# Help me choose a Stove!



## Machria (Nov 7, 2012)

Money no object, given similar same size fireboxes and specs for a freestanding wood stove, which one is the best?

The little bit I've herd is, and may or may not be true is:
- Soapstone stays the coolest on outside, and gives off the least heat but looks the nicest
- Cast Iron stays hotter longer, but can crack if burned to hot at full blast constantly
- Steel gets hottest quickest, but cools quickest, and can be workhorses burned at full blast for longer periods without damage except for doors which can warp which is why many doors on steel units are cast iron.  

Any of these accurate, wrong?     What can you guys add?   Is one better than others, or are they each better for certain circumstances?      Not including cost!!


----------



## Pallet Pete (Nov 7, 2012)

Welcome Machria 

Soapstone is the opposite it puts off incredible soft heat and last a very long time.
Cast Iron can get very hot and put off nice heat. My stove is steel box wrapped in cast and heats up very quick but because of the cast the heat lasts a long time. Steel does get hot fast as well however it will put off a lot of heat as long as there is a good coal bed like any stove. In my opinion our old steel stove put off a harsher hotter heat than our current cast wrapped stove. Stone puts off a large amount of heat but it is soft as I said before. Others will way in and explain better I am sure. 

Pete


----------



## corey21 (Nov 7, 2012)

Welcome.

I can add to this that a steel stove can make sweat drip off your nose.


----------



## Machria (Nov 7, 2012)

corey21 said:


> Welcome.
> 
> I can add to this that a steel stove can make sweat drip off your nose.



Is that good, or bad?


----------



## corey21 (Nov 7, 2012)

If you like to sweat it is a good thing.


----------



## BrowningBAR (Nov 7, 2012)

Machria said:


> Money no object, given similar same size fireboxes and specs for a freestanding wood stove, which one is the best?
> 
> The little bit I've herd is, and may or may not be true is:
> - Soapstone stays the coolest on outside, and gives off the least heat but looks the nicest
> ...


 
None of those are accurate.

Soapstone stays hot the longest, but when burning 24/7 it becomes less of a factor. Truth is, if you oversize your stove by a certain amount, they will all heat just as well and provide heat even at lower temps at the end of a burn cycle.

Firebox size is the most important factor when deciding on a purchase.


----------



## flhpi (Nov 7, 2012)

I have owned all three types and still don't know which one I want more. I like my steel wrapped in cast that I have now but I also like the looks of the Jotul. Then there is the burn time of the Blaze king and the Equinox looks amazing. If I win the lottery I am going to buy a drafty house in a colder climate just so I can play with different wood stoves.


----------



## BrowningBAR (Nov 8, 2012)

flhpi said:


> I have owned all three types and still don't know which one I want more. I like my steel wrapped in cast that I have now but I also like the looks of the Jotul. Then there is the burn time of the Blaze king and the Equinox looks amazing. If I win the lottery* I am going to buy a drafty house in a colder climate just so I can play with different wood stoves.*


It's overrated. Trust me on this one.


----------



## begreen (Nov 8, 2012)

There is no "best" stove, just the best for your task and home. Each stove type has it's strengths. And then there are hybrids combining cast with steel or steel with soapstone. Decide how large an area you want to heat and what pleases your eye the best if that's important.


----------



## Machria (Nov 8, 2012)

begreen said:


> There is no "best" stove, just the best for your task and home. Each stove type has it's strengths. And then there are hybrids combining cast with steel or steel with soapstone. Decide how large an area you want to heat and what pleases your eye the best if that's important.



Ok, I'll bite,..    About a 1400 sq foot great room with cathedral ceiling.  So which type and size would be best?


----------



## Dunragit (Nov 8, 2012)

wow, that is a huge room


----------



## Dunragit (Nov 8, 2012)

Dunragit said:


> wow, that is a huge room


 

I would rule out my Squirrel, lol


----------



## ddddddden (Nov 8, 2012)

BrowningBAR said:


> . .Firebox size is the most important factor when deciding on a purchase.


+1
If the room in which the stove will be installed = 1400 sq ft and you want to heat more of your house than just that one room, you're going to want to go big, regardless of stove material, unless your house is super tight/well insulated. Ceiling fans would help to keep the heat from collecting in the high ceiling.

Regarding the stove material, steel = iron + some additives. I think the difference in heating characteristics is due to iron stoves usually being made of thicker panels than steel stoves, so iron stoves typically have more mass. A thick cast iron pan vs. a steel skillet might be a good analogy.

A pound of soapstone will hold ~2x the heat that a pound of iron/steel will, so stone stoves are more stable thermally than metal stoves of similar mass. Stone stoves are also very heavy, which adds to this effect.

http://www.iun.edu/~cpanhd/C101webnotes/matter-and-energy/specificheat.html

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-metals-d_152.html

http://www.tulikivi.com/usa-can/fireplaces/Soapstone_characteristics


Steel might take the most abuse, but any stove can crack if you fire the piss out of it.
Get a stove(s) big enough to heat your space, and don 't abuse it.


----------



## melissa71 (Nov 8, 2012)

I love my soapstone stove, but it's the only one I've ever had or used.  It doesn't blast us out of the room, and I love the way it looks.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Nov 8, 2012)

The differences in the stoves is all due to thermal mass.  The more mass that the stove has, the longer it takes to heat that mass to a given temperature, and the longer it takes to release it.  Living on Long Island I'm sure you've noticed that your summers are cooler than areas inland and winters are warmer.  The mass of the surrounding water moderates the temperatures that you experience.  

The stove material you choose should be related to what you want in your house and how fast you want the stove to heat up.  

One thing I'll caution you on, the big stoves go through a lot of wood.  And in such a large room you'll want to keep that stove hot.  Be prepared to have lots of DRY wood on hand.  Many of the larger stoves have 3+ cubic foot fireboxes.  3 reloads a day (assuming 8 hour burns that you probably won't get when getting used to running a stove) mean you will be going through 10 cubic feet a day.  Some of your area has been without power for almost 2 weeks.  You're looking at 140 cubic feet of wood to have on hand at all times.  Don't rely on a firewood dealer to sell you wood that will be ready to immediately burn.  Often the wood they sell still has too much water so it does not give off as much heat.  This will increase your wood consumption.  It will also be harder to light and can be smokey.

Sorry for the long warning.  I want you to be happy when you burn.  We see too many who don't have enough wood on hand and the wood that they have is unsuitable.  I was in this boat myself my first year of burning wood. 

Matt


----------



## btuser (Nov 8, 2012)

If you run the numbers on thermal mass it's not that much of a difference.  Soapstone will hold more because there's more of it, but it's still dwarfed by the amount of storage in the wood ring beside the stove.  Steel and cast iron are virtually identical as a thermal storage medium, but it takes more cast iron so once again you get more of it.  A long controlled burn in a good stove with good wood and a person comfortable using it is what you want.  Other than that you can pick the one that looks nice.  I like the steel fireboxes because they're welded vs a gasket firebox that require disassemble and reassemble (steel fireboxes have problems too) and they're a little more forgiving if you over-fire them.

Newer firboxes with reburn tubes and catalytic converters make the ol' rules of thumbs kinda guidelines.  Soapstone is great, cast iron is great, steel is great.  How's your wood?


----------



## Dakotas Dad (Nov 8, 2012)

Machria said:


> Ok, I'll bite,.. About a 1400 sq foot great room with cathedral ceiling. So which type and size would be best?


 
This a 1400 sqft home, with cathedral ceilings in the great room..? Or one room with cathedral ceiling? Either way, you will want ceiling fans to keep the heat from just being trapped up there, but my brother tells me that is the norm no matter what the heat source.

I also agree, firebox size is most important as far as how large an area a stove will heat. But since it sits out in the open, and is often the center of attention, an attractive wrapper on the firebox is a good thing.. at least in this house I was told it is. They can "feel" different.. but they will all keep the house warm if sized properly.

We need a better description of the home.. total sqft, number of floors, age of home, number and type of windows, how open is the floor plan.. and then we can make a better guess.


----------



## Stump_Branch (Nov 8, 2012)

Owned, all three types. Don't think construction matters as much as size and burn time. Soap stone holds coals a bit longer for me, extending a burn the cast stove has a slightly larger fire box which helps. The steel stove was like turning on the thermostat with instant heat. However all of them come up to temp in a quick manner I'd say.

Find one that by the marketing literature is over sized, loss good for the room and can offer an easy simple no frills over night burn. You'll be warm and happy.


----------



## Waulie (Nov 8, 2012)

I've also owned all three types.  I definitely prefer soapstone.  The stone moderates temperature swings and I find it much easier to keep the house in a narrow, comfortable temp range.  Also it really is a "softerer" heat.  That said, the stove material is not the most important factor in picking a stove.


----------



## Machria (Nov 8, 2012)

Dakotas Dad said:


> We need a better description of the home.. total sqft, number of floors, age of home, number and type of windows, how open is the floor plan.. and then we can make a better guess.


 
All you need to know:
https://www.hearth.com/talk/threads/newbie-new-install-stove-or-fireplace-forced-air-dist.93803/

In a nutshell, it's a rectangular shaped 2000 sq foot 2 story home, BUT, it's an upside down house on stilts. 1st floor is bedrooms and office, 2nd floor is one big open great room with cathredral ceilings, kitchen, living room/den area where currently I have an old useless cheap builders style Heatalator fireplace in a corner (see picture in other thread). Want to remove it, and replace with a freestanding stove. The upper floor is about 1000 sq feet plus another 400 via two open small lofts on each end of the cathedral ceiling. I know I'm not going to heat the 1st floor, so I'm just looking to heat (save on oil, also have some heat during no power which is often since I'm in woods basically...) and be able to enjoy the fire... in this great room of about 1400 sq feet.

I should also mention my house is on the water, on the south shore of Long Island (aka sticking out like a soar thumb over the Atlantic Ocean). And the entire top floor, 3/4 away around is mostly windows from 2' up the wall, to 8' high (6' x 6' windows). So when the wind blows 15 knots in winter, it is hitting my house at 40 knots! And when it is 20 degrees outside, iti s 10 degrees at my house!!

The house is a very contemporary looking beach type house.

FYI: I have LOTS of good seasoned (1 year, 2 years and 5+ years)!! And LOTS (too much!!) of brand new wood NO THANKS to "Sandy" Along with "Sandy's" delivery of wood, has come 2 weeks with not power.


----------



## ddddddden (Nov 8, 2012)

EatenByLimestone said:


> The differences in the stoves is all due to thermal mass. . .


 


btuser said:


> If you run the numbers on thermal mass it's not that much of a difference. Soapstone will hold more because there's more of it. . .Steel and cast iron are virtually identical as a thermal storage medium, but it takes more cast iron so once again you get more of it.


 
Actually, the numbers/physics says that the heat energy in a substance = mass x temp x specific heat.

. . .so it's NOT all about mass. Different materials store different amounts of energy. This property is called the *specific heat *of a substance. The numbers guys have measured this property for pretty much every material we use to make stuff. The specific heat of soapstone is approximately 2x that of iron/steel. (For reference, the specific heat of water ~ 8x that of iron/steel.)

If you held a blowtorch on a 1-lb piece of iron until the temp of it rose by 1°, you would find that doing the same thing with a 1-lb piece of soapstone would take twice as long, or that you could do it in the same amount of time if you turned up the torch to double the output, or that you could do it in the same amount of time with a half-pound piece of soapstone.

This doesn't mean that a soapstone stove is twice as good as a metal stove, just that it has some different characteristics. Understanding these characteristics will help you decide which stove is right for you.

http://www.iun.edu/~cpanhd/C101webnotes/matter-and-energy/specificheat.html


----------



## BrowningBAR (Nov 8, 2012)

ddddddden said:


> Actually, the numbers/physics says that the heat energy in a substance = mass x temp x specific heat.
> 
> . . .so it's NOT all about mass. Different materials store different amounts of energy. This property is called the *specific heat *of a substance. The numbers guys have measured this property for pretty much every material we use to make stuff. The specific heat of soapstone is approximately double that of iron/steel.
> 
> ...


 

Size also plays a big role. The Defiant and 30 weigh the same (Defiant) or less (the 30) than the Heritage did, though they are much larger in terms of their foot print. But, both stoves provide longer usable heat at lower temps than the Heritage did.


----------



## ddddddden (Nov 8, 2012)

Agreed. Firebox capacity trumps stove mass and material. . .there's also a surface area factor involved with radiating the heat, but the math on that is a bit more sketchy to me.

If I lived in a house on the ocean, with high winds, high ceilings, and lots of big windows, I would want a big stove.

Among the brands mentioned in Machria's other thread, I'd look at the Hearthstone Mansfield and Enerzone 2.9. . .maybe the Enerzone 3.4, if all those windows don't seal tightly and the place is drafty. I'd also look at the larger Blaze Kings and the Woodstock Progress.

p.s.  Send this guy a message.  He sells Enerzone and Hearthstone and will give you no-nonsense advice.
Fsappo
https://www.hearth.com/talk/members/fsappo.4860/


----------



## BrowningBAR (Nov 8, 2012)

ddddddden said:


> Agreed. Firebox capacity trumps stove mass and material. . .there's also a *surface area factor* involved with radiating the heat, but the math on that is a bit more sketchy to me.


 
That is actually what I was getting at. I could put the same, or less, amount of wood in the 30 and get a longer burn time of usable heat than compared to the Heritage.


----------



## ddddddden (Nov 8, 2012)

Yeah, we discussed the effect of surface area on heat transfer awhile back. I'll see if I can dig up the thread. . .

Focuses on surface temp, but a lil' on surface area:
https://www.hearth.com/talk/threads/somebody-explain-this-please.64328/


----------



## btuser (Nov 9, 2012)

ddddddden said:


> Yeah, we discussed the effect of surface area on heat transfer awhile back. I'll see if I can dig up the thread. . .


I was told this is one reason old cast iron stoves did so well. The ornate castings and dimpled surfaces would add a lot of surface area, but people attributed it to the stove material rather than the engineering.   A fan blowing over the metal creates accelerated convection so it's not a deal killer for me, but there's definitely an elegance to no power at all.


----------



## MarkinNC (Nov 9, 2012)

My 2 cents:

Since you are installing it in a corner I would get a heat shielded convective stove and not a pure radiant stove to push the air to the other end. My convective stove pushes the air from one corner of my 1600 SF house to the other without the use of fans.

I know folks on here will say you can cook on a rock stove but the plate/cast stoves are going to be better for cooking. Perhaps you have a gas stove and this is not an issue? I installed my stove after loosing power for several days when my kids were 2 and 3. I did not enjoy going outside to cook on my grill or what have you. I started out looking at Hearthstone stoves and ended up with a pragmatic steel stove. Cooking was one of my primary considerations. We got the pewter door and the fancy legs to make it better.

Oh good on you for getting a stove too. May I suggest making a cardboard cutout of the stoves you are looking at and placing it where you want to put the stove. The stove we were being steered toward had to be 16+ from the wall. It was a top loader and had numerous gaskets to maintain (or fail) and would have been tricky to clean. The stove we selected was able to be about 4" from our wall and tucked into the room nicely (one door gasket and easy to clean).

I think Browningbar's point about burning 24/7 is particularly cogent.

You have a lot of glass and if your house could use some insulation I would upsize some.

I bet stove sales will be brisk in your area for a while


----------



## Waulie (Nov 9, 2012)

MarkinNC said:


> I know folks on here will say you can cook on a rock stove but the plate/cast stoves are going to be better for cooking.


 
Unless of course, you get the Progress Hybrid with the cook top.

I love this thing.


----------



## Ashful (Nov 9, 2012)

BrowningBAR said:


> Size also plays a big role.


 


ddddddden said:


> Agreed. Firebox capacity trumps stove mass and material. . .there's also a *surface area factor* involved with radiating the heat, but the math on that is a bit more sketchy to me.


 
I do wonder about this. My experience seems to agree with several others, that a bigger stove - due to it's larger surface area, can keep a place warmer at a lower surface temperature. However, theory disagrees, for the following reasons:

1. Volume goes up much faster than surface area. Volume is x*y*z, whereas Area is only 2xy+2yz+2zx, or s cubed versus s squared. For example, the Jotul 600 is almost 2x the volume of a Jotul 400, but has only 22% more surface area, using rough envelope dimensions.

2. Radiated power is 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




, meaning there is a much higher dependency on surface temperature (to the fourth power) than surface area (to the first power). So much so, that surface temperature should completely dominate, regardless of area.

I'd like to hear from a real physist on this, as I'm sure I'm missing something. Me? I'm heating a similar space to the OP with a stove the size of a 1970's TV console (only a slight exageration), and have been running surface temps of 250 - 350 F, versus a lot of people I see posting 550 - 650 F. My room is a toasty 70 - 73 F at those low surface temp's, so I do think there must be something to BAR's surface area statement.


----------



## mfglickman (Nov 9, 2012)

flhpi said:


> I have owned all three types and still don't know which one I want more. I like my steel wrapped in cast that I have now but I also like the looks of the Jotul. Then there is the burn time of the Blaze king and the Equinox looks amazing. If I win the lottery I am going to buy a drafty house in a colder climate just so I can play with different wood stoves.


 
Just send me, BAR and Waulie stoves to try out every few years...we'd be happy to send you reports!  

Money no object, make sure you have the clearances and get a firebox at least one size bigger than you think you need.


----------



## Machria (Nov 9, 2012)

Thanks all, and keep the info coming!!  You guys have a wealth of Stove info!!  

MarkinNC, thanks, good insight.  I can't do a mock-up "yet", because I will be removing the corner wall where the current fireplace is, which is where I will put the freestander.  I'm going to leave the top part, and put some decrateive (and heat shield) stone on it and the underside, but the bottom part under the white shelf/strip is coming out.  And your right, LI stoves sales is going WAY up!!  Each showroom I walk in, they tell me they have been swamped.

Speaking of cooking, my dream was always to be able to cook wood fired pizza's on a hotplate slid into the top area of a stove, and bake a turkey or bread....    but I'm finding there are not many cook type stoves, other than the full blown old fashioned kitchen type ones.  The ONLY one I really see is the Vermont Bun Baker, which is a pretty small stove. * I'm REALLY surpised after searching, there are not more stoves with ovens attached*.  Why is that, no market for it?  Seems like there should be, it's a free oven!! 

