The big hole in RMH information resources - and a suggested fix

Kevin Olson wrote:My impression is that Leah isn't interested (at least, not at this time) in becoming a thermal mass heater engineer, but she would like clear instructions on how to build her own

Scott Weinberg wrote:I would like to know what a Wiki page is exactly and how in the end, it will be different than a forum site such as this.

if the end, the answer is,  it is a collection of things, then how is the collection different.  

is it connected to something different or is it a collective all it's own.  

Do people contribute directly or to a few constructors of this " Wiki Page"

Inquiring minds would like to know.   I presume this is a simple answer, as it is has been stated as a good solution for providing lots of answers.

Kevin Olson wrote:

Cristobal Cristo wrote:
That's why theoretical base is so important. So instead of blindly following recipes you can adjust them to the requirements of the location: material availability, functions, sizing, shape, finish, codes, etc.

I'm the kind of person who does want to understand the "Why" of things, so that I can adapt to differing circumstances.

But, some people just want a recipe to follow.

Some people are happy being a line cook, some want to be a chef.  We need both, and I think there is a place for resources for both types of people.

My impression is that Leah isn't interested (at least, not at this time) in becoming a thermal mass heater engineer, but she would like clear instructions on how to build her own, while others of us enjoy contemplating under what circumstances a condensing exhaust would actually function, and when it might be ill advised (or if it's ever advisable).  Some people just need heat for this winter, safely and simply.

I recall trying to help my daughter, now well into her 30s, with her mathematics school homework.  Trying to explain the slope-intercept formula for a line to her, I began with a discussion of Cartesian (orthogonal) coordinates, just so she understood the playing field.  She wasn't interested in a deep dive, and became frustrated with my attempts at explaining the background for her homework.  She just wanted a procedure (an algorithm) to get the "right" answers and be done.  She has many gifts - she is very good at organizing people and things - but analytic geometry isn't one of them, not by a long stretch.

There are many good reasons a person might not want to become a master of the theoretical basis for masonry heaters - lack of natural interest, lack of free time, or being, in fact, quite cold right now (it might be easier to focus on the theoretical underpinnings after one is comfortably lounging on a heated RMH bench!).

The "theoretical base is so important" to you and to me, but probably not to Leah.  At least, not right now.

Mike Haasl wrote:It seems like Thomas's book solves the bigger half of the problem.  It's a standard design guide for a 6" batchbox core.  Yay!  

Now we just need a standard design guide for a bell and/or bench.  Yes everything is site specific but if we just had a basic design for both that works with a vertical chimney/exhaust, we'd be in great shape.  Maybe the design won't fit Leah's space?  Oh well, at least it's a basic design and can have some suggestions for how to go about modifying it to the site.  

Then people can build it and report things like "for my house in South Dakota (x square feet, good layout) it works good.  If I were to do it over again I'd do a 7 inch".  

The key being a basic design (including the heat storage part) that someone can confidently just build.

Eugene Howard wrote:A related question.......and I think it is appropriate to put here in this thread........is to ask what is the long term durability of rocket mass heaters? Can they stand up to the abuse of such intense heat over time. Or are they consumable........have to be repaired or rebuilt peridodically?  For widespread adaption, they need to be more or less permanent.

As near as I can tell, the euro Masonry Heaters........are more or less lifetime builds. Same as conventional fireplaces in US homes. If the RMH are not, then they may have to be throttled down, better build techniques, better materials used.......combination of all the above......until they are.

If I was forced to pick something today from the RMH options that I think gets close to "conventional" heating, it would be a Liberator rocket stove, piped thru a bell of some sort, then on to the chimney flue.

r ranson wrote:https://permies.com/t/40993/Ernie-Erica-Wisner-Rocket-Mass

I haven't seen these mentioned yet.  

And of course, one of the first books on the topic, the art of fire. https://permies.com/w/40987/Art-Fire-Ernie-Erica-Wisner

Leah Hamilton wrote:Hi, I'm a long time lurker who has been very interested in RMH, specifically batch box style, for quite awhile.

Before I go any further, I want to make it clear I am super grateful for all the time, money, and work put into developing RMH.  THANK YOU!

I've seen some threads recently about a book in the works and possible ways to increase popularity of RMH.  It seems to me like there is a big hole in available information - a consistently reliable, long lasting, building plan for a 'basic model' (batch box).  

As a computer nerd, here is my best way to explain it...  you can easily find a Windows tutorial for just about anything that assumes no previous knowledge.  It will show you every single necessary step, often with screen shots, on how to complete a task.  Linux, on the other hand, seems to have all of their tutorials written with an assumption the reader is already an avid Linux user.  You'll  read an article that vaguely states you need to get this package and change a couple things in the config file.  From there you have to research how to do each thing, each of those articles having other things you have to search for until finally, 20 searches deep, you can complete what you're trying to do.

