Protecting Underwater Structures with Underwater Magic Sealant

Underwater Magic Sealant is a specialized product designed to create a strong and long-lasting seal in underwater environments. It is commonly used in swimming pools, aquariums, boats, and other water-related applications. This sealant is specifically formulated to withstand immersion in water and provides excellent adhesion and sealing properties. The underwater magic sealant is typically made of a polymer-based compound that is resistant to water, chemicals, and UV radiation. This ensures that it remains durable and effective even in harsh underwater conditions. It is also flexible, allowing it to maintain its seal even in situations where there is movement or vibration.

Cooling the flue gasses can only increase creosote build-up

I had one installed on one of those old fire in a metal box stoves, worked good as long as I was burning dry wood and not trying to burn low and slow. I have one in the house and one in the garage, about 8 years now, must be on borrowed time frown Clean the chimneys once a year, only a handful of junk from each.

It is also flexible, allowing it to maintain its seal even in situations where there is movement or vibration. One of the key advantages of underwater magic sealant is its ease of use. It can be applied without the need for any special tools or equipment, making it a convenient option for both professionals and casual users.

Magic heat recovery addon

Browsing around today and found this interesting gizmo.
Recipe for creosote buildup or good idea?

Northern Tool - Magic Heat Reclaimer for Wood, Oil or Coal Stove - 6 in., Model# MH-6-R customer reviews - product reviews - read top consumer ratings

ss~zoso~ss

ArboristSite Operative

probably would give you a bunch more heat, but lowering your stack temps thus leading to 'theoretically' more creosote build up and a lousy draft

might make the stove a ##### to get started.

Ductape

Addicted to ArboristSite

Cooling the flue gasses can only increase creosote build-up

haveawoody

Addicted to ArboristSite

That was my thought about lowering the stack temp and allowing creosote buildup.
After a very long read at the site i guess it only fires up when the stack is wasting heat, turns off when the stack is to low.

Might be an interesting addon for under $200.
Like a second blower but using only waste heat Hmmm.

redprospector

Addicted to ArboristSite

That double elbow above the heat exchanger in the picture will do more for creasote build up than the heat exchanger.

JBinKC

ArboristSite Operative

I would never attempt this on an EPA certified stove ( the stove looks like a Vogelzang defender which is EPA certified) which operate on lower flue temperatures. If you need more heat buy a bigger stove.

If you are using an EPA exempt appliance the risks are lower but yes your creosote potential rises.

MGoBlue

Those who stay will be champions

My father used one of those all through my youth. It was on a Ben Franklin type open fireplace. It worked great! The only drawback was noise, they aren't quiet.
He never had a problem w/ creosote. The pull in the middle scrapes it from the tubes. Every so often you push/pull it a few times.

brenndatomu

Hey you woodchucks, quit chucking my wood!

They are fine on an old inefficient stove with no baffles or any thing in it. I had one installed on one of those old "fire in a metal box" stoves, worked good as long as I was burning dry wood and not trying to burn low and slow. Try any of that, you'll get a face full of smoke every time you go to reload, due to plugged up flue.

I don't remember it being all that loud, course it wasn't in my living room either.

blades

Addicted to ArboristSite

allstihl

ArboristSite Guru

they actualy do work bretty good on something like the old barrel stoves. however on a modern stove unless you clean the chimney allmost weekly ,a chimney fire is in your future.

trophyhunter

ArboristSite Guru

On a newer EPA stove, not if it was free. Recipe for disaster, I never thought they were well suited to any stove chimney. Stack temp is a key ingredient to keeping the chimney cleaner.

jjmetheny

New Member

I have one in the house and one in the garage, about 8 years now, must be on borrowed time :frown: Clean the chimneys once a year, only a handful of junk from each. Englander 30 in the house and a Century 300007 in the garage both epa stoves.

trophyhunter

ArboristSite Guru

Knew a guy that burned a Harmon stove for years with no issues at all, he just had to have one of those and put it in. Bout a month later his chimney caught fire. That was so hot it burst the seams on the inner insulated pipe walls when they took it out to inspect it.

