# Old vs Modern wood stove



## jreed (Nov 10, 2010)

Hopefully this hasnt been beat to death here but I tried the search and didnt find much. 

Anyhow, I have an Alaska Kodiak stove from who knows when.  It is in my basement and I use it to heat my small ranch house.  It does an ok job.  However, it is too much work to cut firewood to not use an efficient stove.  So, my question, is there a noticable difference in the amount of heat and efficiency in the newer stoves?  For example, I was looking at a Napolean 1400.  Would this be a major upgrade or a waste of money?


----------



## BrowningBAR (Nov 10, 2010)

jreed said:
			
		

> Hopefully this hasnt been beat to death here but I tried the search and didnt find much.
> 
> Anyhow, I have an Alaska Kodiak stove from who knows when.  It is in my basement and I use it to heat my small ranch house.  It does an ok job.  However, it is too much work to cut firewood to not use an efficient stove.  So, my question, is there a noticable difference in the amount of heat and efficiency in the newer stoves?  For example, I was looking at a Napolean 1400.  Would this be a major upgrade or a waste of money?




You will see a noticeable difference between a pre-EPA stove and a modern stove. Less wood used, less smoke, cleaner chimney.


----------



## Jags (Nov 10, 2010)

If you compare apples to apples in the heat reaching the room, a value of 30% less wood used is common.  Some more, some less.  Don't forget about the other advantages such as less particulate emissions and virtually no smoke after startup.


----------



## wkpoor (Nov 10, 2010)

With no experience with the new stoves I would still say over most people should see reduced fuel usage for the same BTU output. However a smokeless chimney can be and fairly clean can be achieved with the older units. I would visit someone with a newer stove to experience first hand first before jumping into an expensive new stove. I personally don't think the new more efficient stoves give off heat like the old ones. But I too need to do more research. I would hate to send 2500-3000 on a new stove only to find out it won't do the job.


----------



## AngusMac (Nov 10, 2010)

I noticed that a modern clean burning stove will use less fuel, and gives virtually no smoke after firing up, and can burn small loads easier and cleaner due to a better insulated burn box.
The BTU rating for the stove will tell you what kind of heat each one will give and generally with a modern stove they can be smaller than the older models and give off more heat.   Have a look at some of the convection stoves, I dont think they are so common in the States yet ? 
I really love some of the older Jotuls, but I prefer the newer clean burn Jotuls and Morsos.


----------



## Jags (Nov 10, 2010)

wkpoor said:
			
		

> I personally don't think the new more efficient stoves give off heat like the old ones.



If you have a 3.0 cuft smoke dragon running 600F on the stove top and a 3.0 cuft EPA stove (like my Isle Royale) running 600F on the stove top - they will heat the same.  And the EPA stove will use less fuel doing it.  Apples to apples.


----------



## BrowningBAR (Nov 10, 2010)

wkpoor said:
			
		

> With no experience with the new stoves I would still say over most people should see reduced fuel usage for the same BTU output. However a smokeless chimney can be and fairly clean can be achieved with the older units. I would visit someone with a newer stove to experience first hand first before jumping into an expensive new stove.* I personally don't think the new more efficient stoves give off heat like the old ones.* But I too need to do more research. I would hate to send 2500-3000 on a new stove only to find out it won't do the job.



How do you figure?

And yes, and old stove like a Vigilant can have a rather clean chimney. Not as clean as the the new stoves I use. But I can get the Vigilant to burn rather well. That doesn't mean it's efficient, though. If I replaced the Vigilant with a newer stove I would probably reduce the wood consumption in half.


----------



## Lumber-Jack (Nov 10, 2010)

I have a new EPA stove in the house, but out in my shop I have an older pre-EPA wood stove. The one in the shop is a quality stove for it's time and heats the shop up well, but it sure is hungry. 
Having the two stoves to use really helps reinforce how much more efficient the new EPA stoves are. I can load the older stove in the shop with nearly twice as much wood, but it only has half the burn time of the stove in the house. Also just by looking just at the glass you can tell which one is cleaner burning, the house stove glass stays clear burn after burn, if I burn properly, the shop stove glass turns black after every burn, no mater what.

Go for it, you won't be disappointed. 

When I find a good deal, you can bet I'll be replacing the stove in the shop.


----------



## Slow1 (Nov 10, 2010)

Key point to understand, however, is that newer stoves do not tolerate wood that is less dry very well.  Yes they CAN burn it, but you will not get the heat out of the stove that you expect.  So, if you are in the "stack for 5 months, then burn that oak" camp then if you switch stoves you are likely to be disappointed burning the "same wood" as before.  However, if you have a good stack of dry wood - 2-3 years stacked is wonderful (depending on your climate and wood type of course), then you are very likely to be positively impressed with a new stove.  

And +1 to Jags comment - be sure you are comparing apples to apples on BTU ratings;  If you go by the "estimated area it can heat" to replace your stove you may well find that it isn't what your old stove is.  Also if your old stove is steel, don't expect the same feel from a new stone stove (or even cast for that matter).  That isn't old vs new but just differences in stoves.


