Wood heat in a shop

I am getting ready to buy/build 55 wood stoves for my shop. I see the single stackers, the doubles, all kinds. The shop is roughly 15360. It
is 40 x 32, 8' high, roof varies from 2' to 6' above that low slope.
I like it warm. I wouldn't mind having two stoves, and take them out and switch them with the swampers each year.
I see Wolfzang (sp?) stoves, and their ilk, which is just a pretty well sealed up 55 gal barrel. I see others, with what looks like varying degrees of craftsmanship, mass of metal in components, differences in vents, and a few things that makes one better than the other, as in thicker metal, more bolts, more vents, etc.
What makes a good wood burner, and what is good to look for? Are the more expensive ones inherently more efficient? And just what does the second barrel do, other than provide greater surface area? And would it be possible to mount the second top barrel somewhere other than directly over the lower one to take heat to another portion of the shop?
Just how airtight are these? Is it necessary to monitor them very closely with CO detectors, or is the inherent leakage of a hobbyiist built enclosure safe enough?
Would one single stove be enough? Two singles? Two doubles?
And just how often does one have to paint these? In my area, I can get pristine coconut oil barrels for $10 each with lids, so changing them over the years would be probably easier than keeping up with a swamp cooler.
Class?
Steve
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

When I was a lad wood stoves were pretty common. Both grand parents houses, my Uncle's work shop, the first house my folks built... One of the biggest secrets was to run the stove pipe a long way down the room.. that hot stove pipe pours a lot of BTU's into the room.
--
Cheers,

John B.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Gunner Asch wrote:

And how do you think this will play out ? Over half of the people we know up here heat with wood - and these same people are already pretty fed up with being told what we can't do . These same people also have guns and know how to use them ... I suspect the feral hog population around here will be well-fed if they try to take away our heat . There just aren't any affordable options out here in the woods . Electric isn't an option any more , with the increasing regulation on power generation making it too expensive , and LPG is being priced out of reach now too . Natural gas isn't available out here , it's just not profitable to run pipelines out here due to low population density . That leaves wood or solar , and very few of us can afford the equipment investment for solar , much less the cost of retrofitting . I see scary times ahead , this may just be that proverbial final straw . They've indoctrinated our children , they've adulterated our food supply and made health care unaffordable for most of us . Now they want to take away our source of heat ? I think that ain't gonna happen .
--
Snag
What's next ,
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

For the other extreme -- unchecked pollution -- check out what is going on in China. Go to youtube and type "china pollution".
Click here for a good summary of ongoing EPA regulations of wood stoves.
https://www.chimneysweeponline.com/hoepareg.htm
I had a wood stove in the old house. It was nice, but hard to control, meaning that it would get the house very hot very quickly, or needed to be constantly tended to for slower burning. But, on balance, I loved it.
i
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
message

I've fine-tuned my efficient 1970's airtight so it rarely emits any visible smoke, and have a night-vision camera watching the chimney top and a readout of the firebox temperature in the kitchen to monitor it. I needed several years of experimenting in various weather conditions and some instrumentation to eliminate the smoke and stack buildup.
That's the reason I use thermocouples instead of IC temperature sensors.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jim Wilkins wrote:

Can you give me a basic rundown on how you eliminated smoke when on a slow burn ? Mine doesn't make a lot , but some . It's an airtight with an inlet damper .
--
Snag



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I installed a mirror outside so I could see the chimney top while sitting in front of the stove.
It would smoke badly if I followed the instructions for a slow "cigarette burn". Instead I leave a channel open down the center, in line with the air inlet, that lets the full length of the wood burn from the center outward, for about an hour at a steady temperature before it starts to cool. The display in the kitchen tells me when it needs feeding again.
http://www.antiquesnavigator.com/ebay/images/2010/140440642291.jpg
Mine is the 1970's Taiwanese copy. The happy draft disk setting is closed against a 3-4mm Allen wrench.
The long and tedious experimenting was to leak just enough additional preheated secondary air into the upper chamber to completely burn the smoke without cooling the flue and reducing the draft, or becoming unstable and running away. Those things can be hard to tame.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jim Wilkins wrote:

OK , yours is a totally different beast . Mine has no secondary burn , just a box with the bottom half lined with fire bricks . Seals up well , and is easily controlled by the inlet air setting . My biggest problem is actually excess heat ... my neighbor up the hill has the same stove , he heats about 1400 SF with it . Our room <"baby house"> and camper combined are less than half that . I compensate by not feeding it too much during the day , then loading up just before I go to bed and setting the knob on "low" .
--
Snag



