2017-18 Blaze King Performance Thread PART 3 (Everything BK)

[webby3650]

When solid soapstone is up to temp, it transmits big heat, unlike the BKs with their meager top-end output. The extra sheet metal walls inside the BK firebox prevent the heat from getting out as fast as it can from solid soapstone that is up to temp. That's why the Woodstock PH (solid soapstone) is the BTU/hr. champ according to the EPA tests...much more heat out over the same period of time. Like twice the heat.
I guarantee that if you open up the air on a BK, big heat is going up the flue since it can't work its way around or through those interior sheet metal baffles very fast at all. If the stove is putt-putting along at very low output, then a lot more of that (low) heat can work its way out into the room. That's where the BKs do well..at the low end. Really, for the sake of truth in advertising, instead of Blaze King they should rename their line Smolder King. Ashful called BK the "Ferrari of wood stoves"..too bad they put a 50 mph governor on the engine.

And you’ve gathered all this info from your vast experience running a BK right?

 

[SuperJ]

I will say that a problem that I am NOT having with my BK is top end heat output. With the fans on anything above medium low and the thermostat set to high, I can have things as hot as I'd ever want them in short order.
In the heating industry, over-sizing heat sources is a more common problem than under-sizing. On the distribution side it's usually the opposite problem with too small duct work and not enough returns. Or in the case of a wood stove, the reason why my basement is cold has nothing to do with the heat output of the stove, it's the physics of my house. I generally don't have my stove maxed out even if my basement is cold, since it's a big waste and makes the upstairs uncomfortable.

 

[webby3650]

I'd be curious if soapstone stoves have higher flue temps or not, soapstone has decent thermal capacity compared to cast iron, but I'm not sure about thermal conduction. Woodstock stoves have a pretty good reputation, for throwing decent heat and burning longer than most stoves, so I'd be surprised if they were wasting too much heat.

Flue temps and flue flow rate both have to be considered when calculating waste, I was surprised how little was coming out of my chimney when I climbing on the roof a month ago with the stove on low. Just a gentle warm draft, I could basically stick my fingers into the gap in my chimney cap no problem. (on my Ashford). I'm really curious how nasty the top couple feet of my chimney will be since the flue temps seem to be so low, hopefully the cat is doing it's job cleaning things up first. The bottom couple feet seem pretty clean when I lift the sliding pipe from the stove.

Soapstone can only release a certain amount of heat by nature. The balance of that heat goes up the flue. From what I understand, Woodstock delivers heat to the room more effectively than a Hearthstone. My next stove will probably be a Woodstock. I need to do some in house comparisons!

 

[coutufr]

AlbergSteve, If you have any specific informations about the door adjustment and details about your new door gasket please let us know.

 

[BKVP]

When solid soapstone is up to temp, it transmits big heat, unlike the BKs with their meager top-end output. The extra sheet metal walls inside the BK firebox prevent the heat from getting out as fast as it can from solid soapstone that is up to temp. That's why the Woodstock PH (solid soapstone) is the BTU/hr. champ according to the EPA tests...much more heat out over the same period of time. Like twice the heat.
I guarantee that if you open up the air on a BK, big heat is going up the flue since it can't work its way around or through those interior sheet metal baffles very fast at all. If the stove is putt-putting along at very low output, then a lot more of that (low) heat can work its way out into the room. That's where the BKs do well..at the low end. Really, for the sake of truth in advertising, instead of Blaze King they should rename their line Smolder King. Ashful called BK the "Ferrari of wood stoves"..too bad they put a 50 mph governor on the engine.

According to EPA tests. Which of course is dimensional lumber, with 1" spacers with different piece size based on fb/v. There cannot be a good comparison of ANY stove when you look at the current method. Keep in mind, it's a method designed to get to gr/hr.

What is vastly more informative and much better predictor of real world performance is THIS SITE.

The reviews of products from the coldest regions of North America report the attributes and abilities of each product delivering the needed performance. I've read no and received no complaints for max heat output.

Next question is, are the absorption and release rates equal in soapstone? Once the mass is "full", at what frequency is it released to permit additional storage? Ok that was technically 2 questions.

If the product, regards of brand, construction material etc., is only 65% efficient, then a good amount is lost up the stack. So high peak performance of btu production can be wasted.