What do you folks think of the Enerzone Destination 2.3?    2.3 cu ft firebox, is that going to be large enough?    My lean to this one is, I saw an Enerzone (the big 3.4) burning in a showroom, and it really burned nice, seemed well made, and had the simple look I like.  But the Destination is even more modern looking, and I really like the log storage under it.  I'm just not sure it's big enough for this large, drafty window room??

Keep in mind, this is really not a full time heater, it's more of a nice supplimental heat source, and ornamental fireplace.  But I think once i start burning in a stove compared to my current fireplace (which throws very little heat), I'm going to be more on the heat side of things!!  

Here's a better picof 1/2 the room...


----------



## Machria (Nov 9, 2012)

Joful said:


> Me? I'm heating a similar space to the OP with a stove the size of a 1970's TV console (only a slight exageration), and have been running surface temps of 250 - 350 F, versus a lot of people I see posting 550 - 650 F. My room is a toasty 70 - 73 F at those low surface temp's, so I do think there must be something to BAR's surface area statement.


 
Not sure what you mean about the 70's TV?   Meaing it is large?  OR meaning it is small?    Screen sizes of TV's in the 70's if you recall were alot smaller than today.  20" was a very good size TV.  But on the other side, they were not 1" thick!!  So you see my confusion on your reference, are you saying your stove is small heating a big space?  or large, heating a big space?    I do like the Jotul stoves of course, they are nice quality.  What size / which model Jotul would you recommend if I wnt that route?


----------



## BrowningBAR (Nov 9, 2012)

Joful said:


> I do wonder about this. My experience seems to agree with several others, that a bigger stove - due to it's larger surface area, can keep a place warmer at a lower surface temperature. However, theory disagrees, for the following reasons:
> 
> 1. Volume goes up much faster than surface area. Volume is x*y*z, whereas Area is only 2xy+2yz+2zx, or s cubed versus s squared. For example, the Jotul 600 is almost 2x the volume of a Jotul 400, but has only 22% more surface area, using rough envelope dimensions.
> 
> ...


Okay, then why does the 30, which weighs less than the Defiant, is able to heat the same room from the same chimney just as well at a low temperature? And why does the 30 heat better at lower temperatures than the Vigilant did which weighs about the same. All three stoves were in the same room using the same chimney and liner.

These questions aren't to prove that the science is wrong, but more to find out what other factors are in play.


----------



## Machria (Nov 9, 2012)

mfglickman said:


> Money no object, make sure you have the clearances and get a firebox at least one size bigger than you think you need.


 
Clearances are a non-issue. After removing the lower part (white part and below) of the corner wall pictured, I have the entire corner which will be durarocked, with a stone finish floor to ceiling. I'll simply place the stove at minimum clearance from each side.

So what size would you recommend, money no object and plenty of space?

.


----------



## Waulie (Nov 9, 2012)

BrowningBAR said:


> Okay, then why does the 30, which weighs less than the Defiant, is able to heat the same room from the same chimney just as well at a low temperature? And why does the 30 heat better at lower temperatures than the Vigilant did which weighs about the same. All three stoves were in the same room using the same chimney and liner.
> 
> These questions aren't to prove that the science is wrong, but more to find out what other factors are in play.


 
Because it's not cold yet?  

Is it possible the temps on the 30 are higher all around than on the VC's?  Meaning, maybe the VC's registered higher top temps but lower side/front temps.  It's a thought.  Also, maybe the window on the 30 is bigger, letting more heat escape the stove?


----------



## Waulie (Nov 9, 2012)

Machria, I would get about a 3 cft firebox for that large space.  I prefer more radiant type stoves for open/loft areas myself, but opinions do vary on this.  I have cathedral ceilings with a loft and used to have a convective stove.  Now I have a radiant stove and it does a better job at warming the lower level faster without quickly sending all that hot air toward the ceiling.  Again, opinions on this vary.  Just my experience.


----------



## BrowningBAR (Nov 9, 2012)

Waulie said:


> Because it's not cold yet?


I'm taking that into account.



> Is it possible the temps on the 30 are higher all around than on the VC's? Meaning, maybe the VC's registered higher top temps but lower side/front temps. It's a thought. Also, maybe the window on the 30 is bigger, letting more heat escape the stove?


At lower temps the sides and front of the stove temps seem comparable, but I will monitor that to see if there is a difference. Also, the amount of glass seems about the same, if not a slight edge to the Defiant.


----------



## Machria (Nov 9, 2012)

How about the difference in design, shape of firebox, secondary burn tubes, air intake sizes and location...  seems to me there are ALOT of factore to be considered.

Back to what I need??  It's COLD on Long Island with no heat


----------



## Waulie (Nov 9, 2012)

Machria said:


> How about the difference in design, shape of firebox, secondary burn tubes, air intake sizes and location... seems to me there are ALOT of factore to be considered.
> 
> Back to what I need?? It's COLD on Long Island with no heat


 
I would pick out some models you find appealing that have largish, say 2.5+ cft firebox's.  Try to narrrow it down to a few of your favorite choices.  Then, create a new post asking for opinions on those models.

As you've no doubt gleaned, the answer to steel, cast, or soapstone is "yes".


----------



## Waulie (Nov 9, 2012)

BrowningBAR said:


> I'm taking that into account.


 
Yeah, I know.  My internet humor sucks.


----------



## BrowningBAR (Nov 9, 2012)

Waulie said:


> Yeah, I know. My internet humor sucks.


Ah! wasn't sure.


----------



## begreen (Nov 9, 2012)

Machria said:


> Ok, I'll bite,..    About a 1400 sq foot great room with cathedral ceiling.  So which type and size would be best?



I had the Quad IR down but after seeing the room I changed my mind. I would go with a mid-sized convective stove. There are lots of choices. You will have to tell us your preference for style and design. For staters look at the Enviro Kodiak 1700 line. If you want it in a nice cast iron jacket, the same firebox is in the Enviro Boston.


----------



## begreen (Nov 9, 2012)

BrowningBAR said:


> Okay, then why does the 30, which weighs less than the Defiant, is able to heat the same room from the same chimney just as well at a low temperature? And why does the 30 heat better at lower temperatures than the Vigilant did which weighs about the same. All three stoves were in the same room using the same chimney and liner.
> 
> These questions aren't to prove that the science is wrong, but more to find out what other factors are in play.


Much greater efficiency?


----------



## BrowningBAR (Nov 9, 2012)

begreen said:


> Much greater efficiency?


But, if mass plays a bigger part and both stoves have the same surface temp, shouldn't the stove with more mass provide more heat at lower temps (based on the previously mentioned theory)?


----------



## Machria (Nov 9, 2012)

begreen said:


> I had the Quad IR down but after seeing the room I changed my mind. I would go with a mid-sized convective stove. There are lots of choices. You will have to tell us your preference for style and design. For staters look at the Enviro Kodiak 1700 line. If you want it in a nice cast iron jacket, the same firebox is in the Enviro Boston.


 
Thanks....  that Enviro looks very similar (if not the same?) as the Enerzone Solution 3.4...   Enerzone and a few other brands are made by SBI, I wonder if Enviro is as well??  Sure looks the same.....?  

What is meant by "Convective"?   Aren't they all?

My house and preference style as you can see in pic is mostly modern/contemporary.


----------



## begreen (Nov 9, 2012)

All stoves are not convective. Many cast iron stoves are radiant. They heat by radiating heat in all directions. Unjacketed steel stoves and some soapstone stoves behave similarly.


----------



## Ashful (Nov 9, 2012)

Joful said:


> I'm heating a similar space to the OP with a stove the size of a 1970's TV *console* (only a slight exageration)


 


Machria said:


> Not sure what you mean about the 70's TV? Meaing it is large? OR meaning it is small?


 
You must be young! In the 1970's, the common family room TV was installed in a big wooden console, just shy of a Volkswagon Beetle in size and weight.



BrowningBAR said:


> Okay, then why does the 30, which weighs less than the Defiant, is able to heat the same room from the same chimney just as well at a low temperature? And why does the 30 heat better at lower temperatures than the Vigilant did which weighs about the same. All three stoves were in the same room using the same chimney and liner.


 
Good questions, and I wish I knew! Like I said, hopefully someone who knows physics / thermodynamics better than I will chime in with an authoritative answer. I'm just throwing out the theory I do know, which is limited.



Machria said:


> What is meant by "Convective"? Aren't they all?


 
Some stove have jackets around them to intentionally create a temperature gradient between two plates (hot stove side or top, and cool outer jacket). This temperature gradient causes a pressure gradient, and thus air movement. These stoves are called convective, because they intentionally induce more air movement than the natural convection that happens around any other stove.



BrowningBAR said:


> But, if mass plays a bigger part and...


 
I didn't mention anything about mass.


----------



## Machria (Nov 9, 2012)

Would you consider the Enerzones radiant or convective?

Un-fortunitely, NOT young!!   Although I still think I am!!    I built TV's in the 70's!    I jsut didn't know which direction you were referring to, screen size, cabinet size....


----------



## begreen (Nov 9, 2012)

Enviro is not part of SBI, Enerzone is. Both of their stoves are convective.


----------



## Waulie (Nov 9, 2012)

Hey Begreen:  I see you often recommend convective stoves for cathedral ceilings.  I'm just curious why.  In my experience (having had both with cathedral ceilings) I've found that the radiant stove does a better job of keeping the heat down and warming the lower "stuff".  It seems physics would agree.  Radiant heat = line of sight.  Hot air (convection heat) rises.

Not trying to argue.  Really just curious.


----------



## ddddddden (Nov 9, 2012)

Joful said:


> I do wonder about this. My experience seems to agree with several others, that a bigger stove - due to it's larger surface area, can keep a place warmer at a lower surface temperature. However, theory disagrees, for the following reasons:
> 
> 1. Volume goes up much faster than surface area. Volume is x*y*z, whereas Area is only 2xy+2yz+2zx, or s cubed versus s squared. For example, the Jotul 600 is almost 2x the volume of a Jotul 400, but has only 22% more surface area, using rough envelope dimensions.
> 
> ...


 
https://www.hearth.com/talk/threads/somebody-explain-this-please.64328/


----------



## argali66 (Nov 9, 2012)

After owning all three types of stoves, Soapstone gets my vote. The stove in my avatar will burn for 12-18 Hours. When I say burn, I mean that there are coals still going up to that long. Another major point is though it does eat some wood, that stove stays warm and radiates heat long after the actual fire has went out. So, if you load it up and forget to reload at a certain time, it's ok because it holds the heat and still disperses it even though there is no fire. It is a Smooth Radiating type of warm heat. Deceptive at that. You will build a fire and if you take note of your self and you feel "ok" or comfortable. Then you put more wood on thinking, "it could still be hotter. The next thing you know it is raging heat. This is because the way the heat radiates is not harsh. A good bad thing. I love Soapstone heat and would never own another type of stove.


----------



## BrowningBAR (Nov 9, 2012)

argali66 said:


> After owning all three types of stoves, Soapstone gets my vote. The stove in my avatar will burn for 12-18 Hours. When I say burn, I mean that there are coals still going up to that long. Another major point is though it does eat some wood, that stove stays warm and radiates heat long after the actual fire has went out. So, if you load it up and forget to reload at a certain time, it's ok because it holds the heat and still disperses it even though there is no fire. It is a Smooth Radiating type of warm heat. Deceptive at that. You will build a fire and if you take note of your self and you feel "ok" or comfortable. Then you put more wood on thinking, "it could still be hotter. The next thing you know it is raging heat. This is because the way the heat radiates is not harsh. A good bad thing. I love Soapstone heat and would never own another type of stove.


This is true, but you neglected to mention that some of this benefit is due to the fact that the firebox of your stove is actually *larger* than a new Hearthstone Equinox. When your stove is that large, no matter the material that is used, it is going to stay warm long after the fire is down to coals.


----------



## Waulie (Nov 9, 2012)

argali66 said:


> I love Soapstone heat and would never own another type of stove.


 
Well said sir!


----------



## fire_man (Nov 9, 2012)

This came from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 

I think it makes the point that a large surface area and a high thermal mass efficiently heats at a very low surface temperature. It takes a large soapstone stove to the the extreme.

A *masonry heater* (or *masonary stove*, *ceramic stove*, *tile stove*) is a device for warming an interior space by capturing the heat from periodic burning of fuel (usually wood), and then radiating the heat at a fairly constant temperature for a long period . 

Masonry takes longer to heat than metal; but once warm, the heater will radiate this heat over a much longer period of time and at a much lower temperature than a metal stove would use (the metal is hot only when there is a fire burning inside the stove and for a short time thereafter). A masonry heater is warmed by fires that burn for a short time; it is mostly the heat stored by the heater's mass that heats the living space. Both in Europe and in America seating and even beds are occasionally built adjoining the masonry stove; this is possible because the heater's exterior surfaces are cool enough to touch safely.

These heaters are primarily fired by wood, and those fires are meant to burn hot and quickly (never damped down, as is often the case with standard wood stoves). They are not burned continuously. This method of heating may have been a reaction to the dwindling resource of wood before the advent of coal and other mineral energy sources.


----------



## ddddddden (Nov 9, 2012)

btuser said:


> I was told this is one reason old cast iron stoves did so well. The ornate castings and dimpled surfaces would add a lot of surface area, but people attributed it to the stove material rather than the engineering. . .


 
That's an excellent point.  Dimples/ridges would not have as much of an effect as cooling fins, but would certainly increase the surface area some.


----------



## HotCoals (Nov 9, 2012)

The thicker the stove as in steel or cast..or soapstone..the longer it takes to get the stove to your desired temp.
So in the meantime more heat is wasted up the flue the thicker it is.
Sure when the fire burns out the thicker stove will give heat longer..but in my little mind you won't get all the heat back you lost up the flue to begin with.

Now if you are burning 24/7 it won't matter much...transfer of heat means more as in temp differential between one side of the surface area to the other side...the ability of the medium to conduct the heat from the fire then transfer the heat to the room.

Any larger epa stove will work fine..buy the one you would like to look at.
I myself prefer a cat stove..mostly because I can burn clean at low temps in the shoulder seasons but yet turn the t-stat up in real cold weather and watch the fire and be warm.


----------



## begreen (Nov 9, 2012)

Waulie said:


> Hey Begreen:  I see you often recommend convective stoves for cathedral ceilings.  I'm just curious why.  In my experience (having had both with cathedral ceilings) I've found that the radiant stove does a better job of keeping the heat down and warming the lower "stuff".  It seems physics would agree.  Radiant heat = line of sight.  Hot air (convection heat) rises.
> 
> Not trying to argue.  Really just curious.


It depends on the house. In a large open space a radiant stove is very nice. But if space is tight due to furniture, it's often not the best solution. Also a convective stove with a blower is going to circulate heat down lower where it's needed. Some convective stoves will push out a hot stream of air for 15-20ft in front of them.


----------



## Slow1 (Nov 9, 2012)

Fire Man brought up the point that I wanted to raise here - 

You keep saying "Money no object".  Well, if it really were no object for me then I would indeed install a masonry heater.  You can get your pizza oven built into it as well while you are at it.  You will have efficiency and very significant heat output that will spread throughout that room - just build it tall and wide.

There are several companies out there selling these things, but again - they are NOT cheap. Given that you intend to put it on the second floor your cost may well go up even higher once you consider the engineering required to strengthen/build support under the stove (likely some sort of build up will be required, these things are HEAVY), but maybe you work that into the overall design and actually heat downstairs too...

Here are some great pictures:  http://www.mha-net.org/html/gallery.htm

Someday I hope to build my dream home around such a heater...


----------



## Ashful (Nov 9, 2012)

Money is no object, but the question was still about wood stoves, not masonry heaters.  There are reasons beyond finance for which some of us heat with wood stoves.


----------



## Slow1 (Nov 9, 2012)

Joful said:


> Money is no object, but the question was still about wood stoves, not masonry heaters. There are reasons beyond finance for which some of us heat with wood stoves.


 
Oh I do agree, many good reasons to consider.  I have not actually spent any time in a home heated with a masonry heater so I'm not sure how many of the things I consider benefits of wood burning would overlap and what (if anything) I might miss from wood stove burning if I were to go that direction.  I suppose one obvious thing would be rate of heating as I can't imagine the masonry heaters can heat a cold home very quickly.  But I digress - your point is taken that the question was directed toward stoves however sometimes thinking a little bit out of the box (yet in the same class "wood burning appliance" that doesn't require electric) could be welcomed by some reading the thread so I toss it in the conversation.


----------



## Waulie (Nov 9, 2012)

HotCoals said:


> The thicker the stove as in steel or cast..or soapstone..the longer it takes to get the stove to your desired temp.
> So in the meantime more heat is wasted up the flue the thicker it is.
> Sure when the fire burns out the thicker stove will give heat longer..but in my little mind you won't get all the heat back you lost up the flue to begin with.
> 
> ...


 
I have to disagree here.  Why would you be wasting heat buy sending it up the flue to warm up a soapstone stove?  Firebox or flue temps, depending on cat or non cat is what matters, not stone temp.  You don't leave the draft open on a stone stove until the stone reaches a certain temp.  You leave it open until the secondaries or cat lights off just like any other stove.  The extra heat it takes to warm the stone is the same as the extra heat you get as the stone cools.  No appreciable extra amount should be sent up the flue.


----------



## Waulie (Nov 9, 2012)

I've been thinking about the "money no object" thing.  With the OP's modern tastes, a Scan Anderson or Morso might be fitting.  I'd like to try a couple myself.


----------



## Sprinter (Nov 9, 2012)

begreen said:


> It depends on the house. In a large open space a radiant stove is very nice. But if space is tight due to furniture, it's often not the best solution. Also a convective stove with a blower is going to circulate heat down lower where it's needed. Some convective stoves will push out a hot stream of air for 15-20ft in front of them.


Do you think too much of that hot air is going to end up in that huge ceiling space?  Unless that can be recirculated down, or if there is living area up there like a loft,  I wonder if a predominantly radiant source might be more useful at the floor level.   I don't know what's best in that case, but just wondering.


----------



## Waulie (Nov 9, 2012)

Sprinter said:


> Do you think too much of that hot air is going to end up in that huge ceiling space? Unless that can be recirculated down, or if there is living area up there like a loft, I wonder if a predominantly radiant source might be more useful at the floor level. I don't know what's best in that case, but just wondering.


 
This is exactly my opinion.  I have cathedral ceilings with a loft.  With the old convective stove, the loft heated up very fast and the temp remained difficult to modulate.  With the radiant stove, the lower level warms up much faster and the loft only registers about 4 degress warmer than the lower level.  That said, it's hard to compare a 1980's budget convective stove with what I have now, and Begreen's point that it depends on the house is certainly valid.