I sure wouldn't want to put a homeowner's policy to the test with one of those added into the installation.

dozerdean

ArboristSite Lurker

My father used one of those all through my youth. It was on a Ben Franklin type open fireplace. It worked great! The only drawback was noise, they aren't quiet.
He never had a problem w/ creosote. The pull in the middle scrapes it from the tubes. Every so often you push/pull it a few times.

My dad & I had one on our stoves in the 80's. Had no problems w/creosote.Was able to keep house 72-75 deg. Our pipe was 8 in dia.

stihly dan

Addicted to ArboristSite

I bought one last yr. Worked awesome. The inner t-stat keeps the flue warm. The fan only blows heat, just like the stove fans. The handle in the front pulls out and scrapes the tubes for better efficiency. I had no creosote at all last yr. I only burnt wood. I paid $179 from northern tool. I got my $$ worth in the extra heat last yr. Blew 130 deg heat. Keep in mind if your thermometer reads 400 deg on the out side of the pipe, the middle will be like 1000 deg. Only problem is if you lose power, you need to take it out.

Rsquared

ArboristSite Operative

Friend of mine had been using one for the last 4 years in his shop. He had his insurance man come out in October to do an "insurance tune up". Insurance man said they would drop him as a client if he didn't remove it. It worked great, but I guess there must be a bigger risk for something catastrophic happening with these things than most people think. Or, it's just an insurance company's hang up.

c5rulz

Addicted to ArboristSite

When I had a stove that was not airtight and burned wood like a trashburner, (i.e. very high stack temps unless you closed the damper) it worked well. I would not consider it on an airtight stove.

Mine was thermostatically controlled and shut itself on and off.

Steve NW WI

Unwanted Riff Raff.

Had one back when I was a kid on an Ashley circulator stove, it added heat for sure to the house, just not sure what the effect was on the chimney as I didn't have to clean it.

Devils advocate here: Why would this be worse on an EPA stove, when they have already burned most of the particulates that cause the creosote in the first place vs an old smoker that's sending it up the flue?

Wood Doctor

Edwin

Agree for the most part, but a secondary combustion chamber on some stoves allows you to burn off the smoke at high heat first, before it reaches the flue.

Better alternative to the Magic Heat is to just place a fan or portable behind the stove if you have room. Not having room, leave the flue gases alone and control most of the fire intensity with the air intake vents.

Magic Heat is a waste of money in my book--a noisey, ugly beast and a bear to keep clean.

Whitespider

Lost in the 50s

Devils advocate here: Why would this be worse on an EPA stove, when they have already burned most of the particulates that cause the creosote in the first place vs an old smoker that's sending it up the flue?

I was thinking the same thing.
At the same time I’m not so sure it would be as effective (for heat extraction) on an EPA certified stove. The flue pipe from the EPA firebox I’m using now runs noticeably cooler than the old smoke dragon did.

I also don’t believe cooling the flue gasses automatically means more creosote deposits… it would depend on the set-up. Creosote forms not because the flue gasses are cool, rather it’s because the chimney walls cool down causing condensation (of sorts) inside. My brick chimney runs up through the center of the house, it’s always warm, always a strong draft, and creosote has never been a problem… even when “smoldering” the fire in the old smoke dragon. The place I lived before this had the brick chimney running up the outside of the house, it was a bear to get drafting at times, it took forever to warm –up on cold days, and it would plug-up where the flue pipe connected to it. So yeah, if you’ve got 15-20 feet of chimney pipe running up the outside of your house, or a masonry chimney on an outside wall, then I’m thinking cooling the flue gasses would be a bad idea. But on the other hand, if your chimney pipe runs up through the house, with only a couple feet sticking out the roof, then cooling the flue gasses wouldn’t be so bad… and may not even be an issue at all.