 

[Ashful]

If the product, regards of brand, construction material etc., is only 65% efficient, then a good amount is lost up the stack. So high peak performance of btu production can be wasted.

Let’s not confuse folks’ pre-arranged assumptions with this talk of basic high school physics, eh.

 

[kf6hap]

Bottom line: Blaze King stoves have the LOWEST flue temperature of all stoves. This is without dispute. ANY heat up the flue is heat lost. This makes BKs the clear winner for efficiency. The EPA testing "efficiency" numbers are way off from the reality of burning cord wood in the manner people do to heat their homes. This reminds me of the absolutely non reality based MPG numbers the EPA had plastered on car windows for many many decades. Because of the manner of testing, I do believe the G/Hr numbers to be a good for comparing stove to stove. As for the G/Hr numbers being close to reality, real cord wood would have to be used. I also understand the use of specified dimensional wood standardizes stove to stove testing.

Blaze King stoves are also the clear winner in the arena of turn-down.

I know this will get a lot of argument but, it is my personal analysis.

 

[Ashful]

Bottom line: Blaze King stoves have the LOWEST flue temperature of all stoves. This is without dispute.

Really? As an average “fleet” number, this may be true, and I know the King has held the top spot for years. But I was pretty sure there were a few Woodstock models that beat out a few of the BK models. Pretty sure.

This reminds me of the absolutely non reality based MPG numbers the EPA had plastered on car windows for many many decades.

Psst. The situation has improved a little, but they’re still doing this. I have never achieved anywhere near published ratings, even on my 2015 and 2016 model vehicles.

 

[begreen]

I looked it up, immediately before typing that, figuring it'd be challenged. You're at 585 lb., for a 3.0 cu.ft. stove. I also checked the Woodstock page, and found their smaller 2.8 cu.ft. Progress Hybrid weighs 700 lb.!

By that standard, and I think we can all admit Woodstock is the "standard" in soapstone, your stove is definitely a "lightweight". It's okay, begreen... mine is even lighter!

The 3.0 cu ft Mansfield was out a long time before the PH. It can be considered a standard for a big soapstone stove. Any stove pushing 600# is no lightweight. Otherwise it's like calling the Charger a lightweight because there are cars that are heavier or more powerful.

 

[Woody Stover]

According to EPA tests. Which of course is dimensional lumber, with 1" spacers with different piece size based on fb/v. There cannot be a good comparison of ANY stove when you look at the current method. Keep in mind, it's a method designed to get to gr/hr.

Agreed, hard to get uniform results in these tests when, as you've said, the load can shift or something else happens during the tests.
Recently, in response to @Ashful's bogus claim that the BKs had "unmatched range of output," I posted an image of EPA test results for each of the BK and Woodstock models which show the BKs have ranges of roughly 20 K BTU/hr. or less, compared to Woodstock ranges which are much higher, pushing 30 K in some cases. ALL of these tests can't be flukes. I saw that Ashful recently repeated this false claim. But he's chosen to slap an "ignore" on me, so he can't respond and instead chooses to stick his head in the sand. I can't easily tranfer that image right now, navigating the site on this dumb smartphone while I wait for a SSD to arrive for my desktop. But the results are shown here if you scroll down and click the hyperlink "List of EPA Certified Wood Stoves."
(broken link removed to https://www.epa.gov/compliance/list-epa-certified-wood-stoves)

Next question is, are the absorption and release rates equal in soapstone? Once the mass is "full", at what frequency is it released to permit additional storage

Good question. Also, how do transfer rates change in the real world, when the innards of these stoves are full of creosote flakes?

And you’ve gathered all this info from your vast experience running a BK right?

No, I'm pretty much stuck with a rear-vent stove if I want to enjoy the look of my masonry fireplace without a connector pipe in front of it. That's why I read and post in this thread..I'd like to hear some theories/answers from those that actually run the stoves. For example, what is the purpose of the additional shielding inside the BK fireboxes? I think it may be to keep heat up inside the stove, to allow the cat to stay active at lower burn rates. And is that also the purpose of the pot-bellied, cone shape of the original King and Princess models? And why do they want you to burn the stoves on high for 30 minutes after reloading? I can get a load of wood burning well before 30 minutes, with air settings well below wide open. Is it to burn off the creosote that has built up between the interior shields and the walls of the stove on a previous low burn? Is that the reason for the thin 1/8" walls on the stoves, to get the walls hotter and burn off creo quicker? And what happens to the burnt creo flakes that fall off the walls..do they build up between the shields and the walls, further impeding the release of heat into the room? I'm looking for some in-depth analysis of the design features of these stoves.
And what's the response to my questions? Cricket noises, and the ongoing flood of posts claiming "superior alien technology" or "Ooooo, I just got a 24-hr. burn from a load of Pine twigs and dryer lint." Where's the in-depth analysis of how these stoves work, by the supposed "stove nerds" here at hearth.com? Might be a stretch, calling this a "performance thread."