----------



## ddddddden (Nov 10, 2012)

Slow1 said:


> Fire Man brought up the point that I wanted to raise here -
> 
> You keep saying "Money no object". Well, if it really were no object for me then I would indeed install a masonry heater. You can get your pizza oven built into it as well while you are at it. . .


 
Yeah, if money is no problem, then neither is a wood-fired oven.
If you throw down a big wad in front of us, you are going to get suggestions straight out of Willie Wonka's Stove Factory. 
http://www.tulikivi.com 

At one point, Woodstock was talking about an oven option for the top of the Progress. . .dunno the status of that.


----------



## BrowningBAR (Nov 10, 2012)

ddddddden said:


> Yeah, if money is no problem, then neither is a wood-fired oven.
> If you throw down a big wad in front of us, you are going to get suggestions straight out of Willie Wonka's Stove Factory.
> 
> http://www.tulikivi.com


Really, if money is no object, then oil or electric heat should work just fine...


----------



## ddddddden (Nov 10, 2012)

BrowningBAR said:


> Really, if money is no object, then oil or electric heat should work just fine...


Not without electricity.


----------



## ddddddden (Nov 10, 2012)

Waulie said:


> I've been thinking about the "money no object" thing. With the OP's modern tastes, a Scan Anderson or Morso might be fitting. I'd like to try a couple myself.


 
BK Chinook looks kinda m0d.


----------



## ddddddden (Nov 10, 2012)

HotCoals said:


> The thicker the stove as in steel or cast..or soapstone..the longer it takes to get the stove to your desired temp.
> So in the meantime more heat is wasted up the flue the thicker it is.
> Sure when the fire burns out the thicker stove will give heat longer..but in my little mind you won't get all the heat back you lost up the flue to begin with.
> 
> Now if you are burning 24/7 it won't matter much...transfer of heat means more as in temp differential between one side of the surface area to the other side...the ability of the medium to conduct the heat from the fire then transfer the heat to the room.





Waulie said:


> I have to disagree here. Why would you be wasting heat buy sending it up the flue to warm up a soapstone stove? Firebox or flue temps, depending on cat or non cat is what matters, not stone temp. You don't leave the draft open on a stone stove until the stone reaches a certain temp. You leave it open until the secondaries or cat lights off just like any other stove. The extra heat it takes to warm the stone is the same as the extra heat you get as the stone cools. No appreciable extra amount should be sent up the flue.


 
I don't know, but maybe thin walls = part of the BK magic.


Highbeam said:


> . . .The only questionable thing is thin steel. They use 1/8" sheet for the body and 1/4" sheet for the top. That's right, sheet, not plate.


 


Of course, Highbeam is assuming that this thin material is steel. . .
most likely tritanium alloy.
http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/Tritanium

(Note that BKVP was curiously silent on this point in his reply. . .)


----------



## rijim (Nov 10, 2012)

I think the Woodstock Progress would be on my short list; good heat output for larger room, reasonable long burn times, efficient, cook top, nice looking, softer heat which will be appreciated by anyone sitting in close proximity, all owner comments praise the customer support.

Good luck,


----------



## Highbeam (Nov 10, 2012)

I love the new "alert" system. A thread that I chose not to participate had a quote of mine in it. Turns out to be a good thread.

Money is no object only means we can pick any stove we want. We know the room size is 1400 SF which is actually quite small, think mobile home. Yes, vaulted ceilings but don't let the word "cathedral" fool you, just taller than normal. So we're looking at a standard sized home overall. Then it has been made clear that the owner desires a modern/contemporary stove both by direct request and also in how the owner describes the home.

Don't be silly guys, nobody here has a masonry heater and I don't think any member ever has. Pie in the sky.

Stove material really makes no difference. It is a novelty that some stoves cool off slower than others, a bit of a pain that some take longer to heat up. Really though, it doesn't matter enough to influence stove choice. Looks, on the other hand, are very different between stove materials. In my best impression of a decorator or architect, I claim a smooth metal stove as being the choice of a modern/contemporary look. They all look nice but robots aren't built of cast iron with intricate details, smooth metal is where it's at.

Then comes stove size. Anything under 2.5 CF is too small, that is the real "small stove" limit and barely holds enough wood to burn overnight in the normal non-cat. For the space at hand, 3 CF or larger makes life way way easier.

Don't sweat the convection/radiant thing. Any box at 600 degrees will be making the heat.

So painted steel, 3+CF, freestander, modern looking. This describes many brands but I would start with PE due to their variety of modern looks.


----------



## Sprinter (Nov 10, 2012)

ddddddden said:


> I don't know, but maybe thin walls = part of the BK magic.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 No doubt about it, tritanium is definitely the space-age way to go. BK is way ahead of the others in materials. Can't blame them for being mum. It's rarity may help explain BK's prices, and since it's so difficult to mold, it could also help explain how they look. (Hey, it's just a joke, okay?)


----------



## Ashful (Nov 10, 2012)

BrowningBAR said:


> Really, if money is no object, then oil or electric heat should work just fine...



I can't speak for the OP, but I can afford oil or electric, and still prefer to heat with wood.  Heck... I've spent more on wood collecting toys this year than I'd spend on oil in two years.


----------



## OhioBurner© (Nov 10, 2012)

Highbeam said:


> We know the room size is 1400 SF which is actually quite small, think mobile home. Yes, vaulted ceilings but don't let the word "cathedral" fool you, just taller than normal. So we're looking at a standard sized home overall.


 
When you put it like that it doesnt sound like it would be that hard to heat. But thats similar to our house (the addition anyhow, heated with the Rockland), and its heck heating it with wood. The addition is 22x36 (792sqft footprint I guess) half is a large great room and the other half is divided with the kitchen on the same level and a bedroom/bathroom on the partial second floor... I suppose that would be around 792x1.5=1200sqft. The addition was cheaply done, thin walls, and a couple drafts I've been unable to figure out.The Rockland heats ok down to about freezing (I mean like maintaining room temp around 68). Much below 32F and the house is cold. If its windy out in the teens or so the house might be struggling to stay in the 60's, even upper 50's last winter.

So even in only a moderately cold climate, with approx 1400sq ft (or a little less, or more if you count the extra open area of the great room) a 3cuft stove struggles. I think the house config and insulating properties can make a huge difference, even when its only as big as a mobile home. If I had known what I do know, I would have done something different. I have enough money invested in it and I can handle a 58º house now and then so I can deal with it, but it isnt really ideal. For the op though, if its just supplementing an existing furnace, then heating isnt going to be as critical.


----------



## Slow1 (Nov 10, 2012)

The key is always the objective.  If you are aiming to supplement then you don't have to carry the full load - if it is for 'emergency' heat (even as supplemental the majority of the time) then consider that even if the stove can only hold 58* that is far better than the alternatives when the power is out.  That 58 may seem nice and warm to some of the folks there in NY/NJ this week.

Anyway, I'm eager to hear what the final decision (if any) is here and how well it works out.  Clearly there are many "right" answers here that could work out well - at least we all agree that an open fireplace is not going to cut it


----------



## Machria (Nov 11, 2012)

Thanks for all the comments so far guys!   I will definitely post my choice when Imfinally make it, as well as pics of the install and my first burn.  Can't believe how complicated this choice is!  I thought this would be easy when I first started to shop.   By the way, when I say "money no object", I mean pic any stove, I want to start with the best I can buy, then I will back off if I can't afford it....   But I like to start at the top.  I'm not rich by any means, but I am foretunate enough to be able to say I could afford any stove, for the most part.   My house is on stilts, so the masonry is out of question, can't support that much weight....

I'm starting to think about wether I want a long burn time (24+ hrs) instead of the usual 8 to 10 hrs most stoves claim.

What's the real difference between the burn of the Blaze Kings compared to others besides length?   Does the BK put out less heat when it is burning low?  Are they difficult to operate, need to babysit...?

So my list is getting longer, not shorter!?#?!     HELP! !  I need some serious help!

Woodstock Progress
Blaze King King
Enerzone Solution 3.4
Quadrafire 5700
PE Summit


----------



## BrowningBAR (Nov 11, 2012)

Machria said:


> Thanks for all the comments so far guys! I will definitely post my choice when Imfinally make it, as well as pics of the install and my first burn. Can't believe how complicated this choice is! I thought this would be easy when I first started to shop. By the way, when I say "money no object", I mean pic any stove, I want to start with the best I can buy, then I will back off if I can't afford it.... But I like to start at the top. I'm not rich by any means, but I am foretunate enough to be able to say I could afford any stove, for the most part. My house is on stilts, so the masonry is out of question, can't support that much weight....
> 
> I'm starting to think about wether I want a long burn time (24+ hrs) instead of the usual 8 to 10 hrs most stoves claim.
> 
> ...


 
Keep in mind that the Progress is 700 lbs. You might want to be sure that your flooring can handle that much weight.


----------



## HotCoals (Nov 11, 2012)

Machria said:


> Thanks for all the comments so far guys! I will definitely post my choice when Imfinally make it, as well as pics of the install and my first burn. Can't believe how complicated this choice is! I thought this would be easy when I first started to shop. By the way, when I say "money no object", I mean pic any stove, I want to start with the best I can buy, then I will back off if I can't afford it.... But I like to start at the top. I'm not rich by any means, but I am foretunate enough to be able to say I could afford any stove, for the most part. My house is on stilts, so the masonry is out of question, can't support that much weight....
> 
> I'm starting to think about wether I want a long burn time (24+ hrs) instead of the usual 8 to 10 hrs most stoves claim.
> 
> ...


The BK is easy to run..at least I think it is..and trust me it will put the heat out when called upon.
I rarely see a fire even when it's in the teens..but once in awhile I turn it up to see fire!


----------



## Sprinter (Nov 11, 2012)

> I'm starting to think about wether I want a long burn time (24+ hrs) instead of the usual 8 to 10 hrs most stoves claim.


Burn times like that are usually the domain of cat stoves, like Blaze King's and Woodstock's. Plenty of discussions on that topic, sometimes quite lively. If you start one of those, stand back



> So my list is getting longer, not shorter!?#?! HELP! ! I need some serious help!


That's normal.  You must be getting pretty tired of no power by now for sure. It must be tempting to just order a stove, any stove. But you're doing the right thing by making sure you do it right for the future. Heck, you'd probably have the power back the day your installer gets there anyway


----------



## ditchrider (Nov 11, 2012)

BrowningBAR said:


> Okay, then why does the 30, which weighs less than the Defiant, is able to heat the same room from the same chimney just as well at a low temperature? And why does the 30 heat better at lower temperatures than the Vigilant did which weighs about the same. All three stoves were in the same room using the same chimney and liner.
> 
> These questions aren't to prove that the science is wrong, but more to find out what other factors are in play.


I'm just guessing, but yet I'm still gonna take a stab at it...
Draft.
Same room, same chimney. Similar mass. Take into effect altitude, humidity, barometric pressure, and your findings of the Defiant could have functioned better than the 30 under a different set of circumstances. Or maybe, had the airflow into the Defiant been engineered differently. Or maybe the 30 functions less effectively than the Defiant in a rather tightly constructed home.

...2150 sq ft of draftiness is a set of circumstances all it's own. But all due respect, BBar, yours would be a good model home to test the prototypes. And none the more perceptive operator to fiddle and observe. Get in touch with Woodstock. You belong together.


----------



## Machria (Nov 12, 2012)

Sprinter said:


> Burn times like that are usually the domain of cat stoves, like Blaze King's and Woodstock's. Plenty of discussions on that topic, sometimes quite lively. If you start one of those, stand back
> 
> That's normal.  You must be getting pretty tired of no power by now for sure. It must be tempting to just order a stove, any stove. But you're doing the right thing by making sure you do it right for the future. Heck, you'd probably have the power back the day your installer gets there anyway



We already got power back, but shhh!  Don't tell anyone!  .    I always take forever picking things out, I'm anal about making decisions.  They usually end up wrong anyway, so I shouldn't waste my time!


----------



## Machria (Nov 12, 2012)

BrowningBAR said:


> Keep in mind that the Progress is 700 lbs. You might want to be sure that your flooring can handle that much weight.



I saw that, a possible problem....


----------



## Machria (Nov 12, 2012)

HotCoals said:


> I rarely see a fire even when it's in the teens..but once in awhile I turn it up to see fire!



That is what I'm afraid of with the BK, I do like the "fire" part of burning wood, not just heating.


----------



## Sprinter (Nov 12, 2012)

Machria said:


> We already got power back, but shhh! Don't tell anyone! . *I always take forever picking things out, I'm anal about making decisions.* They usually end up wrong anyway, so I shouldn't waste my time!


LOL Kind of suspected that, since I'm the same way. Took me all summer to decide, but I wasn't in a hurry at that time...



Machria said:


> That is what I'm afraid of with the BK, I do like the "fire" part of burning wood, not just heating.


This is one of the points made by non-cat users, and frankly one of the big reasons I went non-cat, plus burn time is just not important to me. However, I was scolded by one member here who insists that you can get nice displays from a cat, too. It's my guess that the reason cat users may often have a dark looking fire is simply because they are able to turn their air down to the point that the fire doesn't flame much and still get a clean burn and the legendary long burn times. I imagine that you would get as good a fire if you didn't turn it down as much, but maybe that would make it too hot.  Just my sense of things.

To the cat users: What's the real deal on this subject?


----------



## Highbeam (Nov 12, 2012)

Sprinter said:


> To the cat users: What's the real deal on this subject?


 
You're right, the cat stoves with long burn times do it by burning a huge pile of wood so slowly that it doesn't make flames. It's pretty boring but extremely effective. If you want flames you can turn up the throttle on the stove but then you will be roasted out since that huge pile of wood will be efficiently converted into heat.

We had a cold snap this weekend Sprinter, I got to run the stove at half throttle for about 12 hours. It still did not make any flames. A nice warm glow for sure and we were very warm but no flame. Not even a flicker of fire, pure heat.


----------



## begreen (Nov 12, 2012)

Highbeam said:


> Don't be silly guys, nobody here has a masonry heater and I don't think any member ever has. Pie in the sky.
> 
> Stove material really makes no difference. It is a novelty that some stoves cool off slower than others, a bit of a pain that some take longer to heat up. Really though, it doesn't matter enough.


 
I think Marty Strand might take exception to that statement considering the large number of posts he has made on his masonry heater. We've had a few others post here over the years as well that have noted the distinct qualities of these stoves. Locally, I'm fortunate to have a Russian fireplace nearby in a public bldg. for all to experience. The quality of heat from a massive masonry burner is unique and very nice. It's quite difference from what most of us experience in that the room temperature is very constant, having almost none of the temperature swing that happens with most wood stoves. One or two fires a day provide nearly perfect heat. And you can sit with your back right up against the heater!

Personally, I can note a very large difference in the characteristic heat between our experience with cast iron heaters we've owned and the cast iron jacketed T6. There's a large difference between a highly radiant stove and the soft heat of a heavily jacketed stove. Stove material has a very direct effect on how the heat is radiated or convected.


----------



## ddddddden (Nov 12, 2012)

Machria said:


> Thanks for all the comments so far guys! I will definitely post my choice when Imfinally make it, as well as pics of the install and my first burn. Can't believe how complicated this choice is! I thought this would be easy when I first started to shop. By the way, when I say "money no object", I mean pic any stove, I want to start with the best I can buy, then I will back off if I can't afford it.... But I like to start at the top. I'm not rich by any means, but I am foretunate enough to be able to say I could afford any stove, for the most part. My house is on stilts, so the masonry is out of question, can't support that much weight....
> 
> I'm starting to think about wether I want a long burn time (24+ hrs) instead of the usual 8 to 10 hrs most stoves claim.
> 
> ...


 
That's a pretty good list. I've read a few posts about the Quad factory not providing good support to customers. . .not even talking about warranty claims, just trying to get parts. Quad appears to be one of those mfr's who steers you back to the dealer for everything. If you have a good dealer, no problem; if not, woe unto you. Also, dealers sometimes go out of business, so even if things are great locally, it may not last. I think it sucks when a mfr doesn't want to deal with customers, and before buying any brand, I recommend calling the mfr to try to get a good feel for how they are about this. If they don't want to talk to you before the sale, good luck getting any help after they have your $. Doh!

Yes, the BK will put out less heat when burning low. . .any stove will, but catalytic stoves do this better, and BK is the best at this. (It also doesn't hurt that the square-shaped 4+ cu-ft firebox of the King model will hold more wood than just about any other modern stove.) When talking about 24+ hour burns on a regular basis, that's BK territory. They have Alien Technology® that lets their stoves control the burn better.

Chris(BKVP) materializes here now & then to answer Q's and take care of problems. Bert(FyreBug) of SBI(Enerzone), Mike(stoveguy2esw) of Englander, and various Woodstock people do too. Credit where credit is due. 




BrowningBAR said:


> Keep in mind that the Progress is 700 lbs. You might want to be sure that your flooring can handle that much weight.


 


Machria said:


> I saw that, a possible problem....


 
In the size you are looking at, most of the stoves probably weigh around 500 lbs. Add another 60-80 lbs per load of wood. Any hearth you build adds weight too. You might want to put extra stilts under that part of your house.


----------



## Sprinter (Nov 12, 2012)

Highbeam said:


> You're right, the cat stoves with long burn times do it by burning a huge pile of wood so slowly that it doesn't make flames. It's pretty boring but extremely effective. If you want flames you can turn up the throttle on the stove but then you will be roasted out since that huge pile of wood will be efficiently converted into heat.
> 
> *We had a cold snap this weekend Sprinter, I got to run the stove at half throttle for about 12 hours. It still did not make any flames. A nice warm glow for sure and we were very warm but no flame. Not even a flicker of fire, pure heat*.


Some of the folks here would call that a warm spell  But, yeah, that was the first time we actually burned all day and night.


----------



## ddddddden (Nov 12, 2012)

Highbeam said:


> I love the new "alert" system. A thread that I chose not to participate had a quote of mine in it. Turns out to be a good thread.


Did you think that we were going to let you sail off into the sunset with your *Flaming Droid* robot?


----------



## HollowHill (Nov 12, 2012)

I know what you mean about spending a long time shopping and then ending up displeased after all that.  That's happened more than once to me  However, can't say that about my Progress!  I shopped for a couple of years, then had to wait for another year until it hit the production floor, but I can say it was well worth the wait and the expense.  One nice thing about WS that helped me in my "did I make the right decision" moments was the fact that if it didn't turn out right for my situation, for any reason, I could return it and they'd even pay the return shipping.  Now that I've had it for close to a year, they couldn't have it back for love nor money! 