----------



## wkpoor (Nov 10, 2010)

> How do you figure?


I've been to a friends house that has a VC ,don't know the model. Very nice stove, pretty to look at, but doesn't come close to the radiant warmth of my old smoke dragon or my neighbors old Fisher. Was visiting another household last winter were a brandy new unit was installed in a family room addition. Same thing it was going alright for the small space it was in but not even close in comparison. Both houses didn't have that distinctive ,open the oven door feeling, when I walked in. And even sitting close to the stoves they just didn't have that overwhelming sensation of heat. When I walk into my neighbors shop his Fisher just overwhelms you with heat and my Nashua does the same.


----------



## BrowningBAR (Nov 10, 2010)

wkpoor said:
			
		

> > How do you figure?
> 
> 
> I've been to a friends house that has a VC ,don't know the model. Very nice stove, pretty to look at, but doesn't come close to the radiant warmth of my old smoke dragon or my neighbors old Fisher. Was visiting another household last winter were a brandy new unit was installed in a family room addition. Same thing it was going alright for the small space it was in but not even close in comparison. Both houses didn't have that distinctive ,open the oven door feeling, when I walked in. And even sitting close to the stoves they just didn't have that overwhelming sensation of heat. When I walk into my neighbors shop his Fisher just overwhelms you with heat and my Nashua does the same.



You seem to be comparing apple to oranges. Comparing an 80k-100k BTU Fisher stove with a 50k BTU stove is a bad comparison. My 30 year old vigilant at 500°F heats about as well as my 4 year old Heritage at 500°F.


----------



## AngusMac (Nov 10, 2010)

I think Carbon liberator and Browning have sized it up nicely.

There really isnt much competition between the 2.

If you get an old stove with realistically 55% efficiency and a modern stove of 80% efficiency, same size burn box, which one will give off more heat and use less fuel?


----------



## jreed (Nov 10, 2010)

Wow, this really brought up a good discussion.  Thanks for all of the replies!  I wish I could find specs for the old Alaska Kodiak so I could compare.  

Im really trying to decide whether i am better off installing a furnace and ductwork or stay with what Im going now but a better stove.  It sounds like the newer stoves will produce the results Im looking for.


----------



## Adios Pantalones (Nov 10, 2010)

Efficiency- how much heat per pound/stick/frinkle of wood put in the stove.  That's not just total heat output.  They make different sizes of stove


----------



## AngusMac (Nov 10, 2010)

I dont know your set up, but I m guessing a new stove would be the most efficient method.

Take a broad look at whats on the market.

Also another thing to look at is the burn box, most modern stoves are using Vermiculite.
This insulates the burn box which in turn lets you burn smaller loads at higher temperatures and gives more heat and efficiency. 
Morso have a great selection of these, so does Jotul , but I think the Jotuls are only available in Europe?!?


----------



## krex1010 (Nov 10, 2010)

wkpoor said:
			
		

> > How do you figure?
> 
> 
> I've been to a friends house that has a VC ,don't know the model. Very nice stove, pretty to look at, but doesn't come close to the radiant warmth of my old smoke dragon or my neighbors old Fisher. Was visiting another household last winter were a brandy new unit was installed in a family room addition. Same thing it was going alright for the small space it was in but not even close in comparison. Both houses didn't have that distinctive ,open the oven door feeling, when I walked in. And even sitting close to the stoves they just didn't have that overwhelming sensation of heat. When I walk into my neighbors shop his Fisher just overwhelms you with heat and my Nashua does the same.



i dont think you can compare different stoves in different homes, with different layouts, with varying degrees of insulation and varying quality of firewood and make a conclusion that the older stoves heat better.  however there is something to the notion that the smoke dragons throw more heat, and there are two main reasons why i believe some people feel that the smoke dragons heat better.

#1: if you have green or only partially seasoned wood then you will be able to get better performance from the older stoves, and alot of people that have these older stoves are used to burning 3-5 month old wood and they do ok with that, then they buy a new stove and dont realize that the poor performance is due to their fuel.  that same wood wont heat as well in an epa- stove of identical size

#2: btu's or heat or whatever you want to call it comes from the wood, not the stove (i dont care what those stove brochures say) 5 oak splits will give off the same amount of heat whether you burn them in a smoke dragon, an epa stove or a fireplace (the stoves are obviously better at releasing that heat where we want it though).  this brings us to fuel consumption, an older stove under normal operating conditions will burn wood faster than an epa stove under normal operating conditions.  so that older stove may give the impression of being a better heater but in reality if the epa stove was run a little more wide open it would eat the same amount of wood and throw the heat hard and fast like that old smoke dragon, provided you can get the same amount of wood into both stoves.


----------



## CTburning (Nov 10, 2010)

In one way my old smoke dragon heated my house better than my new fancy soapstone stove.  I had a 3 + cf stove called a Garrison 1 that would heat my house uncomfortably warm.  I just had to load it every 4 hours with unseasoned Red Oak and the stove pipe would glow red and you could hear the suction the draft created.  It sounded like a jet turbine.  I would burn a cord a month easily just burning nights and weekends.  My new stove will keep my house warm if I load her every 6-8 hours with each reload using half the wood of the old stove.  