 

[Woody Stover]

My next stove will probably be a Woodstock. I need to do some in house comparisons!

That will be great..very few have run both brands. You've at least run a Dutchwest, more than most of these folks that have only known one cat stove, and therefore think their brand is the holy grail..

 

[lsucet]

When solid soapstone is up to temp, it transmits big heat, unlike the BKs with their meager top-end output. The extra sheet metal walls inside the BK firebox prevent the heat from getting out as fast as it can from solid soapstone that is up to temp. That's why the Woodstock PH (solid soapstone) is the BTU/hr. champ according to the EPA tests...much more heat out over the same period of time. Like twice the heat.
I guarantee that if you open up the air on a BK, big heat is going up the flue since it can't work its way around or through those interior sheet metal baffles very fast at all. If the stove is putt-putting along at very low output, then a lot more of that (low) heat can work its way out into the room. That's where the BKs do well..at the low end. Really, for the sake of truth in advertising, instead of Blaze King they should rename their line Smolder King. Ashful called BK the "Ferrari of wood stoves"..too bad they put a 50 mph governor on the engine.

Hey woody, was not you the one that said, that when real cold outside you need to move the bed next to the stove to clearance to combustible distance cause that keystone don't radiate any heat? And on top of that you have to use electric blankets?

 

[Diabel]

Starting next fall I will be running a Princess at the cottage and continue running the VC at the house in the city.

I have a feeling that the VC will challenge the BK in the flue temp dept!! 300*F seems to be the norm with the VC with no smoke at the cap.

 

[Woody Stover]

Hey woody, was not you the one that said, that when real cold outside you need to move the bed next to the stove to clearance to combustible distance cause that keystone don't radiate any heat? And on top of that you have to use electric blankets?

Au contraire, mon ami. I have to sleep out in the bedroom with the door only open a few inches to the stove room, so I don't wake up drowning in my own sweat! The Keystone will roast me like a weenie if I'm not very careful!

 

[Tar12]

Agreed, hard to get uniform results in these tests when, as you've said, the load can shift or something else happens during the tests.
Recently, in response to @Ashful's bogus claim that the BKs had "unmatched range of output," I posted an image of EPA test results for each of the BK and Woodstock models which show the BKs have ranges of roughly 20 K BTU/hr. or less, compared to Woodstock ranges which are much higher, pushing 30 K in some cases. ALL of these tests can't be flukes. I saw that Ashful recently repeated this false claim. But he's chosen to slap an "ignore" on me, so he can't respond and instead chooses to stick his head in the sand. I can't easily tranfer that image right now, navigating the site on this dumb smartphone while I wait for a SSD to arrive for my desktop. But the results are shown here if you scroll down and click the hyperlink "List of EPA Certified Wood Stoves."
(broken link removed to https://www.epa.gov/compliance/list-epa-certified-wood-stoves)
Good question. Also, how do transfer rates change in the real world, when the innards of these stoves are full of creosote flakes?
No, I'm pretty much stuck with a rear-vent stove if I want to enjoy the look of my masonry fireplace without a connector pipe in front of it. That's why I read and post in this thread..I'd like to hear some theories/answers from those that actually run the stoves. For example, what is the purpose of the additional shielding inside the BK fireboxes? I think it may be to keep heat up inside the stove, to allow the cat to stay active at lower burn rates. And is that also the purpose of the pot-bellied, cone shape of the original King and Princess models? And why do they want you to burn the stoves on high for 30 minutes after reloading? I can get a load of wood burning well before 30 minutes, with air settings well below wide open. Is it to burn off the creosote that has built up between the interior shields and the walls of the stove on a previous low burn? Is that the reason for the thin 1/8" walls on the stoves, to get the walls hotter and burn off creo quicker? And what happens to the burnt creo flakes that fall off the walls..do they build up between the shields and the walls, further impeding the release of heat into the room? I'm looking for some in-depth analysis of the design features of these stoves.
And what's the response to my questions? Cricket noises, and the ongoing flood of posts claiming "superior alien technology" or "Ooooo, I just got a 24-hr. burn from a load of Pine twigs and dryer lint." Where's the in-depth analysis of how these stoves work, by the supposed "stove nerds" here at hearth.com? Might be a stretch, calling this a "performance thread."