To address your fire viewing concerns, the Progress is a hybrid, it combines both cat and secondary burning.  It has a huge glass window for a reason!  It is lovely to watch (actually, both in season and off season, as its lovely when its not burning as well).

Living in an old house, I was also concerned about the weight.  Just to be safe, I had my contractor beef up the floor, he put in a couple of extra posts, wasn't a big deal in my situation.  Might be with yours.

Besides the looks, I love the Progress for its ease of use and solid reliability.  It is very controllable and responsive to the controls.  After I've engaged the cat and turned down the draft, it will stay at whatever fire activity level I've chosen (dependent on how much heat I want).

All that said, the BK is another viable choice.  They are supposedly coming out with some new models in the near future, I think.  Might be worth the wait.  I gave BK a long, hard look when I was shopping, but couldn't get by how it would look in my house.  Personal choice, and not to say that it doesn't look fine in other situations, just wouldn't have worked in my house.

Good luck in your choice.  And although it makes it difficult, isn't it great that there are a number of great choices out there.


----------



## rijim (Nov 12, 2012)

The PE and BK don't appear to be the best option if you want to cook on it in emergencies ( maybe owners can comment), the ability to handle longer splits of the Enerzone and the Quadrafire is a benefit.  Woodstock sells direct; if not doing yourself, do you have any idea of reputable installers in your area?  What is the reputation of the Enerzone and Quadrafire dealers in your area?
Just more to consider.


----------



## Machria (Nov 12, 2012)

ddddddden said:


> In the size you are looking at, most of the stoves probably weigh around 500 lbs. Add another 60-80 lbs per load of wood. Any hearth you build adds weight too. You might want to put extra stilts under that part of your house.


 
Extra stilts isn't an option. Anyway, I think the floor and stilts can handle the 700lbs once set, but the bigger problem I think will be trying to get 700lbs up 3 flights of stairs, without breaking the stairs and it's wood flooring... 500lbs would be much mroe doable I think.

If it were not for the 700lbs, I would be buying the Progress. I really like the cooktop part of it, the nice looking soabstone, and hybrid tech. Wish there was a lighter version of that somehow....?

I'm now edging back to the Enerzone Destination 2.3. That one looks perfert for my decor, and I love the log storage under it. The BIG problem is, will I be happy with a smaller 2.3cu firebox? Will the shorter burn times of Enerzone be ok....?

I'd REALLY love to hearfrom somebody with a Destination 2.3! Can't seem to find anyone. No comments on that unit!


----------



## BrowningBAR (Nov 12, 2012)

Machria said:


> Extra stilts isn't an option. Anyway, I think the floor and stilts can handle the 700lbs once set, but the bigger problem I think will be trying to get 700lbs up 3 flights of stairs, without breaking the stairs and it's wood flooring... 500lbs would be much mroe doable I think.
> 
> If it were not for the 700lbs, I would be buying the Progress. I really like the cooktop part of it, the nice looking soabstone, and hybrid tech. Wish there was a lighter version of that somehow....?
> 
> ...


Lopi offers a hybrid stove called the Cape Cod. It is a 3 cu ft firebox and weighs 600 lbs. For transportation, you would be able to remove some parts, like the door, to lighten the stove.

http://www.lopistoves.com/product-detail.aspx?model=364#specs-tab

No one here has one of these stoves at this point and it is a new stove. So, caution should be used when purchasing and you should be aware that bugs in new product can take place. I am sure it is a good stove, as the company has a good track record, but, issues can pop up in all stoves.

When moving stoves I have removed stove doors, legs, ash pan castings, and any internal parts that are easy to remove. It improves the ability to manage the stove during moving by a good degree. With the Encore, I took so much of it apart I was able to lift the main shell of the stove using only one arm.


----------



## OhioBurner© (Nov 12, 2012)

BrowningBAR said:


> When moving stoves I have removed stove doors, legs, ash pan castings, and any internal parts that are easy to remove. It improves the ability to manage the stove during moving by a good degree. With the Encore, I took so much of it apart I was able to lift the main shell of the stove using only one arm.


 
Yep, depending on the stove you can really take off some weight. No clue about the Woodstock stoves though, I'd had probably bought the Progress but we got a really good local deal and the Progress wasnt available yet. But 3 flights of stairs... I feel your pain!


----------



## Slow1 (Nov 12, 2012)

Machria said:


> Extra stilts isn't an option. Anyway, I think the floor and stilts can handle the 700lbs once set, but the bigger problem I think will be trying to get 700lbs up 3 flights of stairs, without breaking the stairs and it's wood flooring... 500lbs would be much mroe doable I think.
> 
> If it were not for the 700lbs, I would be buying the Progress. I really like the cooktop part of it, the nice looking soabstone, and hybrid tech. Wish there was a lighter version of that somehow....?


 
I wouldn't let that concern stop you dead in your tracks before you look into it a bit further.  I just had my PH brought into the house about a month ago.  The movers brought it in via the back door to avoid the tight stairs in the front so they ended up bringing it up the deck stairs.  Not exactly what I would call over-engineered for strength but there was no concern and frankly although the deck did shake a bit with each step they rolled up, there wasn't any sign of weakness in the stairs.

If you really are interested in the PH and are concerned about the structural integrity of the stairs then have someone who knows take a look - if 700lbs (plus movers) is a concern, I would think 500 wouldn't really be a whole lot better...  Then again, I like wide safety buffers so I wouldn't want to be within 200lbs of critical mass


----------



## Machria (Nov 12, 2012)

I should have added the Lopi Cape Cod to that list.  I looked at that stove on Friday at a local dealer, I like that stove alot!!

Great idea about removing parts.....  

Slow1, do you know if anything can come out or off of the Progress Hybrid for transport up the stairs???   Also, what kind of REAL LIFE burn times are you getting from the PH?


----------



## Waulie (Nov 12, 2012)

Hey Machria.  The top stones and the cooktop come right off (and are likely shipped separately anyway) so that takes off quite a bit right there.  the door could be taken off without too much trouble.  You could go further and remove the inside soapstone, etc.  That said, I agree with Slow1.  The weight of the Progress shouldn't be the deciding factor.  If there is a concern about structural integrity at 700 lbs, there is going to be a concern about structural integrity at 500 pounds.

Slow1 has been having some issues with burn times, but he is just getting used to the Progress.  Most of us would say 12 hours easily with a less than full load.  A full load will go 14+ hours (I've gone 17, others have gone longer).  I get 12 hour burns very consistently and since reloading at 12 hours works great for me, I'm very happy.  In warmer temps, I load a bit over half.  In cold temps, closer to full.  Either way, after 12 hours there are enough coals for an easy reload. 

The cooktop is great!  I just made chicken potatoe curry on it Saturday night.


----------



## BrowningBAR (Nov 12, 2012)

Machria said:


> I should have added the Lopi Cape Cod to that list. I looked at that stove on Friday at a local dealer, I like that stove alot!!
> 
> Great idea about removing parts.....
> 
> Slow1, do you know if anything can come out or off of the Progress Hybrid for transport up the stairs??? Also, what kind of REAL LIFE burn times are you getting from the PH?


Being new to burning, you are going to have a hard time getting hard numbers when it comes to burn times and how they apply to you.

Burn times vary from home to home and user to user.

For instance, I can get 10+ hours of usable heat from the 30NC. But, I am heating a smaller area and I can reload at much lower temps than many users.

I can get 14 hours from the Defiant, even though many users will mention they only get 9 hours from this particular model.

The Progress will give you at least 12 hours of usable heat. How much more will vary for several reasons. Some of those reasons are that it is a new stove and a true burn time has not been defined. Some owners have reported 24 hours of heat from the stove. While this apply to you? Not sure. But, 12 - 14 hours of usable heat seems to be well within reason of expectations.


----------



## Ashful (Nov 12, 2012)

Machria said:


> I'm starting to think about wether I want a long burn time (24+ hrs) instead of the usual 8 to 10 hrs most stoves claim.
> 
> What's the real difference between the burn of the Blaze Kings compared to others besides length? Does the BK put out less heat when it is burning low? Are they difficult to operate, need to babysit...?


 


Sprinter said:


> To the cat users: What's the real deal on this subject?


 
Late the party, but two statements to answer your question:

1. There is a relatively fixed number of BTU's in a cubic foot of wood, so your primary controls are:

a. How many cubic feet of wood you can stuff into your stove
b. How efficient your stove is (or is not)
c. The rate at which you release those BTU's.

2. A cat stove and a non-cat stove do exactly the same thing, but with the aid of a catalyst, the cat stove can do it over a much wider range of temperatures. Your goal is to burn wood, and get as many BTU's out of that wood into your room. When burning on high, both cat and non-cat stoves do a nearly equally good job at this. The advantage of the cat stove is that you also have the option of burning very low, something a non-cat stove cannot do with anywhere near the same efficiency. If you could somehow try to burn a non-cat as low as you can with a cat (modify the stove), the secondary system would fail to operate at some point / you would have a smoke dragon.

The comments about losing the flame show on a cat stove are somewhat misleading. When you shut down a cat stove to minimum air, for maximum burn time, you do indeed lose the fire show. However, if you burn it on a hotter setting (similar to the way a non-cat burns all the time), you get flame show.

It's a trade off of a little extra expense and care, for a slight gain in performance, when considering cat vs. non-cat. Both stoves work on the same principle (burn / re-burn), but the cat stove can do it over a wider range of burn rates / temperatures.


----------



## Machria (Nov 12, 2012)

Great info, thanks!!  You guys have a wealth of wood burning knoweledge!!   I have a felling I'm going to as well by the time I'm done beating this to DEATH!   

As for burn times, I think I'm fine with 10, 12 or 14 hours.  That would be perfect for me, remembering that this will only be a suplimental heat source.  In the dead of winter, I could start a fire in the morning, let it burn all day long, then reload in the evening and enjoy a nice fire show, then turn it down to low and let it slow burn overnighjt so I stil have hot coals to re-load onto the next morning.  I just don't want to have to "start" a new fire twice a day....

Here is a quetion, if I buy an larger than required unit, will it burn more wood faster because it is bigger, even when I don't entirely fill it, and try to turn it down?     Or can you really manage a bigger unit by not loading it with alot of wood....?


----------



## BrowningBAR (Nov 12, 2012)

Machria said:


> Here is a quetion, if I buy an larger than required unit, will it burn more wood faster because it is bigger, even when I don't entirely fill it, and try to turn it down? Or can you really manage a bigger unit by not loading it with alot of wood....?


Depends upon the stove.

A cat stove is more efficient when burning at lower temps. So, an oversized cat stove burned at lower temps would be more efficient than a cat stove that is not oversized for your area.

It is also easy to burn smaller, hot fires in a large non-cat stove. It is technically not as efficient of a burn method, but I have no problems doing this with the 30 and my wood usage has dropped when compared to last year's setup of Defiant/Encore/Heritage.


----------



## Sprinter (Nov 12, 2012)

Those hybrids sound very interesting for sure.

The OP is interested in having a nice "flame show". Would one of the hybrids allow for that better than a straight cat?


----------



## BrowningBAR (Nov 12, 2012)

Sprinter said:


> Those hybrids sound very interesting for sure.
> 
> The OP is interested in having a nice "flame show". Would one of the hybrids allow for that better than a straight cat?


Not sure since there aren't many hybrid owners out there.


----------



## Machria (Nov 12, 2012)

The yYoutube video's of the Progress buring shows a nice fire display.  They basically look like a non-cat unit with secondaryburn tubes burning.  I guess they just burn some more of the gases up int he cat.

Seems to me these Hybrid units would keep much cleaner CAT's, and the cats would last longer since they are doing less???   What do you think?


----------



## begreen (Nov 12, 2012)

ddddddden said:


> Not without electricity.


 
Cost being no object, a propane generator with a large fuel supply solves that issue quickly.


----------



## Waulie (Nov 12, 2012)

Machria said:


> The yYoutube video's of the Progress buring shows a nice fire display. They basically look like a non-cat unit with secondaryburn tubes burning. I guess they just burn some more of the gases up int he cat.
> 
> Seems to me these Hybrid units would keep much cleaner CAT's, and the cats would last longer since they are doing less??? What do you think?


 
The Progress flame show is fantastic!  Granted, if you turn it all the way down you'll get periods of no flame, and periods with flame.  But, if you turn it up a bit you'll get great secondaries.  The nice thing with the Progress is the slanted baffle plate.  It really brings the secondaries to life with a direct view.  I'm sure you can get nice flame show with straight cat stoves, but probably not with the crazy secondaries like the Progress.

It seems logical that the hybrid system would be easier on the cats.  But, it's too early to say if that's true.  Either way, the cat should last several years so it's not a huge deal.

You're right, when the secondaries are going, the cat is just cleaning up whatever is left.  When the draft is turned way down with no flames, or lazy flames, then the cat is doing to work.  When you get enough wood in there, the secondaries will likely take over for awhile even with the draft shut.  When they stop, the cat keeps working.  Sometimes, the secondaries will come and go when you've got a pretty full load and draft closed down.  It's kind of neat to see.


----------



## Waulie (Nov 12, 2012)

I could have all the money in the world, and I'd still own a woodstove.


----------



## begreen (Nov 12, 2012)

Agreed. I like wood heat and seeing *FIRE*!


----------



## Slow1 (Nov 12, 2012)

Having burned both the FV (full cat) and the PH (Hybrid) I can say that the fire show is different, but both can be very enjoyable.  

In the FV I did get nice secondary burns on top of the firebox  when burning a hotter burn (much of my colder winter I burned this way) and I would only have the "dark except for coals" look when burning extended lower temp burns.

Now with the PH I get a very different fireshow and it is in fact more regular for lower burns.  When burning higher the show goes from fascinating to simple awe - 'gates of hell' fire in there.  I haven't burned on high for long as that is a LOT of heat being thrown out of the stove that I just have yet to need.  I've seen similar shows on non-cat burn tube type stoves when burning on high as well so the show is very much alike in that regard when turned way up.  What I don't think you can do in the non-cats is turn it down to a lower burn rate from this "gates of hell" on a whim and expect it to hold there without smoking out the chimney - based on my reading some non-cats can be very touchy about holding the secondary burns steady, so far the PH is pretty much "if you want it, turn the air to that point and it is there for you, when you are done, turn it back down until you want it again (assuming there is enough wood left)."

As to my burn times to your question - I believe someone else answered for me, but yes I've had less than expected and am working on that.  Keep in mind that I've been burning the PH for less than a month now and not every day given the weather is mild so hard to really get a feel for it.  Even though I've been burning wood pretty much full time for each of the last 4 winters, this is a new stove to me and I have to learn the ropes a bit (it is easy to burn - I haven't had any smoke, but like many here I'm aiming for those 'perfect' burns every time, ha!).  Still, I expect I'll get it all worked out in the end, I may call the folks at woodstock if I am still not getting what I expect here once we get some colder weather and see what they say as I know they will work with me too, I just like to exhaust my own options first as I'm pretty sure I'm causing the issues given that I tend to overcomplicate things.


----------



## Highbeam (Nov 12, 2012)

On the weight thing. 500 lbs is only three fat chicks. Surely you could send three fat chicks up the stairs without worrying about collapse. Further, I would expect that the one fat dude chasing them to make 700 lbs would also be fine since he is on a different step and probably drunk. Seriously, if your staircase can't handle four to six (a couple of movers plus stove weight) americans then you have a problem there. The people that move these things have some tricks that help distribute the weight over more than one step such as fancy dollys and ramps.

I've seen hot tubs and kitchen ranges picked up with a boom truck and set on the other side of a home on the deck for easy level moving into their final resting places. Thisis becoming more common as people are moving onto such small lots with such tall houses and choosing such heavy appliances such as the viking ranges for cooking top ramen.

For intermittent burning, burn time isn't the number one priority. Things like flame show and even cooking become more important. The specs on the woodstock PH seem to be very good and the company has also treated folks well through the revisions and recalls. That PH flame show is amazing and the folks that own them seem quite happy.

I've owned both purely radiant (hearthstone slab soapstone) and purely convective stoves (BK thin steel double wall) and in my experience the difference is decidedly insignificant in real life. Comes down to marketing and aesthetics. Any of the stove materials can be done properly in a quality stove but I favor a welded steel firebox in all cases due to dependability and durability.

The more you (the OP) describe your wants and needs, the bigger your pool of options becomes. I think we are down to contemporary looking and overnight burning as being the only real requirements. That's a huge pool of stoves.


----------



## Sprinter (Nov 12, 2012)

Highbeam said:


> I've owned both purely radiant (hearthstone slab soapstone) and purely convective stoves (BK thin steel double wall) and in my experience the difference is decidedly insignificant in real life. Comes down to marketing and aesthetics.


 
Purely ignoring the chick thing , this observation is interesting given all the discussion about the technical differences.


----------



## Machria (Nov 12, 2012)

Highbeam said:


> On the weight thing. 500 lbs is only three fat chicks. Surely you could send three fat chicks up the stairs without worrying about collapse. Further, I would expect that the one fat dude chasing them to make 700 lbs would also be fine since he is on a different step and probably drunk. Seriously, if your staircase can't handle four to six (a couple of movers plus stove weight) americans then you have a problem there. The people that move these things have some tricks that help distribute the weight over more than one step such as fancy dollys and ramps.


 
LOL!! And I have thought of that already (# of people per weight...), and that is why I have said I don't feel the 700lbs will be a problem once set. I have parties in my house fairly often, and I regularly have 50 to 75 guests up there. 2 in the morning in the middle of a rager, I've actually stood back and said "Whoooaaaa, there's alot of weight in here.....". BUT, getting it up there will take some engineering. The 3 flights zig zag up, and they are not that wide. Worse, there are 2" brass handrails the entire route which will definitely need to be removed to allow space. The real thing that worries me though, is the wood floor covering the steps. They are not the strongest, and kinda put on like crap.


Highbeam said:


> I've seen hot tubs and kitchen ranges picked up with a boom truck and set on the other side of a home on the deck for easy level moving into their final resting places. Thisis becoming more common as people are moving onto such small lots with such tall houses and choosing such heavy appliances such as the viking ranges for cooking top ramen.


 
Yea, I keep thinking we got a big stainless 2 door fridge up there 2 years ago. That was no fun though!