It is like comparing a 69 Camaro with a 390 to a new one with a v6.  They are getting 300 horsepower from a v6 and twice the fuel economy if not more.  It's a good analogy because wide open they produce similiar amounts of horsepower just like the stoves.  Where the new stoves shine is when they are cruising at operating temp.  You can lower the air, burn a fraction of the wood and still get heat from them.  The old stoves will just smolder and gunk up your chimney.


----------



## Pagey (Nov 10, 2010)

Having been in my grandmother's home with both a Fisher Papa Bear and a Lopi Liberty, I can say for certain that the Fisher gave off far, far more radiant heat than the Liberty.  I can also say that the Fisher belched more smoke and make a ton more creosote.  Personally, I prefer getting up on the roof more infrequently, so I know which stove I'd lean towards.


----------



## BrowningBAR (Nov 10, 2010)

Pagey said:
			
		

> Having been in my grandmother's home with both a Fisher Papa Bear and a Lopi Liberty, I can say for certain that the Fisher gave off far, far more radiant heat than the Liberty.  I can also say that the Fisher belched more smoke and make a ton more creosote.  Personally, I prefer getting up on the roof more infrequently, so I know which stove I'd lean towards.




The liberty is a 75k BTU stove. The Papa Bear is what, a 100k BTU stove? Maybe more? Isn't the firebox on the Papa 5+ cu ft? It can take a 30" log. Not a fair comparison.


----------



## Pagey (Nov 10, 2010)

I am not saying it's "fair".  I am simply stating that one throws far more radiant heat than the other.  The Liberty is a jacketed, convection heater with heat shields on 3 sides.


----------



## wkpoor (Nov 10, 2010)

I'm sure there is a myriad of reasons why the comparisons are tough to make. 
Are all the new EPA stoves small in size? Most I've seen look to be half the average smoke dragon size. And that means less surface area to radiate from.
Not to belittle anything but some of the log burn times had by new stoves could be more efficient ways to smolder less wood in a smaller fire box.
I read and hear the argument for less wood consumption. However I'm thinking many are like me with an unending supply of free hardwoods so consumption rate is of no concern to me.
With all this said (and I admit a little negative sounding towards new stoves) I'm not opposed to owning a new stove. Problem with reference to original post, is you can't test drive a stove. Basically its a referral thing. However how many people after spending 2-3K on a stove are going to honestly tell you they are a little less than happy with the purchase.


----------



## Jags (Nov 10, 2010)

wkpoor said:
			
		

> Are all the new EPA stoves small in size?



You could fit your upper body in an Englander NC30 or a Blaze King King.


----------



## Pagey (Nov 10, 2010)

Jags said:
			
		

> wkpoor said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 :lol:   Yeah, I think the BKK would allow you to cremate a St. Bernard.


----------



## Battenkiller (Nov 10, 2010)

BrowningBAR said:
			
		

> An old stove like a Vigilant can have a rather clean chimney. Not as clean as the the new stoves I use. But I can get the Vigilant to burn rather well. That doesn't mean it's efficient, though. If I replaced the Vigilant with a newer stove I would probably reduce the wood consumption in half.



OK, if you're burning the Vigilant cleanly, where is all that extra wood going?


----------



## BrowningBAR (Nov 10, 2010)

Pagey said:
			
		

> Jags said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The Mob rated the stove #1 in 2010's "Great Ways To Dispose Of A Body" handbook.


----------



## Jags (Nov 10, 2010)

BrowningBAR said:
			
		

> Pagey said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Note to Jags: go to book store.


----------



## BrowningBAR (Nov 10, 2010)

Battenkiller said:
			
		

> BrowningBAR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Just because the chimney is 'rather clean' doesn't mean it is efficient.


----------



## firefighterjake (Nov 10, 2010)

wkpoor said:
			
		

> I'm sure there is a myriad of reasons why the comparisons are tough to make.
> Are all the new EPA stoves small in size? Most I've seen look to be half the average smoke dragon size. And that means less surface area to radiate from. *Bear in mind that while this may be true, some stoves like my grandparent's Ashley and my own Shenandoah looked pretty big . . . until you took off the shroud . . . and then they look about the same size as my stove now.*Not to belittle anything but some of the log burn times had by new stoves could be more efficient ways to smolder less wood in a smaller fire box.
> I read and hear the argument for less wood consumption. However I'm thinking many are like me with an unending supply of free hardwoods so consumption rate is of no concern to me. *True . . . and I am in the same boat . . . I have ready access to hardwood . . . just have to pay for the gas . . . and time . . . and that is part of the appeal for me . . . the price of gas for transporting the wood to my woodshed, gas for the saw, gas for the splitter, etc. is minimal . . . for me the real savings in using a stove that uses less wood is the savings in time . . . one of the big reasons I didn't opt for an outdoor wood boiler . . . I don't want to be a slave to providing my main source of heat with fuel.*With all this said (and I admit a little negative sounding towards new stoves) I'm not opposed to owning a new stove. Problem with reference to original post, is you can't test drive a stove. *Well . . . actually you can . . . with at least one stove company. Woodtock allows you to use their stove and return it within 6 months if you aren't happy . . . there's not many car dealerships that would offer the same long term test drive*. Basically its a referral thing. However how many people after spending 2-3K on a stove are going to honestly tell you they are a little less than happy with the purchase. *Honestly . . . many folks here will tell you pretty honestly what they like and don't like with their stove . . . some folks will tell you straight up about some of their misfortunes with bad welds, stoves sized too small for their needs or stove companies with faulty/expensive parts or unhonored warrantees . . . I know I've always been quite forthright in how while I love my stove I wish the design was made a bit better to not allow ash to always drop on the front ash lip, the air control lever often sticks, etc.*


