Buy A Better Stove

[Gavman]

Zogger ya dont have a damper on your computer either:msp_rolleyes: great read though, enjoyed it and some food for thought...

 

[EXCALIBER]

Ok guys there are three reasons why a Blaze King can burn so long. First it does hold a lot of wood with a large fire box. Second it uses a catalytic converter to burn the smoke which holds a lot of the unused energy that would normally go right up the chimney. Just like in a car with a cat, how many fires have been started by people driving in tall grass due to the extreme heat that the cat gives off by burning the left over gas fumes? Lots! Same thing with the stove. Third it, like zogger said, does not use a damper in the chimney, but rather uses a bi-metal thermostat that constantly controls how much air goes in the stove to control the temp of the burn. The problem with regular dampers is you start the fire set it then leave. When you started the fire is may have been calm outside, but several hours later the wind picks up to 40mph, and now your fire is going to be too hot due to the wind pulling more air out of the chimney and thus more air into the stove fanning the fire. Logs can move or break apart changing surface area and how much air it pulls too. Same idea as the old carb equipped cars versus the fuel injected ones. Start at sea level and they both run fine now drive to 10,000 feet the the carb car will fall on its face while the fuel injected one will adjust to whats needed, thus running much better and evenly. On low it will heat your house maybe not to running around in your birthday suit while its -30 outside but it will do more than smolder. I also understand its kind of a mild climate here, but I was born and raised in Montana and yes I know cold, and these stove had not problem heating a large home year after year. I feed mine every second night no matter how cold it gets outside. Don't know how hot you want your house but of course running on high will lower burn time to maybe 8-10 hours, but that's wide open. I only did that for a couple of hours one night when I was tired, I came home fed the stove, turned it on high, then fell asleep, three hours later it was 120 degrees in the house and around 0 outside. I woke up covered in sweat and had to open all the windows and doors.

I am not saying there are not other good stoves out there. I am saying if your going to spend over or at a thousand bucks for a stove why not get a good one that will burn longer than a night? Sure it may cost more to buy the stove, but how much are you going to save over time with less wood used, less gas to haul, split, ect. Plus you can always sell the wood you used to burn to subsidize your cad.

On the price of my stove it was $2300 for the King model and the princess was around $2000 I believe. Didn't mean to say I paid a grand for it, guess I need to reread what I put and figure out how I gave that impression. If I mislead any of you that was not my intention. I was just trying to say if your gonna spend 1000 to 1800 on a stove whats a little more to have a lot less wood burned and cost in heating over 20 years. Yes I can understand why people buy really cheap stoves like 150$ to 500$ stoves as a started stove, and most all of them can do 6 hour burns. I just talked to too many people who are unhappy with their stoves or have switched to pellet stoves due to being tired of so much wood used if you have to buy it, and constantly being tied to your house all winter feeding it.

 

[cnice_37]

I wish I bought a BK. I've read countless reviews of these things, and even a 12 hour burn time would work great for me and is a walk in the park for these things.

Aesthetics - meh.

 

[logbutcher]

Like "I'll love you in the morning", ANY stand alone wood stove, OWB, or hi tech boiler such as Tarm, will PRODUCE USABLE HEAT for perhaps 8 hours to 12 hours AT MOST. It is the very nature of BTU producing wood, white oak, hedge, locust, or any species.
Similar to the longest burning pipe smoker contest, any stove can stay coaled, damped down, smouldering for a long, long time with NO heat output.
You want to say a "40 hour burn" ? Fine. There's a bridge for sale in Brooklyn.
I've used too many wood burners for too many years off and on to understand (along with many here) how wood burns.
Myth making without science is dishonest and doesn't serve those looking for experienced advice.
Yeah sure, "I've got this 40 hour burner" in my pants :still_dreaming:

JMNSHO

 

[Whiteash]

Even if there are 40 mph winds outside there is this fancy thing they have been used for 50 years on oil furnaces called a draft regulator. Same concept on the wood stove/furnace. Let your chimney vent as it wants too without pulling the air through the firebox to do it. I personally would not buy a new one unless it was mandatory in the flue pipe according to the manufacturer.