Highbeam said:


> For intermittent burning, burn time isn't the number one priority. Things like flame show and even cooking become more important. The specs on the woodstock PH seem to be very good and the company has also treated folks well through the revisions and recalls. That PH flame show is amazing and the folks that own them seem quite happy.


 
Yep, I really like the specs on the PH stove. That is what caught my eye with it. BUT, the downside is, it does NOT look anything even close to modern to mach my decor. I showed it to my wife and she immediately said "YUK, bla bla bla....", I then explained the Hybrid technology, the long burn times,how many really like soapstone and how soapstone is kindof a "high end" look... and she followed with the dreaded: "Whatever, yur going to get whatever you want anyway, I have no say...."! 



Highbeam said:


> I've owned both purely radiant (hearthstone slab soapstone) and purely convective stoves (BK thin steel double wall) and in my experience the difference is decidedly insignificant in real life. Comes down to marketing and aesthetics. Any of the stove materials can be done properly in a quality stove but I favor a welded steel firebox in all cases due to dependability and durability.


 
This is one question I have. I have never felt the heat from a soapstone stove, nobody ever seems to be running one in the showrooms. Sitting 10' in front of it, with a hot fire going, am I going to feel the heat like I do from the steel stoves like the Enerzone, or from my old fireplace when it's blazing? I do like that blast of heat from the fireplace on the cold days. While comments about Soapstone being a softer heat are postive, they scare me a bit, will I get the "fire" feel from it?



Highbeam said:


> The more you (the OP) describe your wants and needs, the bigger your pool of options becomes. I think we are down to contemporary looking and overnight burning as being the only real requirements. That's a huge pool of stoves.


 
You hit the nail on the head. And THAT is the problem. I have issues making decisions when there are few choices. Instead of narrowing down my choices, my choices seem to be growing! Some help you guys are! 

.


----------



## Sprinter (Nov 12, 2012)

> ... and she followed with the dreaded: "Whatever, yur going to get whatever you want anyway, I have no say...."!


 This made me laugh.  Sounds familiar.  One of the best pieces of advice I've seen on this forum is something like "get what she likes".  I took it myself and it's pretty good advice at that.


----------



## BrowningBAR (Nov 12, 2012)

Sprinter said:


> This made me laugh. Sounds familiar. One of the best pieces of advice I've seen on this forum is something like "get what she likes". I took it myself and it's pretty good advice at that.


And I can follow that up with "get what works." Warmth goes a long way. A pretty stove that doesn't meet your needs isn't worth a damn.

I wanted to go with a large steel insert stove in the kitchen that was far larger than the Intrepid. But, she didn't like the look of the stove and wanted a free standing stove, and the Intrepid was the only stove that would fit that I could find AND that she liked. So, we got the Intrepid... which was completely undersized for our needs. And we had to extend out the hearth to pull the stove out from the fireplace so the heat would move better. And a more expensive install was required. And I had to fight with it to get every ounce of heat out of it. And I had a screwed up sleeping schedule due to the short burn times.

So, the next summer I had to track down another stove. And I had to drive to Maryland to pick up the stove. And I had to rebuild the stove. And I had to install the stove.

In the end we/I had to pay more money and do a LOT more work to get the right solution because someone was only looking at one aspect of the problem.

I'd rather the other person be warm and a little unhappy with which stove was purchased than having the place be cold with additional costs, time, and effort required to get the proper solution in place.


----------



## Machria (Nov 12, 2012)

Yep, they are ALL the same!! Woman that is, not stoves! 

So here is my updated list, with some pros/cons pointed out:

- *Woodstock Progress Hybrid* (great specs, too heavy 700#, ONLY side load)
- *Vermont Castings Defiant* (great specs, front & top loading, a bit pricey)
-* Lopi Cape Cod* (good specs, front loading, a bit heavy 600#)
- *Enerzone Solution 3.4* (more simple modern looking, steel, blowers, 100k btu, short burn times)
- *Qaudrafiew 5700* (similar to above, some neg feedback on cust service)


Come on guys, which one???? I need a stove!


----------



## Machria (Nov 12, 2012)

LOL!!   Right from Vermont Castings manual:   "Wood burning is an Art, not a science....."      I LOVE it!


----------



## BrowningBAR (Nov 12, 2012)

Machria said:


> Yep, they are ALL the same!! Woman that is, not stoves!
> 
> So here is my updated list, with some pros/cons pointed out:
> 
> ...


If money is not an issue, I would go with the Progress over the Defiant. Long term maintenance is a LOT easier with the Progress and the Cat system is better.

Also, ignore corporate specs in terms of claimed BTUs and burn times. They are nearly useless. Firebox size is the biggest factor.


----------



## Sprinter (Nov 12, 2012)

BrowningBAR said:


> And I can follow that up with "get what works." Warmth goes a long way. A pretty stove that doesn't meet your needs isn't worth a damn.
> 
> I wanted to go with a large steel insert stove in the kitchen that was far larger than the Intrepid. But, she didn't like the look of the stove and wanted a free standing stove, and the Intrepid was the only stove that would fit that I could find AND that she liked. So, we got the Intrepid... which was completely undersized for our needs. And we had to extend out the hearth to pull the stove out from the fireplace so the heat would move better. And a more expensive install was required. And I had to fight with it to get every ounce of heat out of it. And I had a screwed up sleeping schedule due to the short burn times.
> 
> ...


Agreed.  In my case, once I determined the basic needs, she had a lot of say about the specific model within a narrowed list.  Now we're both happy.


----------



## Sprinter (Nov 12, 2012)

> - *Woodstock Progress Hybrid* (great specs, too heavy 700#, ONLY side load)
> - *Vermont Castings Defiant* (great specs, front & top loading, a bit pricey)
> -* Lopi Cape Cod* (good specs, front loading, a bit heavy 600#)
> - *Enerzone Solution 3.4* (more simple modern looking, steel, blowers, 100k btu, short burn times)
> - *Qaudrafiew 5700* (similar to above, some neg feedback on cust service)


So how firm is the latest list? Within that list, I'd be very tempted with either of the hybrids as long as it fits the decor well enough and she isn't dead set against either one.

BTW, what happened to BK? I believe they are coming out with a hybrid as well.

BTW#2, IMO, heavy is good.  More thermal mass.


----------



## Machria (Nov 12, 2012)

Thanks...   pretty much arleady figured out the burn time specs and BTU hogwash...       I'm going with "real life" burn times either posted by actual users here (averaged out...) or by what some installers have informed me, and even what some of the manufacturers I've contacted told me.  There has been a big difference between published times, and real life times they report to me.  Some of that is in the definition of what "burn time" is considered.  An Enerzone rep defined it nicely, saying something like the real USABLE burn time (time in which you are getting nice strong usable heat from the unit), as opposed to the lenght of time you might be able to start a newspaper off a hot coal which is effectively not producing any real heat. 


So what is so different between the Defiant and Progress CAT mantinenance?   Defiant's hard to get to or something?

How bad is the side only loading on the Progress?  Does that bother anyone?   Can you get to the glass to clean it if needed?


----------



## Machria (Nov 12, 2012)

Sprinter said:


> So how firm is the latest list?


 
About as firm as sand!



Sprinter said:


> BTW, what happened to BK? I believe they are coming out with a hybrid as well.


 
I removed the slow CAT only long burn time stoves like the PE and BK.  I want a fire, more than I want 2 days of heat.  10 - 14 hours of burn time is fine for me.



Sprinter said:


> BTW#2, IMO, heavy is good. More thermal mass.


 
Yes, excpet when it needs to be hoisted up 3 stories of zig zagged rickety staircase, and sat on the 2nd story of a house on stilts!


----------



## BrowningBAR (Nov 12, 2012)

Machria said:


> So what is so different between the Defiant and Progress CAT mantinenance? Defiant's hard to get to or something?


 
The cat system on Woodstock stoves are better. They are more efficient (longer burn times), cleaner burning, and cheaper to maintain. The new Defiant is greatly improved from the previous generation (the one I have) but it is still a distant third behind Woodstock and Blaze King.

Also, VC stoves use a lot of gasket materials which requires more frequent maintenance. They run great if you properly maintain them, but the maintenance is a lot higher than the majority of the stoves out there.


----------



## Sprinter (Nov 12, 2012)

> I removed the slow CAT only long burn time stoves like the PE and BK. I want a fire, more than I want 2 days of heat. 10 - 14 hours of burn time is fine for me.


Not sure I understand. So all cat's are out except maybe hybrids? PE (Pacific Energy) is all non-cat. BK is all cat (I think). If you're left with mid-size non-cat's, the field is huge. It's the most popular and the competition is heavy.


----------



## begreen (Nov 12, 2012)

Machria said:


> About as firm as sand!
> I removed the slow CAT only long burn time stoves like the PE and BK. I want a fire, more than I want 2 days of heat. 10 - 14 hours of burn time is fine for me.


 

PE stoves are non-cat. They don't make a cat model.


----------



## Machria (Nov 12, 2012)

begreen said:


> PE stoves are non-cat. They don't make a cat model.


 
I see that now... back on list.  CAT is ok if Hybrid, just as long as it's not a slow burn type CAT like the BK.  I want fire most of the time! 

Updated list:
- *Woodstock Progress Hybrid*   (great specs, too heavy 700#, ONLY side load)
- *Vermont Castings Defiant*        (great specs, front & top loading, a bit pricey)
-* Lopi Cape Cod                        * (good specs, front loading, a bit heavy 600#)
- *Enerzone Solution 3.4            * (more simple modern looking, steel, blowers, 100k btu, short burn times)
- *Qaudrafiew 5700*                      (similar to above, some neg feedback on cust service)
*- PE Alderlea T6*                         (need to check out)


----------



## Machria (Nov 12, 2012)

My first thread has gond 6 pages deep, 2k hits and going strong!  Not a bad start!


----------



## Sprinter (Nov 12, 2012)

Machria said:


> My first thread has gond 6 pages deep, 2k hits and going strong! Not a bad start!


Sure. It went into cat/non-cat mode


----------



## ddddddden (Nov 12, 2012)

Machria said:


> LOL!! Right from Vermont Castings manual: "Wood burning is an Art, not a science....." I LOVE it!


Yes, we are all frustrated artists. 




Machria said:


> Yep, they are ALL the same!! Woman that is, not stoves!
> 
> So here is my updated list, with some pros/cons pointed out:
> 
> ...


 
Side loading is where it's at. . .or front loading if the stove is deep enough to load by sticking the wood in end-wise.  See north-south vs. east-west loading. Woodstocks are not deep enough to load north-south, so they don't have front doors.  Smart design choice. . .reduces front hearth requirement and gasket maintenance.


----------



## ddddddden (Nov 12, 2012)

Here's a random comment on one of the stoves on your list:



charly said:


> That's good to hear that the smell will leave soon. This stove(Fireview) is a riot to run after having the Quad 5700. Tonight I reload the stove, it's at 250 degrees, let the flue gas get up to 350 degrees, close the bypass and set the draft to .75. I check back a half hour later and she's taking off,,,,,amazing! I'm learning already that the trick is to not burn the new charge of wood too much, just a little and then close her down. This stove is soooo easy to run, kind of set it and forget it. I can see this stove is going to be a lot nicer to run then my Quad 5700 was. No doubt!


----------



## ddddddden (Nov 12, 2012)

Highbeam said:


> Surely you could send three fat chicks up the stairs. . .


Yes, but staying warm with 3 chicks is harder to manage than 1 stove.


----------



## rideau (Nov 12, 2012)

ddddddden said:


> Yeah, if money is no problem, then neither is a wood-fired oven.
> If you throw down a big wad in front of us, you are going to get suggestions straight out of Willie Wonka's Stove Factory.
> http://www.tulikivi.com
> 
> At one point, Woodstock was talking about an oven option for the top of the Progress. . .dunno the status of that.


 That's interesting.  They didn't tell me that.  Spoke with Lorin about getting an oven to sit on top of my cooktop.  They were (understandably) too busy last December when I got my stove, but Lorin said they could think about it during the off season....Did not hear from them, and, to be fair, didn't remind them...and now I am sure they are busy again.  I'm wondering if their new stove is going to have an oven?


----------



## Ashful (Nov 12, 2012)

ddddddden said:


> Yes, but staying warm with 3 chicks is harder to manage than 1 stove.


 
Maybe... but certainly more fun.

I'm curious about the choice to eliminate all cat stoves. The OP seems to be under the impression that a cat stove _must_ be burned low, and nothing can be further from the truth. The cat stove can burn at the same 650F stovetop temp as a non-cat, but can _also_ be efficiently burned at 250F stovetop, something few non-cat's will ever do.

Simply put, for the detail-minded, a cat stove is better in almost every possible way. In the hands of a casual or careless user, a cat stove can be a constant source of frustration, but does anyone have any doubt that the OP is detail-minded?


----------



## rijim (Nov 12, 2012)

Sounds like the Woodstock, Lopi, Defiant and Alderea don't fit with the decor of the room so you may want to focus on the ones that meet that criteria. You have a 1400 sf room with lots of windows, cathedral ceiling and subject to high winds; need to have modern looks exposed flame and function as a backup cooktop in emergencies. Due to the amount of glass and ceiling height you need to size the stove up, when your using the room you want a viewable flame.
I gotta say that if you lost the cooking requirement, the Blaze King would be the best option. On the coldest days you can run it hotter, on milder days dial it down, turn it up for an hour or 2 to get the flame effect then back it down; the best thing is you can load it up for a long burn and not have to run it so hot that it overpowers the sitting area.
I would consider this route and get maybe 3 tanks for your outside gas grill to fill during winter or hurricane season; the Ultra option is more modern looking so the other half will be happier and it is around 400lbs lighter than the Woodstock.


----------



## begreen (Nov 12, 2012)

Yes, I'm not sure how the Alderlea even got in this discussion. I was thinking a PE Spectrum or Fusion.


----------



## Machria (Nov 12, 2012)

ddddddden said:


> Here's a random comment on one of the stoves on your list:



And what stove was he talking about?


----------



## Machria (Nov 12, 2012)

Joful said:


> Maybe... but certainly more fun.
> 
> I'm curious about the choice to eliminate all cat stoves. The OP seems to be under the impression that a cat stove _must_ be burned low, and nothing can be further from the truth. The cat stove can burn at the same 650F stovetop temp as a non-cat, but can _also_ be efficiently burned at 250F stovetop, something few non-cat's will ever do.
> 
> Simply put, for the detail-minded, a cat stove is better in almost every possible way. In the hands of a casual or careless user, a cat stove can be a constant source of frustration, but does anyone have any doubt that the OP is detail-minded?



I have not eliminated Cat stoves.  I eliminated the long burn only units.


----------



## HotCoals (Nov 12, 2012)

Even the long burn cat stoves can be turned up some to watch a nice fire.
I get great light shows at times.
Burning some 2 year black locust tonight.
Had the air set so I had really cool blue flames dancing off the wood and cat!
Maybe about a third load right now and since I'm going to bed soon the air is all the way down now.
Just some glow in the bottom and the cat is bright red...560 stove top near the cat...ir.
There will still be some wood left in the morning.


----------



## HotCoals (Nov 12, 2012)

Here's a vid I did awhile back..kinda crappy but hey..lol.


----------



## Machria (Nov 13, 2012)

HotCoals said:


> Here's a vid I did awhile back..kinda crappy but hey..



I saw that video, YouTube...     So how much heat is coming out of the unit when it is burning like that?  I'm guessing that is not the lowest setting, but somewhere in the bottom 1/4?

But the real question is, if you run the bk hot, aka with a good strong fire for "display", is it ridiculously hot?  Too hot where I would be opening windows....?   And can you let it run like that all night?


----------



## BrowningBAR (Nov 13, 2012)

Machria said:


> I saw that video, YouTube... So how much heat is coming out of the unit when it is burning like that? I'm guessing that is not the lowest setting, but somewhere in the bottom 1/4?
> 
> But the real question is, if you run the bk hot, aka with a good strong fire for "display", is it ridiculously hot? Too hot where I would be opening windows....? And can you let it run like that all night?


Depends upon the weather, your home, and what you consider too hot. Home insulation plays a big part as to how a stove performs. Also, someone like me likes warmer temps than most. 80 inside during January is perfect for me. Others like 70, or cooler.

You can run it like that all night. I would gather the BK Princess would still provide you with a 12 hour burn based on the reports here.


----------



## Machria (Nov 13, 2012)

Not how much heat is in the room, I understand different homes, different space, different outside temps...    But the question was/is, what kind of heat is the bk stove throwing out at that burn rate?   If your standing 5 or 10 feet in front of it, do you feel the blast of radiant heat from it....?     Or would you just feel a bit of warmth....., or nothing at all....?


----------



## ddddddden (Nov 13, 2012)

Machria said:


> . . .if you run the bk hot, aka with a good strong fire for "display", is it ridiculously hot? Too hot where I would be opening windows....?


Any large stove with a full load of wood burning like that is going to give off a lot of heat. The beauty of a BK is at the other end of the spectum, burning low-med; if you have no intetest in that, there's no reason to pay the premium for a BK.

The need to open windows would depend on the size of the space, insulation, draftiness, wind, outdoor temp, etc. It's always possible to burn a smaller load of wood for less heat, and that's what many do during "shoulder season"(fall/spring).

A smaller stove would be ideal for burning smaller loads, but you would probably need to run your furnace some during the colder part of winter. If you are okay with this, and are more interested in burning "for display," then get a 2-cu-ft stove, such as the Enerzone Destination(aka Osburn Matrix) you like, or the PE Fusion BG mentioned, which is "modern" looking, as are the Scan and Morso Euro designs mentioned. I haven't seen any 3-cu-ft stoves with this kind of design.(Edit: I forgot the BK Chinook 30.)

http://enerzone-intl.com/product.aspx?CategoId=1&Id=580

http://www.dynamitebuys.com/store/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=13896

http://www.chimneysweeponline.com/pacfusion.htm

http://www.scanstoves.us/page/76

http://www.morsona.com/Classic-stoves-527.aspx



Since you mentioned top loading(VC) and seem to be keen on cooking, I'm going to add the ~2.5-cu-ft Jotul Rangeley with grill for cooking, despite the traditional styling. . .come to think of it, the ~3-cu-ft Quad Isle Royale also has these features. . .warning: the Isle Royale is known to really throw da radiant heat, and we have a member in Maine who could not turn the Rangeley down enough for his liking.

http://www.jotul.com/en-US/wwwjotulus/Main-menu/Products/Wood/Wood-stoves/Jotul-F-50-TL/


----------



## ddddddden (Nov 13, 2012)

Machria said:


> . . .But the real question is, if you run the bk hot, aka with a good strong fire for "display", is it ridiculously hot? Too hot where I would be *opening windows*....?