----------



## BrowningBAR (Nov 10, 2010)

firefighterjake said:
			
		

> some folks will tell you straight up about some of their misfortunes with bad welds, stoves sized too small for their needs or stove companies with faulty/expensive parts or unhonored warrantees . . . I know I've always been quite forthright in how while I love my stove I wish the design was made a bit better to not allow ash to always drop on the front ash lip, the air control lever often sticks, etc.



*COUGH* Intrepid *COUGH*

[Yes, yes, it is working much better, but it still falls short of my expectations]


----------



## firefighterjake (Nov 10, 2010)

krex1010 said:
			
		

> wkpoor said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm not quite sure I agree with the statement that I put into bold type . . . I'm just a dumb firefighter and not an engineer, but it seems to me that with a pre-EPA burn you will get X BTUs from the wood as the combustible gases off-gas from the wood and are ignited . . . but with an EPA stove you would get those X BTUs from the same wood as the combustible gases off-gas and are ignited PLUS with the secondary burn you would get more BTUs as the combustible gases in the smoke (that would normally go right up the chimney with a pre-EPA stove) would be burned resulting in the second burn and more heat. Of course, in all seriousness, I am just a dumb firefighter so I could be wrong.


----------



## jreed (Nov 10, 2010)

Jags said:
			
		

> wkpoor said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The NC30...thats another one I am considering.


----------



## Jags (Nov 10, 2010)

jreed said:
			
		

> Jags said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



A heat belching, utilitarian stove that has a heck of a following and a heck of a support system and regular representation on this here website.  I would consider it. :lol:


----------



## jreed (Nov 10, 2010)

Jags said:
			
		

> jreed said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Heat baby, heat!  Thats all I need.  I dont need anything pretty!  

Looks like the Napolean 1400 and the NC30 are pretty similar.  Which one would win of the two?


----------



## Jags (Nov 10, 2010)

jreed said:
			
		

> Jags said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Both are good units, but based off of the support system that the Englander has, I personally would go with that.  But ultimately, if you are married, the choice is hers. :lol:


----------



## jreed (Nov 10, 2010)

LOL!  It's in the basement, I cut and split the wood.  That would make the choice all mine 

By the way, she wants to keep the Alaska stove.


----------



## Backwoods Savage (Nov 10, 2010)

wkpoor said:
			
		

> I'm sure there is a myriad of reasons why the comparisons are tough to make.
> Are all the new EPA stoves small in size? Most I've seen look to be half the average smoke dragon size. And that means less surface area to radiate from.
> Not to belittle anything but some of the log burn times had by new stoves could be more efficient ways to smolder less wood in a smaller fire box.
> I read and hear the argument for less wood consumption. However I'm thinking many are like me with an unending supply of free hardwoods so consumption rate is of no concern to me.
> With all this said (and I admit a little negative sounding towards new stoves) I'm not opposed to owning a new stove. Problem with reference to original post, is you can't test drive a stove. Basically its a referral thing. However how many people after spending 2-3K on a stove are going to honestly tell you they are a little less than happy with the purchase.



This has been touched on but I'd also like to touch on it myself. The main reason is that I had some of these same misgivings before we purchased our last stove. Also, like Mr Wkpoor, we have our own woodlot so cutting and burning more wood is certainly not a big deal for us. However, I do admit that doing only half the work we used to do has some very good benefits.

As to the size of the new EPA approved stoves, you can get what you want with no problem. But most do find they can get a smaller stove and it does the job. I recall one of the first thoughts that hit me when I saw a stove like ours. My thought was, "How on earth would that little thing heat our home?" I seriously had doubts. I had also been to another home that had a very small stove and claimed it heated their huge old farmhouse very well. I doubted it.

Enter next thought:  Test driving a new stove. This is exactly what we did with our stove; we test drove it. We narrowed our purchase to 2 or possibly 3 different stoves. We purchased the one we could test drive first and knew if it did not work we could quickly make a switch. We never made a switch and are very happy with our little rock of a stove. Still hard to believe this thing weighs almost 500 lbs....until you try to lift it up on a 16" raised hearth.

We've burned several different stoves over the years so we know what can be done with the old stoves. However, we try to keep an open mind and still enjoy learning. Learn we have! The very first thing we learned was that we were staying a whole lot warmer with this stove.....and then we found we were burning only half the amount of wood we used to! Nice test drive, huh?!


