# Large Stove Comparison



## Marshy (Jan 11, 2017)

I'm interested in knowing what larger stoves (make/model) are out there. More specifically, fireboxes of 4 cuft or larger, free standing stove. Also, what kind of air control do they have? I like the thermostatic air dampers the old Shenandoah's had and the BK stoves have.


----------



## edyit (Jan 11, 2017)

off the top of my head there's the kuma sequoia, and the quadra fire adventure 3, and the bk king which you already have.


----------



## Highbeam (Jan 11, 2017)

edyit said:


> off the top of my head there's the kuma sequoia, and the quadra fire adventure 3, and the bk king which you already have.



The kuma is a good stove but pretty small at 3.6 CF and reportedly only 3 of that is usable. The quad spec says 4.5 CF.

Hearthstone makes the equinox at 4.0 CF according to the company.


----------



## edyit (Jan 11, 2017)

fair enough, the hearthstone equinox 8000 is also 4 cubic feet as does the regency F5100, then of course there's this guy http://www.jimbonham.com/Stove/stove.html


----------



## webby3650 (Jan 11, 2017)

edyit said:


> fair enough, the hearthstone equinox 8000 is also 4 cubic feet as does the regency F5100, then of course there's this guy http://www.jimbonham.com/Stove/stove.html


You will find that both of these pale in comparison to the King. Neither have a usable 4' box or will produce any longer burns than other large non-cats. Reportedly pretty poor for their size. And durability, that's another thread....


----------



## Highbeam (Jan 11, 2017)

webby3650 said:


> You will find that both of these pale in comparison to the King. Neither have a usable 4' box or will produce any longer burns than other large non-cats. Reportedly pretty poor for their size. And durability, that's another thread....



The wood furnaces, caddy for example, have 4.9 cubic feet, thermostatic control, 1800 cfm blower. Much cheaper than the king, like 50%.


----------



## webby3650 (Jan 11, 2017)

Highbeam said:


> The wood furnaces, caddy for example, have 4.9 cubic feet, thermostatic control, 1800 cfm blower. Much cheaper than the king, like 50%.


Really? I've never priced one. Although you've got a higher install price to add it into the existing ductwork. The payout would be good though!


----------



## Highbeam (Jan 11, 2017)

webby3650 said:


> Really? I've never priced one. Although you've got a higher install price to add it into the existing ductwork. The payout would be good though!



So drolet makes two furnaces, epa approved, with windows, thermostatic control, big and really big that require no ductwork. They can just blow the hot air into the room or you can attach ducts. They are sold under the model names of heatpro and heatmax. Prices between 1200 and 1900 as I recall from farm stores like menards or actual dealers. 

If this is in a basement and regular stoves aren't quite enough just take a look. Many hearth.com members own them and discuss them down in the boiler room.


----------



## Marshy (Jan 11, 2017)

I don't have and existing duct work in the house. I haveba hydronic systems available to tie into though. The down side of this is if I get an indoor boiler I don't have any thermal storage.


----------



## Highbeam (Jan 12, 2017)

Wood furnaces do not require duct work. You can dump the heat from them into the basement and let the heat rise OR you can add ducts, or a combination. All they are is a very large stove, with thermostatic control, a blower, and a shell around the stove to help that blower strip the heat from the stove.

Here are the most popular options.

https://www.drolet.ca/en/products/furnaces/

The heatpro is 4.9 cubic feet.

https://www.drolet.ca/en/products/furnaces/drolet-heatpro-wood-furnace-df03000/#fiche-technique

There are lots of other furnaces available from other companies that are larger. You can gain knowledge of them in the boiler room which is another subforum of hearth.com.

If you want non-epa then there are bigger and cheaper options but they are wood hogs!


----------



## VirginiaIron (Jan 12, 2017)

Thermo-Control units   http://www.nationalstoveworks.com/hotwaterstoves.html   have indoor hydronic units.

..." about 50% of the heat produced by your unit is used to heat the water and the approximately remaining 50% is released as radiant heat in to the surrounding air...." The 500 firebox is 27X24X24 (9 cu ft) and 125K btu.

We had this unit and it worked well with a pump. It was supposedly plumbed for no power but the floor was below the unit. We replaced it with an oil boiler.


----------



## VirginiaIron (Jan 12, 2017)

Put a storage tank in a manifold loop with a circ pump. Then utilize a circ pump to control the zones off the manifold/storage loop.


----------



## Marshy (Jan 12, 2017)

VirginiaIron said:


> Thermo-Control units   http://www.nationalstoveworks.com/hotwaterstoves.html   have indoor hydronic units.
> 
> ..." about 50% of the heat produced by your unit is used to heat the water and the approximately remaining 50% is released as radiant heat in to the surrounding air...." The 500 firebox is 27X24X24 (9 cu ft) and 125K btu.
> 
> We had this unit and it worked well with a pump. It was supposedly plumbed for no power but the floor was below the unit. We replaced it with an oil boiler.


I actually live 2 hours away from them. I've considered their stoves before but efficiency of another steel box (with SS water tubes) was a little frightening to think about. I haven't seen many reviews on these stoves, maybe I will search on this site. Thanks.


----------



## bholler (Jan 12, 2017)

webby3650 said:


> You will find that both of these pale in comparison to the King. Neither have a usable 4' box or will produce any longer burns than other large non-cats. Reportedly pretty poor for their size. And durability, that's another thread....


I cant comment on the hearthstone but I can tell you that the regency does greatly improve burn times not to the level of the king but still pretty long and they have not yet had any issues with durability.


----------



## VirginiaIron (Jan 12, 2017)

The previous owner had this installed and on top of the unit was 1 or 1.25+ inch X 16"? plates of soapstone.


----------



## webby3650 (Jan 12, 2017)

bholler said:


> I cant comment on the hearthstone but I can tell you that the regency does greatly improve burn times not to the level of the king but still pretty long and they have not yet had any issues with durability.


That's good to know. The few people that I've met with the regency weren't satisfied with the burn times. Very likely user error I'd say.


----------



## bholler (Jan 12, 2017)

webby3650 said:


> That's good to know. The few people that I've met with the regency weren't satisfied with the burn times. Very likely user error I'd say.


We have a few out we sold and they all seem happy with regular burn times of 20 to 25 hours with decent heat output.


----------



## burninwood (Jan 12, 2017)

Hi Marshy,

Edit:
Manufacturer says 4 cubic feet...stores website says 4.7
Looks like they still make it too...

http://homehardware.ca/en/rec/index.../Ne-67n/Ntk-All_EN/R-I5531033?Ntt=wood+stoves


I walked into the local hardware store the other day to land my eyes on this 4.7 cubic foot freestanding stove. The volume of wood you could jam in it is impressive. The pictures obviously do no justice....
http://www.jaroby.com/en/produits.php?id=85

It was selling for $1,600 Canadian....appears to be discontinued though.


----------



## weatherguy (Jan 13, 2017)

My local stove shop burns the 5100, it's huge, he said you can load 90lbs of wood. I asked him about burn times but he said he hasn't put a full load in, it was throwing some serious heat in the shop.


----------



## Squisher (Jan 13, 2017)

On the f5100 how are any of you sweeps cleaning bottom up?  Are you able to clean through the bypass damper?  I've only done one and found the bypass to be in the way and too offset from the flue when open?


----------



## davidmc (Jan 13, 2017)

Buck 91 cat stove or 94 with burn tubes.
I like the 91 personally, been running one 7 years and love it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## bholler (Jan 13, 2017)

Squisher said:


> On the f5100 how are any of you sweeps cleaning bottom up? Are you able to clean through the bypass damper? I've only done one and found the bypass to be in the way and too offset from the flue when open?


Yeah I have no problem cleaning up through the one that has the chimney coming straight off it.   What are you cleaning with?


----------



## Squisher (Jan 13, 2017)

Perkins rotary system, the 'medusa'. I've only done one f5100 and it seemed like it was going to be to jagged of an offset if I remember right and I was worried about chewing up my rods. I'll look at it closer next time.


----------



## bholler (Jan 13, 2017)

Squisher said:


> Perkins rotary system, the 'medusa'. I've only done one f5100 and it seemed like it was going to be to jagged of an offset if I remember right and I was worried about chewing up my rods. I'll look at it closer next time.


Yeah that is what we use and I havnt had any issues.


----------



## TX-L (Jan 13, 2017)

weatherguy said:


> My local stove shop burns the 5100, it's huge, he said you can load 90lbs of wood. I asked him about burn times but he said he hasn't put a full load in, it was throwing some serious heat in the shop.



I just stuffed my BK King with 108 lbs (and 5 oz!) of Ironwood (Eastern Hophornbeam). Should be good until early Sunday morning. And it's supposed to be below zero tonight. Yay Blaze King!


----------



## VirginiaIron (Jan 14, 2017)

I would be very impressed if that wood caught fire and burned completely and I would become a believer.

As a sidenote those 3 x 10 splits, or whatever size they are, are a favorite of my stove too.

Edit- dictation


----------



## Marshy (Jan 14, 2017)

TX-L said:


> I just stuffed my BK King with 108 lbs (and 5 oz!) of Ironwood (Eastern Hophornbeam). Should be good until early Sunday morning. And it's supposed to be below zero tonight. Yay Blaze King!
> 
> View attachment 192680



I load my King east-west because I have my wood cut ~20" in length. I think I'm going to start cutting shorter to load north-south. I load my stove like that (almost, that's tight!) and run it on high and have a good bed of coals in the morning 8-9 hours later.  Now that I put the fans on the stove it reduced the amount of coals I have in the morning but improved the heat output. I lost some cycle time when I need to load the stove by an hour or two.

At least that has been my experience burning red maple so far. I have some better wood to try, hopefully there is a notable difference.


----------



## VirginiaIron (Jan 14, 2017)

so, I'm assuming that load is supposed to be good for 30 or 31 hours.  Technically, 108 pounds of wood will only produce a certain amount to BTUs, is that correct?  The catalytic heater doesn't multiply the btu's does it?


----------



## Marshy (Jan 14, 2017)

VirginiaIron said:


> so, I'm assuming that load is supposed to be good for 30 or 31 hours.  Technically, 108 pounds of wood will only produce a certain amount to BTUs, is that correct?  The catalytic heater doesn't multiply the btu's does it?


30 hrs maybe on low, 12 hrs on high (in theory) but subject to your heating demand because the end of the burn cycle might not be usable heat depending on your needs. That's why I say his would last 8-9 hours for me before the heat is not enough to keep the house from losing temp (running it on high).


----------



## VirginiaIron (Jan 14, 2017)

THat is what I was wondering.  Thank you for clarifying that. Maybe I'm just at a place in my mind right where I can comprehend that I don't know. Because I was brainstorming his post and I realized that 30 hours would be good  for someone if they already had their space temperatures up and it was mild temperatures outside (his were cold) and the BTU demand was low. It's still nice to know, however, that one could load the stove and return 30 hours later and have some Coals to start a new fire.


----------



## Marshy (Jan 14, 2017)

VirginiaIron said:


> THat is what I was wondering.  Thank you for clarifying that. Maybe I'm just at a place in my mind right where I can comprehend that I don't know. Because I was brainstorming his post and I realized that 30 hours would be good  for someone if they already had their space temperatures up and it was mild temperatures outside (his were cold) and the BTU demand was low. It's still nice to know, however, that one could load the stove and return 30 hours later and have some Coals to start a new fire.


Correct. People with a well insulated house and keep the stove in their living space (and not in their uninsulated basement like me) could reasonably operated the stove on low-med and get enough usable heat from a full load to only have to refuel every 24 hrs. It varies from one house to another and climate also plays a big factor as well.


----------



## VirginiaIron (Jan 14, 2017)

With that minimal amount of coal, how long does it take those splits to come up to a charred temperature for efficient burning?


----------



## Marshy (Jan 14, 2017)

VirginiaIron said:


> With that minimal amount of coal, how long does it take those splits to come up to a charred temperature for efficient burning?


Once the coals are raked and wood is loaded 5-10 mins realistically before the cat is in the active zone and the bypass can be closed. Then I wait to see the needle is climbing up higher in the active zone before I turn on the blower fans. Then in another 15 mins the cat thermometer well be at the very high end in the active zone. That's been my experience.


----------



## Niko (Jan 14, 2017)

Marshy said:


> Correct. People with a well insulated house and keep the stove in their living space (and not in their uninsulated basement like me) could reasonably operated the stove on low-med and get enough usable heat from a full load to only have to refuel every 24 hrs. It varies from one house to another and climate also plays a big factor as well.




Even if ones house is air tight very few stoves will burn for 24hr+.


----------



## bholler (Jan 14, 2017)

Niko said:


> Even if ones house is air tight very few stoves will burn for 24hr+.


I am not sure that very few will burn for 24hrs is accurate but regardless they dont have to be burning for 24 hrs to make enough heat to keep a house warm for 24hrs.


----------



## Niko (Jan 14, 2017)

bholler said:


> I am not sure that very few will burn for 24hrs is accurate but regardless they dont have to be burning for 24 hrs to make enough heat to keep a house warm for 24hrs.




You can take Air tight home and install a modern woodstove like a osbourne 2400( i like the look of it) put it on low and it will not burn for 24hr.  If im wrong im sorry, but i have never read from anyone on this forum saying they have a air teat home and because of it their stoves are now burning twice as long.


----------



## bholler (Jan 14, 2017)

Niko said:


> You can take a air tight home and install a modern woodstove like a osbourne 2400( i like the look of it) put it on low and it will not burn for 24.


No but if it is sealed and insulated well enough especailly if there is a large thermal mass inside the envelope of the house you may only need one fire in 24 hours to heat it.


----------



## Niko (Jan 14, 2017)

bholler said:


> No but if it is sealed and insulated well enough especailly if there is a large thermal mass inside the envelope of the house you may only need one fire in 24 hours to heat it.




just trying to explain that keeping a house air tight does not make the stove burn longer or shorter technically.  Because the house is leaky, that in turn makes you turn your stove up to replenish the heat that is lost threw the cracks. Turn up the stove you loose burn time.

Take a tight house now, no reall need to run the stove so hot because less heat is escaping.  Turn the stove down you gain burn times.

The problem is so many manufacturers still have not done this effectively, no matter how low you turn down the other stoves you still wont get 24 hr burn times.  Regardless of the thermal mass in the house, im speaking of the Stove itself.  They just dont burn that long...


----------



## rdust (Jan 14, 2017)

bholler said:


> No but if it is sealed and insulated well enough especailly if there is a large thermal mass inside the envelope of the house you may only need one fire in 24 hours to heat it.



Sure but the house temp won't be flat, it will be a roller coaster ride.  Big difference in the way the heat is delivered.  I rode the non cat roller coaster for two seasons, that was enough.

IMO A quality cat stove is the only way to heat if you want to turn off the furnace and haven't retired yet.  It's nice that I get to decide if I want to release 60lbs worth of heat into the house in 8 or 24 hrs.