Machria said:


> Not how much heat is in the room, I understand different homes, different space, different outside temps... But the question was/is, what kind of heat is the bk stove throwing out at that burn rate? If your standing 5 or 10 feet in front of it, do you feel the blast of radiant heat from it....? Or would you just feel a bit of warmth....., or nothing at all....?


 
Well, you did ask about opening windows, which implies room temp as the issue. . .

As far as throwing radiant heat 5 ft in front of the stove when burning at a high rate, I'm going to say that pretty much any stove will do this. Even a stove with a convective jacket around the sides will throw a lot of radiant heat through the front glass.


----------



## Ashful (Nov 13, 2012)

Machria said:


> I have not eliminated Cat stoves. I eliminated the long burn only units.


 
Are there any cat stoves that cannot be cranked up like a non-cat? I only know my model, and (when i have good wood... another story) I can run it at will at any temp from 250 - 900(?). I've personally never let it run beyond 650, but the point is a cat stove can run hot just like a non-cat... But it can also burn low on a full load. No playing games with load size to keep temps down, the way you would do with a non-cat.

I have no experience with VC, Woodstock, or BK, but I hear BK can do the same.


----------



## Waulie (Nov 13, 2012)

It sure sounds like the OP is not particularly interested in burning a long, slow, black-glass inducing, smoldering fire for days on end.  This takes the main advantage of the BK away.  Yes, you _can_ turn up the BK for a fire show.  But, that is not what they excel at.  Also, since this is a supplemental/emergency heat situation and cooking is a priority, I really don't think a BK is the best solution.  There is a pretty hefty cost premium for the ability to burn super low, especially on the east coast.  If you're not interested in using that ability, I'm not sure that cost premium is warranted.  Great stoves, but not always the best option. 

The side loading door on the Progress is great.  I much prefer the setup as it seems to keep mess to a minimum.  It can be a little tough to squeeze that last split in there, but that's not a huge deal.  Yes, you can get in there to clean the glass.  I did it a couple times last year.  It is a bit of a trick to clean behind the andirons, but again not a huge deal.  This year, with better (read dryer) wood I have not had to touch the glass and it is still crystal clear.  It got a little brown during fall burning, which was probably due to the moisture the stone had accumulated over the summer.  The brown burned away on it's on.

Speaking of wood, I don't remember if that has been discussed in this thread.  If you are installing a stove this year, you should already have a couple cords of wood that has been split and stack for a year or so.  Especially if you're getting a cat stove.

Another thought is that you seem anxious to get a stove installed.  You may want to call Woodstock and ask about the availability of the Progress even if you haven't made your decision yet.  Last I heard they were pretty backed-up with orders.  This could potentially eliminate the Progress from your list if you're set on burning soon.


----------



## Machria (Nov 13, 2012)

Waulie said:


> Speaking of wood, I don't remember if that has been discussed in this thread.  If you are installing a stove this year, you should already have a couple cords of wood that has been split and stack for a year or so.  Especially if you're getting a cat stove.
> 
> Another thought is that you seem anxious to get a stove installed.  You may want to call Woodstock and ask about the availability of the Progress even if you haven't made your decision yet.  Last I heard they were pretty backed-up with orders.  This could potentially eliminate the Progress from your list if you're set on burning soon.



Got a couple cords of 5 year seasoned wood, 4 or 5 cords of 1 year old wood thanks to "Irene", and about 3 or 4 cords and growing of new wood from our "friend" Sandy!    Think I'm good for a while.  

Thanks for the tip on Woodstock, I sent them an email 2 days ago asking for a quote and recommended installer in my area, I have not herd back from them.  Maybe that's why.....?


----------



## Machria (Nov 13, 2012)

Waulie said:


> It sure sounds like the OP is not particularly interested in burning a long, slow, black-glass inducing, smoldering fire for days on end.  This takes the main advantage of the BK away.  Yes, you _can_ turn up the BK for a fire show.  But, that is not what they excel at.  Also, since this is a supplemental/emergency heat situation and cooking is a priority, I really don't think a BK is the best solution.  There is a pretty hefty cost premium for the ability to burn super low, especially on the east coast.  If you're not interested in using that ability, I'm not sure that cost premium is warranted.  Great stoves, but not always the best option.
> .



Exactly.  That's what I've been trying to say without having the right words to say it.  .    If I had more of a heating agenda in mind, I would strongly consider the BK, I love those long burn times I've read about.  But that is not what I'm looking to do.

It's surprising to me nobody makes a 3+ firebox on a contemporary stove like the Destination.  If somebody made a Enrerzone Destination type stove with a 3.0 firebox in a Hybrid, they would sell lots of them.  I'd order one right now!


----------



## BrowningBAR (Nov 13, 2012)

Machria said:


> It's surprising to me nobody makes a 3+ firebox on a contemporary stove like the Destination. If somebody made a Enrerzone Destination type stove with a 3.0 firebox in a Hybrid, *they would sell lots of them.* I'd order one right now!


Not according to many dealers. It seems like the people on this forum represent a very small aspect of the market. The majority of the stoves sold, apparently, are in the 2 cu ft range. The market for stove at or above 3 cu ft seems to shrink quite a bit.

I've spoken to a lot of dealers and they have all mentioned the same two things to me; the vast majority of stove buyers are awful when it comes to running and maintaining cat stoves and that 3 cu ft and larger stoves are not big sellers.


----------



## Sprinter (Nov 13, 2012)

BrowningBAR said:


> Not according to many dealers. It seems like the people on this forum represent a very small aspect of the market. The majority of the stoves sold, apparently, are in the 2 cu ft range. The market for stove at or above 3 cu ft seems to shrink quite a bit.
> 
> I've spoken to a lot of dealers and they have all mentioned the same two things to me;* the vast majority of stove buyers are awful when it comes to running and maintaining cat stoves and that 3 cu ft and larger stoves are not big sellers.*


 
And that's probably why there aren't more cat makers.  As I understand it, some companies used to make cat stoves but have discontinued those lines because too many people didn't use them properly which led to problems.  Now, companies seem to be either all cat or all non-cat.


----------



## Ashful (Nov 13, 2012)

I'd agree with BAR. Especially when going non-cat, where the plan is to burn a little hotter, 3 cu.ft. is a LOT of stove. When I was looking at non-cat's, I was only considering 2.0 to 2.5 cu.ft. stoves, and my heat load is pretty high.

If going non-cat, the PE Alderleas seem to have a lot of fans, as well as Jotul. Those are certainly the first two I'd be checking, if I were buying a non-cat.


----------



## Sprinter (Nov 13, 2012)

Joful said:


> I'd agree with BAR. Especially when going non-cat, where the plan is to burn a little hotter, 3 cu.ft. is a LOT of stove. When I was looking at non-cat's, I was only considering 2.0 to 2.5 cu.ft. stoves, and my heat load is pretty high.
> 
> If going non-cat, the PE Alderleas seem to have a lot of fans, as well as Jotul. Those are certainly the first two I'd be checking, if I were buying a non-cat.


I think he said something about Alderlea not fitting the decor, but not sure. Otherwise, a good choice that I also considered. PE's Super 27 is the same box as Alderlea T5 but without the cast sleeve.

Others worth considering would be Lopi's and maybe Country. They have a model called the Grandview 230 that hasn't gotten any attention on this forum, but I liked it a lot when I was looking.


----------



## Machria (Nov 13, 2012)

Joful said:


> I'd agree with BAR. Especially when going non-cat, where the plan is to burn a little hotter, 3 cu.ft. is a LOT of stove. When I was looking at non-cat's, I was only considering 2.0 to 2.5 cu.ft. stoves, and my heat load is pretty high.


 
hmmmmm.........    so maybe my firebox size goal of 3.0+ is too large??    I want it big, because it's a fairly big roomwhen you consider the cathedral ceilings, lots of large winodws...   plus I always like things beefier than they need to be, I hate being under-gunned!!  So that brings me back to my nice contemporary looking Enerzone Destination with a 2.3 box.  BUT, the problem is then the burn time, which will be fairly short of my ~10 hour goal (overnight...).

So are there any Hybrid or CAT units, that look similar to the Destination, in the smaller boxes that might meet my 10 hour burn time goal?


----------



## kingquad (Nov 13, 2012)

Machria said:


> hmmmmm......... so maybe my firebox size goal of 3.0+ is too large?? I want it big, because it's a fairly big roomwhen you consider the cathedral ceilings, lots of large winodws... plus I always like things beefier than they need to be, I hate being under-gunned!! So that brings me back to my nice contemporary looking Enerzone Destination with a 2.3 box. BUT, the problem is then the burn time, which will be fairly short of my ~10 hour goal (overnight...).
> 
> So are there any Hybrid or CAT units, that look similar to the Destination, in the smaller boxes that might meet my 10 hour burn time goal?


Blaze King Chinook 30


----------



## Sprinter (Nov 13, 2012)

Okay, here's another 2c:
IMO, unless you really need to keep a house warm while you're at work on a 12 hour shift or something, lengthy burn times are overrated. There I said it. With exceptions, of course, but I don't think I'd make it the #1 criteria. Any medium size stove should give you 8 hours anyway, and starting a fire in the morning is so easy (especially with Super Cedar's). No stove is perfect or has everything. You are going to have to make priorities.

And don't underestimate the amount of heat you can get out of a 2 or 2.3 cf when you need it.


----------



## BrowningBAR (Nov 13, 2012)

Sprinter said:


> Okay, here's another 2c:
> IMO, unless you really need to keep a house warm while you're at work on a 12 hour shift or something, lengthy burn times are overrated. There I said it. With exceptions, of course, but I don't think I'd make it the #1 criteria. Any medium size stove should give you 8 hours anyway, and starting a fire in the morning is so easy (especially with Super Cedar's). No stove is perfect or has everything. You are going to have to make priorities.


I am that exception. And all the blaze King owners.


----------



## Highbeam (Nov 13, 2012)

The woodstock PH is heavy and makes lots of heat but it is not a big stove. As I recall, it is well under 3 CF and rated for a pretty small area. Too bad the looks and weight are a deal killer, it sounds like a nice stove.

The PE line has the stove you want. The "super" firebox is an honest 2.0 CF (on edit) and can easily get you 10 hours while putting out a great flame show. The super series stove is available in several versions to match your decor. Is an easy cooker, not picky about wet wood, and front door with straight in loading. If you can't find what you need within the PE lineup then I suspect you already have your heart set on another stove and should just get that one instead.

The enerzone stoves you describe are rare and unrepresented in my part of the country. Often, stoves are sold heavily in one region near their place of manufacture.

I am not convinced that hybrid stoves are a good idea. What you get is a non-cat stove with the added complexity and cost of a cat but without the benefit of very long burn times. The reason, as near as I can tell, for a hybrid is to meet lower emissions standards that are not yet required.


----------



## Highbeam (Nov 13, 2012)

Sprinter said:


> IMO, unless you really need to keep a house warm while you're at work on a 12 hour shift or something, lengthy burn times are overrated. There I said it. With exceptions, of course, but I don't think I'd make it the #1 criteria.


 
Well, some of us do go to work for 8-9 hours and then we commute for another hour or two per day. Most of us easily burn up 12 hours between stepping out of the door and stepping back in. The last thing I want to do right before I leave and as soon as I return home is to restart a cold stove, that's called being a slave to your heater. Once you get the right stove installed, you can reload once or twice per day at leisure.

Burn times are number one for those of us that heat 100% with wood and are unable to babysit a stove all day while rocking in a chair knitting.

 A casual burner can afford to have some pretty crazy priorities. Things like only top loaders, only red stoves, only ash pans, etc. can matter way more when the function of the stove as a heater is not so important.


----------



## Sprinter (Nov 13, 2012)

Highbeam said:


> Well, some of us do go to work for 8-9 hours and then we commute for another hour or two per day. Most of us easily burn up 12 hours between stepping out of the door and stepping back in. The last thing I want to do right before I leave and as soon as I return home is to restart a cold stove, that's called being a slave to your heater. Once you get the right stove installed, you can reload once or twice per day at leisure.
> 
> Burn times are number one for those of us that heat 100% with wood and are unable to babysit a stove all day while rocking in a chair knitting.
> 
> A casual burner can afford to have some pretty crazy priorities. Things like only top loaders, only red stoves, only ash pans, etc. can matter way more when the function of the stove as a heater is not so important.


Well, I asked for it, didn't I . I only wanted to point out that it may not be the most important priority for _everyone_.


> ...babysit a stove all day while rocking in a chair knitting.


And I don't knit!  (But if I did, I would have earned the right, I assure you...)


----------



## Ashful (Nov 13, 2012)

I agree with Sprinter, FWIW, but we're getting mixed messages, here.  Machria wants to avoid cat stoves that can burn low and slow, but is concerned with sizing his non-cat under 3.0 cu.ft., as it may hurt his burn times.  I understand the confusion, as I was trying to sort all of this stuff out myself just a year ago.

You can indeed get a 3.0 cu.ft. stove and use it in your space, cat or non-cat, with a few caveats.  If it's a cat stove, you'll run it up north of 400F, get the cat ignited, and then you can back it down to whatever stove top temperature you like for a long cruise.  I keep mine cruising just above 250F in warmer weather.  The initial stint to 400F is short, and can help to quickly knock the chill off the room, while the long cruise at 250F just helps maintain room temp.

If it's a non-cat stove, you can't easily cruise at 250F, so you manage by having shorter fires at higher temperature.  These fires heat the non-cat stove up over a short period of time, and then you just let the stove radiate heat long after the fire has died down.  It's more cyclical in warm weather, but it works for most folks.

In cold weather, when heat load is high, you're running either stove at a higher temp, and the differences sort of disappear.  What you cannot have from a 3 cubic foot non-cat stove is a long 12 - 16 hour cruise at 250F... that's the domain of the cat stove.  If you really oversize a non-cat stove, you'll find yourself doing those cyclical heating cycles all winter, which could get old very quick.


----------



## Sprinter (Nov 13, 2012)

I said something about not being able to have it all, but I'd like to hear a bit more from the hybrid owners.  Do you get the best of both worlds, or what are the potential negatives for someone considering one?


----------



## Sprinter (Nov 13, 2012)

Highbeam said:


> The PE line has the stove you want. The "super" firebox is an honest 2.5 CF and can easily get you 10 hours while putting out a great flame show. The super series stove is available in several versions to match your decor. Is an easy cooker, not picky about wet wood, and front door with straight in loading. If you can't find what you need within the PE lineup then I suspect you already have your heart set on another stove and should just get that one instead.
> 
> .


The Super 27 is the one I have FWIW. It claims 2.0 cf but seems bigger. I've heard people say that sometimes box sizes are exaggerated. I don't know if that's true or not. I can't speak for burn times yet, but there a lot of Super owners out there who could tell you what it's capable of.



> I am not convinced that hybrid stoves are a good idea. What you get is a non-cat stove with the added complexity and cost of a cat but without the benefit of very long burn times. *The reason, as near as I can tell, for a hybrid is to meet lower emissions standards that are not yet required*


I've wondered about that myself. It's no secret that EPA is getting ready to release new emission standards that may be something like 4.5 grams, similar to Washington State standards. I suppose hybrids may be one way to get there. 

EDIT:  However, there are so many non-cats that already are in the 2 or 3 gram range, I wouldn't think a new technology would really be necessary


----------



## fire_man (Nov 13, 2012)

Highbeam said:


> The woodstock PH is heavy and makes lots of heat but it is not a big stove. *As I recall, it is well under 3 CF and rated for a pretty small area*. Too bad the looks and weight are a deal killer, it sounds like a nice stove.
> 
> I am not convinced that hybrid stoves are a good idea. What you get is a non-cat stove with the added complexity and cost of a cat but without the benefit of very long burn times. The reason, as near as I can tell, for a hybrid is to meet lower emissions standards that are not yet required.


 
The Progress firebox is 2.8 Cu. Ft, which is pretty close to 3 CF.
The stove is rated for heating 1600-2200 square feet by Woodstock's standards, which are very conservative.
Not sure what you mean by "without the benefit of very long burn times" - the stove has awesome burn times.


----------



## rijim (Nov 13, 2012)

As I see it, Machria has to decide the level of commitment he is willing to make, if all in, then cat or hybrid sized to heat with those ceiling height and windows should be considered.   Cat & Hybrid can run hot for effect an hour or 2 when cold then dial down to cruise temps and enjoy heat w/long burns; shoulder seasons won't be a problem when dialed down.  If not really committed, go non-cat sized for 1500 sf and plan to run furnace when the mercury drops and the wind kicks up.  From the description getting this thing in will be a wrestling match so there will be no do over or mind changing next year.  An over sized non-cat will create comfort issues for those sitting in close proximity on all but the coldest days; a Cat or hybrid will give wider comfort range but will be a source of frustration to a casual user.


----------



## Sprinter (Nov 13, 2012)

rijim said:


> As I see it, Machria has to decide the level of commitment he is willing to make, if all in, then cat or hybrid sized to heat with those ceiling height and windows should be considered. Cat & Hybrid can run hot for effect an hour or 2 when cold then dial down to cruise temps and enjoy heat w/long burns; shoulder seasons won't be a problem when dialed down.* If not really committed, go non-cat sized for 1500 sf and plan to run furnace when the mercury drops and the wind kicks up. * From the description getting this thing in will be a wrestling match so there will be no do over or mind changing next year. An over sized non-cat will create comfort issues for those sitting in close proximity on all but the coldest days; a Cat or hybrid will give wider comfort range but will be a source of frustration to a casual user.


As I recall, the original post was concerned mostly with only having a supplement to the central heating as well as the ambiance of open flame. He may be changing his mind a bit about that now. If that is still the case, though, then I would still encourage a non-cat medium size that fits the decor and that the other half likes.

I can relate to the process. I was all over the place until I was able to figure out the priorities and needs and what niche the various models filled. These kinds of discussions, even though they sometimes seem disjointed can help figure it all out.


----------



## Highbeam (Nov 13, 2012)

fire_man said:


> The Progress firebox is 2.8 Cu. Ft, which is pretty close to 3 CF.
> The stove is rated for heating 1600-2200 square feet by Woodstock's standards, which are very conservative.
> Not sure what you mean by "without the benefit of very long burn times" - the stove has awesome burn times.