So I say keep your mind open rather than closing it to the newer type stoves. Yes, you will need to make sure you have perhaps better fuel than you've used in the past but by doing it, you will reap some great benefits. As stated, we use a lot less wood and we are starting our 4th season of heating with this stove. Our chimney has been cleaned one time....with less than a cup of soot and no creosote. 


At the start we were also a bit closed mind with the cat type stoves because we had heard and read of some terrible experiences that people had. Then there are the so-called salesmen out there trying to sell stoves by running down other stoves; especially one that has a cat! Long story short is that we did purchase a cat stove and I fully expect if we ever buy another, it too will have a catalyst in it.


Most old folks tend to set their minds to the old ways and we do make an attempt to guard against that if at all possible. We do find that many of the new ways are indeed better than the old. It is the same with the fuel. Many older folks still think you can cut your wood in the fall and burn it that winter. I see it being done all around us here. Some just will never learn simply because they do not want to. Some just close their minds because what they know is all there is to know.

Another point is how the heat "feel" to you. There is a big difference between how the heat feels coming from a steel, cast or soapstone stove. I kept reading and hearing about this "soft heat" from a soapstone stove. Naturally, I thought Bull! Heat is heat. Now with a little more experience, I understand and can feel a definite difference and yes, it is a soft heat from a soapstone stove. It makes us very, very happy.


----------



## krex1010 (Nov 11, 2010)

firefighterjake said:
			
		

> krex1010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



if you look at the btu charts for different wood species, there isnt different numbers based on what kind of stove you burn the wood in.  the btu potential for those 5 oak splits are the same no matter what how old or new the stove.  i do agree that epa stoves are more efficient at utilizing all of that btu potential, especially when you start cutting air back and you get your secondaries firing.  however i dont think that makes an epa stove produce more percievable heat.  they are without a doubt more efficient heaters than smoke dragons.  

the point i was really trying to make is that old stoves feel hotter sometimes because they generally burn more wood, if you have two identical homes with two stoves of the same size, one and epa stove and one an older stove and over an 8 hour period you burn 5 splits in the epa stove and 10 splits in the smoke dragon, the house that you burnt more wood in is going to feel warmer, even if you are getting 15-20% more efficient combustion in the stove burning less wood.


----------



## Todd (Nov 11, 2010)

Pagey said:
			
		

> I am not saying it's "fair". I am simply stating that one throws far more radiant heat than the other. The Liberty is a jacketed, convection heater with heat shields on 3 sides.



Bingo! The old stoves were mostly radiant heaters and it just felt like the heat output was more. Most stoves today are convection and block that radiant heat but you get the advantages of closer clearances and blowers to help move the air.

That's why I like the radiant soapstone feel, it's not the searing blast of steel, it's somewhere in between the old steel stoves and today's convection stoves.


----------



## corey21 (Nov 11, 2010)

The deference for me was that i found out that my chimney was too short for a epa stove.


----------



## BrotherBart (Nov 11, 2010)

All things considered, if you are happy with your old stove then keep your old stove. If you are ready to commit to getting a efficient stove, make sure the flue is right for it and go through the learning experience to learn to burn with it then do it.

But if you plan on just going out and buying a stove and stick it into a sub optimal flue setup, burn that wood you have always burned and not want to be bothered with learning how to burn in a new way. Don't do it.

This old dog is really happy that the love of his life old stove cracked and forced him to make the transition.


----------



## Battenkiller (Nov 11, 2010)

BrowningBAR said:
			
		

> Battenkiller said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



OK, I read your post wrong.  I thought you meant you were burning the Vigilant cleanly, as in no visible smoke.  That's how I burn mine, so my question is then, "If I'm not seeing any smoke, where is all the waste?"

Personally, I feel the old VCs burn more efficiently that you are giving them credit for.   Newer stoves burn more efficiently?  Yes, I'm sure they do.  New stoves use half the wood for the same amount of heat in my living space?  Well, I not even close to believing that.  There is no way in hell I'm gonna heat this place as warm as I get it from my basement installation on less than three cord .


----------



## SolarAndWood (Nov 11, 2010)

Jags said:
			
		

> wkpoor said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Or your old stove


----------



## KeepItNatural (Nov 11, 2010)

Quick question jreed- is this stove in a finished & uninsulated basement?


----------



## jreed (Nov 11, 2010)

My basement is unfinished and uninsulated.


----------



## daleeper (Nov 11, 2010)

jreed said:
			
		

> LOL!  It's in the basement, I cut and split the wood.  That would make the choice all mine



That is the card I had to play, but it did win the game.  Well, maybe that round anyway.


----------



## Pagey (Nov 11, 2010)

Todd said:
			
		

> Pagey said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think that the blower should be a standard feature on a jacketed stove.  I should not have to pay 2-300$ extra for a glorified fan - in my humble opinion.  Maybe it's just our particular home layout, but we seem to get so much more heat out of the Endeavor with the blower.  At the very least, it moves the heat a lot quicker than it would if we simply waited on the radiant properties of the stove alone.