 

[CrappieKeith]

Well.... that was an interesting way to blow BK's horn.

Yup....now I'm just a troll! I thought we all could use a laugh this a.m.
Would ya look at that girls face...so funny!

 

[Fyrebug]

Like "I'll love you in the morning", ANY stand alone wood stove, OWB, or hi tech boiler such as Tarm, will PRODUCE USABLE HEAT for perhaps 8 hours to 12 hours AT MOST. It is the very nature of BTU producing wood, white oak, hedge, locust, or any species.
Similar to the longest burning pipe smoker contest, any stove can stay coaled, damped down, smouldering for a long, long time with NO heat output.
You want to say a "40 hour burn" ? Fine. There's a bridge for sale in Brooklyn.
I've used too many wood burners for too many years off and on to understand (along with many here) how wood burns.
Myth making without science is dishonest and doesn't serve those looking for experienced advice.
Yeah sure, "I've got this 40 hour burner" in my pants

JMNSHO

Tell that to the thousands of users of BK that rave about their stoves! They are a competitor of mine and in Yukon and Alaska I cant touch them! Why? because people there burn softwood, they have very cold weather for a very long time and by golly they want the fire to last.

BTW, this is a prime example of what technology and EPA certification also does for furnaces. (see the other thread).

 

[Coldfront]

You keep talking about burn time, what about heat output? Imo heat output and burn time go hand in hand. Sure I can dampen and smolder my fire for 12 hours also, but my drafty old house will still be cold as hell. In order to crank out the btu's you need to burn hot which uses wood faster thats all there is to it. I am also interested in exactly how these cat heaters work? How do they stay hot enough to burn unused gases while smoldering a fire? Sounds to me like some type of chemical reaction chamber where you will need to replace expensive parts often once the chemical is gone?

 

[zogger]

would be fun to do more tests

Zogger ya dont have a damper on your computer either:msp_rolleyes: great read though, enjoyed it and some food for thought...

I'm just not set up to do a lot more different type tests to see what could work better. I do know I don't miss the damper, but I also feel I could get more BTUs out with more heat exchanger surface and a top baffle. I don't want to lose the top opening lid, so I can't put in a baffle at the top, but I know that would help. And also on my heater there is a small mounting crack right at the stove pipe connector, (it just doesn't fit tight but it is minor) so that feeds a little air into the exhaust, so that also helps keep it cleaner.

If the heater was steel and I was a better welder..perhaps weld the baffle to the top plate that hinges.

I also a long time ago (well, mid 90s) did a radically different heater concept, and the prototype worked...it would use lines like you guys use for your outside wood boiler/burners, but instead of a firebox and burning big chunks of wood, all the wood is chipped and put into BIG composting piles and you take some of the composting heat away with long loops of that high temp hose buried in there, and pump that to your heated area, where it gets radiated out. You can't take too much, else the composting stops, but you can take some. You can easily get over 100 degree heat from the piles.

Big piles get HOT down in the center, we have had two fires on the farm here from huge piles of chicken litter composting and starting to combust. It is mandated by law the litter, if it is not spread immediately after a house clean out, go into covered composting sheds. They have to be real careful on piling the stuff up or it will catch fire.

What i like about the idea is you "load" maybe just once a year, that's it. After that you just pull heat on demand. Then you get huge piles of well composted stuff that is valuable, for yourself or resale. We all know what a bag of black compost goes for at the garden centers, and how good it is for our gardens.

I was going to try and build something like that for the greenhouse here, to have a little auxiliary heat in the thing and not use propane (we stopped that anyway, too expensive) but the big chipper broke before I could do that

I don't want to use the chicken litter as big piles of it uncovered are illegal, and I have no spare building here close to the greenhouse, plus..well..it's chicken litter..it would be a bit less odoriferous, and less flies and bugs, etc, with just wood chips, plus they would last much longer and require less turning and care.