There is plenty of information on the why of RMH - many people are already sold on how efficient they are.  If you read reviews for books related to this subject you will see a theme - everyone says lots of great information, it'd be awesome to have one, I still have no idea how to build one.

There are tons of videos that show them being built, or discuss how a particular one was built.  BUT - the way everything is worded it always sounds like they are experimental, and need constant refining to get them to operate at peak efficiency.  In general, it seems like the community has had a lot of "I wonder if this would work?" over "How do I make one excellent design?" There is value to both questions, but when safety is on the line, I prefer tried and true.

There are lots of sprinkles of information:
- There are sizing charts, and core plans - with a separate discussion of bells
- Discussions of dampers, where they might go and how one might use them
- Discussions of different materials
- You can find plans, with notes saying something along the lines of "No longer recommended", without a new recommendation - which leaves people very nervous about trying a RMH
- People showing what they built, then discussing various problems that need to be addressed
- People using materials that are not long lasting - leading people to think these all have a short life span, &/or require constant up keep
( I think so far the primary objective was that the building materials be super affordable, which is awesome, but missing a whole sector of average Joes who just need to know this big thing they are building in their home is safe, and will last decades.)

I have also noticed that it is often suggested that people build them outside and do test runs.  This does not give people a lot of confidence that these are trustworthy - which is vital when we are talking about indoor fire.  It also just seems strange - once a plan that works is developed...  given it's assembled correctly, it should work.  I diy a lot - including framing, electrical, plumbing, etc.  and I've occasionally done a small mock up, or a tiny test run of a new product or technique, but asking someone to build a brick structure, unassemble it, and rebuild it, is a lot.

Here is my suggestion:
Someone knowledgeable should develop building plans for a somewhat compact BB RMH with a traditional brick and glass door appearance, and make them available for purchase.  It should use materials that will last decades - and clearly list all materials needed, and how/where to obtain them.  The instructions should not assume prior rmh knowledge, should be detailed, and written such that anyone can follow them.  It should include instructions for everything - including how to install the door, damper, clean outs, etc.  It should be something that, when built according to the plan, is consistently reliable.  The key factor here is that it needs to have easily reproducible results, so long as the fuel is the same and the chimney is the correct height, it should just work.  

Ever ask a kid to write instructions to make a peanut butter sandwich and follow them *exactly* as written?  You should


I have been eyeballing Walker Stove plans and the ones at FireSpeaking - they seem the closest to getting there.  It would be best if there were multiple people who had successful builds of the exact model before marketing the plans, and testimonials/reviews (from average joes) would be great.

Thanks for listening to my rambling  

Scott Weinberg wrote:

Eugene Howard wrote: …but  I want to say, there is a great deal of enjoyment, of always learning what works even better than what worked yesterday.   I don't mean major redo's.  Just little things that might only improve at are homes but they are great fun to find.

Best of Success!

Yep I get there is probably enjoyment there, but both of us simply don’t have time for that. Our fulfilling interests are elsewhere and we just want a rocket mass heater that *works well* and is *safe*, so we can pursue the rest of our lives with minimal time spent on household stuff like this.

Kevin Olson wrote:

Cristobal Cristo wrote:
That's why theoretical base is so important. So instead of blindly following recipes you can adjust them to the requirements of the location: material availability, functions, sizing, shape, finish, codes, etc.

I'm the kind of person who does want to understand the "Why" of things, so that I can adapt to differing circumstances.

But, some people just want a recipe to follow.

Some people are happy being a line cook, some want to be a chef.  We need both, and I think there is a place for resources for both types of people.

My impression is that Leah isn't interested (at least, not at this time) in becoming a thermal mass heater engineer, but she would like clear instructions on how to build her own, while others of us enjoy contemplating under what circumstances a condensing exhaust would actually function, and when it might be ill advised (or if it's ever advisable).  Some people just need heat for this winter, safely and simply.

I recall trying to help my daughter, now well into her 30s, with her mathematics school homework.  Trying to explain the slope-intercept formula for a line to her, I began with a discussion of Cartesian (orthogonal) coordinates, just so she understood the playing field.  She wasn't interested in a deep dive, and became frustrated with my attempts at explaining the background for her homework.  She just wanted a procedure (an algorithm) to get the "right" answers and be done.  She has many gifts - she is very good at organizing people and things - but analytic geometry isn't one of them, not by a long stretch.

There are many good reasons a person might not want to become a master of the theoretical basis for masonry heaters - lack of natural interest, lack of free time, or being, in fact, quite cold right now (it might be easier to focus on the theoretical underpinnings after one is comfortably lounging on a heated RMH bench!).

The "theoretical base is so important" to you and to me, but probably not to Leah.  At least, not right now.

Leah Hamilton wrote:You can buy a wood stove, and as long as the chimney is the correct height, it will work anywhere in the world.  I'm struggling to understand why it seems every single build needs to be site dependent.