----------



## rdust (Jan 14, 2017)

VirginiaIron said:


> so, I'm assuming that load is supposed to be good for 30 or 31 hours.  Technically, 108 pounds of wood will only produce a certain amount to BTUs, is that correct?  The catalytic heater doesn't multiply the btu's does it?



Turned down it will probably burn 40 hours or more.  Pictures are deceiving, that a 4+ cubic foot stove.  He should put a beer can in the picture for perspective.


----------



## Squisher (Jan 14, 2017)

Niko said:


> just trying to explain that keeping a house air tight does not make the stove burn longer or shorter technically.  Because the house is leaky, that in turn makes you turn your stove up to replenish the heat that is lost threw the cracks. Turn up the stove you loose burn time.
> 
> Take a tight house now, no reall need to run the stove so hot because less heat is escaping.  Turn the stove down you gain burn times.
> 
> The problem is so many manufacturers still have not done this effectively, no matter how low you turn down the other stoves you still wont get 24 hr burn times.  Regardless of the thermal mass in the house, im speaking of the Stove itself.  They just dont burn that long...



Conversely some manufacturers that can greatly control their burn time, to get say a 24hr burn seem to lack the ability to match that with substantial heat output. Like my summit, which will never go anywhere near 24hrs, but will go very near 99,000btus of output. So while the idea of this super tight home and 24hr burn times is great, my reality is, I don't need 24hr burntime. What I need is available heat output.  I'm certainly happy with my modern EPA 3.0cu ft stove and it's output. This after a lifetime of burning huge, pre EPA stoves. 

Now we often all read on here about people upgrading from an old smokey and not being happy with the heat they can get out of their clean/regulated stove. That's not the case with the summit, it delivers the heat.


----------



## rdust (Jan 14, 2017)

Squisher said:


> Conversely some manufacturers that can greatly control their burn time, to get say a 24hr burn seem to lack the ability to match that with substantial heat output .



When the temp in your house waivers only a couple degrees over the course of a burn you don't need big output.  There is usually only a couple times a winter where I need to run my stove hard to warm up a cold house.

With that said there are different types of stoves available for a reason.

I recall a time ago when someone here swapped an old Natasha for a Summit and dumped the Summit not long after.  It was never able to deliver the heat he needed.  I think he replaced it with a cheaper steel stove and was happier.  So while you're happy with yours there are times when a stove that works in one environment may not work in someone else's.


----------



## Squisher (Jan 14, 2017)

Well as a burner of various pre EPA stoves and the last one a huge Lakewood that I still have. I feel qualified to say that the summit is capable of big heat. Some people may not get that heat out of it if they don't learn how to burn a newer stove but through careful monitoring of temps my learning curve was quick.

I agree that it's a great thing that there are all different types of stoves and I greatly respect the cat technology. Really hope to score a deal on a king king one day to replace the Lakewood that I've moved to my shop where it still heats for me. 

I've run the big Lakewood, a wood circulator, a harbercraft(fisher knock off), a fisher, and one or two old stoves from my youth that I can't recall the brand. A lifetime(42 years young lol) of heating with big old smokeys up until last year. The transition to the summit has been easy and satisfying for me. 

Obviously the 'cycle of heat' that all non cat stoves have is something I'm ok with. It's all I've ever known. 

I do seem to read more often than someone being disappointed with a summit say, about people being disappointed with the shear brute output available(or not so much) from long burning cats. I obviously can see that being equalled out by the consistent long burn time. But in the end for me my choice of the summit was driven by not wanting to lose the ability to have a stove really crank it out.


----------



## TX-L (Jan 14, 2017)

Well, quite a bit of chatter on this thread. Here is an update a full day later:

At 24 hrs after the loading, stove top temp was 400F. That's some pretty good usable heat, not just a few leftover coals available for a restart. I raked the coals up in a pile at the front of the firebox and turned the air to full. Stove top temp went up to 475/480 and stayed there for a few hours. At 27 hrs into the burn, stove top is above 450F. This load could easily go into Sunday, but I don't want to stay up nor do I want to get up at 2 or 3 AM to fill the stove. It got down to +4 last night and went up to 25 today. Photos attached for your cosideration.


----------



## Squisher (Jan 14, 2017)

That seems like quite a respectable cruising temp to me. If you crank it up, and I don't know maybe you don't ever.  What sort of stove top temps are you capable of reaching?

I've never run a cat, heck I don't know if I've ever even been in a home with a cat stove running(I've cleaned a bunch) so definetly part of my decision was that fear of the unknown commodity of that even but potentially lower heat output of a cat vs that punch in the face heat that I've always known. 

I asked in the BK thread but it was lost in the sea of responses that thread sees about what the actual max btu output of the king king is?  Not what it can do over 12hrs or even 8. But all out as hot as it gets, how many btu are we talking?


----------



## rdust (Jan 14, 2017)

Squisher said:


> What sort of stove top temps are you capable of reaching?



I've had my stove top in the 750 range at times.  I don't think that tells the whole story but it can throw the heat if you want it.


----------



## TX-L (Jan 14, 2017)

I don't know how many BTUS are produced. A tube stove, or an older pre-EPA stove will produce more heat at any given time, I think because those stoves are actively burning and as a result, the entire mass of the stove is warmer. A cat stove's heat is concentrated in the cat area only, and the rest of the stove is cooler, relatively speaking. This was my stove a few weeks ago, with no flame in the box.


----------



## bholler (Jan 14, 2017)

Niko said:


> The problem is so many manufacturers still have not done this effectively, no matter how low you turn down the other stoves you still wont get 24 hr burn times. Regardless of the thermal mass in the house, im speaking of the Stove itself. They just dont burn that long...


I agree most will not burn that long no but there are plenty out there that will.



rdust said:


> IMO A quality cat stove is the only way to heat if you want to turn off the furnace and haven't retired yet. It's nice that I get to decide if I want to release 60lbs worth of heat into the house in 8 or 24 hrs.


I and many many others heat just fine with non cats and work full time.  To me releasing all that heat is not an issue that is what I need I vary the heatoutput by the wood species.  And it works fine.  I am also heating from my sealed and insulated basement.  So no temp swings either.  I agree for many cat stove are the right answer but non cats are the right answer for others.




rdust said:


> When the temp in your house waivers only a couple degrees over the course of a burn you don't need big output. There is usually only a couple times a winter where I need to run my stove hard to warm up a cold house.


While I agree to some extent it does take more btus to bring the heat back up you cant say that you dont need big output just because you have even heat every house has its heat loss and you need a certain btu input to balance that out constant or not.


----------



## Niko (Jan 14, 2017)

Squisher said:


> Conversely some manufacturers that can greatly control their burn time, to get say a 24hr burn seem to lack the ability to match that with substantial heat output. Like my summit, which will never go anywhere near 24hrs, but will go very near 99,000btus of output. So while the idea of this super tight home and 24hr burn times is great, my reality is, I don't need 24hr burntime. What I need is available heat output.  I'm certainly happy with my modern EPA 3.0cu ft stove and it's output. This after a lifetime of burning huge, pre EPA stoves.
> 
> Now we often all read on here about people upgrading from an old smokey and not being happy with the heat they can get out of their clean/regulated stove. That's not the case with the summit, it delivers the heat.




If they can,  then why is no one writing about it?   You also seem to forget that manufacturers state a lot but its these forums that people like us find real results.  Your also kinda using Wheel horsepower mentality, my car puts down 1000 horsepower so its more powerful then yours. 

What do you think The reason for them upgrading from old smokey?  Is it becasue it only burned for 2 -4 hrs, cant control it, come on man i don't know crap about stoves, but It only took me one year buring with a smoke demon in our new house we just bought(years ago) that i new it was a piece of crap.  Yea it produced a lot of heat, but i had to refill the dam thing every 3-4 hrs.  Even on low i couldnt get it to burn for more then 4-5hrs and it ashed like crazy so ihad to clean it every other day.  O and it a hug firebox and i wrote all about in my beginning years on the forum.


But to my original low burn times is this, from the day of time every piece of wood when light on fire is meant to burn hot and fast, when you csn control this power you can direct and force it to do your bidding


----------



## Squisher (Jan 14, 2017)

TX-L said:


> I don't know how many BTUS are produced. A tube stove, or an older pre-EPA stove will produce more heat at any given time, I think because those stoves are actively burning and as a result, the entire mass of the stove is warmer. A cat stove's heat is concentrated in the cat area only, and the rest of the stove is cooler, relatively speaking. This was my stove a few weeks ago, with no flame in the box.



Cool. I really do think the king would be perfect for my shop, I look forward to it one day.

At times right now I'm running the summit in my basement, super insert upstairs, and the Lakewood in my shop. It's practically a second job at times keeping all three fed.

Let's say I load four times a day, like I do when it's cold out like it's been here this year. That's 12 loads a day to keep everything going full tilt.

Full disclosure I don't run the insert 24/7 or I would get to hot. 

Cat stoves make a lot of sense to me. But I'm pretty happy with my 'tube' stoves. Honestly the only one I really don't like anymore is the Lakewood, I appreciate it's brute heating ability, but man oh man the inefficiency is almost to much to bare.


----------



## Squisher (Jan 14, 2017)

Niko said:


> If they can,  then why is no one writing about it?   You also seem to forget that manufacturers state a lot but its these forums that people like us find real results.  Your also kinda using Wheel horsepower mentality, my car puts down 1000 horsepower so its more powerful then yours.
> 
> What do you think The reason for them upgrading from old smokey?  Is it becasue it only burned for 2 -4 hrs, cant control it, come on man i don't know crap about stoves, but It only took me one year buring with a smoke demon in our new house we just bought(years ago) that i new it was a piece of crap.  Yea it produced a lot of heat, but i had to refill the dam thing every 3-4 hrs.  Even on low i couldnt get it to burn for more then 4-5hrs and it ashed like crazy so ihad to clean it every other day.  O and it a hug firebox and i wrote all about in my beginning years on the forum.



Well. Man. Did you not read what I wrote? I was born and raised on wood heat. The fall before this last I upgraded to the summit, heats well and dropped my wood usage off substantially. That's why I upgraded, also picked a stove that I feel confident will cost me next to nothing for maintenance. Time will tell the tale I suppose of how that works out. My being a Canadian and the potential cost of replacement cats was definetly part of the decision, but the main part was wanting a stove with a lot of wheel horsepower as you put it.  Obviously 8-10hr burn time and less wood usage, as well as still having incredible heat output is a giant step forward from a old smokey. For me I chose the right stove. I sure don't think it's for everyone though.


----------



## bholler (Jan 14, 2017)

Niko said:


> If they can, then why is no one writing about it? You also seem to forget that manufacturers state a lot but its these forums that people like us find real results.


Those of us working in the feild every day and talking to customers about their stoves ect get to see and hear plenty of real results to.


----------



## Niko (Jan 14, 2017)

Squisher said:


> Well. Man. Did you not read what I wrote? I was born and raised on wood heat. The fall before this last I upgraded to the summit, heats well and dropped my wood usage off substantially. That's why I upgraded, also picked a stove that I feel confident will cost me next to nothing for maintenance. Time will tell the tale I suppose of how that works out. My being a Canadian and the potential cost of replacement cats was definetly part of the decision, but the main part was wanting a stove with a lot of wheel horsepower as you put it.  Obviously 8-10hr burn time and less wood usage, as well as still having incredible heat output is a giant step forward from a old smokey. For me I chose the right stove. I sure don't think it's for everyone though.



Yes i read that you have owned many different wood stoves.   

I posted in this forum to state that not many big wood stoves can burn 24hrs on low.  You started posting about high btus.  

Just out of curiosity why cant your summit achieve long burn times?  I mean it is a epa wood stove?   I have a cat you have tubes.  I use one technology you use another.  

Wheel horsepower is great, but it doesnt mean you get to the quarter mile faster and if you did im pretty sure you used more fuel.


----------



## Niko (Jan 14, 2017)

bholler said:


> Those of us working in the feild every day and talking to customers about their stoves ect get to see and hear plenty of real results to.[/QUOTE
> 
> Ok, well i still have not read from the professionals on this forum stating about their customers saying they are acheving 24 hr burn times on low.
> 
> ...


----------



## VirginiaIron (Jan 15, 2017)

Well, here are the numbers for the Blaze King King.      http://www.blazeking.com/EN/wood-king.html 

Performance (LHV) Performance (HHV B415)
Maximum heat input 703,390 BTU's 703,390 BTU's
Efficiency 88% 82%
Constant Heat output on High 51,582 BTU's/h for 12 hours 48,065 BTU's/h for 12 hours
Constant Heat output on Low 15,475 BTU's/h for up to 40 hours 14,419 BTU's/h for up to 40 hours
CO% Weighted Average 0.29%


Square Feet Heated 2000 – 3000
Maximum Log Size 23"
Burn Time Up to 40 hours on low
Emissions (grams/hour) 1.76 g
Firebox Size 4.32 cu. ft.
*Unit Dimensions (Ultra)*

Width 31" / 787.4mm
Height 39" / 990.6mm
Depth 31 3/4" / 806.45mm
Weight 435 lbs. / 197.3kg
Flue Diameter 8" / 203mm


----------



## Marshy (Jan 15, 2017)

I run my King full tilt >95% of the time. Thats just what my heat demand is. Obviously heating demands change through the day because outside conditions change but on average I load it every 6 hour. If it's warmer out then I load less wood in it. If I'm doing an over night burn then I pack it like a Mexican drug smugler. I will have a respectable abount of coals after 7-7.5 hours but it's not enough to keep the house "warm"  and temps have dropped to around 66F when it was 71F at bedtime. I'm OK with that honestly, getting my wife to be OK with that is a little more challenging but hey, I don't have to load it every 4-5 hrs like my old sheanandoah. Btw, I felt like that was a really good stove for what it was. The thermostat air control on it works just like the BK stoves and it would control an even heat output but it was just inefficient.  That being said, the max surface temps I've seen on the King were approx 800F using a FLIR IR gun.


----------



## bholler (Jan 15, 2017)

Niko said:


> Yes i read that you have owned many different wood stoves.
> 
> I posted in this forum to state that not many big wood stoves can burn 24hrs on low. You started posting about high btus.
> 
> ...



Well there you are wrong most big stoves in the 4 cu ft range can burn 24hrs.  That is because most are cat or hybrid stoves when they get that big.

Listen none of us are putting down blaze kings.  We all agree they are great stoves and if you need long low burns they without a doubt are the best stove.  And yes you can turn them up and get high heat output for sure but in that case you are paying allot of money for the ability to burn low and slow even though you don't really use it much at all.   I for one cant justify spending that money especially when I can get stoves like mine for little to nothing when people replace them or get rid of them ect.   My current 3100 was absolutely free.  And it heats my first floor to the low seventies even in single digit outside temps.  And contributes enough heat to the second floor that I only burn about a tank of oil a year.   I am happy with that it means I keep my first floor a comfortable temp without over heating.  

The fact is that different stoves are right for different situations just those of us who choose not to use blaze kings get pretty tired of hearing how our stoves cannot be used by people who work and are going to use 4x the wood ect ect.


----------



## black smoke signals (Jan 15, 2017)

Bravo well said!!