 

[EXCALIBER]

Well I just have to ask, how many of you that say you know what and how wood burns, and are "not buying it or calling BS" have actually ran a Blaze King stove? I like I said am a skeptical person but if I have never used a certain product I usually say idk never used it, not say hey thats a bunch of hooey and it doesn't work. I usually hold my condemnation until I have tried said product. How many have actually ran even a cat stove? I know what it will do I have one. I am not putting anyone down or saying my stove is better than yours, we all have the right to choose. I am just saying like for instance a Fiskars vs a standard axe, after all why pay more for a fiskars an axe is an axe right and we all know how an axe works, but low and behold a fiskars does work better! Why? TECHNOLOGY has made it a better design, stronger handle than wood, metal that is less likely to stick into a block of wood. Stoves are no exception to this rule.

Clearly CrappieKeith has never used one, and only wants to promote his brand of funace. Fine I however have no horse in this race and only want to give people an option and some info on what I know from having said stove. I want more people burning wood as the more people we have the less likely we are to be looked upon as the backwards rednecks with saws too cheap to heat their homes with fuel oil or propane. I want to promote clean burning stoves that are not choking out the neighbors and giving us all a bad name as a nucance. There are also people like myself who cannot be there all the time and thus a longer burning stove makes it possible to heat with wood.

Just saying keep an open mind, diesels used to be slow and loud and blew smoke everywhere, now look at these new trucks with diesels, a totally different breed. Same fuel used but more power and mileage so how is that possible? TECHNOLOGY! Same 16 inch block of wood but more heat, yep, you already know the answer! TECHNOLOGY

 

[Big_Al]

Getting a bit off track but I'd rather have an older diesel than one of the new ones. I had an 84 vw diesel rabbit that regularily got 45 mpg. My BIL has a new vw diesel that gets the same. Had a dodge 3/4 ton 4x4 12v cummins that would run 21 mpg highway. My 97 powerstroke wasn't quite as good, it only averaged around 17. I like the sound/smell of diesels. The new ones have more power and are quieter, cant argue that. Those were vehicles that you could work on if ya felt like it, didn't have to pull an engine out to swap injectors or glow plugs. The new fords inject special cleaning fluid into the exhaust system to keep things clean (meet emmisions). Anyways, newer and more complicated isn't always better.

 

[Coldfront]

The problem with most new stuff, more efficient, less pollution, more technology = High price, high price parts, almost impossible for the average guy to work on himself and professional service man also high price. All this couldn't come at a worse time when no one has any money. Thanks Al Gore.

 

[Fyrebug]

InItially yes but like everything new stuff becomes old stuff, then more poeple stArt making them and before you know it everyone can afford it. You're not still using your old B&W TV, are you?

Same applies to stoves. Even better... No moving parts.

There once was this buck saw company who wouldn't stop complaining about that new fan dangled contraption - the chain saw...

 

[Dalmatian90]

, almost impossible for the average guy to work on himself

I figure that's mostly a frame of reference issue.

I never worked on older vehicles, barely ever touched a car or truck with a carb.

So I learn stuff from scratch quite often and don't find the jobs that difficult. Chiltons, Internet Forums, basic aptitude, willingness to buy tools as I go along. Heck, my experience level is such I've been known to just take a photo of the part I need, re-assemble, drive to NAPA, and show them the photo and say, "Don't know what you call it, but I need one of these thing-a-ma-bobs."

Maybe the diesels take more complex tools, I don't know. My '03 Ranger has 220,000 miles and it's only been into the shop three times for repairs -- once for a problem in the manual transmission beyond my capabilities, and the other two times because it was cheaper or just more convenient for me have them fix it then deal with it at home.

 

[Whitespider]

I still don’t believe the 40-hour burn time, AND being able to heat your home… it just ain’t possible, the science says so.

For example, let’s say your house has 2000 square feet of living area. In my area, on a cold, cloudy mid-winter day, the heating of 2000 square feet requires about 100,000 BTU’s per hour (in a well insulated home), times 40-hours, equals 4-million BTU’s.

OK, a cord of seasoned ash weighs 3000-pounds and contains 20-million BTU’s. So, IF the wood burning appliance is 100-percent efficient (and none can be), and by doing the math I would have to load the stove with 600-POUNDS OF FIREWOOD to heat my home for 40-hours.

