I have an old all nighter woodstove that I added a baffle to and was wondering about secondary burn tubes. WeldrDave might know about this. What I'm wondering is if I took a piece of angle iron and welded a pipe with holes drilled in it and then put this on the baffle so that the tube was at the front of the baffle would this create any burn tube type effects. I don't really know a whole lot about burn tubes and all or if this would even help. Just putting it out there. I will draw a little pic to illustrate what I mean tomorrow.
Do an internet search "adding secondary burn tubes" lots of info out there even you tube videos. What you are suggesting though, you do know you need to have an air inlet feeding those tubes ?
+1 And preheated air. I have seen some of the retrofit threads, very interesting but I wonder haw much more efficiency are they gaining? Stoves are built in the lab these days, even the angle of the burn tube holes comes into play. Also, I've seen a small window (3x3?) added to the stove top to see if the burn tubes are even burning. IMO, burn tubes reduce controllability due to unregulated air (usually), so an increase in efficiency would be a must.
Yea I thought you needed to add air. That is above me. Maybe burn tubes is not the right wording. I'm kind of wondering if this setup would make the smoke roll around more and get it to burn off more/better.
After reading this twice, I think I got the idea. My opinion, if your baffle is working fine and you have increased your heat and burn times.... Leave it alone. Don't reinvent the wheel any more. You do not want to restrict the flow of gases more than need be if it's working . I'm not saying you can't try it, but figure out a temporary way to do it so that you can remove it if needed.
WeldrDave I thought you would know what I meant. I agree I may just leave it alone just thinking to hard on a bored work shift.
I've seen some stoves with a smoke shelf /baffle that looks like this: \/\/\/\/ The thinking is it creates little pockets to hold the smoke...and give it more time to burn without slowing your draft. Tack a few sticks of angle to your baffle maybe?
Not a bad idea.. The idea of the baffle is to simply divert Heat and slow the travel of the gasses, I've seen some different ones, problem arises in the back draft and burping out the doors if not enough heat and gas to push it to the flue.
Overall those pockets don't slow the OVERALL rate of exit because the exit area is the same. If the pockets are full then smoke just exits.
I agree with Dave here, in that I would not mess around with tubes if you have already put in a baffle. I was just trying to help with the subject matter if you had your heart set on secondary burn.
Actually yes they will, Think of an aircraft wing.. If you have smooth flow over ther wing everything is doing its job correctly. When you add a disturbance into the equasion, "you slow the burn down" thats true.. "BUT" you also create a disturbance in air flow. All your looking for is a diversion, not a disturbance. The longer it takes the gasses and heat to flow, the longer the complete burn cycle, but you want a smooth flow to the flue or you "may" wind up getting a back draft into your home every time you open the doors.
I agree, but only if going across the baffle is the only way for the smoke to exit the stove...which isn't always the case. It will take the path of least resistance.
