IS vs 30-NCH Help Needed

[Ambull01]

I've wondered the same thing many times. I'm surprised other companies haven't copied BK's air control since that is what I believe sets them far apart. Could it be a patent? They have been using some form of that air control system for nearly 40 years. Don't patents expire in 20 years? So why don't we see more of that design on other stoves? It's a good question...maybe someone with knowledge will step in and explain.

Yes, that's exactly what I've been pondering! Most/all of the rave reviews about BK stoves are specifically about the incredibly long burn times. I don't think people buy them for the looks or price. Now your stove may have another thing going for it because of its massive firebox size. I know cat stoves can have longer burn times vs secondary stoves so is BK using cats developed by NASA? The cats are probably manufactured by and shipped in from China so why isn't the other companies scrambling over each other to replicate BK!? I know some say stuff like BK is great at long, low burns but that's not what everyone is after. Umm, why the hell not!? A stove that is capable of doing a long low heat burn and has the ability to produce a lot of heat fast sounds like the ideal heater to me.

 

[Idahonative]

Yes, that's exactly what I've been pondering! Most/all of the rave reviews about BK stoves are specifically about the incredibly long burn times. I don't think people buy them for the looks or price. Now your stove may have another thing going for it because of its massive firebox size. I know cat stoves can have longer burn times vs secondary stoves so is BK using cats developed by NASA? The cats are probably manufactured by and shipped in from China so why isn't the other companies scrambling over each other to replicate BK!? I know some say stuff like BK is great at long, low burns but that's not what everyone is after. Umm, why the hell not!? A stove that is capable of doing a long low heat burn and has the ability to produce a lot of heat fast sounds like the ideal heater to me.

Agree with you Ambull. We burn pine and it is very difficult to have long burns with that wood. So for us, buying a stove that was capable of long burns was right at the top of our list. It really comes down to how hard you want to work if your sole source of heat is wood. At this point in my life, I don't want to work real hard at keeping the house warm.

I lit one match at the end of October and that is the only fire I've started this season. Maybe two minutes a day to load the stove, let it burn off for about 15 minutes and I'm done until the next day (24 hrs later). It blows my mind how easy it is to heat with this stove compared to our last stove (manual air control/no cat). There are many good stoves on the market today. But most of them will require more of your time to keep the house where you want it.

Oh, and the cats are made in the US by Condar (I think):
http://www.condar.com/

 

[Mountaineer51]

Man you guys got some great deals. Can't believe that thing adequately heats 3200 sq ft without running it full blast.

Well sir, these log walls must have a fair R value. When the temps are sub zero it does run a bout full bore loaded with oak, hickory, locust, elm ect. It's located in the center of the room which helps. It's better than the old Earth stove it replaced , but I would like to try a Buck 91 nc and see how it does.

 

[zogger]

There are a lot of comparisons in heaters out there theoretically. How about a top of the line BK versus a very well built Russian masonry heater?

One does a well controlled burn and keeps going for a day or longer, the other does a short *intense* burn and is still throwing heat a day later.

 

[windthrown]

There are a lot of comparisons in heaters out there theoretically. How about a top of the line BK versus a very well built Russian masonry heater?

One does a well controlled burn and keeps going for a day or longer, the other does a short *intense* burn and is still throwing heat a day later.

A Russian masonry fireplace beats any wood stove, hands down. I have a friend in southern Oregon that sells a CD with many plans for building "Russian" style masonry fireplaces. He has built several of them, and cut his wood use drastically in each case, while improving the quality of heat. I have experienced his work first hand, and it is impressive. I also prefer radiant heat (boiler loop or masonry) over any wood stove, electric or gas furnace I have had. Masonry heaters are huge though, they weigh a lot, and need to be centrally located. I lived in two houses in California in the Sierras that had similar masonry heaters, and they were the best.