I have often wondered what a jacketed stove minus the heat shields would feel like.  I imagine that the Englander's, say, on which the side shields are an option throw much more radiant heat.


----------



## Slow1 (Nov 11, 2010)

Battenkiller said:
			
		

> OK, I read your post wrong.  I thought you meant you were burning the Vigilant cleanly, as in no visible smoke.  That's how I burn mine, so my question is then, "If I'm not seeing any smoke, where is all the waste?"



Clean does not equal efficient heating.   Clean (as in all the wood and smoke burned) is only one part of the equation, but keeping that heat in the room so it heats the house is the practical definition of efficient.  So back to your question "where is all the waste?" - the answer is simply "up the flue."  Basically my understanding is that older stove designs required more air to get to a clean burn.  Thus more air in = more air up the flue.  That is heat headed right out of the house.  

However as others have said - if you have plenty of cheap or free wood and don't mind the extra effort then efficiency isn't a major concern.  As someone who shares the environment I do appreciate everyone burning clean - whatever their stove may be.  I agree that older 'smoke dragon' stoves CAN be operated such that they burn clean and if everyone did so then it would be great.  My morning drive tells me this isn't the case though... but then again, new EPA stoves CAN be operated to smoke just as much as a 'smoke dragon' so where does that leave us?  Hmmmm - bottom line seems to be the responsibility lays with the operator.  

I do believe it is easier to get an EPA stove to burn cleaner on a consistent basis and that overall the efficiency will be greater.


----------



## jreed (Nov 11, 2010)

Let me ask this question, would I be smarter to add insulation to my basement walls before replacing my stove?


----------



## BrowningBAR (Nov 11, 2010)

jreed said:
			
		

> Let me ask this question, would I be smarter to add insulation to my basement walls before replacing my stove?




Yes.


----------



## BrowningBAR (Nov 11, 2010)

Slow1 said:
			
		

> Battenkiller said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




1. That is correct.

2. All the free wood in the world won't make an overnight burn easier. The vigilant is very hit and miss with overnight burns. Sometimes you think you have a good set up and you wake up to a stove that burned it self out and a cold room, other times the stove is still sitting at 300° with an easy start up. So, efficiency isn't just about burning less wood, but making your burns last longer. That convenience is worth a lot, especially in January and February.


----------



## wkpoor (Nov 11, 2010)

jreed said:
			
		

> Let me ask this question, would I be smarter to add insulation to my basement walls before replacing my stove?


When it comes to heating with wood a friend of mine has a saying "why is everyone always trying to find a better way to heat the outdoors". Go for tightening up the house first.


----------



## jreed (Nov 11, 2010)

wkpoor said:
			
		

> jreed said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Good point....thanks!


----------



## oldspark (Nov 11, 2010)

"It is like comparing a 69 Camaro with a 390 to a new one with a v6"  Putting a 390 in a 69 Camaro would be like putting a turd in a punch bowl. :cheese:


----------



## oldspark (Nov 11, 2010)

Comparing old Nashua to my new Summit is not fair in some ways, the summit gives off much "softer" heat  then the nashua but when it is 500 or so stove top it is giving off a lot of heat. So far it has done a good job but has not been cold yet, it gives off heat for ever compared to the old stove with the same amount of wood. If the summit wont heat the house this winter you guys will be the first to know! :bug:


----------



## Battenkiller (Nov 11, 2010)

jreed said:
			
		

> Let me ask this question, would I be smarter to add insulation to my basement walls before replacing my stove?



Yes, without a doubt.  Been there, doing it both ways.  Night and day difference.  I went from, "No f***ing way is this gonna work" to "I think I'll call this thing _The Little Stove That Could_".  Insulate first, then look at stoves after that.


----------



## begreen (Nov 11, 2010)

jreed said:
			
		

> My basement is unfinished and uninsulated.



That's the info I was waiting for. Insulate the basement before doing anything else. This is going to give you the best bang for the buck. It will reduce wood consumption significantly and will also greatly reduce duct heat loss when the furnace is running. This is where I would spend first. It doesn't have to cost a lot. And the actual job goes pretty quickly once the clutter is out of the way. Be sure to seal the sill plate well and continue the insulation up over it. The net result will be less wood used, less furnace fuel used and warmer floors.

PS: The only thing the Englander 30 NC and the Napoleon 1400 have in common is that they burn wood and have the door handle on the same side. The 30NC is a much bigger beast with a different secondary manifold system. The Englander 13NC is closer in size to the Nap 1400.


----------



## Battenkiller (Nov 11, 2010)

Slow1 said:
			
		

> So back to your question "where is all the waste?" - the answer is simply "up the flue."  Basically my understanding is that older stove designs required more air to get to a clean burn.  Thus more air in = more air up the flue.  That is heat headed right out of the house.