Not a stove nerd by any stretch but from what I have observed there is no way for creo to build up in the box of a Princess and get trapped.I don't even bother with cleaning the inside of the stove...it simply doesn't need it.. I burn well seasoned wood...15%-18% and I have never ran wide open for 30 minutes to achieve cruise mode...I am often under 15 minutes...I never run it wide open for a weekly "burn off" either..I simply don't want to do it and I don't think it is necessary if your wood is "right".I don't have black glass or creo covered brick...I don't go for marathon burns and as result I burn a little hotter than most and do not experience the aforementioned issues....I am running a 10-12 hr schedule in which suits me to a T. This is my second full season and I have cleaned the pipes 4 times..each time yielded less than one cup of light accumulation...I believe I have my set up fine tuned for me and will only clean once next year.

 

[Ashful]

The 3.0 cu ft Mansfield was out a long time before the PH. It can be considered a standard for a big soapstone stove. Any stove pushing 600# is no lightweight. Otherwise it's like calling the Charger a lightweight because there are cars that are heavier or more powerful.

I’m not really sure what the point of any of this is. Clearly I’ve touched a serious nerve. I am sorry that my use of the word “lightweight” has bothered you so much, when comparing your 585 lb. stove to the 700 lb. Woodstock. I’m not sure what a Mansfield has to do with any of this, I was citing what is often considered one of the best soapstone stoves on the market today, but whatever. This is the BK thread, we can just call your Pacific Energy a “heavyweight”, if it makes you happy.

 

[rdust]

I've read no and received no complaints for max heat output.

That’s because max output means just about zero to a full time burner. It’s the main reason I own the most controllable/predictable/repeatable stove brand on the market. My Lopi had one speed and it was hot. With the BK I don’t have heat loss between loads so I very rarely run the stove on high for more than 5-10 after reloading.(just to char the load)

 

[rdust]

I’m not really sure what the point of any of this is. Clearly I’ve touched a serious nerve. I am sorry that my use of the word “lightweight” has bothered you so much, when comparing your 585 lb. stove to the 700 lb. Woodstock. I’m not sure what a Mansfield has to do with any of this, I was citing what is often considered one of the best soapstone stoves on the market today, but whatever. This is the BK thread, we can just call your Pacific Energy a “heavyweight”, if it makes you happy.

The PH is a steel stove with a soapstone outside, I think the Mansfield is a true soapstone stove. Probably has no bearing on whatever it is you guys are discussing but figured I’d toss it out there.

 

[SculptureOfSound]

How would one hook up a Sirocco or Ashford 25 to an oval liner? I know both inserts come with like a 14" or 2 foot piece of liner provided by BK that HAS to be used in the installation - I'm thinking this would push the connection point with the existing liner into the clay flue area which would prevent a round to oval adapter.

My chimney will only accomodate an oval liner, and at that, I could only get it to about minimum specs of 15' above the top of the unit (an even this would have the oval liner sticking 4' out the top of the chimney).

Is it possible? And even if possible, would the oval liner + min spec run on an external chimney be bad enough that it would seriously hamper the low burn (primary benefit) of the BK?

 

[begreen]

The PH is a steel stove with a soapstone outside, I think the Mansfield is a true soapstone stove. Probably has no bearing on whatever it is you guys are discussing but figured I’d toss it out there.

Exactly right.