Now let’s be more realistic, and say the stove (or furnace) is 80-percent efficient. If I want to heat my home for 40-hours I’ll need to load it with 750-POUNDS OF FIREWOOD! Does that furnace have a firebox large enough to stuff a quarter-cord of firewood in it?

OK, let’s be even more realistic, still staying with the 80-percent efficient furnace but it only need to produce heat for 26 of those 40 hours (65-percent of the time)… I still have to stuff 400-POUNDS OF FIREWOOD in it to keep my house warm for 40-hours.

It’s real simple… a wood-burning appliance cannot create BTU’s, it can only extract the BTU’s (energy) stored in the wood. A longer burn time equals fewer BTU’s per hour, no way around it. A long burn time is completely meaningless when comparing wood-burning appliances, the only numbers that matter are the BTU output per hour and the efficiency rating… everything else is just white-wash. If two different stoves are both rated at 75,000 BTU’s and 75-percent efficient, both will burn the exact same amount of wood to heat the same area over the same time frame… it don’t matter how many more do-dads and goodies one may have over the other.

 

[daleeper]

Maybe this is just me, but as I read many of the posts on new stoves, many people are spending way too much on stoves that will only burn for 8-10 hours at best on a low setting? I for one cannot be tied to my stove or babysit it. I will not get up in the middle of the night to feed it, I will not rush to see if there are coals left to restart a fire in the morning, I will not run propane or have a friend feed my fire if I decide to go out of town for a weekend.

There are stoves on the market that will burn for 40 plus hours using so-so, middle of the road wood. I researched almost every stove on the market before I found one that seemed to be a clear winner in quality, heat output, and burn time. I believed many people were buying inferior stoves to save on the purchase price only to find out they could have bought a better stove for the same or less money.

So why are people buying stoves that have a short burn time, are expensive, and don't measure up to other stoves. I cannot wrap my head around this. I could see if you wanted a decorative parlor stove or the like, and were not trying to heat a home with it. So what does everyone think, has everyone lost their minds, have too much money, need an excuse to cut wood till hell wouldn't have it just to feed their stove, or is this just a lack or research?

So what stoves do you guys have? What are the burn times and cord per year usage? How hot do you keep it in the house? Any explanation for having a stove you have to feed everyday that was more than 1000$

Excaliber, I have often wondered the same thing, however, your implied claims here are part of the reason people call "bs" on it and don't believe what a BK stove can do. Where can you buy a BK for less price than an inferior stove that they were saving money on? Last I checked, the BK line of stoves are not a discount priced stove. "BS" should be called here.

Also the burn time needs put in perspective, which you did not do. I know that the cat and thermostat allow a long, low burn for what seem like unreal times, but when you tell someone about the long burn times, they envision that happening during the coldest week of the year, and then call out "bs", and they are right. You must qualify your statements, that during the milder times of the year, you can get long burns, but when coldest weather hits, your heat demands go up and burn times go down. Or you have a real small, well insulated house with an over sized stove that does not require much heat even in the coldest of winter. You asked folks for their wood usage without giving your own information, along with the size of house you are heating, and how tight it is. How long is your burn time in the coldest week of the year?

The last thing, some of us spend our money based on function over visual effect. It seems the majority are more interested in what something looks like rather than function. You are not going to change them.

I think the BK cat stoves are the best stove out there, but they are high priced for what is in them, lack the visual appeal so many want, and have a cat which eliminates some potential buyers. I wish more companies would develop the cat and thermostatic air control into their wood stoves, as it is an excellent combination in my opinion.

 

[daleeper]

I still don’t believe the 40-hour burn time, AND being able to heat your home… it just ain’t possible, the science says so.

For example, let’s say your house has 2000 square feet of living area. In my area, on a cold, cloudy mid-winter day, the heating of 2000 square feet requires about 100,000 BTU’s per hour (in a well insulated home), times 40-hours, equals 4-million BTU’s.