 
In the stove world, 2 CF is good for overnight and 3 CF is about the biggest common size. The spread is so narrow that even 0.2 CF makes a notable difference. Point is that the PH is not a monster, it's just heavy.

You think the PH has awesome burn times? No, not even close, maybe decent burntimes or even slightly above average but not awesome. WS only rates that stove for 12-14 hours on their website and that's what owners report. The PH had such potential, I was so disappointed when they released the stove and the specs read very much like the typical non-cat.

Do we need another cat vs. non-cat thread? I certainly do not consider a hybrid to be teh best of both worlds, but rather the worst of both worlds and at this point would not recommend the technology. I like beer and I like whiskey but I don't mix them on purpose and expect to get something great.


----------



## ddddddden (Nov 13, 2012)

Highbeam said:


> In the stove world, 2 CF is good for overnight and 3 CF is about the biggest common size. The spread is so narrow that even 0.2 CF makes a notable difference.
> 
> You think the PH has awesome burn times? No, not even close, maybe decent burntimes or even slightly above average but not awesome. WS only rates that stove for 12-14 hours on their website and that's what owners report. That is poor and demonstrates that they missed the boat on this stove. I know, I know, you'll probably be all offended by that but WS could have designed this stove to burn for 30+ hours like the BK princess which is only 0.05 CF larger. The PH had such potential, I was so disappointed when they released the stove and the specs read very much like the typical non-cat.
> 
> Do we need another cat vs. non-cat thread?


Okay, only BK's achieve "awesome" burn times. We all know that, but 12-14 hours is very good, certainly better than "slightly above average," more like in the top 5℅. So the PH isn't a BK, it's still a very good stove, despite the complaints that it's not a BK.

It's not clear that BK performance can be replicated without access to the Alien Technology®. Other stoves with cats don't do it. Other stoves with thermostatic air control don't do it. Recent speculation indicates that the thermostat just stays closed @ low burn, so the mojo appears to be due to something unique in the BK's basic air flow. . .maybe they are just way ahead of everyone else in tuning the whole system. Tom Morrissey is buddies with Chris; so I'll bet he knows the secret, but he's probably not the type of guy to blatantly rip off someone else's design.


----------



## Sprinter (Nov 13, 2012)

> It's not clear that BK performance can be replicated without access to the Alien Technology®


Just what is that, anyway?


----------



## fire_man (Nov 13, 2012)

What I can't figure out is why these two stoves have such similar firebox sizes and efficiency ratings, yet they burn so differently. I would have considered the BK Princess, but it's a top-vent only and the wife also hates the looks.

All I can say is I loved my Fireview but the Progress is even better.


BK Princess----------------------------------------WS Progress


----------



## HotCoals (Nov 13, 2012)

ddddddden said:


> Okay, only BK's achieve "awesome" burn times. We all know that, but 12-14 hours is very good, certainly better than "slightly above average," more like in the top 5℅. So the PH isn't a BK, it's still a very good stove, despite the complaints that it's not a BK.
> 
> It's not clear that BK performance can be replicated without access to the Alien Technology®. Other stoves with cats don't do it. Other stoves with thermostatic air control don't do it. Recent speculation indicates that the thermostat just stays closed @ low burn, so the mojo appears to be due to something unique in the BK's basic air flow. . .maybe they are just way ahead of everyone else in tuning the whole system. Tom Morrissey is buddies with Chris, so I'll bet he knows the secret, but he's probably not the type of guy to blatantly rip off someone else's design.


 
You're right about the t-stat..it is slow and lazy.
I do think the air flow is part of it and I'm thinking it also has to with a lot of effort to get the right size cat.
The wash air (the only air) is really preheated well through a couple deliver tubes from back to front...i don't really know if that helps or not.
And the way theses things cost for as ugly as they are I'm thinking there is alloy of some type on the stove..at least the top.
The top really seems to adsorb heat from the box and radiate it quickly.
For some reason they react really well to outside temps changes without doing anything.
I'm also wondering with such a big box that the smoke gets a chance to be burnt off better by the cat..most of the people I talk to hardly ever fill them more then 2/3 unless going away for a week..lol.


----------



## ddddddden (Nov 13, 2012)

ddddddden said:


> It's not clear that BK performance can be replicated without access to the Alien Technology®


 


Sprinter said:


> Just what is that, anyway?


Only The Aliens know. 




fire_man said:


> What I can't figure out is why these two stoves have such similar firebox sizes and efficiency ratings, yet they burn so differently. I would have considered the BK Princess, but it's a top-vent only. . .


+1
I would've had to wreck my hearth to install a top-vent stove. . .can't see doing that when nice rear-vent hearth stoves are available. The real pisser for me is that a Princess came up for sale locally for $800 shortly after the Fireview had gotten comfortable on my hearth.  Doh!

Maybe the BK design doesn't work as well with rear venting. . .


----------



## Highbeam (Nov 13, 2012)

ddddddden said:


> Okay, only BK's achieve "awesome" burn times. We all know that, but 12-14 hours is very good, certainly better than "slightly above average," more like in the top 5℅. So the PH isn't a BK, it's still a very good stove, despite the complaints that it's not a BK.


 
Dang it dddden, I went back and edited my post within minutes of posting it to remove any BK vs. WS rambling but you snatched it up really fast. I know it is unfair to compare anything to the BK but even without the BK, the PH was a big fat whiff. I had high hopes for that stove and they nailed most of the things that they needed to nail. Burn time is 33% of what it could be and is comparable to non-cats even though WS has always been such a pro-cat company. 12 hour burns from 3CF non-cats is not an uncommon spec.

Sorry to morph the thread. I am voting for the PE super firebox in the cladding of choice for the OP.


----------



## Sprinter (Nov 13, 2012)

> Sprinter said: ↑
> Just what is that, anyway?​Only The Aliens know.


It's that damn tritanium again, isn't it? Probably classified stuff.  Zip


----------



## ddddddden (Nov 13, 2012)

Sprinter said:


> It's that damn tritanium again, isn't it? Probably classified stuff. Zip


 


HotCoals said:


> . . .And the way theses things cost for as ugly as they are I'm thinking there is alloy of some type on the stove..at least the top. The top really seems to absorb heat from the box and radiate it quickly. For some reason they react really well to outside temp changes without doing anything. . .


 
Yeah, clearly Tritanium alloy.


----------



## HotCoals (Nov 13, 2012)

Well it works!


----------



## Waulie (Nov 13, 2012)

The OP has clearly stated he is not interested in 24+ hour, smoldering burns.  Therefore, the BK most certainly is not the best choice for him.  Why does it always come to "the PH is a big fat whiff"?  Someone needs to drink more beer and less whiskey.

The worst of both worlds comment is ridiculous.  You will get 12+ hour burns with the PH whether you want low heat (half full) or tons of heat (fill her up).  You most certianly cannot do that with any 3cf non-cat.  Oh and you don't have to scrape the glass with a razor blade.  Most people are not gone 24 hours a day, or they wouldn't have a home.  I suspect many people don't mind putting wood in the stove twice a day, which the vast majority of Princess users have to do the vast majority of the winter.

I also think the PE would be a good choice based on the OP's requirements.


----------



## Sprinter (Nov 13, 2012)

HotCoals said:


> Well it works!


Sure.  If it's good enough for the Starship Enterprise, it should be good enough for BK!


----------



## HotCoals (Nov 13, 2012)

You certainty can do 8-10hour burns with a bk and watch a fire ..you don't have to turn it down...just put less wood in it and turn up the t-stat till you see fire..a little flame won't roast you out of the room.
Still the bk is prolly to ugly for his wife..


----------



## Sprinter (Nov 13, 2012)

FWIW, eclecticcottage reported on another thread that they got 12 hour burns from their Lopi 1750. That's probably uncommon, though. I haven't tested my Super 27 for that yet.

Another thing to consider when discussing burn times is wood species. We talking alder or oak? Big difference.


----------



## Waulie (Nov 13, 2012)

HotCoals said:


> You certainty can do 8-10hour burns with a bk and watch a fire ..you don't have to turn it down...just put less wood in it and turn up the t-stat till you see fire..a little flame won't roast you out of the room.
> Still the bk is prolly to ugly for his wife..


 
Sure you can, but if you're not interested in super long burn times why get a BK?


----------



## HotCoals (Nov 13, 2012)

I burn ash mostly..but you're right!
I burnt some Honey locust yesterday and it was diff.
Actually was gassing off so slow I had to run the cat up twice..flamed out the first time.
It was 17% on my meter.
Really cool blue flames coming off the wood...I have about a face cord of it..wish I had more for those really cold nights!
I should not have burned it yesterday but I could not wait any longer..first time I ever burned some.
I like ash also..seasons fast,splits easy..gasses off good..not to fast like pine though.


----------



## HotCoals (Nov 13, 2012)

Waulie said:


> Sure you can, but if you're not interested in super long burn times why get a BK?


 
Why not?
You may have a 300 hp car but rarely might you use it all..but it's there when you need it is my thought.


----------



## Waulie (Nov 13, 2012)

HotCoals said:


> Why not?
> You may have a 300 hp car but rarely might you use it all..but it's there when you need it is my thought.


 
Well, many reasons.  Cost?  Looks?  Glass cleaning?  Crappy dealer?  Also, I would not own a 300 hp car, so there you go.


----------



## BrotherBart (Nov 13, 2012)

Closing this chat room. Somewhere in the mess is probably enough to make a decision. Or not.


----------



## Machria (Nov 14, 2012)

Ok the story is, I'm a newbie to wood stoves.  I'm removing a fireplace, and want to install a freestanding wood stove.  This will be used to supplement my oil heating, as well as enjoy the ambiance of a nice fire and some radiant heat on those chilly New England days.  The room is a great room and is about 1400 sq feet.  It has cathedral ceilings, it's on the water on Long Island NY, and has lots of windows almost floor to ceiling, so I'm pretty sure it needs to be beefier than normally expected.  The house is mostly contemporary.  It's not ultra modern contemporary, but more of a modern’ish beach house type style.  The house is 2 stories, but it is on stilts and the stove is going on the top floor, so it's just about 3 flights up.  Weight and size could be an issue.

I'm still learning and changing my views on all this, and can certainly be persuaded but for now my goals are:
- 8 to 10 hour minimum real life burn time.  I'd like to be able to get thru the night, and not have to re-start cold
- Be able to view a fire/flames most of the time
- Heat the great room, supplement oil heat
- Enjoy the ambiance of radiant heat and fire show
- Heat most of house with loss of power
- Cook on it, especially when there is no power
- TRY to match the décor somewhat.  Most of the stoves are colonial looking.  WHY??


My current "short" list, which keeps getting longer:
- *Woodstock** Progress Hybrid* (great specs, cook top, VERY heavy, long delivery time)
- *Jotul F 50 TL Rangeley* (cooktop and “winter grill”, matches décor a bit, …)
- *Hearthstone Mansfield* (nice soap, large firebox)
-* Lopi Cape Cod* (good specs, front loading, a bit heavy 600#)
- *Vermont** Castings Defiant *(great specs, front & top loading, some maintenance issues)
- *Enerzone Destination 2.3* (matches décor, log storage, short burn time)
- *Enerzone Solution 3.4* (simple looking, steel,100k btu, short burn time for size)
- *Qaudrafire 5700* (similar to above, some neg feedback on cust service)
- *PE Alderlea T6 and other PE’s *(need to check these out) 

So what should I get??     Why??


----------



## begreen (Nov 14, 2012)

Merging threads. This appears to have been asked and answered. Why is this thread any different from the current one where there are greater parameters described like it should be a contemporary design to match the decor? Time to narrow down that list based on what you like or don't like.

fwiw, the Quad 5700 is out of place in comparison to the other stoves. It's a big stove. Quad has better equivalents in the 3100 or 4300 lines.


----------



## MasterMech (Nov 14, 2012)

Does the stove _have_ to go on the top floor?  It would heat the house more effectively and pull better draft (taller chimney) if it could be located on the bottom floor.

I'd narrow that list down to the Progress, Rangeley, and the Alderlea T-series stoves. But that's just me talkin' out my arse.   I will say that top-loading is not a make or break feature (at least for me) as I usually opt to load my Rangeley via the front door.  One of the things I liked about the Rangeley was the clean, more modern (but not contemporary) look it had.  I think something as ornate as a Woodstock Fireview or perhaps even an old VC stove would've looked out of place in my home.


----------



## ddddddden (Nov 14, 2012)

begreen said:


> . . .Time to narrow down that list based on what you like or don't like. . .


+1, we can give you options, but we can't choose your priorities. No single stove does everything. You seem to be grappling with the issue of wanting "Fire TV" without generating too much heat. Basically, you burn smaller loads to do this. A smaller stove is ideal for burning smaller loads, but when your furnace/power is out, you will be reloading more often to keep the house warm. A popular approach here is to go with a larger stove to have reserve capacity for the nor'easters etc, and burn smaller loads when appropriate.

My feeling is that you seem to have your wood operation well developed, and I would like to see you go with something closer to 3-cu-ft than 2-cu-ft capacity so that you will burn less oil/electricity, regardless of the $. . .but it's your $, your wood, your house, your choice. 



MasterMech has a good point about heat rising in a house, but it's also frequently recommended that you put the stove where you will be spending most of your time. . .I assume this would be the great room.


----------



## Machria (Nov 14, 2012)

begreen said:


> Merging threads. This appears to have been asked and answered. Why is this thread any different from the current one where there are greater parameters described like it should be a contemporary design to match the decor? Time to narrow down that list based on what you like or don't like.


 
I started the new thread because believe it or not I have narrowed my goals and what I was looking for allot from when I first posted. Also, this thread was originally for only selecting and understanding the different materials used to make them (hence the original title "Soapstone, Cast or Steel". It turned into a brand/model choosing and burn time fight, so I understood why you locked it, that was fine. But now that I have a little bit of understanding of some of this, I think I have more reasonable goals. So I think the new thread (merged here to post #185), states more clearly (clear as mud!) what I am looking for.

*Couple of answers to questions from above...:*
1. Can't put it on lower floors. No space for it, and they are all small rooms anyway, (bedrooms, office, workout room....), no real spot for it, and we are never down there except to sleep. 2nd floor is main living area, kitchen, living room, den, TV, loft hangout area (we have bean bags, reading...). So it really needs to be here, and has the space, and chimney for it. The chimney will be about 20' long above the stove, and 16' of that will be inside/insulated. Only a few feet stick out the top of the roof.

2. As mentioned, I'm not concerned with the cost so much, they are all pretty similarly priced for the most part (within a grand or so). I really need to make the right choice the 1st time. It would be great to do the normal "try one", use it a year or two, then figure out how I really use it and what my likes are, and replace with a better suited unit. But this likely won't be an option. It will be difficult to wrestle a stove up the 3 flights of stairs, so once it's up, it will likely be there* forever*. This is the reason I'm trying to choose so carefully. Making this difficult is the fact I've never had a stove before, so I'm having a hard time picturing / judging how much heat I will be getting, and how I will really end using it. *You guys are helping a great deal, even though it does not seem like it. Trust me... *Another big issue I'm having, is VERY few of these units are in stock, and/or on display at the few (3) stove stores which are in my area. So I'm going off BS brochures and websites, with vague references to burn times and BTU's, and low res images of the units. So the real life owners on here is very helpful. As you should have figured already, I'm pretty particular so I like to see something in person before I buy it. I want to feel it, look at the box size, quality... 

3. Style/Contemporary: I know I've been a bit back and forth on this issue. Stating I want it contemporary, yet putting other units on the short list. The reason is two fold, obviously there is not much out there that looks contemporary in "high end" packages (long burn times, high btu's, hybrid, features like cooktop...). Secondly, I also like the idea of high end looking and operating stuff, so for example I like the idea and look of the Soapstone stoves. Although they don't look contemporary, they do look "high end" (and usually are). Then there are stoves like the Lopi Cape Cod, which is in the middle of the road style wise, but has some nice features...

Right now I'm leaning toward the Progress Hybrid, I love the way it seems to burn (YouTube vids....), the look while not contemporary, does not look so colonial, and it does have a nice "high end" look. It meets my burn times, and heating output just fine. The only issues are the weight, and I would have to wait a month or so to get it here. Not the end of world, I have to remove fireplace and lay down a hearth and stone the walls anyway.

*Here is something that is needed on here, MORE VIDEO's of everyone’s stoves burning.* Just a 2 or 3 minute video of a medium burn. Not when the fire starts, and not at the end of a burn cycle, just a few minutes of the fire at medium burn after it gets going. The best video I've seen like this is of the Progress on youtube. Looks like they had an open house or something and filmed a fire for a few minutes.

Thanks for everyone’s help, keep it coming!


----------



## Waulie (Nov 14, 2012)

I think you are definitely making progress and figuring out what's important to you.  I don't know about many of the stoves on your list, but I would strongly recommend that whatever stove you get can give you a easy overnight burn and keep in mind, many (not all) of the manufacturers advertised burn times are a bit bogus.  Plus, you may find yourself burning more than you think once you get going (many do) and coming home to a warm stove is very nice.


----------



## begreen (Nov 14, 2012)

Reviewing this thread it seems like there is enough information to start digesting. Great places to see how stoves burn are the local stove shops. If the Progress still comes out on top, then order one. Woodstock is a good company to work with and they have a great return policy that is rarely matched by dealers.


----------



## Machria (Nov 14, 2012)

begreen said:


> Reviewing this thread it seems like there is enough information to start digesting. Great places to see how stoves burn are the local stove shops. If the Progress still comes out on top, then order one. Woodstock is a good company to work with and they have a great return policy that is rarely matched by dealers.


 
You sound tired of me already??   Wait until I start buring one!


----------



## ddddddden (Nov 14, 2012)

> *Here is something that is needed on here, MORE VIDEO's of everyone’s stoves burning.* Just a 2 or 3 minute video of a medium burn. Not when the fire starts, and not at the end of a burn cycle, just a few minutes of the fire at medium burn after it gets going. The best video I've seen like this is of the Progress on youtube. Looks like they had an open house or something and filmed a fire for a few minutes.


 
Videos abound. Start a *Show Me Your Burn Video  *thread, and you will get plenty.