----------



## Marshy (Jan 15, 2017)

Squisher said:


> Well. Man. Did you not read what I wrote? I was born and raised on wood heat. The fall before this last I upgraded to the summit, heats well and dropped my wood usage off substantially. That's why I upgraded, also picked a stove that I feel confident will cost me next to nothing for maintenance. Time will tell the tale I suppose of how that works out. My being a Canadian and the potential cost of replacement cats was definetly part of the decision, but the main part was wanting a stove with a lot of wheel horsepower as you put it.  Obviously 8-10hr burn time and less wood usage, as well as still having incredible heat output is a giant step forward from a old smokey. For me I chose the right stove. I sure don't think it's for everyone though.


I couldn't have stated it any better, that's exactly what I was looking for when I shopped for a new EPA rated stove. I just decided to go with BK and cat technology because 2 reasons. Easy to operate with a thermostat air control (that was a must and I enjoyed it a lot with my old stove) vs the secondary types stoves and low maintenance. I know I have to replace a cat once in a while and that seemed easier than than replacing secondary air tubes.
The problem when choosing a stove is knowing how big you need. In some cases bigger is just right so I got the biggest there was and found out it could use more HP. It's either get more HP or get more efficiency (from the house, stove efficiency is fixed). The way I understand it is if I want more HP then I would likely have to sacrifice some efficiency of the stove to get it. That or switch to a high tech boiler.

Honestly though, I didn't start this thread to debate burn times of a large stove on low or med. Im more interested in knowing what are the comparable size stoves to a BK King and how long do they burn with a full load on high (HP talk!). With most all manufacturers listing their peak BTU/hr and trying to compare them to a BK it's nearly impossible because the best they communicate is BTU/12hr on high. Great info but if I burn it all in 8 hrs I guess I have to do the math and hope it's right. The water is anything but clear.
My stove is boarderline too small (output) for my house and the current conditions (IE heat losses). I know my options are limited to increasing the efficiency of the house or getting more stove. A larger less efficient stove might be the cheaper option in the short term and possibly the long term when you start considering the price difference between some of these stoves.


----------



## heavy hammer (Jan 15, 2017)

I run the kuma sequoia in my basement with the summit insert on the first floor.  I'm heating about 4000 sq feet with the finished basement.  On days where the outside temps are about 25 on up the sequoia heats the whole house comfortably.  Like others have stated everyone's heat requirements are different, I personally like a very warm house.  I have only seen burn times over 12 hours once, but that is because I add more wood to keep the fire going.  Right now my house is almost 80 and the stoves haven't seen any wood since 430 am.  With that said the sequoia is still over 800 and the summit is about out.  If I wanted the summit could heat the entire first floor itself it would have to be reloaded every six to eight hours probably more if it was real cold.  I to looked a blaze kings, I really liked them I just wanted something that put out the heat.  To me 24 hour plus burn times didn't interest me I wanted heat.  Not saying blaze king doesn't offer that but it seems here when blaze King owners need some real heat to get through those really cold times that 24 hour burn time drops a lot.  Cat and non cat technology have there pluses and minuses, I have a stove with each and I like both.  The summit is a beautiful stove where the glass is never dirty, to some that might not matter but many don't want to look at a dirty glass door.  Anyways there are plenty of good stoves out there that are either cats or non cats, your personal heating requirements will decide which is better.


----------



## Squisher (Jan 15, 2017)

VirginiaIron said:


> Well, here are the numbers for the Blaze King King.      http://www.blazeking.com/EN/wood-king.html
> 
> Performance (LHV) Performance (HHV B415)
> Maximum heat input 703,390 BTU's 703,390 BTU's
> ...



See I've read those numbers but if high output is only 51,000btu than that solves the burn time vs horsepower issue as the summit(a considerably smaller 3.0cf stove) lists 99,000btu as max output.  So for those like Niko who keep asking why noncats can't burn 24hrs well I would ask how can a stove a full cu/ft smaller produce twice the heat?

Now I figured these numbers are possibly skewed in some manner which is why I've repeatedly now asked about it?

And to the poster that mentioned they'd rather just replace a cat than tubes. Well on a summit there are no tubes and unless you somehow grossly overfire and warp the baffle it is not going to need to be replaced anywhere near the frequency of a cat and possibly never need replacement. So it's not like you're either replacing cats or tubes. I'll be replacing neither.


----------



## Marshy (Jan 15, 2017)

Squisher said:


> See I've read those numbers but if high output is only 51,000btu than that solves the burn time vs horsepower issue as the summit(a considerably smaller 3.0cf stove) lists 99,000btu as max output.  So for those like Niko who keep asking why noncats can't burn 24hrs well I would ask how can a stove a full cu/ft smaller produce twice the heat?
> 
> Now I figured these numbers are possibly skewed in some manner which is why I've repeatedly now asked about it?
> 
> And to the poster that mentioned they'd rather just replace a cat than tubes. Well on a summit there are no tubes and unless you somehow grossly overfire and warp the baffle it is not going to need to be replaced anywhere near the frequency of a cat and possibly never need replacement. So it's not like you're either replacing cats or tubes. I'll be replacing neither.


Well I was the one who said something in regards to replacing cat vs tubes but obviously I don't know all the secondary burn type stoves and their maintenance. The ones I was looking g at did... 

Anyways, I know the peak output for the BK King is larger than 51K BTU/hr. That the average oner 12 hrs. So if you take the amount of available fuel (full load, 700K some BTUs) and multiply that by the stoves 82% efficiency and the divide that by 12 hrs you'll get the 50 or 51K BTU/hr. However, if you burn that amount of fuel in say 8 hours, which I know if verification possible then the average output increases a fair amount.

The troubling part is no one knows what the real peak output is. It might be able to put out 110k BTU/hr for one hour but it's averaged into the 12 hr burn cycle they list in the specs. It's hard to know if you'll have the horsepower you need.


----------



## Squisher (Jan 15, 2017)

I figured the king was capable of greater output which is why I've asked about it a couple of times in the 'all things BK' thread and now in this thread. But I've gotten no real quantifiable answer as to why/how then the king lists 51,000 max output whereas my stove lists 99,000. This is just going by the available stated outputs by the manufacturers. I'm more curious if there are any meaningful real world numbers out there?

I believe you when you say that the king is capable of more output than 51,000btu but is there a meaningful way to quantify that?  Is PE's claim of 99,000 bs?  I have no idea.


----------



## rdust (Jan 15, 2017)

Squisher said:


> I'm more curious if there are any meaningful real world numbers out there?



The published BK numbers are the most meaningful to real life use.  Max BTU's means very little for most people.  How often do you run your stove at max output?  If you have to load after load chances are it's the wrong stove   for the environment.

Marshy has a heat load that I'm guessing no stove on the market today would be able to keep up with.  He was torching a load of wood greater than a king can hold over 4 hours!  Most tube stoves would be full of coals to the tubes after a couple cycles like that.(or a puddle on the floor, at least the king has the tstat to prevent the puddle).


----------



## bholler (Jan 15, 2017)

rdust said:


> Marshy has a heat load that I'm guessing no stove on the market today would be able to keep up with. He was torching a load of wood greater than a king can hold over 4 hours! Most tube stoves would be full of coals to the tubes after a couple cycles like that.(or a puddle on the floor, at least the king has the tstat to prevent the puddle).


Can you tell me how a king burns that much wood that fast without making excessive coals?  And how it does it for that matter the thermostat that is supposed to protect the stove when run on high is supposed to give you a 12 hour burn.  So how does one cut that burn time to 1/3 of that?  It is stuff like this that gets me about some bk guys they don't have some magical combustion going on if you burn that much wood that fast you will get coals.  And if you burn 4 cu ft of high btu hardwood in 4 hours you are putting allot of heat stress on that stove no matter what stove it is.


----------



## Niko (Jan 15, 2017)

bholler said:


> Well there you are wrong most big stoves in the 4 cu ft range can burn 24hrs.  That is because most are cat or hybrid stoves when they get that big.
> 
> Listen none of us are putting down blaze kings.  We all agree they are great stoves and if you need long low burns they without a doubt are the best stove.  And yes you can turn them up and get high heat output for sure but in that case you are paying allot of money for the ability to burn low and slow even though you don't really use it much at all.   I for one cant justify spending that money especially when I can get stoves like mine for little to nothing when people replace them or get rid of them ect.   My current 3100 was absolutely free.  And it heats my first floor to the low seventies even in single digit outside temps.  And contributes enough heat to the second floor that I only burn about a tank of oil a year.   I am happy with that it means I keep my first floor a comfortable temp without over heating.
> 
> The fact is that different stoves are right for different situations just those of us who choose not to use blaze kings get pretty tired of hearing how our stoves cannot be used by people who work and are going to use 4x the wood ect ect.




Im not putting down anyone else stove either.   But all i keep hearing from you guys is how hot is the top lol.  And I'm like how low can you go . 

BK aren't cheap, but either is fuel and my time.   But since you keep bringing up price either is a Vermont castings defiant flexburn,  its got a bigger firebox then the princess, its more expensive and does not  even get no where near the same burn times.   

must be a reason then why you don't find Blaze kings like you say when people get ride of them or replace them. 

I am looking into another wood stove myself because I don't even like turning my king up that high because the downstairs gets too hot, but I also will be insulating,  I just cant imagine dedicating a whole floor like I have been reading just for a wood stove to heat my house, I mean we all pay taxes and I'm gonna use every square inch to enjoy my place.  I cant do that if my stove is at 1000 degrees every day.


----------



## rdust (Jan 15, 2017)

bholler said:


> Can you tell me how a king burns that much wood that fast without making excessive coals?  And how it does it for that matter the thermostat that is supposed to protect the stove when run on high is supposed to give you a 12 hour burn.  So how does one cut that burn time to 1/3 of that?  It is stuff like this that gets me about some bk guys they don't have some magical combustion going on if you burn that much wood that fast you will get coals.  And if you burn 4 cu ft of high btu hardwood in 4 hours you are putting allot of heat stress on that stove no matter what stove it is.



The king will have a coaling problem too!  It's a big stove you will get by a "little" bit longer before the coals are to the ceiling.   I never said Marshy is burning a load in 4 hours, I said he was with his old stove.  His king is 7 hrs give or take.  The tstat makes it so he can't burn a full king load in 4 hours.


----------



## bholler (Jan 15, 2017)

Niko said:


> Im not putting down anyone else stove either. But all i keep hearing from you guys is how hot is the top lol. And I'm like how low can you go .


And we all agree clearly if you need to go low and slow bks are the best but many of us do not need to go low and slow.



Niko said:


> BK aren't cheap, but either is fuel and my time. But since you keep bringing up price either is a Vermont castings defiant flexburn, its got a bigger firebox then the princess, its more expensive and does not even get no where near the same burn times.


Yes and I would not install a vermont castings stove in my house if it was given to me.  Vc stoves have been over priced unreliable under preforming stoves for many years now.  



Niko said:


> must be a reason then why you don't find Blaze kings like you say when people get ride of them or replace them.


Yes because they are not common in this area because the nearest dealer is nearly 100 miles away.



Niko said:


> I am looking into another wood stove myself because I don't even like turning my king up that high because the downstairs gets too hot, but I also will be insulating, I just cant imagine dedicating a whole floor like I have been reading just for a wood stove to heat my house, I mean we all pay taxes and I'm gonna use every square inch to enjoy my place. I cant do that if my stove is at 1000 degrees every day.



The floor I "dedicate" to heating is the basement of a 110 year old house.  It has low ceilings an uneven floor it is dusty ect.  It is used for storage and for heating that is it.  It really is not very usable for much else.


----------



## bholler (Jan 15, 2017)

rdust said:


> The king will have a coaling problem too! It's a big stove you will get by a "little" bit longer before the coals are to the ceiling.


Fair enough but any stove that you can put that much wood in is going to be big.


----------



## lsucet (Jan 15, 2017)

Guys, I burnt with tube stoves, YES, low end brand but technology the same as the expensive ones. Some brands have ceramic board, other ceramic blanket, SS, bricks etc. they all work the same. I was able to keep the house real hot till the point that it feel uncomfortable. At least for me and my family.  But for that to be possible i have to reload every 4 to 5 hrs and take all that temp rising and talking to that secondary burn takes off on those hot reloads. The stoves were into the living area where we spend some quality time. At night i always the last one going to bed, cause i have to reload for the night.

 Get up early cause just some coals and the house dropping like crazy. Again 4 to 5 hrs window at most when cold outside. I said, i need to stop. This is it. I am better installing the propane furnace that i ripped back and pay for the propane. At this rate i was not seeing any differences between wood consumption and all this work. For me was not worth the saving. Including CSS my own wood, was not worth it. 

 The cat stove changed my life and i am now able to sleep, save, stay warm with a more comfortable and more equal temp around the house. Now We watch movies in the same room of the stove, spend more time in the family room all together and everything is good. Before everybody used to go to their rooms and let this crazy old man toasting alone.  The other stoves were just putting lots of heat up the flue cause metal can transfer some X amount of heat in those 2 to 3 hrs. if those BTU those stoves are rated, they really put them out in that short period of time they will be glowing and melting. 

 A good percentage of that heat is going where? i don't know, I used to love to see secondaries on those stoves but i will keep the ugly one. after all i did joint the dark side. here are some pictures after reload for almost 3 hrs into the burn at this temp and no flames. My tubes used to burn the whole box in that time.


----------



## bholler (Jan 15, 2017)

lsucet said:


> But for that to be possible i have to reload every 4 to 5 hrs and take all that temp rising and talking to that secondary burn takes off on those hot reloads. The stoves were into the living area where we spend some quality time. At night i always the last one going to bed, cause i have to reload for the night.


What stove were you using?  Those burn times are really low.  I easily get 8 hours of good use able heat.  And have enough coal to reload on with no kindling after 12 hours.


----------



## lsucet (Jan 15, 2017)

The stoves i was using are on my signature. I really can get more time than that and maybe i exaggerate a little but i am not that far off. The coaling stage after secondary was not enough in some cases to keep the house temp and all that heat used to go i don't know where. The back of the house always cold. With this stove it is different. I installed flue damper, including i installed for a few days a barometric damper to control the draft better. also bought a manometer, get with tech support multiple times. The best control over was the installation of the barometric damper keeping the draft to 0.05WC or what ever was recommended. I should have pictures of the baro damper installed.

  But at some point of the burn if i load that socker tight little by little will take off those secondaries and the baro pegged all the way open. i know that it was not recommended for solid fuel and i end up taking it off. My draft for some reason is strong. I block the dog house, the holes for the the secondaries i blocked them a little, i just tried everything. When temperature used to drop teens and under that was an inferno. Burnt E/W, N/S load tight, load loose.
I did make an appointment to see a psychology.lol. but the BK shows in time and i got cure.lol.