Stan has some information here about Russian fireplaces on his web site, and you can order the CD online there. They work.

http://www.singingfalls.com/masonry_furnace.html

 

[windthrown]

The other issue here is the EPA requirements. Stoves are not EPA and WA state approved in terms of how they are used by owners, they are tested using cribs of wood and burned in ways that no one uses a wood stove. Which, IMO makes the EPA certification rather useless in the end, but that is what we have in terms of regulations. Another of the several reasons that I chose the NC30 is that they are EPA II and WA state approved, meaning that they will be EPA III approved, as the WA requirements are the standards that the feds will likely move to next. Oregon has been banning some wood appliances of late, including all wood fired boilers (indoor or outdoor). You also have to have an EPA or OR DEQ approved wood stove to sell a house here. All other stoves have to be removed and scrapped during or just after closing escrow. Also I chose the NC30 because I live in a mobile home, and so I have to have a HUD approved stove, which the NC30 is. Basically that requirement is for an OAK, which I think you would have to be insane not to have anyway. I ran my stove w/o the OAK for a few days and this place was drafty and cold around the inside perimeter and back bedrooms. I installed the OAK and poof! No more drafty house.

 

[windthrown]

"Well, there is not that much to wood stove technology, and it is really just a hunk of steel and some glass."

This statement couldn't be further from the truth.

When I was in High School, our welding teacher had a good set of blue prints for building a wood stove. At that time, the stove was better than many of the commercially made stoves you could buy. Word got around our community and these "high school made" stoves were in high demand. It was great for the person buying the stove because they only had to pay for materials and they got a heavy, overbuilt stove. It was also great experience for us.

It's not 1986 anymore and to say wood stove technology has changed dramatically would be an understatement. Back then, a steel box with a manually controlled damper was common. Not to say that design won't heat your home because it will. But there are choices out there that are SOOOOOOOOO much better than that and they are chalked full of some real fine engineering.

But to comment on Ambull's original post: For someone on a limited budget, the Englander would be hard to beat.

Well, I emphatically disagree. I had an Earth Stove here in my current house that was 40 yeas old, and it was every bit as efficient as this new Englander stove that I have, and it burned as cleanly. Period. It was also a better stove and put out more heat faster than this one does. And that is going back to 1975! A decade earlier than your 1986 date. They had a secondary fresh air intake at the top of the stove, and another one in the flue. They also had a huge amount of steel and brick in them that holds a lot of heat, and they had really large fireboxes. They also had a thermocouple damper control that I believe is better than anyone else's out there, even today. They also had a choice of CAT stoves and secondary burn stoves, way back in the 1970s. Those two methods (or a hybrid of them) remain the only two used today by EPA approved stove makers. So the technology has been out there for a long time. What you think is new and improved is old and tried and true. Certainly Earth Stove was ahead of its time, but that was over 40 years ago.

 

[Idahonative]

Well, I emphatically disagree. I had an Earth Stove here in my current house that was 40 yeas old, and it was every bit as efficient as this new Englander stove that I have, and it burned as cleanly. Period. It was also a better stove and put out more heat faster than this one does. And that is going back to 1975! A decade earlier than your 1986 date. They had a secondary fresh air intake at the top of the stove, and another one in the flue. They also had a huge amount of steel and brick in them that holds a lot of heat, and they had really large fireboxes. They also had a thermocouple damper control that I believe is better than anyone else's out there, even today. They also had a choice of CAT stoves and secondary burn stoves, way back in the 1970s. Those two methods (or a hybrid of them) remain the only two used today by EPA approved stove makers. So the technology has been out there for a long time. What you think is new and improved is old and tried and true. Certainly Earth Stove was ahead of its time, but that was over 40 years ago.

Sounds like you've got it all figured out. Happy heating

 

[zogger]

A Russian masonry fireplace beats any wood stove, hands down. I have a friend in southern Oregon that sells a CD with many plans for building "Russian" style masonry fireplaces. He has built several of them, and cut his wood use drastically in each case, while improving the quality of heat. I have experienced his work first hand, and it is impressive. I also prefer radiant heat (boiler loop or masonry) over any wood stove, electric or gas furnace I have had. Masonry heaters are huge though, they weigh a lot, and need to be centrally located. I lived in two houses in California in the Sierras that had similar masonry heaters, and they were the best.