Sorry, no way in hell am I sending an extra three cord of wood up my chimney as lost heat.  I'm not using an old Franklin-type stove, my stove is as air-tight in design as any of the newer stoves, even more so.  My flue temps end up being the same as most folks here report - about 300ºF when cruising in downdraft mode (which is where my stove sits 90% of the time).  My stove temps (600-650º) at those same flue temps are much higher than these same people report (450-550º), so my stove is putting out a load of heat by comparison with newer radiant designs.  Then my flue temps drop as the coaling stage begins, just like everybody else.  It's not unusual at all for me to find the flue temps at 225º and the stove still at 500-550º with a big bed of orange-hot coals on the bottom, and it will stay that way for a pretty long time.  So I think most of the heat produced by my stove is going out into the living space, not up the flue. 



> I agree that older 'smoke dragon' stoves CAN be operated such that they burn clean and if everyone did so then it would be great... but then again, new EPA stoves CAN be operated to smoke just as much as a 'smoke dragon' so where does that leave us?  Hmmmm - bottom line seems to be the responsibility lays with the operator.



Uh... yeah.  The EPA has removed the intelligence factor from burning, doesn't mean the new stoves are magic.  It's like putting cats and rev limiting devices on a chainsaw.  They'll produce less emissions, but they'll also produce less power.  I want power in a stove, so I will likely use the one I have and produce a few more emissions.  Those emissions, however, are not wasting half my potential heat.  Insulating the crap out of a non-cat stove in order to get the burn chamber hotter for cleaner combustion is a sure way to limit the potential power of a stove.



> I do believe it is easier to get an EPA stove to burn cleaner on a consistent basis and that overall the efficiency will be greater.



No one is doubting this, it just a matter of degree.  20%, possibly 30% I might be able to accept.  But claims of a 100% increase in efficiency?  C'mon.


----------



## KB007 (Nov 11, 2010)

Take a look at the Napoleon 1450 - it's a basic black version of the 1400.

As for insulation - do it.  I'd do both at the same time if you can.  I'd also get the stove first and do the insultation slowly if you're doing the work yourself.  At least with the new stove you'll be nice and warm installing the insulation.


----------



## oldspark (Nov 11, 2010)

"Insulating the crap out of a non-cat stove in order to get the burn chamber hotter for cleaner combustion is a sure way to limit the potential power of a stove." Knock it off BK, I want to feel good about my new stove. 
 :cheese:


----------



## BrowningBAR (Nov 11, 2010)

Battenkiller said:
			
		

> Slow1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So, the fact that the Heritage burns longer with a smaller firebox than the Vigilant doesn't show a vast increase in efficiency? No one is saying the Vigilant is a bad stove, but I know for a fact it chews threw wood a LOT faster than a newer stove.


----------



## Lumber-Jack (Nov 11, 2010)

Oh my yes Jreed, you must insulate that basement before doing anything else.

As for the ongoing debate about just how much more efficient the new EPA stoves are over the old air-tight stoves, I believe the common percentage increase is usually quoted around 30%, however I'm sure it varies from stove to stove.
Going by my own circumstance with EPA stove in the 1500 sq ft house, and old air-tight in the  480 sq ft shop, I can tell you that it takes about equal wood in the house and in the shop to keep the stoves going, with the big advantage going to the house stove for overnight burns. The stove in the shop just won't keep an overnight burn going.  The shop often gets too hot because the stove is over sized, but you still need a certain amount of fire in the box to sustain the fire. The EPA stove in the house sustains a low fire and coals much better. 
Not very scientific I know, but those are my observations.
Oh one last comment about radiant heat, my EPA stove puts out plenty, it is mostly directed towards the front because it has to, to obtain those very short clearances to the sides and to the back that newer stove often have. I would have to say that I have felt a lot more heat coming off my EPA stove than my older (larger) stove in the shop, but then I don't run that shop stove very hard as a rule.


----------



## Pagey (Nov 11, 2010)

Go read this handy little .pdf to see just how many BTUs you're bleeding out those uninsulated walls.  

http://www.woodstove.com/pages/guidepdfs/BasementInstall.pdf


----------



## Battenkiller (Nov 11, 2010)

BrowningBAR said:
			
		

> So, the fact that the Heritage burns longer with a smaller firebox than the Vigilant doesn't show a vast increase in efficiency?



That fact, in and of itself, demonstrates nothing at all about efficiency.  You are leaving heat output out of the equation.  My compost pile produces heat all summer long, but it ain't producing a lot of BTU/hour, nor is it very efficient.

I have no idea how you burned your Vig, but I know how I burn mine.  Got it dialed in pretty good at this point, and yesterday I blew out a ton of ash (very messy job BTW) from all the air passages and it's running cleaner and hotter than ever.  Very stable burns with a warm stove and coals left in the morning to start a new fire.  14 hour burns like some makers claim?  Hardly, but a good 7-8 hours.  I only sleep about 5-6 hours, so it works great for me.

BBAR, if you want _real_ efficiency, get a cat stove... what are you waiting for?


----------



## BrowningBAR (Nov 11, 2010)

Battenkiller said:
			
		

> BrowningBAR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I can run a Heritage at 500° longer than I can the Vigilant on a smaller load of wood.

I have a cat stove, also.