----------



## rdust (Jan 16, 2017)

lsucet said:


> Guys, I burnt with tube stoves, YES, low end brand but technology the same as the expensive ones. Some brands have ceramic board, other ceramic blanket, SS, bricks etc. they all work the same. I was able to keep the house real hot till the point that it feel uncomfortable. At least for me and my family.  But for that to be possible i have to reload every 4 to 5 hrs and take all that temp rising and talking to that secondary burn takes off on those hot reloads. The stoves were into the living area where we spend some quality time. At night i always the last one going to bed, cause i have to reload for the night.
> 
> Get up early cause just some coals and the house dropping like crazy. Again 4 to 5 hrs window at most when cold outside. I said, i need to stop. This is it. I am better installing the propane furnace that i ripped back and pay for the propane. At this rate i was not seeing any differences between wood consumption and all this work. For me was not worth the saving. Including CSS my own wood, was not worth it.
> 
> ...




I had a similar experience with my Lopi Endeavor in regards to the silly temp swings.  It was a good enough fit when my wife worked out of the house.  It had to change when she went back to work at an office.


----------



## lsucet (Jan 16, 2017)

rdust said:


> I had a similar experience with my Lopi Endeavor in regards to the silly temp swings. It was a good enough fit when my wife worked out of the house. It had to change when she went back to work at an office.



I came to USA from a country that i never saw snow, just in movies.lol. In the 23 years here I never been getting used to the cold weather. I like it but if i can choose, better no cold at all. What i trying to say is the i like it warm/hot, you know, but at the same time i like it just a nice room temp. I was saying in the BK performance thread the other day that in my house in town for the last 20 years since i bought it the thermostat stay at 70 during winter.
  Maybe when my mom comes and spend a weekend or something like that I go up to 71 or 72 but i try not.lol  It give me headache and i start feeling wear.
But i can be outside in the summer and i am ok with that. LIFE,  LIFE, lol


----------



## Niko (Jan 16, 2017)

Im very happy that my King is my first purchase and hopefully my last in my lifetime.


----------



## bholler (Jan 16, 2017)

lsucet said:


> I installed flue damper, including i installed for a few days a barometric damper to control the draft better. also bought a manometer, get with tech support multiple times. The best control over was the installation of the barometric damper keeping the draft to 0.05WC or what ever was recommended. I should have pictures of the baro damper installed.


Tech support told you to install a barometric damper????   Regardless  Iam glad your stove works well for you now.


----------



## bholler (Jan 16, 2017)

Niko said:


> Im very happy that my King is my first purchase and hopefully my last in my lifetime.


Other than another stove because the king wont keep your house comfortable right?  I just have an issue with someone who has never owned run or worked on any other stove telling all of us how much wood they are saving and how much better their stove heats when they have nothing else to compare to.

The other guys here went from tube stoves to bks so they have a basis for comparison.  And obviously for them their bks work better.  And great I am glad they got stoves that work better for them.


----------



## Niko (Jan 16, 2017)

bholler said:


> Other than another stove because the king wont keep your house comfortable right?  I just have an issue with someone who has never owned run or worked on any other stove telling all of us how much wood they are saving and how much better their stove heats when they have nothing else to compare to.
> 
> The other guys here went from tube stoves to bks so they have a basis for comparison.  And obviously for them their bks work better.  And great I am glad they got stoves that work better for them.




I said first purchase,  our house that we purchased 4 years ago had 2 stoves.  Used them for one year and threw them away.   The king heats the house plenty i dont like having to turn it up so that i cant stay downstairs, 80 is The highest ill go.  When it gets 20 and under i turn the king up to keep the upstairs warmer but my downstairs is in the 90s.  So id like to first address my insulation issue and see what that does with real world tests.  If i can keep my downstairs in the high 70s very low 80s with a semi air tight house i wont buy a second stove as long as my upstairs stays in the low 70s very high 60(when the temps drope below 20)If after insulation i still have to crank the stove up to keep the upstairs in the temps we want i will add a princess and but both stoves on super low duty burning. 

my house is a lil more then 3000 sqaure feet, stove is downstairs in a insulated basement that is half underground and  is above. 

Again i know a second stove is not needed at all, i dont like being cooked out of my downstairs just so i can keep my upstairs warm.    This is the whole i pay taxes and want to use my house thing.

Those of us that have the stoves in rooms or floors that u dont use then if that works for you awesome.   But for me i dont think it makes much sense at all to put a stove in a room or floor that you dont use at all to crank it up full blast to get heat in rooms you do use.  

id rather put the heat in a liveable area and keep it on low, i can turn it up anytime i want.


----------



## lsucet (Jan 16, 2017)

bholler said:


> Tech support told you to install a barometric damper???? Regardless Iam glad your stove works well for you now.



 No i never said that  they tell me to do it.I did it in my own and it was the best solution to my situation but when i contact them back again and explained to them what i did and the results with data from the manometer, they were able to figure that my problem was too much draft. they did not tell me either to take it off and was not supposed to be use. he just tell me that sometimes you have to do what you have to do and that they see that ones awhile but most of the time are people with taller stack than me.


----------



## Squisher (Jan 16, 2017)

Niko said:


> I said first purchase,  our house that we purchased 4 years ago had 2 stoves.  Used them for one year and threw them away.   The king heats the house plenty i dont like having to turn it up so that i cant stay downstairs, 80 is The highest ill go.  When it gets 20 and under i turn the king up to keep the upstairs warmer but my downstairs is in the 90s.  So id like to first address my insulation issue and see what that does with real world tests.  If i can keep my downstairs in the high 70s very low 80s with a semi air tight house i wont buy a second stove as long as my upstairs stays in the low 70s very high 60(when the temps drope below 20)If after insulation i still have to crank the stove up to keep the upstairs in the temps we want i will add a princess and but both stoves on super low duty burning.
> 
> my house is a lil more then 3000 sqaure feet, stove is downstairs in a insulated basement that is half underground and  is above.
> 
> ...



Your heat demand is just low enough it works for you. I heat from a insulated and finished basement and my daughter sleeps in the room right beside the stove and regulates her temp by simply opening or closing her door. We also watch tv in another adjacent room downstairs with no issue. So I successfully heat from the basement while being able to use it still. Every setup/home/locale is different.

And you may have bought one stove that you hope lasts a lifetime, I hope it does for you too. But you guaranteed are buying cats for it a few times if you plan to keep it that long. And btw I wish you and your stove, and your cat a healthy and long life.


----------



## Highbeam (Jan 16, 2017)

Before we condemn bk stoves as low output heaters let's all remember that only one new member feels this way. That one member's application is completely at fault. He is trying to heat 3600 sf, way over the rated area, from an uninsulated basement with a freaking roll up door. Even that member is able to keep temps up in the house now that he has fans. We've been told that uninsulated concrete sucks 30% of stove output so the stove is even more overmatched. 

We only have one other member that runs loads at max stat setting to keep his home at balmy temperatures for his wife with -40 temperatures outside! He loves his bk. 

So I own both a noncat and a cat bk stove. Both melt your eyeballs at full output. It only makes sense since both stoves are metal boxes at 800. 

Anybody else with a bk find it inadequate? If so, let's look at your heating demand and see how much of that inadequacy is due to the stove.


----------



## Highbeam (Jan 16, 2017)

Squisher said:


> Your heat demand is just low enough it works for you. I heat from a insulated and finished basement and my daughter sleeps in the room right beside the stove and regulates her temp by simply opening or closing her door. We also watch tv in another adjacent room downstairs with no issue. So I successfully heat from the basement while being able to use it still. Every setup/home/locale is different.
> 
> And you may have bought one stove that you hope lasts a lifetime, I hope it does for you too. But you guaranteed are buying cats for it a few times if you plan to keep it that long. And btw I wish you and your stove, and your cat a healthy and long life.



Cats are cheap and save enough wood to easily pay for themselves. The king is extremely efficient compared to any noncat. That efficiency can even pay for the stove over time. 

You keep mentioning in this thread and others that nobody looked up the max output of a bk for you. Look back, your answer was provided. I recall it was 97000 for the king.


----------



## Squisher (Jan 16, 2017)

I totally missed where anyone had given a quantifiable response of 97,000. I'll look back.  I mean I'm not just picking a number out of the air when I say 99,000btu for the summit. That's what the manufacturer lists.

But I thought I've heard the cost of cats tossed around at about $300us. That would be a easy $500cdn.

I see the king lists 84 or 88% efficiency while the summit lists just one number 80.4%. So we've got a 3.6 or a 7.6 discrepancy here. And while I'd say that number isn't insignificant, so many other factors will affect efficiency that operation, wood, setup are certainly going to play a part and affect those numbers.


----------



## Squisher (Jan 16, 2017)

Highbeam said:


> You keep mentioning in this thread and others that nobody looked up the max output of a bk for you. Look back, your answer was provided. I recall it was 97000 for the king.



I did look back and possibly I haven't had enough coffee. Could you quote or link the post where this info was given?


----------



## VirginiaIron (Jan 16, 2017)

Why can't we all just get along? I have too much time on my hands now that we installed our new stove.


----------



## lsucet (Jan 16, 2017)

Squisher said:


> I see the king lists 84 or 88% efficiency while the summit lists just one number 80.4%. So we've got a 3.6 or a 7.6 discrepancy here. And while I'd say that number isn't insignificant, so many other factors will affect efficiency that operation, wood, setup are certainly going to play a part and affect those numbers.



  Remember that the efficiency numbers on non-cat are fixed but EPA agency, when cats are realistic numbers. they go more for emissions on non-cats than anything else.


----------



## Squisher (Jan 16, 2017)

That's exactly what I look like, except my helmet is made of tinfoil!

Jk'ing. I don't think anyone isn't getting along Im genuinely very curious about these stoves. I am strongly considering putting one in my shop, but I am concerned somewhat over the high output ability. I get that they can go slow and low for days even and that they are very efficient. I've had my hands on a few now, well built quality stoves for certain.

I'm just not seeing how a 3-7% efficiency edge done in a lab is equaling all the wood savings I hear about. Also assuming if the king only lists high output of 57,000btu(or whatever it is) that if that is the lower efficiency number than what is the efficiency look like if the stove is being pushed harder?  Does it drop off more?


----------



## Squisher (Jan 16, 2017)

lsucet said:


> Remember that the efficiency numbers on non-cat are fixed but EPA agency, when cats are realistic numbers. they go more for emissions on non-cats than anything else.



What do you mean by this exactly?  How can numbers be fixed while testing for efficiency?


----------



## lsucet (Jan 16, 2017)

Squisher said:


> What do you mean by this exactly? How can numbers be fixed while testing for efficiency?



lol. Is like Denzel Washington said. When you don't read, you are uninformed but when you read, you are misinformed. In this case by me.lol.
I actually learn that from this site on how this work so so and that with the new emission and all that everything is going to change and Manufactures have to score real numbers. I just saying, maybe i misunderstood.


----------



## VirginiaIron (Jan 16, 2017)

Squisher said:


> ...  I don't think anyone isn't getting along Im genuinely very curious about these stoves....
> [VI]- I know.
> 
> ....  I'm just not seeing how a 3-7% efficiency edge done in a lab is equaling all the wood savings I hear about. ...
> ...


----------



## VirginiaIron (Jan 16, 2017)

Squisher said:


> What do you mean by this exactly?  How can numbers be fixed while testing for efficiency?


I think the EPA recently proved this possible with Volkswagen. 

Do the manufacturers submit a "prototype" for testing or an actual unit from the production line?


----------



## bholler (Jan 16, 2017)

lsucet said:


> No i never said that they tell me to do it.I did it in my own and it was the best solution to my situation but when i contact them back again and explained to them what i did and the results with data from the manometer, they were able to figure that my problem was too much draft. they did not tell me either to take it off and was not supposed to be use. he just tell me that sometimes you have to do what you have to do and that they see that ones awhile but most of the time are people with taller stack than me.


Ok I misunderstood you sorry.  I really don't like to see barometric dampers on wood burners they just introduce dilution air into the exhaust which can cause pretty bad creosote issues.  I would guess that your strong draft had allot to do with your poor experience with the tube stoves also.


----------



## bholler (Jan 16, 2017)

Niko said:


> But for me i dont think it makes much sense at all to put a stove in a room or floor that you dont use at all to crank it up full blast to get heat in rooms you do use.


But then you have the situation you are in where if you crank it hot enough to heat the house you cant use that room anyway.  There are trade offs either way I prefer my way but that does not make it right for everyone at all.


----------



## Marshy (Jan 16, 2017)

Highbeam said:


> Before we condemn bk stoves as low output heaters let's all remember that only one new member feels this way. That one member's application is completely at fault. He is trying to heat 3600 sf, way over the rated area, from an uninsulated basement with a freaking roll up door. Even that member is able to keep temps up in the house now that he has fans. We've been told that uninsulated concrete sucks 30% of stove output so the stove is even more overmatched.
> 
> We only have one other member that runs loads at max stat setting to keep his home at balmy temperatures for his wife with -40 temperatures outside! He loves his bk.
> 
> ...


Who has condemned BK stoves as low output? I certainly have not and I know you are directing your comment at me so don't be pompous.

I take offense at your claim because I have not blamed the stove in any way shape or form nor have I said they are low output. Others have commented they excel at low output that that very well may be but that doesn't matter much to the people who bought a stove with a high heat demand and plan to run it hard. I recognize my heating demand is higher than the stove can provide at times but I don't blame the stove. In fact I have gone to great lengths to rule out all other contributors before concluding there is anything wrong with the stove vs it just being too small to meet my demand.

This thread is simple and its not to condemn any one stove manufacture, its to discuss and compare the big stoves on the market and how they operate on high demand. The ability to compare a BK to any other stove on the market is challenging in itself. The way they decide to communicate the stoves performance has advantages and disadvantages. In a perfect world we would all have our stoves hooked up in the most ideal manner and be able to run them half throttle or less, its just not the case for everyone so step off your pedestal.

Without knowing exactly how many btu/hr your heating demand is how does one go about sizing a stove? Square footage is generally a starting place. Obviously I'm over the sqft rating of the king by 600 but show me a stove that is rated for 4000 sqft. There likely isn't one and it makes sense as distribution over a 4000 sqft area becomes a challenge. You might argue a free standing stove is the wrong application but there are other reasons that people choose one over a larger investment like a boiler, each person and situation is different.  

The fact of the matter is I could heat my space to the desired temperature with an older non-epa stove prior to the King. There were drawbacks and safety issue though and that's the primary reason why I decided to get a new stove. The fact that you imply that I should have a finished basement is absurd. I know its a heat loss but if I absolutely have to insulate it then I would be 3 steps ahead buying a stove that's 1/2 the price with comparable output and 10% reduced efficiency and use that savings to insulate my basement. That's a whole new discussion within itself that Im not interested in.


----------



## Marshy (Jan 16, 2017)

Highbeam said:


> Cats are cheap and save enough wood to easily pay for themselves. The king is extremely efficient compared to any noncat. That efficiency can even pay for the stove over time.
> 
> You keep mentioning in this thread and others that nobody looked up the max output of a bk for you. Look back, your answer was provided. I recall it was 97000 for the king.


Got a post number or can you provide or a link to BK? I have never seen a peak output listed by BK and I've looked.  This wouldn't be the first time your memory was faulty. Just saying.