----------



## Machria (Nov 14, 2012)

"Might" have a way to get a heavy (the PH!) where I need it.  I have a small outside deck opposite where the fireplace is (behind the glass doors on the right side in the pictures I posted).  The deck is not a freestanding deck with a few posts down to the ground.  It is actually above the 1st floor, so it is fully supported.  If I take off the railings, I could use a straight sciscor type lift to hoist it straight up to the deck.  Then it would only be a matter of rolling it on a hand truck off of the lift, onto the deck and into the sliding glass door.  Done!   Now we are getting somewhere!!   I might actually_* really*_ order a stove after all!! 

Did begreen just crack a smile???


----------



## ddddddden (Nov 14, 2012)

While you plan everything and get prepared, you could hold your place in Woodstock's line with a $250 deposit. . .fully refundable if you decide not to buy.  They're good like that.


----------



## Highbeam (Nov 14, 2012)

How many fat chicks is a scissor lift rated to carry?


----------



## Waulie (Nov 14, 2012)

We rented one of those motorized, stair-climbing hand trucks to move my dad's Progress up a couple flights of twisting stairs.  I wouldn't call it a good time (I've had _way_ more fun with fat chicks), but we got it done. 

Pre-edit, edit.  It's the personality that matters.


----------



## Machria (Nov 14, 2012)

ddddddden said:


> While you plan everything and get prepared, you could hold your place in Woodstock's line with a $250 deposit. . .fully refundable if you decide not to buy.  They're good like that.


----------



## Machria (Nov 15, 2012)

Just ordered a stove!!   It's a miracle!!   

Going with the Woodstock Progress.  Thanks for the help folks!!   Now off to pick some stone, find a decent chimney installer...


----------



## Ashful (Nov 18, 2012)

Congrats!  Reading your recent re-summary of your wants, namely contemporary looks, high end, and three flights of stairs, I'd have figured a BK Chinook was the winner.  I'm sure you'll be thrilled with the PH, though.  Their owners are... umm, fanatical.


----------



## Machria (Nov 18, 2012)

Joful said:


> Congrats! Reading your recent re-summary of your wants, namely contemporary looks, high end, and three flights of stairs, I'd have figured a BK Chinook was the winner. I'm sure you'll be thrilled with the PH, though. Their owners are... umm, fanatical.


 
I kinda gave up on the "modern" look of it, and decided to at least get something "High End" looking, which the progress is.  I did/do like the Chinook thought, decent looking unit.


----------



## ScotO (Nov 18, 2012)

Machria said:


> I kinda gave up on the "modern" look of it, and decided to at least get something "High End" looking, which the progress is. I did/do like the Chinook thought, decent looking unit.


 Congrats on the Woodstock, one of my favorite stoves made!  Judging from others on this site, that Woodstock will serve you well for many years to come.  I haven't heard any real negatives about it from those that own one.  Welcome to the club, BTW!


----------



## rideau (Nov 18, 2012)

PH owners are not fanatic.  Just incredibly content with their stoves, and unwilling to listen to those who don't have them label the PHs as failures, difficult to run, or run-of- the- mill, when in fact they are extremely responsive, easy to use, put out an amazing amount of heat, are impressively efficient, and have significantly longer burn time than the Fireview,a full cat and Woodstock's next largest stove. 
In short, PH owners knew what they wanted from the PH, and Woodstock has more than delivered it. 
Not surprisinngly, that makes for satisfied and enthusiastic owners.  But not fanatics. 
We can still see that other stoves are also excellent, but have different strengths and are better for different owner needs.


----------



## Highbeam (Nov 18, 2012)

rideau said:


> PH owners are not fanatic. Just incredibly content with their stoves, and unwilling to listen to those who don't have them label the PHs as failures, difficult to run, or run-of- the- mill, when in fact they are extremely responsive, easy to use, put out an amazing amount of heat, are impressively efficient, and have significantly longer burn time than the Fireview,a full cat and Woodstock's next largest stove.
> In short, PH owners knew what they wanted from the PH, and Woodstock has more than delivered it.
> Not surprisinngly, that makes for satisfied and enthusiastic owners. But not fanatics.
> We can still see that other stoves are also excellent, but have different strengths and are better for different owner needs.


 
You sound like a politician. Lighten up, it's okay to be fanatical about something you are "incredibly satisfied" with. Just don't let it cloud your judgement.


----------



## rideau (Nov 18, 2012)

Machria, 
We've all been concentrating on helping you choose a good stove for your situation.  Rereading some of your latter posts it suddenly occurred to me that the weight of your stove isn't your only problem.  You are going to be carrying a heck of a lot of weight of firewood up three flights of stairs, and that could get old quickly. 
Can you install a dumbwaiter, or an outside hoist like they use in Holland to take furniture to the upper floors?  If you could arrange a hoist at the side of your deck and get firewood up to there that way, life would be simpler....


----------



## rideau (Nov 18, 2012)

Highbeam said:


> You sound like a politician. Lighten up, it's okay to be fanatical about something you are "incredibly satisfied" with. Just don't let it cloud your judgement.


 That's amusing.  I'm on to another thread.


----------



## firecracker_77 (Nov 18, 2012)

BrowningBAR said:


> That is actually what I was getting at. I could put the same, or less, amount of wood in the 30 and get a longer burn time of usable heat than compared to the Heritage.


 
Why you always picking on that Heritage?  I love the old girl even if she doesn't have the biggest firebox.


----------



## firecracker_77 (Nov 18, 2012)

Highbeam said:


> Well, some of us do go to work for 8-9 hours and then we commute for another hour or two per day. Most of us easily burn up 12 hours between stepping out of the door and stepping back in. The last thing I want to do right before I leave and as soon as I return home is to restart a cold stove, that's called being a slave to your heater. Once you get the right stove installed, you can reload once or twice per day at leisure.
> 
> Burn times are number one for those of us that heat 100% with wood and are unable to babysit a stove all day while rocking in a chair knitting.
> 
> A casual burner can afford to have some pretty crazy priorities. Things like only top loaders, only red stoves, only ash pans, etc. can matter way more when the function of the stove as a heater is not so important.


 
I work about 14 hours a day, but my stove is right there with me keeping me company...the only reason I can use a Heritage with a 2.3 foot box.  Otherwise, I'd be getting a Blaze King or other cat stove.


----------



## BrowningBAR (Nov 18, 2012)

firecracker_77 said:


> Why you always picking on that Heritage? I love the old girl even if she doesn't have the biggest firebox.


It's a good stove. It's my house that is an unforgiving bastard. The Heritage at my in-laws illustrates exactly what I am battling against as their house allows for the stove to heat their entire home.


----------



## Machria (Nov 18, 2012)

rideau said:


> Machria,
> We've all been concentrating on helping you choose a good stove for your situation. Rereading some of your latter posts it suddenly occurred to me that the weight of your stove isn't your only problem. You are going to be carrying a heck of a lot of weight of firewood up three flights of stairs, and that could get old quickly.
> Can you install a dumbwaiter, or an outside hoist like they use in Holland to take furniture to the upper floors? If you could arrange a hoist at the side of your deck and get firewood up to there that way, life would be simpler....


 
Funny you bring that up.... been dragging wood up here for years, and for years have said "I'm going to install a lift to the deck". Well, now that I will likely be burning alot more often, it's going to happen. I'm going to get a hoist, much like the one you can buy fo the front of a truck, and put a bracket on the top of my deck sticking out about 2 or 3 feet, so I can pull up a load of wood to the deck.  Already on it, thanks!!


----------



## Machria (Nov 18, 2012)

rideau said:


> PH owners are not fanatic.


 
Well, I'd say they are, BUT, the BK owners are even more fanatical about the BK's, and the Jotuls are right behind them.  So the PH's are a distant 3rd in the fanatics category!


----------



## Machria (Nov 18, 2012)

Ok, in planning the install I just noticed the PH says in the install manual "Not appoved for an alcove install...". So, I was going to remove the corner wall from the white down which is 6'+ high (73"). I was going to leave the top of the corner wall up, and face it with stone, and face the bottom of it with stone. The pipe was going to go strait up and into that sofit/corner wall. From the corner to the edge of the wall is 38". About 1/4 of the stove (5 or 6") would be under the wall, the rest is forward of the wall or outside of it. Would this be called an "Alcove", or can I do this? OR, do I need to take the entire corner wall down?

Here's a drawing....


----------



## rideau (Nov 19, 2012)

1) It looks to me as if more than 4 or 5 inches is under and/or behind the wall, since you show the entire 6 in pipe behind the wall....
2) Be safe...send an accurate diagram to Woodstock and ask them.  Be sure to give accurate
elevation as well as overhead measurements. 
I suspect you are OK because there is good air flow, but don't know what the height restriction is over the stovetop....you might have to do something to the bottom of the wall that sits over the stove, for instance.  Woodstock will gladly help you, so call them, and e-mail the details.


----------



## Machria (Nov 19, 2012)

rideau said:


> 1) It looks to me as if more than 4 or 5 inches is under and/or behind the wall, since you show the entire 6 in pipe behind the wall....


 
Your right, just checked in the drawing and it is under by 8 7/8" (or 9" basically).



rideau said:


> 2) Be safe...send an accurate diagram to Woodstock and ask them. Be sure to give accurate
> elevation as well as overhead measurements.
> I suspect you are OK because there is good air flow, but don't know what the height restriction is over the stovetop....you might have to do something to the bottom of the wall that sits over the stove, for instance. Woodstock will gladly help you, so call them, and e-mail the details.


 
Already emailed them the info....  just thought I'd also ask the experts here as well.


----------



## begreen (Nov 19, 2012)

With the current plan I'd be concerned about the wood header going across the top of the stove and the proximity of the flue connector to that header and wall. The connector needs a minimum of 6" for double-wall, but I am much more comfortable with doubling that in an enclosed heat trap that the current design appears to create above the stove. Don't underestimate the heat this stove can put out.

Personally, I would open up the corner completely, then rock face it if desired. It will simplify the installation and eliminate many safety concerns. Most importantly, the stove will heat better.

Note that the current hearth pad design appears to be shy by about 4 inches in front unless there is an ashlip according to Woodstock's manual.


----------



## rideau (Nov 19, 2012)

Begreen is right, I wasn't thinking.  That stovepipe is way too close to the adjacent wall.  You need 6 inches clearance to combustibles.  Since the wall starts at a six foot height, you could angle the pipe back with a 45 degree likely (I haven't done the math but stove top in only about 35 inches so you have about 3 feet to work with and should be able to easily take it back far enough) until it is more than 6 inches back, then angle it straight again.....and if there is a concern about too much heat build up in behind the elevated wall, you could vent it at the top......if you really want to hide the pipe and keep the wall there. 
I simply painted my pipe the same color as my stove and it looks fine in the living room.  Radiates a small amount of additional heat into the room, which is not unwelcome. 
If you do keep the wall, and do put vents at the top, and still find that warm air rises and is trapped in that area, then a small fan pointed at the area, pushing colder room air into the corner, should cause circulation of the warm air out the top vents and into the room.....


----------



## Machria (Nov 19, 2012)

begreen said:


> Note that the current hearth pad design appears to be shy by about 4 inches in front unless there is an ashlip according to Woodstock's manual.


 
Yes, ordered the ash lip.      Thanks. 

I knew I would have to angle the pipe back a bit to get it away from the front of the inside of the wall.  I've been contemplating removing the entire wall as well.  Two things have been holding me from doing that:  1.  The other side of the room to the right has two sliding doors to a small deck, which are using the same angle, so this wall kinda of brings the look together...  2.  There is a bathroom below this floor, and there is a 3 or 4" vent pipe going up through this wall from the bathroom below.  I will need to hide/bury this PVC vent pipe somehow.  But I will need to do that anyway since the bottom portion will be opned either way...

Startin to sound like I should just open the entire thing up....  hmmmm....


----------



## Machria (Nov 19, 2012)

Here is an example of almost the exact same install I want to do... the only difference is I don't have the side walls jutting out at all.....


----------



## Waulie (Nov 19, 2012)

I sure don't think what you are trying to do counts as an alcove.  That said, there should be a minimum ceiling height.  I just scanned the manual and didn't see it, but you might want to look closer.  I'm sure Woodstock will let you know if it's OK.


----------



## Machria (Nov 19, 2012)

Waulie said:


> I sure don't think what you are trying to do counts as an alcove. That said, there should be a minimum ceiling height. I just scanned the manual and didn't see it, but you might want to look closer. I'm sure Woodstock will let you know if it's OK.


 
Just had an installer over to quote replacing the chimney, do the stone work and set the stove. Very reputable guy, does nothing but stove installs. He said "it's definitely not an alcove install, it's a corner install" and I should be fine. He also said the double wall stainless pipe that would be inside the wall on the top part, has a clearence of only 2 inches. So he would set the pipe in the wall with proper clearences, and then make the stove pipe meat it at the entrance into the wall.

I sent the drawing and pic to woodstock to see what they think. Waiting for their answer.

Oh, and PS- The installer thinks he can get the stove up the stairs with his stair climbing hand-truck.


----------



## begreen (Nov 19, 2012)

Machria said:


> Here is an example of almost the exact same install I want to do... the only difference is I don't have the side walls jutting out at all.....


 
This picture helps. Without an elevation drawing it was impossible to see where the transition to class A was occurring.

Still, this is not the only difference. The big difference is that the stove in the pic is a Hearthstone Mansfield which has an unusual stovetop to alcove ceiling clearance of 36". This is exceptionally low. That said, if Woodstock gives you their _written_ blessing to do this installation with the PH, you're good to go.


----------



## rideau (Nov 20, 2012)

I agree with Begreen.  My concern would be the amount of heat coming off hte top of the PH....if  it is trapped behind that wall you will be putting over the top of the stove, it may get pretty warm in there.  Again, I'd be concerned about the lower face of the wall getting too hot, unless there is some protection on it.  I'm sure Woodstock will have answers to all this for you. 
Didn't realize the installer would switch from stove to chimney pipe as soon as the pipe went behind that wall-expected it as it went through the ceiling.  Chimney pipe clearance is different than stove pipe clearance.  My chimney pipe is enclosed by a accordian looking steel outer liner, and is at least 10 inches in diameter overall.  Don't know if that 10 inch assembly needs another two inches, or if the assembly provides the 2 inches required.  I have ICC pipe.


----------



## Machria (Nov 20, 2012)

rideau said:


> . Again, I'd be concerned about the lower face of the wall getting too hot, unless there is some protection on it.


 
I would be putting durarock and a stone finish (thin stone...) on the lower face of the wall above the stove.


----------



## Machria (Nov 20, 2012)

Woodstock replied my plan looks fine and would not be considered an "Alcove" install, as did my installer. She said if the clearance above it was 30" or less, then I would need to put a shield up, but I'm ok at 36". it's only 8 or 9" that is actually "under" the wall anyway, much of the stove will be forward of the wall.

Ripping out on Friday, fun fun fun!


----------



## begreen (Nov 20, 2012)

Sounds like you are good to go. Good luck!

PS: Consider making the bottom lid with Durock and sloping it toward the interior of the room so that it is less of a heat trap.


----------



## Machria (Dec 4, 2012)

Ripped out the old....

Moved pipes (buried the PVC vent pipe from bathroom below in wall, moved outside air to back corner), and added a new duct to blow warm air to bedroom below on 1st floor (the stove is going on 2nd floor), and new 6" Class A SS chimney installed.  Framed new walsl and hearth area.  Durarock and slate going in this week.

Woodstock, get my stove shipped, I'll be ready for it next week!


----------



## Machria (Dec 4, 2012)

begreen said:


> With the current plan I'd be concerned about the wood header going across the top of the stove and the proximity of the flue connector to that header and wall. The connector needs a minimum of 6" for double-wall, but I am much more comfortable with doubling that in an enclosed heat trap that the current design appears to create above the stove. Don't underestimate the heat this stove can put out.


 
FYI, the stove pipe to tripple wall pipe flue connector clearance at the entrance to a wall/ceiling is only 2" believe it or not. And actually, the flue connector is a small metal "box" with an inch or 2 of air around it which is framed into your ceiling with regular wood framing. I'd worry about that framing before anything else....


----------



## Ashful (Dec 4, 2012)

Looks like you've done your research! Woodstoves piped thru wood-framed chases just scare the sh*t out of me.


----------



## Machria (Dec 4, 2012)

Joful said:


> Looks like you've done your research! Woodstoves piped thru wood-framed chases just scare the sh*t out of me.
> 
> Stone don't burn.


 
How else would you do it? unless your in a mason chimeny...?

I was suprised the chimney installer said he normally just screwed the bottom of that black box directly into the wood and that is how the direction on it show it done. I did not lke that, so I had hm space it down 1/2 to 3/4", so I can get the durarock under it, and then screw it down to the durarock instead. Just seems much safer that way.


----------



## Ashful (Dec 4, 2012)

Not saying it's unsafe, as you're clearly doing it right. Just a personal mental hurdle for me... putting a woodstove in a wood house, with the chimney plumbed into a chase surrounded by 2x4 framing! 

Yes, I know it's how it's done most of the time, and it's all safe and legal.  I do like your idea of using the Durock to space off the wood, even though the manufacturer says you could do otherwise.  I'd likely be doing the same.


----------



## Dakotas Dad (Dec 4, 2012)

Joful said:


> Not saying it's unsafe, as you're clearly doing it right. Just a personal mental hurdle for me... putting a woodstove in a wood house, with the chimney plumbed into a chase surrounded by 2x4 framing!
> 
> Yes, I know it's how it's done most of the time, and it's all safe and legal. I do like your idea of using the Durock to space off the wood, even though the manufacturer says you could do otherwise. I'd likely be doing the same.


 
Almost EVERY through the ceiling instal, goes right through one of those interface boxes, and they are designed for that exact use. Ours doesn't go through a wood framed spot, but I sure wouldn't be worried about it. My chase is brick on 3 sides, but it's not continuous up the house side. Just framing/foam board and insulation batts between the "house" and the triple wall.. 2" clearance met. (it's about 4 times that)


----------



## Machria (Dec 4, 2012)

Gotcha, and I'm with ya!  It is a bit scary looking when your thinking about some of the temps that can be in there.  I'm not only following clearances and specs, I'm extending them a bit for my own peace of mind, for the same reasons.


----------



## Machria (Dec 17, 2012)

Could it be? What's getting loaded into the back of my truck?


----------



## Machria (Dec 22, 2012)

Here ya go boys!  Posted pics of the hoist.

https://www.hearth.com/talk/threads...problem-progress-hyrbrid-install-pics.101580/

Thanks for all the help and advice.  Came out perfect.


----------



## begreen (Dec 22, 2012)

Closing thread, story had a happy ending.


----------