Stan has some information here about Russian fireplaces on his web site, and you can order the CD online there. They work.

http://www.singingfalls.com/masonry_furnace.html

Every time I read about those things I like them more and more...


from the landing page on your link

"It was there in Montana that we were first inspired to get the job done. The Flathead County Extension Agent had a 2100 square foot double envelope home that he said required only one cord of dry small dimensional wood to heat during the bitter cold winters of the Montana NW. He also put out a pamphlet on the subject of building a "grubka" (the Russian Style Masonry Furnace). When I met him he graciously allowed me to view his copious files on the subject, along with a video he had made of his own furnace being built."

 

[Ambull01]

Agree with you Ambull. We burn pine and it is very difficult to have long burns with that wood. So for us, buying a stove that was capable of long burns was right at the top of our list. It really comes down to how hard you want to work if your sole source of heat is wood. At this point in my life, I don't want to work real hard at keeping the house warm.

I lit one match at the end of October and that is the only fire I've started this season. Maybe two minutes a day to load the stove, let it burn off for about 15 minutes and I'm done until the next day (24 hrs later). It blows my mind how easy it is to heat with this stove compared to our last stove (manual air control/no cat). There are many good stoves on the market today. But most of them will require more of your time to keep the house where you want it.

Oh, and the cats are made in the US by Condor:
http://www.condar.com/

Damn that sounds great actually. Probably the closest you can come to a set and forget type of heat source. I am really interested with firebox loading, kindling/fire starting techniques, when to turn down air settings, etc but that sounds like a lot of freaking work lol.

Nice, made in NC. I have to figure out who makes the IS cats. Wonder how it would do with a Condar cat? BTW, you're starting to steer me into drinking the BK Kool-Aid.

 

[TheLazyBFarm]

What's the other site? Shipping must have cost a fortune.

[snip]

Rhymes with "dearth.com"

Shipping was $100 IRC. Still worth it.

Good luck!

 

[Ambull01]

A Russian masonry fireplace beats any wood stove, hands down. I have a friend in southern Oregon that sells a CD with many plans for building "Russian" style masonry fireplaces. He has built several of them, and cut his wood use drastically in each case, while improving the quality of heat. I have experienced his work first hand, and it is impressive. I also prefer radiant heat (boiler loop or masonry) over any wood stove, electric or gas furnace I have had. Masonry heaters are huge though, they weigh a lot, and need to be centrally located. I lived in two houses in California in the Sierras that had similar masonry heaters, and they were the best.

Stan has some information here about Russian fireplaces on his web site, and you can order the CD online there. They work.

http://www.singingfalls.com/masonry_furnace.html

So the fire warms the bricks/masonry and the bricks just let off the heat throughout the day? I wonder why masonry fireplaces don't act the same way?

The other issue here is the EPA requirements. Stoves are not EPA and WA state approved in terms of how they are used by owners, they are tested using cribs of wood and burned in ways that no one uses a wood stove. Which, IMO makes the EPA certification rather useless in the end, but that is what we have in terms of regulations. Another of the several reasons that I chose the NC30 is that they are EPA II and WA state approved, meaning that they will be EPA III approved, as the WA requirements are the standards that the feds will likely move to next. Oregon has been banning some wood appliances of late, including all wood fired boilers (indoor or outdoor). You also have to have an EPA or OR DEQ approved wood stove to sell a house here. All other stoves have to be removed and scrapped during or just after closing escrow. Also I chose the NC30 because I live in a mobile home, and so I have to have a HUD approved stove, which the NC30 is. Basically that requirement is for an OAK, which I think you would have to be insane not to have anyway. I ran my stove w/o the OAK for a few days and this place was drafty and cold around the inside perimeter and back bedrooms. I installed the OAK and poof! No more drafty house.

The IS stove was tested with regular type wood and supposedly performed even better than the EPA version according (got that from the article talking about the competition it won).

I need to read more about an OAK. Seems to be some disagreement as to its benefits.

Okay top three stoves in no particular order: BK (one of the less ugly models), IS, and NC30. I'll let my wife be the deciding vote.