----------



## lsucet (Jan 16, 2017)

bholler said:


> Ok I misunderstood you sorry. I really don't like to see barometric dampers on wood burners they just introduce dilution air into the exhaust which can cause pretty bad creosote issues. I would guess that your strong draft had allot to do with your poor experience with the tube stoves also.



Possibly, the possibility always there plus inexperience. but BK works for me from day one and my learning curve was and is trying to get the most heat i can with low consumption of fuel. of course everything has a limit. and i am thinking also on building a solar energy collector to assist the wood stove. I do not have the situation of depend on the wood stove only for my heating needs like many here and i take my hat off for them but i want to be able in case of an outage or something supply enough heating to the facility just with the stove. that's why i am remodeling and making it more air tight. 
I also have two pellet stoves installed, one at the entrance and the other at end of the house. I am not there every day, most on weekends. nobody there during the week. When i get there i hit it with all i have till i bring it back to temp and from there the wood stove do the job. That the reason i want to build a solar collector, to keep the hose warm when i am not there.


----------



## jeff_t (Jan 16, 2017)

Niko said:


> Im not putting down anyone else stove either. But all i keep hearing from you guys is how hot is the top lol. And I'm like how low can you go .



In my experience, stove top temp on a BK tells only a small part of the story. It can be 500 or more directly over the cat, with a fairly fresh load at a low setting. The firebox is dark and only the cat is glowing. My IR would show the rest of the stove at 250 or less.

Conversely, at WFO the top over the cat might only be 600 or so, but the front of the stove can be 800+, and the radiant heat through the glass is searing. My Ultra had side shields, so I couldn't really get a good reading on the sides. I thought about taking the shields off but never did. 

I always find it entertaining when people get all caught up in efficiency and BTU numbers. Then tempers flare and feelings end up getting hurt. But, it shows passion for what we do. Not necessarily a bad thing.


----------



## Marshy (Jan 16, 2017)

Squisher said:


> That's exactly what I look like, except my helmet is made of tinfoil!
> 
> Jk'ing. I don't think anyone isn't getting along Im genuinely very curious about these stoves. I am strongly considering putting one in my shop, but I am concerned somewhat over the high output ability. I get that they can go slow and low for days even and that they are very efficient. I've had my hands on a few now, well built quality stoves for certain.
> 
> I'm just not seeing how a 3-7% efficiency edge done in a lab is equaling all the wood savings I hear about. Also assuming if the king only lists high output of 57,000btu(or whatever it is) that if that is the lower efficiency number than what is the efficiency look like if the stove is being pushed harder?  Does it drop off more?



I've done my own calculations (right, wrong or otherwise) to try and figure out what the King is capable of and even then I cannot tell what the peak output in any one single hour is. Further more, I'm not 100% sure if that is what Summit is communicating when they said their stove put out 99K BTU/HR either. I just haven't read about how they quantify that value and some manufactures will not tell you. In that regards, hats off to BK for going the extra mile to help us understand the stoves performance.

In the past I have read the HHV and LHV test procedures to help myself better understand what the efficiency percentages mean to me. At this point in time I don't recall much from that reading. Additionally, it doesn't help to compare stoves if one manufacture used a different method. The point in this thread was also to see if there was a better way to compare different stoves.

Regardless, you want to do a play on numbers then BK gives you lots of good stuff. You could estimate how many btu/hr the stove puts out but there are a few assumptions.

First, the stove specs are: 703,390 available BTU's from a max load, 82% efficiency (HHV), and average output of 48,065 btu/hr for 12 hours.
(703,390 btu x 0.82)/12hr = 48,065 btu/hr averave in a 12 hour cycle.

IF you use the same specs and assume you can burn all of the fuel in 8 hours then it becomes (703,390 btu x 0.82)/8hr = 72,097 btu/hr for 8 hrs.

I know there will be coals in the firebox after 8 hours on high so it might not be fair to assume the stove burnt all of the fuel after 8 hours so there would still be a deduction in performance of btu/hr but it might be minor.

IF you use the same specs but the LHV efficiency of 88% then it becomes (703,390 btu x 0.88)/12hr = 51,582 btu/hr average over 12 hours.
Assume you can burn it in 8 hours: (703,390 btu x 0.88)/8 hr = 77,373 btu/hr average in 8 hours.

As you can see, still not comparable to a stove of relative size that claims "99,000 btu/hr" output. There's a lot to be desired from the manufactures that make a claim like that. It's not very informative if its just a peak number but it is helpful to know if you will have enough horsepower. I'm not sure there is any method to compare performance unless each stove is tested in the same manner. Even then without knowing exactly how many BTU's per hour you need minimum how do you know what size stove you nee? Just buy big I guess.


----------



## Highbeam (Jan 16, 2017)

Marshy said:


> Got a post number or can you provide or a link to BK? I have never seen a peak output listed by BK and I've looked.  This wouldn't be the first time your memory was faulty. Just saying.



I'll look it up for you, it's not the first time you've been unable to read a manual.


----------



## Marshy (Jan 16, 2017)

Highbeam said:


> I'll look it up for you, it's not the first time you've been unable to read a manual.


Not the first time you've recalled something and been unable to reproduce it either.


----------



## VirginiaIron (Jan 16, 2017)

jeff_t said:


> In my experience, stove top temp on a BK tells only a small part of the story. It can be 500 or more directly over the cat, with a fairly fresh load at a low setting. The firebox is dark and only the cat is glowing. My IR would show the rest of the stove at 250 or less.....



 In this instance, this is a technology I would like to experiment with in order to expell as much of that 500° into the space as one possibly can.


----------



## Highbeam (Jan 16, 2017)

Marshy said:


> Not the first time you've recalled something and been unable to reproduce it either.



Here's the first one from bk

http://www.blazeking.com/EN/BTU.html


----------



## Highbeam (Jan 16, 2017)

And then posted by member isucet on Thursday (just last Thursday) on page 87 of the bk thread post #2175.

Okay @Marshy ? Now what else do you think i was unable to produce? Are you sure you even asked me to find you something? We're all trying to help each other here and I assure you that you don't need to attack. Please don't call me names anymore.


----------



## Highbeam (Jan 16, 2017)

Marshy said:


> Got a post number or can you provide or a link to BK? I have never seen a peak output listed by BK and I've looked.  This wouldn't be the first time your memory was faulty. Just saying.



Done. Anything else I can do for you?


----------



## Highbeam (Jan 16, 2017)

Squisher said:


> That's exactly what I look like, except my helmet is made of tinfoil!
> 
> Jk'ing. I don't think anyone isn't getting along Im genuinely very curious about these stoves. I am strongly considering putting one in my shop, but I am concerned somewhat over the high output ability. I get that they can go slow and low for days even and that they are very efficient. I've had my hands on a few now, well built quality stoves for certain.
> 
> I'm just not seeing how a 3-7% efficiency edge done in a lab is equaling all the wood savings I hear about. Also assuming if the king only lists high output of 57,000btu(or whatever it is) that if that is the lower efficiency number than what is the efficiency look like if the stove is being pushed harder?  Does it drop off more?




So fun fact, the difference between hhv and lhv efficiency is not just the temperature of the stove as you might think. The lhv is false as it does not consider water content of the fuel. What is the hhv efficiency edge for bk to summit?

Yikes, my nc30 hhv efficiency is only 70%! 82% for the king.


----------



## Squisher (Jan 16, 2017)

the only efficiency number I can find for the summit is the EPA rating of 80.4. I've tried searching for lhv efficiency numbers and I can't find anything on the summit?  And really comparing the summit to the king isn't a fair comparison, just one I was interested in to see about output. The summit is only 3.0cft and only holds about 60 pds of wood. Also only a 6" flue. It does claim that 97-99,000btu output(I've seen both numbers listed) capability though.  Obviously it's going to burn nowhere near as long as a king just due to capacity, design of not being able to burn as low, and efficiency. I do believe that BK cats are some of the most efficient stoves out there but I do question by how much?  And how does that actually play out in the real world of heating as far as wood savings?


----------



## lsucet (Jan 16, 2017)

Squisher said:


> the only efficiency number I can find for the summit is the EPA rating of 80.4. I've tried searching for lhv efficiency numbers and I can't find anything on the summit?  And really comparing the summit to the king isn't a fair comparison, just one I was interested in to see about output. The summit is only 3.0cft and only holds about 60 pds of wood. Also only a 6" flue. It does claim that 97-99,000btu output(I've seen both numbers listed) capability though.  Obviously it's going to burn nowhere near as long as a king just due to capacity, design of not being able to burn as low, and efficiency. I do believe that BK cats are some of the most efficient stoves out there but I do question by how much?  And how does that actually play out in the real world of heating as far as wood savings?




  You can go to englander website and see the btu ratings of the stove that i have for you see that it will be similar to yours just with the efficiency in the high 70s if i remember correctly. But i am a living experience. It is up to you what you want to believe or not. where all that heat is going? up the flue? I did ask to myself the same questions. you already know the answers


----------



## Squisher (Jan 16, 2017)

I don't mean to point out the obvious because I don't know your particular scenario but I'm guessing you live at a high elevation as you are way south of me.  I get loads of snow for winter and quite cold snaps at times. Not to go in circles but I need output, not low and slow.

Which has already been mentioned many times now how no one stove is the right stove for every scenario. There's endless variables almost. 

But I would be curious if anyone had any links or further info on the summits efficiency ratings.


----------



## lsucet (Jan 16, 2017)

Squisher said:


> the only efficiency number I can find for the summit is the EPA rating of 80.4. I've tried searching for lhv efficiency numbers and I can't find anything on the summit? And really comparing the summit to the king isn't a fair comparison, just one I was interested in to see about output. The summit is only 3.0cft and only holds about 60 pds of wood. Also only a 6" flue. It does claim that 97-99,000btu output(I've seen both numbers listed) capability though. Obviously it's going to burn nowhere near as long as a king just due to capacity, design of not being able to burn as low, and efficiency. I do believe that BK cats are some of the most efficient stoves out there but I do question by how much? And how does that actually play out in the real world of heating as far as wood savings?




 Let me explain it to you with a different terminology. let get an sport muscle car and and a sedan normal car. same side of fuel tank. actually i will give a bigger fuel tank. lets travel for 1000 miles. you have lot of hp and you take off in from of me like nothing. big sound, burning tires, side way etc, cool. you will reach 100 mph faster than me but i also able to get 100 mph. the different is that at 300 mile mark from take off your tank is empty. lol for some reason when i look to the side of the road i saw you pumping gas. plus i am riding on better suspension, better ride, better audio system, more silence environment. when you got back to the road and try to catch with me is about time of fill up again for you. including if you make it first than me to the final destination. AT WHAT COST? numbers don't  tell the truth in many occasions.


----------



## Highbeam (Jan 16, 2017)

Squisher said:


> the only efficiency number I can find for the summit is the EPA rating of 80.4. I've tried searching for lhv efficiency numbers and I can't find anything on the summit?  And really comparing the summit to the king isn't a fair comparison, just one I was interested in to see about output. The summit is only 3.0cft and only holds about 60 pds of wood. Also only a 6" flue. It does claim that 97-99,000btu output(I've seen both numbers listed) capability though.  Obviously it's going to burn nowhere near as long as a king just due to capacity, design of not being able to burn as low, and efficiency. I do believe that BK cats are some of the most efficient stoves out there but I do question by how much?  And how does that actually play out in the real world of heating as far as wood savings?



It's fine if you want to compare the summit to my princess which makes an hhv of 81% on a 6" flue with 2.85 cf and supposedly just under 90000 btu max. Same thing really. 

Lots of brands started measuring lhv efficiency almost 10 years back because that's what the federal tax credit required. Only some calculate the actual efficiency including water for real use, the hhv. More companies each year get on the list with actual tested efficiency numbers. 

My shop noncat is only 70% efficient. So a bk princess would save me 11%. If I was burning 5 cords per year then every other year I get a cord for free which sells for 250$ here in the pnw. A new cat is 186$ from the bk recommended seller so the cat cost is covered.


----------



## Squisher (Jan 16, 2017)

At $250 a cord us I don't think I'd burn. But I see your point. But what if the numbers are closer say than your englander and the cost of wood is negligible?


----------



## Highbeam (Jan 16, 2017)

Squisher said:


> At $250 a cord us I don't think I'd burn. But I see your point. But what if the numbers are closer say than your englander and the cost of wood is negligible?



Then it's just your time to process the wood and load the stove more often. The value of long, steady output,  burn times is huge to me. I had a noncat and I remember loading at night hoping for enough coals to relight in the morning. I also remember the rollercoaster room temps since my home is reasonably well insulated. For these benefits, I will gladly pay for a new cat every 12000 hours or whatever I get.


----------



## VirginiaIron (Jan 16, 2017)

lsucet said:


> Let me explain it to you with a different terminology. let get an sport muscle car and and a sedan normal car. same side of fuel tank. actually i will give a bigger fuel tank. lets travel for 1000 miles. you have lot of hp and you take off in from of me like nothing. big sound, burning tires, side way etc, cool. you will reach 100 mph faster than me but i also able to get 100 mph. the different is that at 300 mile mark from take off your tank is empty. lol for some reason when i look to the side of the road i saw you pumping gas. plus i am riding on better suspension, better ride, better audio system, more silence environment. when you got back to the road and try to catch with me is about time of fill up again for you. including if you make it first than me to the final destination. AT WHAT COST? numbers don't  tell the truth in many occasions.



 I understand this. It makes wonderful sense and I believe it proves both points. The slower car and the faster car is a good example if they have the same destination  and they are carrying the same load or passengers. That destination is the finish line or comfort for the driver/occupants within a reasonable economy  and timeframe. If the destination/finish line Is the same, and you only have one occupant or minimal demand as in heating needs, the slow and steady is definitely the answer.  But, Using your example, if I drive my 40mpg car but intend to tow my 10kgw trailer empty or loaded, The 40 mile per gallon car will probably not work so I must decide to tow the trailer with a  vehicle capable of doing the job. For this example, my 1 ton crewcab diesel dually in order to transport my load to the destination/finish line in the comfort and economy and timeframe that is suitable to me or my needs. 
 Oh, and in regard to the inconsistency in efficiency standards or ratings, A wise man once told me that liars never figure and figures never lie.


----------



## lsucet (Jan 16, 2017)

VirginiaIron said:


> I understand this. It makes wonderful sense and I believe it proves both points. The slower car and the faster car is a good example if they have the same destination  and they are carrying the same load or passengers. That destination is the finish line or comfort for the driver/occupants within a reasonable economy  and timeframe. If the destination/finish line Is the same, and you only have one occupant or minimal demand as in heating needs, the slow and steady is definitely the answer.  But, Using your example, if I drive my 40mpg car but intend to tow my 10kgw trailer empty or loaded, The 40 mile per gallon car will probably not work so I must decide to tow the trailer with a  vehicle capable of doing the job. For this example, my 1 ton crewcab diesel dually in order to transport my load to the destination/finish line in the comfort and economy and timeframe that is suitable to me or my needs.
> Oh, and in regard to the inconsistency in efficiency standards or ratings, A wise man once told me that liars never figure and figures never lie.