----------



## Battenkiller (Nov 11, 2010)

BrowningBAR said:
			
		

> I can run a Heritage at 500° longer than I can the Vigilant on a smaller load of wood.



Never doubted you could, but you said you'll use half the wood for the same amount of heat in an EPA stove, and that is a bold claim.  That's a whole different animal than saying you can maintain the same temperature for longer with less wood.  Again, a matter of degree.  

Anyway, I'm holding out for the next generation of hybrid stoves to arrive.  For some folks, changing stoves is as easy as changing spouses, but I'll need more convincing evidence before I make the jump... to either.


----------



## BrowningBAR (Nov 11, 2010)

Battenkiller said:
			
		

> BrowningBAR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I go through 4 to 4.5 cords of wood with the Vigilant. I can see cutting it down by 1.5-2 cords with the Heritage. And my exact quote was "If I replaced the Vigilant with a newer stove I would probably reduce the wood consumption in half."


----------



## corey21 (Nov 11, 2010)

I have noticed with my new stove that it is very easy on the wood. I can build a hot fire in the morning let that go out. The mass of the stove keeps the house warm and my house is 1800 sq ft.


----------



## wkpoor (Nov 11, 2010)

corey21 said:
			
		

> I have noticed with my new stove that it is very easy on the wood. I can build a hot fire in the morning let that go out. The mass of the stove keeps the house warm and my house is 1800 sq ft.


It hasn't been cold yet. Just wait till 20 and 20mph winds or much worse. You'll be firing that thing for all its worth to keep up.


----------



## oldspark (Nov 11, 2010)

wkpoor said:
			
		

> I'm sure there is a myriad of reasons why the comparisons are tough to make.
> Are all the new EPA stoves small in size? Most I've seen look to be half the average smoke dragon size. And that means less surface area to radiate from.
> Not to belittle anything but some of the log burn times had by new stoves could be more efficient ways to smolder less wood in a smaller fire box.
> I read and hear the argument for less wood consumption. However I'm thinking many are like me with an unending supply of free hardwoods so consumption rate is of no concern to me.
> With all this said (and I admit a little negative sounding towards new stoves) I'm not opposed to owning a new stove. Problem with reference to original post, is you can't test drive a stove. Basically its a referral thing. However how many people after spending 2-3K on a stove are going to honestly tell you they are a little less than happy with the purchase.


 If my new stove wont heat the house I will shout it from the roof tops and shove it up some bodys ash.


----------



## Slow1 (Nov 11, 2010)

wkpoor said:
			
		

> However how many people after spending 2-3K on a stove are going to honestly tell you they are a little less than happy with the purchase.



I'm more than happy to tell folks I was very disappointed with my first stove - that NC Encore lasted less than 6 months in my home.  Sure wish they had the same return policy as Woodstock but as it is I lost a lot of $'s with that mistake.  Much happier now.

So - we are out here, just ask.


----------



## Battenkiller (Nov 11, 2010)

corey21 said:
			
		

> I have noticed with my new stove that it is very easy on the wood. I can build a hot fire in the morning let that go out. The mass of the stove keeps the house warm and my house is 1800 sq ft.



OK... how does 342 pounds of stove have enough thermal mass to warm a 1800 sq.ft. home all day long?


----------



## SolarAndWood (Nov 11, 2010)

Battenkiller said:
			
		

> corey21 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Have you been outside today?


----------



## corey21 (Nov 11, 2010)

SolarAndWood said:
			
		

> Battenkiller said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not all day long. Outside now its 68.


----------



## Battenkiller (Nov 11, 2010)

SolarAndWood said:
			
		

> Battenkiller said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Good point.  I passed gas earlier today and the joint went up 2º.


----------



## corey21 (Nov 11, 2010)

Battenkiller said:
			
		

> SolarAndWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well :lol:


----------



## tfdchief (Nov 12, 2010)

My poor old Buck Stove's getting a complex reading all these posts.....winces every time it's called a smoke dragon  :shut:


----------



## burleymike (Nov 12, 2010)

I have one thing I don't like over my old stove which was an EPA stove, just a first generation cat stove.  It had a bigger firebox I never had the manual for it so I don't know how much bigger but I liked the size.  I also liked being able to load it up in the morning and let it smolder all day long and if it got hot in here I could close the dampers and it would die out.  

With that said I am very happy with the new stove.  My old stove I could fit 8 splits the Osburn I can fit 6.  My old stove I would wake up in the morning and have a big bed of coals and a 65degree house.  With the Osburn I have very few coals but enough to start a new fire and a 68degree house.  I have been burning it all night for a week now and I don't get smoke pouring in the house every time I open the door so I would say the chimney is much cleaner than with the old stove.  It would reduce an 8" chimney down to 4" in two weeks.  With the new stove I am not always sweating when I have a hot fire burning hoping I don't have a chimney fire.

I am really impressed with how little smoke this stove puts out.  My old stove I would load it up pine in the morning and I could see the cloud of black smoke blowing in the wind for at least 1000' down the road.  The new stove I only see about 5' of black smoke coming form the chimney then it fades away.  The old stove it really looked like somebody was burning tires.


----------