Well, I emphatically disagree. I had an Earth Stove here in my current house that was 40 yeas old, and it was every bit as efficient as this new Englander stove that I have, and it burned as cleanly. Period. It was also a better stove and put out more heat faster than this one does. And that is going back to 1975! A decade earlier than your 1986 date. They had a secondary fresh air intake at the top of the stove, and another one in the flue. They also had a huge amount of steel and brick in them that holds a lot of heat, and they had really large fireboxes. They also had a thermocouple damper control that I believe is better than anyone else's out there, even today. They also had a choice of CAT stoves and secondary burn stoves, way back in the 1970s. Those two methods (or a hybrid of them) remain the only two used today by EPA approved stove makers. So the technology has been out there for a long time. What you think is new and improved is old and tried and true. Certainly Earth Stove was ahead of its time, but that was over 40 years ago.

Damn, here I thought secondary tubes and stove cats were a relatively new invention.

 

[betterbuilt]

So the fire warms the bricks/masonry and the bricks just let off the heat throughout the day? I wonder why masonry fireplaces don't act the same way?

I think they have to be inside the envelope of the house to be effective. The center of the house would be the best. The real issue with these stoves is the cost and time it takes to build one. I've thought long and hard about Masonry heaters. I have a friend that builds them and he's offered to give me a hand. He has a rocket stove and heats his house with a single face cord. In the long run I think it would be worth it. Maybe this spring.

 

[Ambull01]

I think they have to be inside the envelope of the house to be effective. The center of the house would be the best. The real issue with these stoves is the cost and time it takes to build one. I've thought long and hard about Masonry heaters. I have a friend that builds them and he's offered to give me a hand. He has a rocket stove and heats his house with a single face cord. In the long run I think it would be worth it. Maybe this spring.

I see. So that's probably the reason for the mass too. More mass equals more stored heat. I wish they built every house with one of those things.

 

[betterbuilt]

I see. So that's probably the reason for the mass too. More mass equals more stored heat. I wish they built every house with one of those things.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[zogger]

I see. So that's probably the reason for the mass too. More mass equals more stored heat. I wish they built every house with one of those things.

There's fantastic energy efficient old tech plus new tech out there. Earth bermed, super insulation, masonry stoves, etc.

You should see some of the designs the college kids come up with in the solar decathlon. Some pretty neat stuff!

http://www.solardecathlon.gov/

 

[windthrown]

So the fire warms the bricks/masonry and the bricks just let off the heat throughout the day? I wonder why masonry fireplaces don't act the same way?

Typical masonry fireplaces do work similar in that they do get warm and radiate heat. However, most masonry fireplaces (here in the west at least) have a straight vertical flue with a damper, and that's is. They basically suck all the warm air out of the house and up the flue unless you have an OAK and glass doors. Convection works all too well in this case. So they are typically damped down to trap more heat, but then they create more smoke, soot and creosote. They are also typically located on the outer perimeter of a house, where a lot of radiant heat is simply lost to the outside.

The Russian (or Swedish) fireplace has several critical differences. The main one is that they have a larger mass of brick, and a long snaked back and forth exit path to allow for a lot of brick surface area to extract the heat as it goes up the much extended flue. They also have two types of brick, the inner flue liner type designed to absorb the most heat, and the outer brick to radiate the most heat. Also the burns are different. With A Russian type fireplace you light a small fire and burn it hot and fast where it is the most efficient and gives off the least amount of soot, creosote and smoke. That is similar to a wood boiler, where you trap heat from a full burn, but in a water tank rather than brick. They are also typically placed in the center of the house, rather than on an outer wall which is typical of most masonry fireplaces. Centrally located masonry fireplaces are better, regardless of type, as they radiate heat from the brick in all directions.

Stan built a Russian masonry fireplace in the center of his house in Oregon running the long axis of the house. One wall of the fireplace is along his dining/living room, and the other is along the bedrooms. The living room section has a long bench to sit on. Sitting on that radiant heat bench will warm you up really fast if you are cold. He has a damper at the exit of the flue, and closes it after the fire has died down. The fires we had there resulted in zero smoke and the exhaust had little heat when we climbed up on his roof to check it out. I had read a lot about them before, and people claim that they load up with creosote. However Stan has access covers on all the levels of the fireplace, and there was no creosote buildup inside the flue channels when I looked inside.