Lot of people can read this and give a different interpretation according to which side they want to take. he mentioned his area is colder than here and he needs many btu. ok i take that. but he is missing the point. how many other in the same area than him are running cat stoves and staying as warm as him. This is not about BK, is about one technology against the other but more than that is more than somebody can think he/she needs when in reality is not like that. you see, the same small car in the same condition performed  and take the abuse. with less cost and better economy. we can take it that way with facts.  Everything is how you want to see it. a tight house regardless how tight is, has only some amount of heat retention. if the house lose the heat retention in 3 hrs, regardless how hot you burn, ones the stove went into coaling stage is not giving the same x amount of heat than after reload. yes a more steady heat but in the low side. the loss during those 3 hrs will be the same regardless.  if  you burn to a rate than balance in some way the loss and keep you warm then we talking business now.  maybe i can put one time deal BTUs into the house when winter start and i forget about it for the rest of the winter? is the house will stay warm the whole winter cause is tight?  If i need those btu constantly it means heat loss is big and i need to reload constantly. Where is the saving and performance them? maybe the solution to all this is not about one brand vs other, one technology vs other, is about to stop the root of the cause of why i need all those btu. ones we fix that any stove or technology will shines.


----------



## VirginiaIron (Jan 16, 2017)

The problem lies with the fact that we all do not live in the same type  of house, constructed of the same materials, the same square footage, and residing in the same geographical area. In addition to that you have different body types- thin, heavy, aged, sick, and young, all of which require a different temperature in the space that they reside. I'm satisfied with our stove, however, I am intrigued by this conversation and will look into the cat combustion technology further. The only issue, for us, would be having a couple cases of those combustors in stock for future needs.


----------



## bholler (Jan 16, 2017)

lsucet said:


> Let me explain it to you with a different terminology. let get an sport muscle car and and a sedan normal car. same side of fuel tank. actually i will give a bigger fuel tank. lets travel for 1000 miles. you have lot of hp and you take off in from of me like nothing. big sound, burning tires, side way etc, cool. you will reach 100 mph faster than me but i also able to get 100 mph. the different is that at 300 mile mark from take off your tank is empty. lol for some reason when i look to the side of the road i saw you pumping gas. plus i am riding on better suspension, better ride, better audio system, more silence environment. when you got back to the road and try to catch with me is about time of fill up again for you. including if you make it first than me to the final destination. AT WHAT COST? numbers don't tell the truth in many occasions.


The problem is that blaze kings really are not that much more efficient.  Yes they can release the heat over a much longer period of time and if that is what you need that is great.  But if that is not what you need why would you pay a premium for a stove that can do it when you wont be using that feature much?  



lsucet said:


> is about to stop the root of the cause of why i need all those btu. ones we fix that any stove or technology will shines.


That is easy for someone living in New Mexico to say but given the exact same house I am going to need allot more btus where i live than you will and squisher will need more than me.  But I also choose to live in an old house with its original windows siding ect.  Because of that I have much more heat loss than many other people.  I know that and I am fine with the fact that it takes more btus to heat my house.


----------



## lsucet (Jan 16, 2017)

VirginiaIron said:


> The problem lies with the fact that we all do not live in the same type  of house, constructed of the same materials, the same square footage, and residing in the same geographical area. In addition to that you have different body types- thin, heavy, aged, sick, and young, all of which require a different temperature in the space that they reside. I'm satisfied with our stove, however, I am intrigued by this conversation and will look into the cat combustion technology further. The only issue, for us, would be having a couple cases of those combustors in stock for future needs.



 Oh yeah i understand all that but the only way we can give an accurate statement is if we try those stoves, technologies, etc, Then we based on reality of what is better for my application or not. but having that experience myself i can tell you that if you can get better position with the down sides of the house and be able to not need those amount of btus, you will be happy with a cat stove. and the long burns. they also burn as hot as tubes. it does not have to be a BK. BK is able to go the extra mile for the design a the tstat.  
 I have a busy life like anybody else but i like when there spend time with my horses, i have other projects going on, stables ,  getting setup to go back again into the ham radio operation that i love, taking care two places plus rest. give me some time to myself. I don't want to be an slave to that stove. Because like i said in other post i am better connecting the LP furnace back and that is it. and like i said before too, i have other heating sources in case that i need it. including coming back to town.lol 40 minutes away only. I have a room there that is 18x25 that used to be a formal living room. I don't see the need to heated if is not in use, but cause i like to use the whole house i decide to make it a master bedroom and i thinking to installed the madison tube stove in there. just to drop a few pieces of uglys here and there and take the chill off. That room give trouble heating it cause of the location. the house has a wear floor plan.

 We already check with the insurance plus that is what my wife does and they don't care if we install an stove there. they just one pictures that we also install CO/CO2 and smoke detectors and of course the install to be correct by code. Don't get me wrong i am not putting down other stoves and if i am telling you all this is for you see that i think the tube stoves has/still a place in my life. just to certain point. \

 I have those two stoves there in the back of the house and they are almost new, both.


----------



## lsucet (Jan 16, 2017)

bholler said:


> The problem is that blaze kings really are not that much more efficient.  Yes they can release the heat over a much longer period of time and if that is what you need that is great.  But if that is not what you need why would you pay a premium for a stove that can do it when you wont be using that feature much?
> 
> 
> That is easy for someone living in New Mexico to say but given the exact same house I am going to need allot more btus where i live than you will and squisher will need more than me.  But I also choose to live in an old house with its original windows siding ect.  Because of that I have much more heat loss than many other people.  I know that and I am fine with the fact that it takes more btus to heat my house.


 

  You guys just want to talk about blaze king.lol i already stated that it is about the technology but lets talk about BK if you insist. BK has a big market in Alaska and Canada and people use them without those downsides that you are talking about. Are you guys are the only one in these world with those demands? How can you know is not going to work for you if you never burn one in your location? At least i have experience and family members crossing the street from me that are coming from old smoke dragon and now they have ashfords. That my weather here is not like yours over there, ok i will give you that. what else? Are you ever try to contact peoples that lived in those areas and in worse weather than you plus have those stoves? you know we can spend the whole life talking about it but at least remember i burn both technology and there are many people here using both at the same time and heating their houses. I learned the differences thru their input here and i am living the experience.


----------



## bholler (Jan 16, 2017)

lsucet said:


> You guys just want to talk about blaze king.lol i already stated that it is about the technology but lets talk about BK if you insist.


Ok what other cat stove were you referring to then?  What other cat stove has burn times that long?  What are the efficiency rating of those other cat stoves?   You claim to be talking about the technology but are only referencing the bk numbers.



lsucet said:


> BK has a big market in Alaska and Canada and people use them without those downsides that you are talking about.


Yes what stove in what size house?  I know people use cats stoves and bks in all climates I never said otherwise.  And if they work well for them and they are happy with them fine good for them I am not going to tell them they are using the wrong stove.  Because it is the right stove for them.



lsucet said:


> Are you guys are the only one in these world with those demands?


None of es ever said anything even remotely resembling that.



lsucet said:


> At least i have experience and family members crossing the street from me that are coming from old smoke dragon and now they have ashfords.


You do realize I work on all types of stoves every day.  I have burnt many different stoves of all types.  No we don't have a ton of bks here but we see enough.  



lsucet said:


> That my weather here is not like yours over there, ok i will give you that. what else? Are you ever try to contact peoples that lived in those areas and in worse weather than you plus have those stoves?


Yes at national conventions I get to talk to sweeps from all over the country and some outside the country amount what they burn what their customers burn ect.



lsucet said:


> you know we can spend the whole life talking about it but at least remember i burn both technology and there are many people here using both at the same time and heating their houses. I learned the differences thru their input here and i am living the experience.


Yes and I learned the differences by working on the stoves talking to my customers ect.  I have not burnt a cat stove in my house yet.  If I come across one that would work here at a decent price I will pick it up and see how it works for me.  But I am not going out and spending all the money on a king then installing an 8" stack for it just so  I can load a little less often.   You comparison is not exactly fair either you are comparing an entry level tube stove that was on an over drafting chimney to a top of the line cat stove with the over drafting issue fixed.  


I have absolutely nothing against good cat stoves and bk is one of if not the best cat stove out there.   But they are not the best fit for every situation why cant you see that?


----------



## Squisher (Jan 16, 2017)

I'm not missing the point at all and statistically I think very few are running cats in my area and I base this on being a sweep. I see so few that I've had to conclude that there must be greater numbers of them out there but perhaps with cat owners there is a greater chance of learning and looking after it themselves for fear of having a sweep mess their stove up on them?

The point that I'm trying to make is that a tube/baffle type of stove can heat just fine and dandy too and I see no difference really then if I am pushing say my summit hot and steady or if I was pushing a cat stove hot and steady. 

It's funny to me but possibly because I used inefficient wood guzzlers for decades that to me the wonderment of efficiency gained by switcjing to my summit still has me giddy going through my second winter with it.

My main reason for questioning the output so much is because I really think something like a king king would be great in my shop to be able to just idle away and keep things above freezing, but I'd want to be certain I could crank out the heat with it and warm things up considerably when I want/need to work in there. That's been my main reason for pushing so hard about output ability and people's experience with it. 

Honestly for me if we're talking about 10% or less efficiency difference, that doesn't even come into play for me then.  I'm confident through the careful monitoring and conscientious burn practices I use that I'm getting really good end user efficiency out of my stove.


----------



## lsucet (Jan 16, 2017)

Squisher said:


> The point that I'm trying to make is that a tube/baffle type of stove can heat just fine and dandy too and I see no difference really then if I am pushing say my summit hot and steady or if I was pushing a cat stove hot and steady.



 Well that is the different. How you are going to keep hot and steady when you has no control over secondary burn? tell me how you control them? tell me how you going to extend the burn when you only have control over primary air and not 100%? you just burn the stove when is real cold outside? there is no fall and spring for you? times that you don't need all that heat? What, i have to load just a few pieces every two hrs and become an slave of that stove? better, let me mix my dry wood with the high MC wood or green one to avoid it takes off?


----------



## Squisher (Jan 16, 2017)

I adjust my load sizes and species for spring and fall heating. Another benefit of my interior masonry chimney is thermal mass, so I can burn a fire and then let it go out for shoulder season heating. Lighting a fire is no big deal to me. So no I'm not a slave to my stove(s), quite the opposite in fact because as Is normal in my area I have a high efficiency natural gas FAF as well, so I can choose if it's warm out to have a fire, or not.


----------



## lsucet (Jan 16, 2017)

bholler said:


> Ok what other cat stove were you referring to then?  What other cat stove has burn times that long?  What are the efficiency rating of those other cat stoves?   You claim to be talking about the technology but are only referencing the bk numbers.
> 
> 
> Yes what stove in what size house?  I know people use cats stoves and bks in all climates I never said otherwise.  And if they work well for them and they are happy with them fine good for them I am not going to tell them they are using the wrong stove.  Because it is the right stove for them.
> ...




 If you have all this experience you should know the differences of the technologies and why cat stoves burn longer. BK is an exception and we all know that is cause of the tstat control over a wide range.  is there no big houses in those places? you said you work with stoves everyday then you should know the differences and which one performed better than other.


----------



## bholler (Jan 16, 2017)

lsucet said:


> If you have all this experience you should know the differences of the technologies and why cat stoves burn longer. BK is an exception and we all know that is cause of the tstat control over a wide range. is there no big houses in those places? you said you work with stoves everyday then you should know the differences and which one performed better than other.


Yes I know the differences very well and for some cat stoves are right and for some tube stoves are.  Some like down drafts and there are some who are very happy with their old pre epa stoves.  I am just pointing out that you are applying your very limited experiences to every one else.   And as I said your comarisone is not fair due to the fact that your tube stove was an entry level stove running with to much draft.  To use your car analogy that is like saying all imported cars are better because your new BMW is much better than your old geo metro with a stuck throttle.


----------



## lsucet (Jan 16, 2017)

Squisher said:


> I adjust my load sizes and species for spring and fall heating. Another benefit of my interior masonry chimney is thermal mass, so I can burn a fire and then let it go out for shoulder season heating. Lighting a fire is no big deal to me. So no I'm not a slave to my stove(s), quite the opposite in fact because as Is normal in my area I have a high efficiency natural gas FAF as well, so I can choose if it's warm out to have a fire, or not.




 Well you see. you don't depend to stay warm on just run that stove. then why you sound like you just depend on that stove and that is the best for your application? and talked about climate worse than there than here? sorry i cant get it


----------



## bholler (Jan 16, 2017)

lsucet said:


> Well that is the different. How you are going to keep hot and steady when you has no control over secondary burn? tell me how you control them? tell me how you going to extend the burn when you only have control over primary air and not 100%? you just burn the stove when is real cold outside? there is no fall and spring for you? times that you don't need all that heat? What, i have to load just a few pieces every two hrs and become an slave of that stove? better, let me mix my dry wood with the high MC wood or green one to avoid it takes off?


We have been through that we know how to use our stove to heat our houses.  We adjust with load sizes and wood species it really is not that hard.


----------



## Squisher (Jan 16, 2017)

What can't you get about it?  I heat with wood through the winter. I have a natural gas furnace that would kick in if my home ever got cold enough or I wasn't going to be home. That doesn't change what I demand out of a wood heater as my furnace rarely to never kicks in during the winter. In a climate where winter is cold it doesn't make sense to only have one heat source.


----------



## lsucet (Jan 16, 2017)

bholler said:


> Yes I know the differences very well and for some cat stoves are right and for some tube stoves are.  Some like down drafts and there are some who are very happy with their old pre epa stoves.  I am just pointing out that you are applying your very limited experiences to every one else.   And as I said your comarisone is not fair due to the fact that your tube stove was an entry level stove running with to much draft.  To use your car analogy that is like saying all imported cars are better because your new BMW is much better than your old geo metro with a stuck throttle.[/QUO
> 
> 
> the way it works is the same and the same technology. they need the approval from the EPA and pass certain test and the epa is more forgiving with tube stoves, we all know that. What is the control you have on yours over mine? The ones that i mentioned before?


----------



## bholler (Jan 16, 2017)

Well englanders are known for having issues with over firing to start with and then you had it on a chimney that had to much draft by your own description.  Just because a stove can pass a test under certain circumstances does not mean they are all equal.  And please tell me how the epa test which is the same for cats and non cats is more forgiving to non cats.


----------



## bholler (Jan 16, 2017)

"the way it works is the same and the same technology."

Does that mean that there is absolutely no difference between the Milwaukee m18 tools I use and the 18vlithium ion porter cable tools you can buy at lowes for 1/3 the price?  No there is allot more that goes into it than just the basic mode of operation and basic tech.


----------



## lsucet (Jan 16, 2017)

Squisher said:


> What can't you get about it?  I heat with wood through the winter. I have a natural gas furnace that would kick in if my home ever got cold enough or I wasn't going to be home. That doesn't change what I demand out of a wood heater as my furnace rarely to never kicks in during the winter. In a climate where winter is cold it doesn't make sense to only have one heat source.


