipe run is around 7.5m. 

 

So far, it seems like it is working well. I have noticed the pipe is fairly cold dragging in external air, I may need to lag it to prevent any condensation issues.

[TheBiscuits]

1 hour ago, alistair1537 said:

So I thought a narrower pipe might work too - so I tried a 75mm gutter down pipe - same result. I am currently burning the entire day today through a 43mm plastic drain waste pipe - works like a charm

 

I'd be very concerned about dropping the combustion air intake to about one third of the original provided. (Area of circle 75mm diameter vs area of circle 43mm diameter). 

 

You'll probably get away with it at restricted fire sizes, but make sure you are using more than one CO alarm while testing this.

[Dr Bob]

11 hours ago, alistair1537 said:

 

So far, it seems like it is working well. I have noticed the pipe is fairly cold dragging in external air, I may need to lag it to prevent any condensation issues.

......but are you observing all the effects? By drawing air from outside the cabin you are reducing the air return at floor level so reducing air flow round the cabin...as I explained in an earlier post. It's not condensation on your pipe I would be worried about. It's condensation in the cabin that will be worse.......but you won't be able to compare this.

[Mad Harold]

Can only see one advantage of having an external air feed for a stove,and that is to make it "room sealed".

If you have a gas leak or if petrol powered a fuel leak,then it is obviously safer,but only untill you open the stove door to re-stoke it.