Dear Walter,

I remember seeing your unit when it was just out - at Mark McKusick's
(Hearthwarmers) in Colraine, Mass.  I recall it being referred to as a
hybrid fireplace which combined fireplace and masonry heater
characteristics.

I believe the current dispute over the clearances in the new code stems from
your seeking to sell your product in areas that have banned fireplaces - as
a masonry heater.  I'm not speaking for Norbert, as I think his arguments
have merit on their own.

For me however, the larger issue is the "masonry heater" definition.  This
argument has an excellent market analogy: the term "organic".  Small farmers
who grow food without the aid of inorganic fertilizers and pesticides can't
differentiate or sell their more labor intensively grown food if any Nabisco
or General Foods starts calling their products "organic".  If a typical
masonry heater can produce 25,000 Btu's/hour on a 50 LB charge of wood and
your fireplace need 100 lbs. or more to do the same, I'm not sure it merits
the term - masonry heater.    To me, what makes a masonry heater is the way
it performs (heats).   Both terms define qualities.


I understand and sympathize with your rationale and claim that if your
fireplace burns as cleanly as a heater, it should be allowed in
jurisdictions where fireplaces are banned but heaters are exempt or
specifically allowed.   Again,  whether people choose organic food (or
heaters) because they're afraid of cancer, like the taste, its politically
correct, an intriguing conversation piece;  the MHA needs to promote their
preeminent feature: that heaters are fuel efficient converters of cordwood
into usable heat.  The relatively new evidence that they are clean burning
is frosting on the cake.

 Please forgive me if I am making an incorrect assumption here.  Since I
haven't spoken to you about this, I can only go on  what I read and hear.  I
respectfully suggest that if my assumptions are correct, your justification
for a seemingly expedient regulatory "short cut" is the reason why your
polarization from the MHA is self-created.

Obviously, if your core material more closely resembles that used by
Isokern, your unit is not going to require the same clearances as a
soapstone or firebrick firebox wall of the same thickness.   Regarding the
current clearance controversy, I don't see why kit  and custom builders
can't build to the default clearances specified in the ASTM standard, and
manufactured units can specify their own clearances, as do wood stove
manufacturers.  (Is there perhaps a deal to be made here?)

I offer these comments in the spirit of conflict resolution:  I believe the
parties involved are much larger than the tenor of their arguments, and the
industry much to small to divide itself to the larger community which we
would all hope to serve.

Respectfully,

Stephen Bushway
Deer Hill Masonry Heat
  224 West St.
Cummington, MA  01026
413-634-0029
FAX:  413-634-5085