  I also have plenty of heating s


bholler said:


> Well englanders are known for having issues with over firing to start with and then you had it on a chimney that had to much draft by your own description.  Just because a stove can pass a test under certain circumstances does not mean they are all equal.  And please tell me how the epa test which is the same for cats and non cats is more forgiving to non cats.


  You work with stoves all day. come on, you should know better than me how that works.  it is nothing new


----------



## bholler (Jan 16, 2017)

lsucet said:


> You work with stoves all day. come on, you should know better than me how that works. it is nothing new


Yes I know how it works I have seen the testing have you?  I have talked to engineers from quite a few stove manufacturers.  And all of the stoves pass the same tests.  Yes bk does their own testing which without a doubt is better and more representative of real world results but that has nothing to do with the epa.  So can you back up your claim with any facts?


----------



## bholler (Jan 16, 2017)

And to be clear to all of the englander fans out there I am not bashing englanders at all they make very good stoves for the money without question.   But they are prone to running hot especially with extra draft.


----------



## Highbeam (Jan 16, 2017)

bholler said:


> Ok what other cat stove were you referring to then?  What other cat stove has burn times that long?  What are the efficiency rating of those other cat stoves?   You claim to be talking about the technology but are only referencing the bk numbers.
> 
> 
> Yes what stove in what size house?  I know people use cats stoves and bks in all climates I never said otherwise.  And if they work well for them and they are happy with them fine good for them I am not going to tell them they are using the wrong stove.  Because it is the right stove for them.
> ...



The only other brand of cat stove capable of almost the same performance specifications is Woodstock with their one ideal steel model. If bk went bankrupt I would be happy with the IS. 

I would not recommend the bk because of efficiency but the efficiency does pay for the cats, an important point. I do recommend bk stoves for the wide range of output from barely any heat at all to 90,000 btu with thermostatic control. If you just need full power, that is fine but even where you live there is a shoulder season that requires less output. You can always match stove output to your needs for maximum burn time without overheating the room. People heat their houses with all kinds of heat sources, none of us would freeze even if we had to use a barrel stove.


----------



## Highbeam (Jan 16, 2017)

bholler said:


> We have been through that we know how to use our stove to heat our houses.  We adjust with load sizes and wood species it really is not that hard.



That's a huge hassle. What if you only have one species? A small load would have a small burntime, then the house cools and you burn another. Repeat repeat repeat. Imagine just turning down the thermostat on a load of anything.


----------



## bholler (Jan 16, 2017)

Highbeam said:


> The only other brand of cat stove capable of almost the same performance specifications is Woodstock with their one ideal steel model. If bk went bankrupt I would be happy with the IS.


Yes I know that And the big regency is getting close not there yet though.  I was just tring to point out that whether he said bk or not he was still talking about bk stoves not all cat stoves.  But thanks anyway.



Highbeam said:


> I would not recommend the bk because of efficiency but the efficiency does pay for the cats, an important point. I do recommend bk stoves for the wide range of output from barely any heat at all to 90,000 btu with thermostatic control. If you just need full power, that is fine but even where you live there is a shoulder season that requires less output. You can always match stove output to your needs for maximum burn time without overheating the room. People heat their houses with all kinds of heat sources, none of us would freeze even if we had to use a barrel stove.


Well said and I have never criticized bk stoves they are great stoves without question.  Well that is not true I have criticized the looks of the king and princess but they are still great stoves.  Just not ones I personally would put in my living room.   And like I have said if I find one at the right price I would gladly try it.


----------



## lsucet (Jan 16, 2017)

Hey there is a lot of people doing the job with less expensive tools and can do a good job too cause they take pride. that example with all respect don't mean anything to me. i am hanging in here cause like is obvious i have nothing else to do. I am bored and it is fun to hang here and go thru all this. at the end of the day i care less about what you have , you do, etc . I am saying this in a good way, don't get me wrong. we all do what we have to do and that is it. wrong or right. you know i work for Chrysler. i am a master tech i work in anything but i stay busy all year around with transmissions and diesels. there is no need to tell you that i know about quality tools.lol but it is what it is and to finish this my stove is the best.lol


----------



## bholler (Jan 16, 2017)

Highbeam said:


> That's a huge hassle. What if you only have one species? A small load would have a small burntime, then the house cools and you burn another. Repeat repeat repeat. Imagine just turning down the thermostat on a load of anything.


No really not a hassle.  And the area I live no one has only one species.  We live in the middle of a great hardwood forest.  And no in the shoulder season I will start a fire in the evening when it gets cool it will burn into the night.  And the house will be warm in the morning.  Start another fire the next evening if need be.   Or if I get lazy I just turn on the furnace.  But I really dont do that often.


----------



## bholler (Jan 16, 2017)

lsucet said:


> Hey there is a lot of people doing the job with less expensive tools and can do a good job too cause they take pride. that example with all respect don't mean anything to me.


Yes the cheaper tools do work just like the cheaper stoves work but that does not mean they work as well.  Or will work as long or as hard.  And yes your stove is best for you and that is great.


----------



## Highbeam (Jan 16, 2017)

bholler said:


> Yes I know that And the big regency is getting close not there yet though.  I was just tring to point out that whether he said bk or not he was still talking about bk stoves not all cat stoves.  But thanks anyway.
> 
> 
> Well said and I have never criticized bk stoves they are great stoves without question.  Well that is not true I have criticized the looks of the king and princess but they are still great stoves.  Just not ones I personally would put in my living room.   And like I have said if I find one at the right price I would gladly try it.



The king/princess are indeed pretty ugly. Sure, the look grows on you but even bk knew they had to improve the looks so came out with the other stoves.


----------



## jetsam (Jan 16, 2017)

Highbeam said:


> That's a huge hassle. What if you only have one species? A small load would have a small burntime, then the house cools and you burn another. Repeat repeat repeat. Imagine just turning down the thermostat on a load of anything.



What if you had great thermostatic control AND plenty of oak, maple and pine in your stacks to choose from?   

(/no locust, but I live in hope that I'll find ten cords curbside on Craigslist any day now. )


----------



## lsucet (Jan 16, 2017)

hey i like the ugly one the princess make me feel a king


----------



## lsucet (Jan 16, 2017)

bholler said:


> Yes the cheaper tools do work just like the cheaper stoves work but that does not mean they work as well.  Or will work as long or as hard.  And yes your stove is best for you and that is great.


 then am i allow to say that cause your stove is cheaper than mine then it does not perform the same than mine? Oh ok good.


----------



## bholler (Jan 17, 2017)

Highbeam said:


> The king/princess are indeed pretty ugly. Sure, the look grows on you but even bk knew they had to improve the looks so came out with the other stoves.


And yes without question they do have some great looking stoves now.


----------



## Marshy (Jan 17, 2017)

Highbeam said:


> I'll look it up for you, it's not the first time you've been unable to read a manual.





Highbeam said:


> Here's the first one from bk
> 
> http://www.blazeking.com/EN/BTU.html


Interesting that they don't state in the manual what the peak output of the King is. I wonder why that is. Why stick a vauge reference to its peak output in an obscure location buried on their site? Wouldn't you want to tell the world you have 900hp and 29 mpg?


----------



## Niko (Jan 17, 2017)

so i created a thread about highest stove temps.  Lets stop talking about it and show some real proof.


----------



## tarzan (Jan 17, 2017)

Marshy said:


> Interesting that they don't state in the manual what the peak output of the King is. I wonder why that is. Why stick a vauge reference to its peak output in an obscure location buried on their site? Wouldn't you want to tell the world you have 900hp and 29 mpg?



I think BK takes pride in putting out usable BTU numbers you can expect to see in the real world and not numbers derived from stoking it like a steam engine or a peak output that only lasts a short time. Look closer into how these 90,000+ btu numbers are achieved and you may realize the more conservative numbers BK puts out are typical numbers you should expect to see when running the stove the way BK designed them to run.


----------



## jetsam (Jan 17, 2017)

Given that any stove's BTU output is bell curve-ish over a burn cycle, saying 'this stove puts out X BTUs' is a little bit silly in the first place.


----------



## Marshy (Jan 17, 2017)

jetsam said:


> Given that any stove's BTU output is bell curve-ish over a burn cycle, saying 'this stove puts out X BTUs' is a little bit silly in the first place.


It would be wonderful if the manufactures would post the bell curve plot of the stoves operation, wouldn't it?


----------



## jetsam (Jan 17, 2017)

Marshy said:


> It would be wonderful if the manufactures would post the bell curve plot of the stoves operation, wouldn't it?



Eh, then you'd be trusting them to use standardized burn conditions to get the data points for the plot. I wouldn't take such numbers to the bank, but you could probably draw some useful generalizations from them, especially if they were rigorous as to what they standardized. (For example, does the flue "go outside", or does it go a fixed distance into an actively pressure-and-temperature controlled environment? Since turbulence is important to stove operation, how is the pressure in the exhaust space maintained smoothly as the stove's draw varies? Etc.)

Anyone who thinks anything's simple probably hasn't thought about it much!


----------



## tarzan (Jan 17, 2017)

Marshy said:


> It would be wonderful if the manufactures would post the bell curve plot of the stoves operation, wouldn't it?



BK does a pretty good job. Average BTU's over a given amount of time on a defined setting with a known species of wood is about as much transparency as one could realistically expect.

The other method of using the last reading before the stove melted is flawed IMO. Ok, that's an axaggeration, maybe? But the way I've heard many stove mfg achieve there max output numbers, well, they wouldn't do it in MY living room!


----------



## Marshy (Jan 17, 2017)

jetsam said:


> Eh, then you'd be trusting them to use standardized burn conditions to get the data points for the plot. I wouldn't take such numbers to the bank, but you could probably draw some useful generalizations from them, especially if they were rigorous as to what they standardized. (For example, does the flue "go outside", or does it go a fixed distance into an actively pressure-and-temperature controlled environment? Since turbulence is important to stove operation, how is the pressure in the exhaust space maintained smoothly as the stove's draw varies? Etc.)
> 
> Anyone who thinks anything's simple probably hasn't thought about it much!



I agree with you. The point of having a standardized test would take care of those variables. They some already run standard tests for HHV and LHV, why can't they determine the heat transfer rate while consisting those tests?


----------



## lsucet (Jan 17, 2017)

Marshy said:


> Interesting that they don't state in the manual what the peak output of the King is. I wonder why that is. Why stick a vauge reference to its peak output in an obscure location buried on their site? Wouldn't you want to tell the world you have 900hp and 29 mpg?


 


   King calculations for BTUs and burn times *You can fit 91lbs of wood into the King 40 size firebox (4.32 cu.ft.). Based on an EPA recognized equivalent of one pound of non-resinous wood equal to 8,500 BTU’s and one pound of resinous wood equal to 9,700 BTU’s per pound, giving a weighted average of 9,100 BTU’s per pound. (9,100 BTU’s per lb. x 91lbs = 827,518 BTU’s - 15% moisture content = 703,390 BTU’s) **LHV 703,390 x 88% efficiency = 618,913 BTU’s ÷ 12 hours = 51,582 BTU’s. HHV 703,390 x 82% efficiency = 576,780 BTU’s ÷ 12 hours = 48,056 BTU’s. ***LHV 703,390 x 88% efficiency = 618,913 BTU’s ÷ 40 hours = 15,475 BTU’s. HHV 703,390 x 82% efficiency = 576,780 BTU’s ÷ 40 hours = 14,419 BTU’s. ˚Length of burn time, sq. ft. heated, Heat Output and BTU’s depend on type of wood, moisture content, house insulation and climate conditions.


  Maybe you can get this like reference and and weight how many # going in and the amount of hrs that take you to burn it and you can see at the rate you burn how many btu and peak.


----------



## Highbeam (Jan 17, 2017)

jetsam said:


> Given that any stove's BTU output is bell curve-ish over a burn cycle, saying 'this stove puts out X BTUs' is a little bit silly in the first place.



BK, in their king/princess brochure, posted the famous data log of a low burn since honestly that is where the majority of people burn them and that is what is special about the BK. You can look it up your own dang self! If they could rerun that test at max stat setting then the buyers could see the available range of output. Not quite a bell curve of btu output but close.

I think a big reason that BK doesn't post the peak output number because if you were replacing a furnace with this stove you wouldn't want to use the peak number. You would want to know the sustained number so that you can be sure to meet or exceed the furnace output that is being replaced.

The minority of customers run a stove at max. It's really rare and not what a stove manufacturer wants to see. It is fun for us to know what these stoves are capable of if pushed though.


----------



## Marshy (Jan 17, 2017)

lsucet said:


> King calculations for BTUs and burn times *You can fit 91lbs of wood into the King 40 size firebox (4.32 cu.ft.). Based on an EPA recognized equivalent of one pound of non-resinous wood equal to 8,500 BTU’s and one pound of resinous wood equal to 9,700 BTU’s per pound, giving a weighted average of 9,100 BTU’s per pound. (9,100 BTU’s per lb. x 91lbs = 827,518 BTU’s - 15% moisture content = 703,390 BTU’s) **LHV 703,390 x 88% efficiency = 618,913 BTU’s ÷ 12 hours = 51,582 BTU’s. HHV 703,390 x 82% efficiency = 576,780 BTU’s ÷ 12 hours = 48,056 BTU’s. ***LHV 703,390 x 88% efficiency = 618,913 BTU’s ÷ 40 hours = 15,475 BTU’s. HHV 703,390 x 82% efficiency = 576,780 BTU’s ÷ 40 hours = 14,419 BTU’s. ˚Length of burn time, sq. ft. heated, Heat Output and BTU’s depend on type of wood, moisture content, house insulation and climate conditions.
> 
> 
> Maybe you can get this like reference and and weight how many # going in and the amount of hrs that take you to burn it and you can see at the rate you burn how many btu and peak.


I already have used those numbers to calculate the average btu/hr but theres a large assumption that affects the calculation. That is, even though I can burn a max load of wood in 8 or 9 hours there are some small amount of coals in the bottom of the firebox that will take days to burn out completely. I don't know, maybe BK claims the cycle is complete when the cat becomes inactive or maybe they burn the coals to complete ash..? Either way, at the end of 8 hours there is no usable heat compared to my demand but the amount of coals remaining might be 2, 5, 9% (?) of the fuel loaded and still providing some heat. Even if you adjust the cycle time to 8 hrs for both LHV and HHV that still is not representative of the peak output.


----------



## Highbeam (Jan 17, 2017)

lsucet said:


> King calculations for BTUs and burn times *You can fit 91lbs of wood into the King 40 size firebox (4.32 cu.ft.). Based on an EPA recognized equivalent of one pound of non-resinous wood equal to 8,500 BTU’s and one pound of resinous wood equal to 9,700 BTU’s per pound, giving a weighted average of 9,100 BTU’s per pound. (9,100 BTU’s per lb. x 91lbs = 827,518 BTU’s - 15% moisture content = 703,390 BTU’s) **LHV 703,390 x 88% efficiency = 618,913 BTU’s ÷ 12 hours = 51,582 BTU’s. HHV 703,390 x 82% efficiency = 576,780 BTU’s ÷ 12 hours = 48,056 BTU’s. ***LHV 703,390 x 88% efficiency = 618,913 BTU’s ÷ 40 hours = 15,475 BTU’s. HHV 703,390 x 82% efficiency = 576,780 BTU’s ÷ 40 hours = 14,419 BTU’s. ˚Length of burn time, sq. ft. heated, Heat Output and BTU’s depend on type of wood, moisture content, house insulation and climate conditions.
> 
> 
> Maybe you can get this like reference and and weight how many # going in and the amount of hrs that take you to burn it and you can see at the rate you burn how many btu and peak.