OK, a cord of seasoned ash weighs 3000-pounds and contains 20-million BTU’s. So, IF the wood burning appliance is 100-percent efficient (and none can be), and by doing the math I would have to load the stove with 600-POUNDS OF FIREWOOD to heat my home for 40-hours.

Now let’s be more realistic, and say the stove (or furnace) is 80-percent efficient. If I want to heat my home for 40-hours I’ll need to load it with 750-POUNDS OF FIREWOOD! Does that furnace have a firebox large enough to stuff a quarter-cord of firewood in it?

OK, let’s be even more realistic, still staying with the 80-percent efficient furnace but it only need to produce heat for 26 of those 40 hours (65-percent of the time)… I still have to stuff 400-POUNDS OF FIREWOOD in it to keep my house warm for 40-hours.

It’s real simple… a wood-burning appliance cannot create BTU’s, it can only extract the BTU’s (energy) stored in the wood. A longer burn time equals fewer BTU’s per hour, no way around it. A long burn time is completely meaningless when comparing wood-burning appliances, the only numbers that matter are the BTU output per hour and the efficiency rating… everything else is just white-wash. If two different stoves are both rated at 75,000 BTU’s and 75-percent efficient, both will burn the exact same amount of wood to heat the same area over the same time frame… it don’t matter how many more do-dads and goodies one may have over the other.

This is where I call "BS". Not on the math, not on amount of wood burned, but that a long burn time is meaningless. On the low burn, a non-cat stove just simply cannot compete with the BK stove. Couple that with the size of the firebox, and you have long burns that most people do not believe. It doesn't change the physics of wood burning, just uses them to it's advantage. On low heat load days a non-cat operator makes smaller fires and that limits burn times, a BK stove operator can still load the stove full and lower the thermostatic control, thus long low burns.

Not every day is a cold, cloudy mid-winter day. In fact, it varies greatly depending on location and time of the year as to what the temperature is, thus your heat demand. On those days that the heat load needed is low, a cat stove with a thermostatic air supply will run circles around a non-cat design in comfort, burn time, and clean burning because by design, a non-cat stove must burn hotter than a cat stove can.

It really depends on whether you want/need to burn on those low heat demand days as to whether the BK stove is valuable to you.

 

[Chris-PA]

Well said daleeper and Whitespider. It's not about the TECHNOLOGY it's about the energy - the energy in the logs you're burning. Both the cat stoves and the EPA secondary combustion stoves are wood gasification units. The main fire gasifies the sold fuel and then this is either oxidized in a secondary combustion or at the catalytic converter. The cat can do this at a lower temperature. But in the middle of winter I need the main and secondary combustion at high to heat my house, and the cat provides few advantages at that point - primarily it would require somewhat less attention by me to keep it at the proper operating point. Our Magnolia when it is burning like this has a total air inlet of maybe the size of a nickel - there is not a lot of waste going up the chimney.

The other way to deal with this is the ancient method of capturing the heat in a large thermal mass, which is essentially what I do - my stove is surrounded by thick stone walls which absorb and re-radiate the heat, so the house does not go cold when as soon as the fire goes out. And we have a smaller stove for those days when we don't need the heat output.

You have to decide for yourself if the ability to run more efficiently at low outputs is worth the downsides of a cat. Those downsides to me include the additional upfront cost, requirement for eventual replacement, and the added complexity of a catalyst. It's not the finished cat that is complex, it's the entire manufacturing system that produces a cat that is complex.

As for aesthetics - well, life is too short for things that are not visually pleasing. The Magnolia is not the most beautiful stove, but it's not awful for an inexpensive welded stove and it does have a nice door and window.

 

[Highbeam]

The BK king can, in fact, burn for 40 hours. It is well documented and is the only reason that the BK stove line still exists after many decades in the business. The stoves are ugly, huge, and the fire display at low burn is often totally without flame. This is a utility heater and not made for looks.

At the low burn setting, which is the ONLY place that you can get these 40 hour burns, the stove is rated to be producing less than 10,000 actual btus per hour. As I recall it makes 8700 but that info is listed in their brochure. That's not much but often enough to stay warm and be "idle" while you're away at work ready to spring back into action when the temps drop at night or when you return home from work.