 

[windthrown]

I think they have to be inside the envelope of the house to be effective. The center of the house would be the best. The real issue with these stoves is the cost and time it takes to build one. I've thought long and hard about Masonry heaters. I have a friend that builds them and he's offered to give me a hand. He has a rocket stove and heats his house with a single face cord. In the long run I think it would be worth it. Maybe this spring.

The other great thing about masonry fireplaces is that they have nearly zero moving parts and no electrical dependency. Wood boilers work in the same way as a masonry heater, but they require a steel firebox, a water tank/boiler, electrical controllers, pumps, fans and damper, lots of plumbing, heat exchangers and blowers or hydronic loop heating distribution system. Russian fireplaces will not wear out like boilers will. Sadly Oregon has since deemed that all wood boilers are evil, and banned them all here. No such limitations on masonry fireplaces... yet.

Rocket stoves are also cool. There is much discussion about them on the 'hearth' site as well as 'fire wood hoarders' site. Again, burn hot and fast, and trap the heat.

 

[windthrown]

Damn, here I thought secondary tubes and stove cats were a relatively new invention.

Most of this stuff was developed (or re-invented) soon after the early 1970s OPEC oil embargo and because of smog/smoke in certain US regions. Earth Stove (ES) Works was an early developer of air injection in their stoves, as well as using CATs at the base of the flue. The ES 1000c stoves had a CAT in it, just like the modern ones do. My ES 10o series had air injection in the top of the firebox and a pipe to inject more air into the flue about 3 feet up. The 'modern' secondary air injection tube systems were developed here in Oregon by Brass Flame. They had the first stove to pass EPA w/o a CAT. Brass Flame was bought out by ES and the air injection system was adapted for use in several ES stoves. ES was then bought out by Lennox and the lines were all shyte canned. My 100 series ES stove also had fan system attached to the back that is exactly like the higher end one available from Englander now.

The ES I had here was also fitted with an OAK. Much debate on OAKs. WA state has mandated them for all stoves and fireplaces. HUD requires them in all mobile and prefab homes with a HUD label. I am convinced they are effective. As a test I left my OAK off on my new 30NC when I hooked it up. The perimeter of the house was cold and drafty. I hooked up the OAK and no more cold perimeter or drafts. Better heat. My old roommate is an energy contractor in California and is an authority on energy appliances and insulation, conservation, and efficiency. He has been a proponent of OAKs for 30 years now. I used to install solar systems with him in California when I was in college. It just makes sense to me. Using pre-warmed air will lower your efficiency, because you are using heated air that has lost energy passing heat out of the firebox, just to get sucked back into the firebox again. Better to heat a cold air supply inside the firebox once where heating is most efficient. Its a subtle concept lost on most. There are sites in Canada that claim that OAKS are useless, and they have complicated examples where OAKs may backfire, but I have never seen or heard of that happening. In my case it was a no-brainer though, as I had to have a HUD stove. I needed both a HUD and EPA approved stove here. Not many out there than have both, and fewer are WA approved. May as well get what will most certainly be adapted as the EPA III standard (the WA standard now).

 

[Ambull01]

Typical masonry fireplaces do work similar in that they do get warm and radiate heat. However, most masonry fireplaces (here in the west at least) have a straight vertical flue with a damper, and that's is. They basically suck all the warm air out of the house and up the flue unless you have an OAK and glass doors. Convection works all too well in this case. So they are typically damped down to trap more heat, but then they create more smoke, soot and creosote. They are also typically located on the outer perimeter of a house, where a lot of radiant heat is simply lost to the outside.

The Russian (or Swedish) fireplace has several critical differences. The main one is that they have a larger mass of brick, and a long snaked back and forth exit path to allow for a lot of brick surface area to extract the heat as it goes up the much extended flue. They also have two types of brick, the inner flue liner type designed to absorb the most heat, and the outer brick to radiate the most heat. Also the burns are different. With A Russian type fireplace you light a small fire and burn it hot and fast where it is the most efficient and gives off the least amount of soot, creosote and smoke. That is similar to a wood boiler, where you trap heat from a full burn, but in a water tank rather than brick. They are also typically placed in the center of the house, rather than on an outer wall which is typical of most masonry fireplaces. Centrally located masonry fireplaces are better, regardless of type, as they radiate heat from the brick in all directions.