Never use LHV. It is NOT just the efficiency at a low burn. It is the efficiency assuming false things and erroneously high to appease the politicians.


----------



## Squisher (Jan 17, 2017)

So if my stove is say 75hhv maybe only 74 (I can't find any hhv numbers on the summit, just on other pe stoves, so I'm taking a bit of a shot in the dark here)efficiency and the king is 82 and a princess is 81, I see the ashford and chinook listed at just 75.   IMO those numbers are not substantial given that the setup, fuel, and operation are going to play into effect a lot. 

The only significant difference I see is the burn time and the ability to spread that heat out over a looooong time. Which as I've said before is great if that works for you.  But why does no one say that back?  Lol.  So I have a stove that's certainly well within the efficiency range of what the BK's do but I have no replaceable parts, unless you count gaskets which every stove has that will need replacing, but no extra replaceable parts like a cat and it's gasket, or extra moving parts like a bypass and it's gasket.  I can see and accept the argument that the cat is paid for by the efficiency difference over time.  Still I don't ever have to source one and actually replace anything. There are many, many PE's going on decades of use with all factory parts. 

But I would question then since the cat is a part that 'wears out' how is efficiency affected over its life span, particularly near the end?

Everyone's situation is different. Not only do I have one stove, but two that I run in my home to keep warm when it drops right down.  And having a third stove that I run quite regularly(old Lakewood in my shop) I can really see a use for cat technology and long burn times of the king in my shop. So again every situation is different. I wouldn't see any point to running one in my home(not that it couldn't heat my home I'm sure) but I'm quite pleased with my heating ability and control of heat and all that that I have right now from my baffle stoves. 

It is fun to discuss. I've learned a lot about cat technology and BK's in general from y'all here. Thanks.


----------



## Highbeam (Jan 17, 2017)

Squisher said:


> But I would question then since the cat is a part that 'wears out' how is efficiency affected over its life span, particularly near the end?



You have no idea, maybe PE has no idea, what the actual HHV efficiency of the summit is. My NC30 burns with very low emissions (cleaner than my BK) and has only a 70% HHV efficiency. Sure I can be less efficient or even more efficient than the test procedure allows, like by adding a huge blower to strip more heat from the exhaust!, but we have to use a baseline specification to compare. The new BK 30 series stoves take a hit on efficiency compared to the princess but managed to cut emissions significantly. I suspect that these two are related.

So we concluded that you save one cord of wood per two years. Which in most every market pays for a new cat every other year. The cat efficiency/effectiveness of aftermarket cats is warranted to be as-new for more than three years. Full warranty for three years and then prorated after that. The cat warranty from BK is for TEN years. So the cost of cats is covered while always keeping a super active cat less than two years old, really I don't expect folks to change out their cats for 5 years or more. Also, lets not forget the time involved with handling and processing that extra cord of wood per year. That amount of time is much more than the 5 minutes to replace the cat.

I'm with you about a big cat stove in the shop. The biggest reason for me is long burn times and thermostatic control. My non-cat can heat the shop but I have to be there to babysit it, adjust the air control a few times during the load, reload the wood every three hours or less, etc. I want to go back to the house and trust that the stove will keep humming away safely for 12-40 hours. Too bad I have a 6" flue in the shop. I'm stuck with a princess or a wood furnace and no wood furnaces are clean enough to pass muster in WA.


----------



## Squisher (Jan 17, 2017)

No I couldn't find any hhv info on the summit or even the super. The neo1.6 was 75% and 2.5 was 74%hhv. But PE doesn't seem to have a lot of hhv info that I could find?  So certainly it is a guess at best. 

I would say we didn't really establish the wood savings that you claim over two years as I think you extrapolated that using a 10% efficiency difference. Which I feel is generous. But regardless, that you can save the cost of the cat with wood over the serviceable life of the cat through efficiency I will give you. And obviously we're assuming that in theory we would be comparing two similar setups being run with proficiency. And those things will be one of the biggest unknowns IMO that make it almost impossible to truly compare. 

I clean stoves and chimneys so I'm well aware of how people sometimes perceive how they burn and what is actually happening inside their stove and chimney. That I'm applying to the general public. Most here, just through actually being here and educating themselves are probably at the higher end of efficient wood stove users. Y'all would make good customers more than likely.


----------



## bholler (Jan 17, 2017)

Squisher said:


> Y'all would make good customers more than likely.


I think allot of the guys here would be a pita to work for.   LOL


----------



## Squisher (Jan 17, 2017)

Lol, you could be right. But I bet on an average Hearth.com members are running some clean flues.  Could possibly be the odd ocdc person around though.


----------



## bholler (Jan 17, 2017)

Squisher said:


> But I bet on an average Hearth.com members are running some clean flues.


yes on average I would bet the flues of regulars here are much cleaner than most others.


----------



## Highbeam (Jan 17, 2017)

Squisher said:


> Y'all would make good customers more than likely.



Many of us know how to sweep our own pipes and install our own stoves so we might not be customers at all!


----------



## Squisher (Jan 17, 2017)

True. Which is the best way. Take ownership of your own safety. I always encourage people to look after it themselves if they have the ability and interest. Can't blame the sweep, if you are the sweep.


----------



## Ashful (Jan 17, 2017)

weatherguy said:


> My local stove shop burns the 5100, it's huge, he said you can load 90lbs of wood. I asked him about burn times but he said he hasn't put a full load in, it was throwing some serious heat in the shop.



Classic limited control range of a non-cat stove?  You can load it full, but you can't slow it down sufficiently for the space it's heating, so what's the point?  This is the beauty of the King... load her full, and then slowly sip on those BTU's for 40 hours.


----------



## Highbeam (Jan 17, 2017)

Ashful said:


> Classic limited control range of a non-cat stove?  You can load it full, but you can't slow it down sufficiently for the space it's heating, so what's the point?  This is the beauty of the King... load her full, and then slowly sip on those BTU's for 40 hours.



The 5100 is actually a cat stove. "Triple burn design" so probably has secondary air so really more of a hybrid. Manual draft control and as you might expect lacking a wide range of output.

https://www.regency-fire.com/Products/Wood/Wood-Stoves/F5100

8" flue, 80k max btu, 4.42 CF. Looks like it was meant to be a king competitor but without the stat or a low burn rate, it's in a market of its own.


----------



## bholler (Jan 17, 2017)

Ashful said:


> Classic limited control range of a non-cat stove? You can load it full, but you can't slow it down sufficiently for the space it's heating, so what's the point? This is the beauty of the King... load her full, and then slowly sip on those BTU's for 40 hours.


It is a cat stove and can be run pretty low.   Oh I missed highbeams post sorry




Highbeam said:


> 8" flue, 80k max btu, 4.42 CF. Looks like it was meant to be a king competitor but without the stat or a low burn rate, it's in a market of its own.


It does have a low burn rate just not the tstat.  The difference is that in this area at least it is cheaper than a king by a fair amount.  And it looks a lot better.  But honestly for me between the two I would pick the king because it would be in my basement.  If it was going to be upstairs I might go for the 5100


----------



## heavy hammer (Jan 17, 2017)

That is how the sequoia is it doesn't have that tstat like the blaze King.  The burn times on the sequoia are 12 hours.  It can be dialed down pretty good but your not going to get those burn times, the best I have gotten is 16 hours.  But I do believe the sequoia is up there in efficiency and heat output.  It can throw some real heat if needed, the guys at kuma claim they have people in Idaho heating large houses 3000plus sq feet with just this stove.  I can heat 3500 plus sq feet with it if temps stay around 30.  Anyways after reading all the posts from where I left off it seems there are a lot of great stoves out there, and many different heating setups and requirements.  I want to know how the blaze King does heating when it gets real cold single digits and below, and what kind of burn times you see in those temps.  Not to start any kind of argument, but to see how my stoves compare especially the sequoia.


----------



## Highbeam (Jan 17, 2017)

heavy hammer said:


> That is how the sequoia is it doesn't have that tstat like the blaze King.  The burn times on the sequoia are 12 hours.  It can be dialed down pretty good but your not going to get those burn times, the best I have gotten is 16 hours.  But I do believe the sequoia is up there in efficiency and heat output.  It can throw some real heat if needed, the guys at kuma claim they have people in Idaho heating large houses 3000plus sq feet with just this stove.  I can heat 3500 plus sq feet with it if temps stay around 30.  Anyways after reading all the posts from where I left off it seems there are a lot of great stoves out there, and many different heating setups and requirements.  I want to know how the blaze King does heating when it gets real cold single digits and below, and what kind of burn times you see in those temps.  Not to start any kind of argument, but to see how my stoves compare especially the sequoia.



My princess heats fine in single digits. Reloads at 12 hours on coals. No big deal. 1700 sf rambler from 1963.


----------



## Highbeam (Jan 18, 2017)

Squisher said:


> No I couldn't find any hhv info on the summit or even the super. The neo1.6 was 75% and 2.5 was 74%hhv. But PE doesn't seem to have a lot of hhv info that I could find?  So certainly it is a guess at best.
> 
> I would say we didn't really establish the wood savings that you claim over two years as I think you extrapolated that using a 10% efficiency difference. Which I feel is generous. But regardless, that you can save the cost of the cat with wood over the serviceable life of the cat through efficiency I will give you. And obviously we're assuming that in theory we would be comparing two similar setups being run with proficiency. And those things will be one of the biggest unknowns IMO that make it almost impossible to truly compare.
> 
> I clean stoves and chimneys so I'm well aware of how people sometimes perceive how they burn and what is actually happening inside their stove and chimney. That I'm applying to the general public. Most here, just through actually being here and educating themselves are probably at the higher end of efficient wood stove users. Y'all would make good customers more than likely.



I found the actual current list and your summit also has a reduced EPA range of only up to 37,500 btu. Seems that there is the "EPA" btu output that the EPA uses and then some other peak for bragging rights that is discovered by some other method.

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-08/documents/certifiedwood.pdf

PE has not tested the summit for efficiency.


----------



## Squisher (Jan 18, 2017)

Yes I see that. The more I've tried looking into btu info the more confusing or misleading some of the manufacturers claims look. I will say hats off to BK for posting/testing their info in a manner that seems to be quantifiable.


----------



## Highbeam (Jan 18, 2017)

Squisher said:


> Yes I see that. The more I've tried looking into btu info the more confusing or misleading some of the manufacturers claims look. I will say hats off to BK for posting/testing their info in a manner that seems to be quantifiable.



I was surprised how inefficient and dirty the pellet stoves are. You would think with controlled combustion and forced air that they would be awesomely efficient and clean.


----------



## Squisher (Jan 18, 2017)

Yah it's been interesting to me to start looking at some of these numbers a bit and wading into this efficiency thing. It's disappointing to me that The summit has no hhv numbers to be found. To me that's not a great sign I would think?


----------



## Ashful (Jan 18, 2017)

Good catch on the cat / non-cat slip, guys.  But it does not change the point.  His stove shop reports they cannot load the stove full without overheating the joint.  A monster stove is not practical for most installations, if it can't be dialed back to a reasonable level.  12 hours is a mighty fast "slow burn" for a 4.0 cubic foot box.  It seems to limit the practicality of these stoves to spaces with very high heat demand, whereas the King can work quite nicely in the average home.


----------



## Squisher (Jan 18, 2017)

But as long as you haven't forgotten how to light your stove, which I know some of you cat guys may have, you can just let the stove go out, and then relight it. I mean in the shoulder season I don't cook myself out because I can't turn my stove down low enough. I just heat as I always do with my temps being very cyclical, like I'm ok with, and heat my house up and then let the fire go out.


----------



## jetsam (Jan 18, 2017)

Squisher said:


> But as long as you haven't forgotten how to light your stove, which I know some of you cat guys may have,.



Hey, just because you only do something once or twice a year doesn't mean that you've totally forgotten how to do it.  Am I right, married people?


----------



## bholler (Jan 18, 2017)

Ashful said:


> Good catch on the cat / non-cat slip, guys. But it does not change the point. His stove shop reports they cannot load the stove full without overheating the joint. A monster stove is not practical for most installations, if it can't be dialed back to a reasonable level. 12 hours is a mighty fast "slow burn" for a 4.0 cubic foot box. It seems to limit the practicality of these stoves to spaces with very high heat demand, whereas the King can work quite nicely in the average home.


Who said they can only burn 12 hours?  We have installed a few and the customers report 24 hour burns  And from what  I have seen they can be shut back pretty hard.  Not as well as a king no but still pretty impressive from such a big stove.


----------



## heavy hammer (Jan 18, 2017)

That is what I like to see highbeam, I'm more impressed with what a stove can do when it gets real cold.  the long burn times are probably great in mild conditions but when it gets cold that is still a nice burn time between loads.  Everyone's heat setups and heating needs are different as stated earlier.  You just need to find what works for you.  In my opinion 12 hour burn times are pretty good for any stove, there are probably not to many times when you will go that long without being there to add here or there.  The whole reason we have stoves is to keep the temps up and stay warm on those cold days.


----------



## Ashful (Jan 18, 2017)

Squisher said:


> But as long as you haven't forgotten how to light your stove, which I know some of you cat guys may have, you can just let the stove go out, and then relight it. I mean in the shoulder season I don't cook myself out because I can't turn my stove down low enough. I just heat as I always do with my temps being very cyclical, like I'm ok with, and heat my house up and then let the fire go out.


I remember how to light my stove.  I just did it last October!


----------



## Ashful (Jan 18, 2017)

bholler said:


> Who said they can only burn 12 hours?  We have installed a few and the customers report 24 hour burns  And from what  I have seen they can be shut back pretty hard.  Not as well as a king no but still pretty impressive from such a big stove.


Not looking to argue with your experience, just quoting what I saw heavy hammer (a Sequoia owner) post.  Also, Kuma Stoves lists burn time at only 14 hours.

https://www.kumastoves.com/store/productdetails/sequoia



heavy hammer said:


> That is how the sequoia is it doesn't have that tstat like the blaze King.  The burn times on the sequoia are 12 hours.


----------



## bholler (Jan 18, 2017)

Ashful said:


> Heavy Hammer, a Sequoia owner, did. Also, Kuma Stoves lists max burn time at only 14 hours.


Yes but that isn't a Regency 5100 that is a Kuma.  They are two totally different stoves


----------



## heavy hammer (Jan 18, 2017)

I thought the sequoia was 12 if the manual says 14 then I guess that is what it is.  I was just getting at is the sequoia won't give you 24 hour burn times like the blaze King.  But I believe the sequoia could easily compete for the amount of heat it gives off that's all.


----------