The BK line is rare in its ability to burn low for 40 hours or high for way less hours. You can choose based on needed heat. This is not possible with a normal non-cat stove. Cat stoves are superior in this ability without a doubt.

The golden accomplishment in wood burning for primary heat is burn time. For a particular required heat output, the stove with the longest burn time is superior in function. The big non-cats will hang right in with the BK when lots of heat is needed and look better doing it. The big non-cats suck hard when low heat is needed due to their lack of thermostatic temp control and inability to burn low.

Right now, the BK line is the most superior heating stove available, it just is. Nothing outperforms it through the range of available outputs. It looks like hell which is why I have a stone stove instead. BK has recently put out their smaller cat stove in a more attractive shell to try and fix this problem.

 

[EXCALIBER]

Wow bs lol

I still don’t believe the 40-hour burn time, AND being able to heat your home… it just ain’t possible, the science says so.

For example, let’s say your house has 2000 square feet of living area. In my area, on a cold, cloudy mid-winter day, the heating of 2000 square feet requires about 100,000 BTU’s per hour (in a well insulated home), times 40-hours, equals 4-million BTU’s.

OK, a cord of seasoned ash weighs 3000-pounds and contains 20-million BTU’s. So, IF the wood burning appliance is 100-percent efficient (and none can be), and by doing the math I would have to load the stove with 600-POUNDS OF FIREWOOD to heat my home for 40-hours.

Now let’s be more realistic, and say the stove (or furnace) is 80-percent efficient. If I want to heat my home for 40-hours I’ll need to load it with 750-POUNDS OF FIREWOOD! Does that furnace have a firebox large enough to stuff a quarter-cord of firewood in it?

OK, let’s be even more realistic, still staying with the 80-percent efficient furnace but it only need to produce heat for 26 of those 40 hours (65-percent of the time)… I still have to stuff 400-POUNDS OF FIREWOOD in it to keep my house warm for 40-hours.

It’s real simple… a wood-burning appliance cannot create BTU’s, it can only extract the BTU’s (energy) stored in the wood. A longer burn time equals fewer BTU’s per hour, no way around it. A long burn time is completely meaningless when comparing wood-burning appliances, the only numbers that matter are the BTU output per hour and the efficiency rating… everything else is just white-wash. If two different stoves are both rated at 75,000 BTU’s and 75-percent efficient, both will burn the exact same amount of wood to heat the same area over the same time frame… it don’t matter how many more do-dads and goodies one may have over the other.

There are several problems here with you math. One it does NOT take 100,000 btu's to heat an averaged sized home. Most stove do not put out 100,000btu's! Lets just say your right and it takes 100,000btu's to heat a 2000 sq ft home in your area. That means people in your area must make way more money than they do any where else or propane is really cheap there! Propane puts out 91,330 BTU's, the best propane furnace is 98% efficient, which means you would burn 1.02 gallons an hour of propane. Which means in 40 hours you would burn 40.8 gallons or propane at around here 4$ per gallon is $163.20 of propane! Yikes!! Now over a cold week 7days x 24 hours =168hrs x 1.02 gallons per hour=171.36 gallons of propane at 4$ per gallon roughly is $685.44 per week to heat a home! DAM!!! Plus burning 171.36 gallons per week x 4 for a month is 685.44gallons of propane x$4 is $2741.76 Frog Skins Wow I need a raise! lol So either you guys have huge propane tanks there as you would have to have a 1000 gallon tank and make 200K per year or its bs.

Like I said it will heat your home on low and burn 40 hours. It may not keep it 75 degrees but will keep it warm enough to not damage anything then you get home and kick up the heat from the fire that is still burning. Just like a programmable thermostat. Hence why I said you won't be running around in your birthday suit on low setting. Now I turn it up my burn time reduces, as expected. I will still out burn last a regular stove on the same setting due to efficentcy. If your burning 8 hours on low and I'm burning 40 hours, then on high you might burn 2-4 hours to get maximun heat you say it takes to heat a home, I will get probably 8-10 hours on high still out performing, less polution, and less wood.