 

[coutufr]

I can heat my whole 2000 ft2 house easily with the Ashford at -27c for days. Not at maximum output just with the thermostat at 4 o clock. I can not imagine someone running it at full throttle needing more btus running the Ashford... unless you are trying to reach 30c in a gigantic greenhouse

 

[BKVP]

Agreed, hard to get uniform results in these tests when, as you've said, the load can shift or something else happens during the tests.
Recently, in response to @Ashful's bogus claim that the BKs had "unmatched range of output," I posted an image of EPA test results for each of the BK and Woodstock models which show the BKs have ranges of roughly 20 K BTU/hr. or less, compared to Woodstock ranges which are much higher, pushing 30 K in some cases. ALL of these tests can't be flukes. I saw that Ashful recently repeated this false claim. But he's chosen to slap an "ignore" on me, so he can't respond and instead chooses to stick his head in the sand. I can't easily tranfer that image right now, navigating the site on this dumb smartphone while I wait for a SSD to arrive for my desktop. But the results are shown here if you scroll down and click the hyperlink "List of EPA Certified Wood Stoves."
(broken link removed to https://www.epa.gov/compliance/list-epa-certified-wood-stoves)
Good question. Also, how do transfer rates change in the real world, when the innards of these stoves are full of creosote flakes?
No, I'm pretty much stuck with a rear-vent stove if I want to enjoy the look of my masonry fireplace without a connector pipe in front of it. That's why I read and post in this thread..I'd like to hear some theories/answers from those that actually run the stoves. For example, what is the purpose of the additional shielding inside the BK fireboxes? I think it may be to keep heat up inside the stove, to allow the cat to stay active at lower burn rates. And is that also the purpose of the pot-bellied, cone shape of the original King and Princess models? And why do they want you to burn the stoves on high for 30 minutes after reloading? I can get a load of wood burning well before 30 minutes, with air settings well below wide open. Is it to burn off the creosote that has built up between the interior shields and the walls of the stove on a previous low burn? Is that the reason for the thin 1/8" walls on the stoves, to get the walls hotter and burn off creo quicker? And what happens to the burnt creo flakes that fall off the walls..do they build up between the shields and the walls, further impeding the release of heat into the room? I'm looking for some in-depth analysis of the design features of these stoves.
And what's the response to my questions? Cricket noises, and the ongoing flood of posts claiming "superior alien technology" or "Ooooo, I just got a 24-hr. burn from a load of Pine twigs and dryer lint." Where's the in-depth analysis of how these stoves work, by the supposed "stove nerds" here at hearth.com? Might be a stretch, calling this a "performance thread."

So the shields inside reduce radiant heat transfer to the steel sides and assure lower clearances to side walls. In some models there is a rear inner shield for the same purpose. The original designs were built for the purpose of maximum Ash depth. In safety testing, roll out of burning materials onto the hearth is a guarantee failed. The large volume design permits for enormous loads of wood. Burning the Stoves on High is ALL WOOD BURNERS SHOULD DO! As an industry we know the greatest concentration of pm is at the beginning of the load, so that in turn relates to the amount of moisture that needs to be dealt with as the first stage of combustion. By operating ALL Stoves on High, we can reduce creosote, pm and consumer dissatisfaction with ALL units. Burn them hot, get rid of the water and then turn them down. The thickness of the steel sides is all it needs to be. The inner side shields help as well. Incidentally, never in 22 years have we had a single issue with steel side walls.

Woody...here’ s my offer. Call 509-522-2730 anytime you have a need for “in-depth” info in your search to know more about our products. That way, none of the guys that actually own and burn the units and Post here need to be bothered by your approach. And then, I will put you in touch with a dealer to make your purchase. Once you are comfortable with understanding how they work, their pluses and minuses, then you won’t be following this thread, you’ll be a contributor as an owner.

 

[shoot-straight]

The fact that BKVP hasnt used the "ignore" feature on Woody shows that he has the patience of Job.

That is an incredible offer.

 

[Highbeam]

Something is funny there @Ashful . We know the king on low makes about15k btu, 40 times that is 600 thousand! I think you dropped a zero. I also think that nobody runs a Woodstock or a bk on max continuously but many of us run them on minimum. The max rate is of very little value.

 

[Ashful]

Something is funny there @Ashful . We know the king on low makes about15k btu, 40 times that is 600 thousand! I think you dropped a zero. I also think that nobody runs a Woodstock or a bk on max continuously but many of us run them on minimum. The max rate is of very little value.

You are correct. I was working too quickly, and took their “maximum heat input” values, from the BK site. The hazard of doing two things at once. I deleted the post, until I have time to sit down and correct it.