Kevin Olson wrote:Leah -

I should preface my response to your post by saying that I haven't yet built a masonry heater of any sort, either, and I've gone through a similar process as have you, and perhaps even more in depth.  I have done a deep dive into historical masonry heater technology, generally, of which RMHs are a subset.  I am currently a couple of years down the rabbit hole of Russian/Baltic/Scandinavian masonry heater history and design.  This has included digging through many ......................

Good luck!

Rich Lee wrote:I'm all for developing and sharing RMH technology.   If your RMH causes fire damage your insurance company probably won't cover it. For example, heating with modern wood stoves is a safe and proven technology. In spite of that, they have super stringent requirements for wood stoves compared to oil, propane, and natural gas. What do you think they're going to say about RMH? Just make sure you've got a solid plan to quickly control any fire related issues. There's a big difference between heating your house efficiently for cost and comfort and burning it to the ground.....  

 

Scott Weinberg wrote:
Rich, I will bite,  With a simple search, you can find dozens of house fires started with chimney fires created by wood stoves that when cut back to a smolder (most modern wood stoves do this, no matter what kind of "stringent requirements" they have,  which create huge amounts of creosote. And because of this method of trying to conserve wood, almost always rule out using any type of soft wood, including all the pines.   When they do fire up from there smoldering sleep, they  then become the combustion source for the ensuing  chimney fire. (if anyone disagrees, please do tell, I will listen here as well)   Granted, if you have a old NON-efficient wood stove, the don't do much smoldering as they are busy burning lots of wood to create 80 degree rooms, or very cold rooms when out.

I am not sure what requirements a modern wood stove would have compared to oil, propane, and natural gas, but am willing to listen to what these may be. So please do tell.

And now back to business, I would like to hear about fires caused by properly designed RMH's.  Tom of Dragon fame, Glen of  high mountains in CO,  Walker of Walker stoves,  Fox James across the pond, and myself have all shown that the door of the stove can be easy to make, and almost fool proof.  And Peter V has shown the efficient production of heat. I have burned wood for over 60 years, and 50 years with no supervision from adults. And the last 8 years have been by far the safest.

Honestly, if I had to rank the REASONS for a RMH,  

#1 might very well be SAFETY,
#2 steady heat,
#3 efficient wood burning
#4 ability to burn most any dry wood.

I am fully aware of every technology, having two sides, but I want proof for the arguments, ON BOTH SIDES   I can find proof of 1000's of chimney fires caused by "approved modern wood stoves"  I am afraid, I can't find this with any RMH, built to a proven working dimensions  but am willing to listen.

Rich Lee wrote:I'm all for developing and sharing RMH technology. Not to piss on anybody's parade, but here's something to keep in mind: Most of us aren't living in the wilderness like Jeremiah Johnson. We live in houses and pay insurance on them for lots of reasons including damage and loss due to fire. If your RMH causes fire damage your insurance company probably won't cover it. For example, heating with modern wood stoves is a safe and proven technology. In spite of that, they have super stringent requirements for wood stoves compared to oil, propane, and natural gas. What do you think they're going to say about RMH? Just make sure you've got a solid plan to quickly control any fire related issues. There's a big difference between heating your house efficiently for cost and comfort and burning it to the ground.....  

 

thomas rubino wrote:The liberator stove is an excellent choice for some situations.
Acceptance by your insurance company is a big motivator to purchase one.
Run as Sky intended; they cleanly make the most heat within their size limitation, but do not expect the same results you would receive building a full-size RMH.

Sadly, there are users of the Liberator who treat it just like the box stove that it replaced.
Like all RMHs, they are intended to be burned wide open, producing the most heat possible, and then let go out to share that heat.
However, a lifetime of box stove use has conditioned most folks to try to "damp down" the stove and make it last all night...
Completely defeating the manufacturer's intentions of a clean-burning stove and now producing the creosote that causes chimney fires and home loss.
If any "certified" Stove from a liberator to a blaze king caused a home fire, there would be many "questions" from your insurance company about the cause, and they might decide against your claim.
I believe they call it "Improper installation of a wood burning device"  


If insurability is your main obstacle to owning a full-size RMH, I recommend investigating your insurance company's regulations on Masonry Heaters.
In some states, they can only be built by a licensed masonry stove builder.  In others, you simply must follow the international building codes.

Trace Oswald wrote:

Hey Scott, I don't disagree with any of your points, and indeed, I'm gathering materials and reading (and re-reading) everything I can find on the subject of RMH, including Thomas' excellent books.  My only "objection" (still too strong a word) is that, while  you are correct that there have been thousands of chimney fires caused by woodstoves, and maybe zero caused by RMH, it isn't really a fair comparison.  People have been using wood stoves for hundreds of years, and RMH have been around for a very short time and in very limited numbers during that time.  I can assure you, at some point, someone will misuse a RMH and burn their house down.  I agree that RMH have fantastic qualities and I'm fully onboard, but I think both wood stoves, of which I have two, and RMHs can both be used correctly or incorrectly.