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jim Wilkins wrote:

What about a catalytic converter?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

JEEZ Terry! Someone spouts off and you don't even check it out but start talking about guns and pig feed? Simmer down. The EPA is not going to ban the use of wood burning stoves in our life time. Furthermore, stoves already in place will not need to be removed. Washington State, where I live, has one of the most, if not the most, restrictive standards on wood stove pollution. And we have burn bans. But the burn bans do not apply if the stove is your only source of heat. And if you cannot afford the power, gas, or oil to heat your house then burning wood to heat your home is OK during a burn ban. I have a modern wood burning stove that meets the WA State regs and it doesn't have a catalytic converter. Partly because of the tighter regs the stove must be more efficient. This is great because not only does the stove pollute less but I am able to heat a 2200 square foot home burning alder, which I harvest myself from my land. And I mean heat it well, sometimes I get a little too enthusiastic filling the thing and the house gets too hot. Cheers, Eric
--
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@whidbey.com wrote:

Bad night , got up to a fire that was nearly out and in a bad mood . Yeah , I did overreact , checked some more facts from a different source and realized it .
--
Snag



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 09:17:33 -0800, snipped-for-privacy@whidbey.com wrote:

Jackson County, OR (medford, down the road) has a similar setup.
http://www.co.jackson.or.us/page.asp?navid $92 county and state http://www.deq.state.or.us/aq/burning/woodstoves/heatsmart.htm
--
The most powerful factors in the world are clear
ideas in the minds of energetic men of good will.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 21:00:15 -0800, Larry Jaques

Well it only makes sense. We can't have too many wood burning heaters running all winter because of the pollution. At the same time we can't have folks freezing and pipes freezing in the winter in homes where the people are already living with small incomes. I argue with myself about whether to burn wood. Electricity that I use comes partly from fossil fuels. Propane is also a fossil fuel. But I am growing wood faster than I burn it so if I burn wood I will put less carbon in the air than if I use electricity or propane for heat. On the other hand I also put bad particulates into the air when burning wood. Eric
--
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 08:37:09 -0800, snipped-for-privacy@whidbey.com wrote:

Until we get fusion, we burn fossil fuels or (better) use reactors. If we use reactors which can burn the spent fuel, so much the better.

You realize the utter _bullshit_ of that statement, don't you? <sigh> You're growing trees anyway, so the use of propane would be much, much better for the ecology. BANK on it.

At rates many orders of magnitude larger, too.
And much more:
http://www.familiesforcleanair.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Wood-Smoke-Pollution-Chart..jpg
(Crom, I hate quoting from econazi sites, but, occasionally, they're actually right on the money.)
--
The most powerful factors in the world are clear
ideas in the minds of energetic men of good will.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 10:30:27 -0800, Larry Jaques

Greetings Larry, It is debateable whether burning fossil fuels or wood is ultimately the better solution when it comes to greenhouse effects. Burning fossil fuels releases carbon into the environment, and energy too, that was sequestered thousands or millions of years ago. Burning vegetable matter and releasing CO2 at a rate slower than it absorbs as it grows does not add to the net carbon in the air or the heat of the planet. But unless burned in a proper power plant with scrubbers that remove everything except CO2, vegetable matter burning can and does contribute all sorts of particulates and other bad stuff to the air. Eric
--
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 10:51:08 -0800, snipped-for-privacy@whidbey.com wrote:

HowDEE!

I figured any debate was over when I looked at the difference in pollution between the two, with wood and coal so -much- higher than any (other) fossil fuel. ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE different. Wood stoves up to 400x the pollutants of nat gas/propane. It isn't rocket surgery.

Who brainwashed you to think along this line? (Sorry, but that's the way I see it.)
I'm thinking we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
--
The most powerful factors in the world are clear
ideas in the minds of energetic men of good will.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<SNIP>

If I only burn plants that growing now then I'm not adding to the total carbon in the environment. But if I burn fossil fuels then I am adding to the carbon in the environment. The environment being the surface of the earth where everything lives. Or am I wrong. And if so please point out where I'm making a misteak. Eric
--
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

^^^^^^^
Right there
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 12:22:46 -0600, Ignoramus18213

The mistake in the sentence is the last word. Meant as a pun. I'm glad someone got it. Eric
--
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 12:22:46 -0600, Ignoramus18213

I'm pretty sure he did that on porpoise, Ig.
--
The most powerful factors in the world are clear
ideas in the minds of energetic men of good will.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.