I dump a ton of (relatively) cool air into my flue without creosote problems. I have 2-feet of six-inch vertical pipe coming off the firebox, which connects to an eight-inch “tee” and 2-feet of eight-inch horizontal pipe to the chimney. Also connected to that eight-inch “tee” is the four-inch pipe from the LP furnace… LP appliances use “hooded” exhaust so it’s continuously dumping cool air into the end of the horizontal section of pipe. And the three-inch exhaust from LP water heater also connects to the brick chimney, continuously dumping more cool air into the chimney. Like I said, running up the center of the house like that it’s always warm and always sucking… sucking hard. Creosote just ain’t an issue. Actually I think dumping that cool (actually room temperature warm) air from the furnace and water heater hoods into the flue allows it to free-flow better creating a higher velocity through the chimney. faster than it would be with just the wood burner connected.

might make the stove a ##### to get started.

Additionally, it cures quickly, allowing for fast and efficient repairs or installations. The sealant can be used to repair cracks, leaks, or gaps in various underwater structures, including pipes, fittings, and fixtures. It can also be used to create watertight seals between different materials, such as concrete, metal, or fiberglass. This versatility makes it a highly sought-after product in the construction, maintenance, and repair industries. Furthermore, underwater magic sealant is known for its durability and longevity. It is resistant to deterioration from exposure to water, chemicals, and extreme temperatures, ensuring that the seal remains intact for an extended period. This makes it a cost-effective solution as it reduces the need for frequent repairs or replacements. In conclusion, underwater magic sealant is a reliable and effective product for creating and maintaining watertight seals in underwater environments. Its durability, ease of use, and versatility make it a valuable tool for various industries. By using this sealant, individuals and professionals can ensure the integrity of underwater structures and prevent water damage..

Reviews for "The Future of Underwater Repairs: Underwater Magic Sealant"

1. John - 1 star - The "Underwater magic sealant" claims to be a great solution for fixing leaks or cracks underwater, but I found it to be a complete waste of money. First of all, it was extremely difficult to apply underwater as it kept getting washed away by the water currents. Even when I managed to apply it, it didn't hold up well and the leak was not sealed properly. It only provided a temporary fix before the issue resurfaced. I would not recommend this product to anyone looking for a reliable underwater sealant.

2. Sarah - 2 stars - I was really disappointed with the "Underwater magic sealant." Despite its claims of being effective in sealing underwater, it failed to meet my expectations. The application process was messy and complicated, and the sealant didn't bond well with the surface. It started peeling off within a few days, and the leaks reappeared. I was hoping for a long-lasting solution, but this product fell short. I would advise others to explore alternative options rather than relying on this sealant.

3. Mike - 1 star - I bought the "Underwater magic sealant" hoping to finally fix the leak in my pool. However, the results were far from satisfactory. The sealant didn't stick well to the surface, and it washed away easily when the water pressure increased. Additionally, it took forever to dry and even then, it only provided a temporary solution. The leaks returned shortly after, leaving me frustrated and out of pocket. I would not recommend this product as it didn't deliver the promised results.

4. Lisa - 2 stars - I had high hopes for the "Underwater magic sealant," but unfortunately, it didn't live up to its claims. The application process was tedious and the sealant didn't adhere properly to the surface. Despite following the instructions diligently, the sealant came off within a week of applying it. It didn't fix the leak in my aquarium as promised and I had to resort to alternative methods. I was disappointed with the overall performance of this product and would not recommend it for underwater sealing needs.

5. David - 1 star - The "Underwater magic sealant" was a complete waste of my money. Not only was it difficult to apply underwater, but it also didn't provide a satisfactory seal. The leaks in my boat persisted even after applying multiple layers of the sealant. It would wash away easily and provide no lasting solution. I would advise others to look for more reliable and effective sealants on the market instead of wasting their time and money on this product.

Underwater Magic Sealant: Exploring its Environmental Impact