Stan built a Russian masonry fireplace in the center of his house in Oregon running the long axis of the house. One wall of the fireplace is along his dining/living room, and the other is along the bedrooms. The living room section has a long bench to sit on. Sitting on that radiant heat bench will warm you up really fast if you are cold. He has a damper at the exit of the flue, and closes it after the fire has died down. The fires we had there resulted in zero smoke and the exhaust had little heat when we climbed up on his roof to check it out. I had read a lot about them before, and people claim that they load up with creosote. However Stan has access covers on all the levels of the fireplace, and there was no creosote buildup inside the flue channels when I looked inside.

Those fireplaces sound ingenious. Sounds relatively simple but you can tell a lot of thought and experienced went into the design. I would love to see a house with one and feel the benefit first hand. The radiant bench sounds awesome. It will be similar to my Caddy's heated seats. Pretty amazing how warm it makes me feel with heat only on one side of my body. Warm butt equals warm body.

Most of this stuff was developed (or re-invented) soon after the early 1970s OPEC oil embargo and because of smog/smoke in certain US regions. Earth Stove (ES) Works was an early developer of air injection in their stoves, as well as using CATs at the base of the flue. The ES 1000c stoves had a CAT in it, just like the modern ones do. My ES 10o series had air injection in the top of the firebox and a pipe to inject more air into the flue about 3 feet up. The 'modern' secondary air injection tube systems were developed here in Oregon by Brass Flame. They had the first stove to pass EPA w/o a CAT. Brass Flame was bought out by ES and the air injection system was adapted for use in several ES stoves. ES was then bought out by Lennox and the lines were all shyte canned. My 100 series ES stove also had fan system attached to the back that is exactly like the higher end one available from Englander now.

The ES I had here was also fitted with an OAK. Much debate on OAKs. WA state has mandated them for all stoves and fireplaces. HUD requires them in all mobile and prefab homes with a HUD label. I am convinced they are effective. As a test I left my OAK off on my new 30NC when I hooked it up. The perimeter of the house was cold and drafty. I hooked up the OAK and no more cold perimeter or drafts. Better heat. My old roommate is an energy contractor in California and is an authority on energy appliances and insulation, conservation, and efficiency. He has been a proponent of OAKs for 30 years now. I used to install solar systems with him in California when I was in college. It just makes sense to me. Using pre-warmed air will lower your efficiency, because you are using heated air that has lost energy passing heat out of the firebox, just to get sucked back into the firebox again. Better to heat a cold air supply inside the firebox once where heating is most efficient. Its a subtle concept lost on most. There are sites in Canada that claim that OAKS are useless, and they have complicated examples where OAKs may backfire, but I have never seen or heard of that happening. In my case it was a no-brainer though, as I had to have a HUD stove. I needed both a HUD and EPA approved stove here. Not many out there than have both, and fewer are WA approved. May as well get what will most certainly be adapted as the EPA III standard (the WA standard now).

So sounds like wood stoves followed along with cat usage around the same time as cars.

Sad to say the concept is lost on me as well. Wouldn't the heated air passing out of the firebox actually have more energy since it's hotter? Always thought heat to be a form of energy.

This is my ignorant newbie wood burner thought process on a OAK. I think it's almost like the reason for a fan on an insert. At least with my particular insert, the fan has nothing to do with actually blowing out heated air. It's just there to circulate hopefully cooler air around the insert to cool off the stove. Ideally most of the heat will get the hell out of the stove through the ceramic front. The fan helps keep the stoves outer perimeter cooler so it can absorb more heat which will then get the hell through glass front. Soooo, an OAK is sending in really cold air from outside vs semi-cooled inside air.

Well after typing all that I realized I'm making no sense. I don't feel like deleting it though lol. Back to spreadsheets I go.