Blaze King Ashford is up and running!

[nellraq]

No problem. Sorry.

If you decide on the Ashford, you don't have to wait! My local dealer has two in stock...both enamel finishes..one brown and one black. Around $3000 Cdn $. About 6 hours from you ... in BC.
Let me know if you are interested; I will find the phone # for you.

 

[alforit]

If you decide on the Ashford, you don't have to wait! My local dealer has two in stock...both enamel finishes..one brown and one black. Around $3000 Cdn $. About 6 hours from you ... in BC.
Let me know if you are interested; I will find the phone # for you.

What?! ......how long have they had the brown enamel ?......From what I have heard the brown enamel Was not available yet because of quality control issues .....Been waiting almost three months for mine

 

[Parallax]

If you decide on the Ashford, you don't have to wait! My local dealer has two in stock...both enamel finishes..one brown and one black. Around $3000 Cdn $. About 6 hours from you ... in BC.
Let me know if you are interested; I will find the phone # for you.

Hey, thanks. I need to see the stove before I decide to buy it. But six hours is a long way to drive, particularly as we prepare for the holidays. Thanks for thinking of me though.

Would love to know how you like the look and feel of the stove.

 

[webby3650]

I had posted this in another thread, but in case others missed it. Here is the BK Ashford running on med-Low and then the Cape Cod on medium low. Both have similar stove top temps. Although the CC has a beautiful fire, it's easy to see why the BK's burn times are unparalleled.

 

[xtrordinair]

Man that cod has a pretty fire.

 

[webby3650]

Man that cod has a pretty fire.

Thanks, I fixed it so the pics can be enlarged.

 

[alforit]

Thanks, I fixed it so the pics can be enlarged.

You fixed it alright..........You made the Cod look awesome and the Ashford look gloomy.........hahaha JK

You could have at least painted a fire on the glass of the Ashford.

+1 on that Cod fire show

 

[Ashful]

I suspect the Ashford is like any cat stove. It will have an excellent fire show, if you turn up the air and make it burn as fast as the Cod. I can have a great fire show if I want to settle for 8 hour burn times, but going for 12+ hours requires turning the air down to where it's mostly just glowing, with a few lazy / whispy flames in the back.

 

[charger4406]

I had to burn hotter last night as the temps dropped to -4
14hr burn and a nice fire.

 

[Parallax]

I suspect the Ashford is like any cat stove. It will have an excellent fire show, if you turn up the air and make it burn as fast as the Cod. I can have a great fire show if I want to settle for 8 hour burn times, but going for 12+ hours requires turning the air down to where it's mostly just glowing, with a few lazy / whispy flames in the back.

Ok, I've got a question -- and maybe it's for Webby. If both stoves were sitting at 350 degress but the Ashford was turned way down and the Cod was running at full tilt, wouldn't the Ashford get way hotter (and dump more BTUs into the house) if it were turned up?

How does this work? The wood only has so many BTUs to give off regardless of which stove it's in. Is the Ashford way more efficient than the Cod? If one believes the ratings, the Cod should be almost exactly as efficient as the Ashford.

 

[Parallax]

I had to burn hotter last night as the temps dropped to -4
14hr burn and a nice fire.

According to your sig, you sold a Cape Cod in favor of the Ashford. What is your experience with each stove?

 

[Ashful]

Ok, I've got a question -- and maybe it's for Webby. If both stoves were sitting at 350 degress but the Ashford was turned way down and the Cod was running at full tilt, wouldn't the Ashford get way hotter (and dump more BTUs into the house) if it were turned up?

How does this work? The wood only has so many BTUs to give off regardless of which stove it's in. Is the Ashford way more efficient than the Cod? If one believes the ratings, the Cod should be almost exactly as efficient as the Ashford.

Webby can surely answer from direct experience, but I can answer from theory and indirect experience. The difference in efficiency will not be noticeable to anyone, comparing a single burn cycle. These numbers are measured as best they can under very specific circumstances, and stove designers test and tune their stoves to achieve the best numbers under these specific circumstances. It may not translate directly to your wood, your install, your house. However, a more efficient stove may burn less wood over the course of an entire heating season, something that is actually measurable by the user.

Now, if the Cod is running full tilt and the Ashford is turned way down, I suspect neither stove will be at 350F. So, I'm not sure I understand the first half of your question. I will say that your house has a given rate of heat loss, for a given outside temperature and wind speed/direction. You need to put BTU's back into the house at a rate similar to the loss, or your house begins to cool. The advantage of a BK is that it simply has a wider range of burn rate, and so you have more control over the rate at which you're putting BTU's back into the house. You correctly assumed there's a fixed number of BTU's in a given load of wood, and all you control is the rate at which they're released, so (minus a small discrepancy in efficiency) both stoves are putting the same overall BTU's back into the house. However, do not forget that your house loses BTU's at a rate proportional to the difference between inside temps and outside temps, so keeping your house at a constant 70 will mean losing slightly less BTU's than cycling up to 75 and letting it fall back down to 70F. If outside temp is 40F, then you're losing BTU's 16% faster at 75F, than you are at a constant 70F [1]. This also have a noticeable effect on yearly wood usage.

[1] - dT = 19.4'K vs. dT = 16.7'K yields 16.2%

 

[charger4406]

According to your sig, you sold a Cape Cod in favor of the Ashford. What is your experience with each stove?

The Cape Cod threw a lot of heat but it did so in the first 1/2 of the burn, then the heat would drop off for the rest
of the burn, but it did have the nicest light show of any stove I've seen so far.
The Ashford by comparison does not have the same box full of fire effect but it is much more controllable and will
keep a nice even temp in the house, for much longer, without the big peak and dip that we would get from the cod.
we are very happy to have made the switch to the Ashford but wish I had just bought it first.

 

[Parallax]

The Cape Cod threw a lot of heat but it did so in the first 1/2 of the burn, then the heat would drop off for the rest
of the burn, but it did have the nicest light show of any stove I've seen so far.
The Ashford by comparison does not have the same box full of fire effect but it is much more controllable and will
keep a nice even temp in the house, for much longer, without the big peak and dip that we would get from the cod.
we are very happy to have made the switch to the Ashford but wish I had just bought it first.

Thanks Charger. That's super helpful.

 

[Parallax]

Webby can surely answer from direct experience, but I can answer from theory and indirect experience. The difference in efficiency will not be noticeable to anyone, comparing a single burn cycle. These numbers are measured as best they can under very specific circumstances, and stove designers test and tune their stoves to achieve the best numbers under these specific circumstances. It may not translate directly to your wood, your install, your house. However, a more efficient stove may burn less wood over the course of an entire heating season, something that is actually measurable by the user.

Now, if the Cod is running full tilt and the Ashford is turned way down, I suspect neither stove will be at 350F. So, I'm not sure I understand the first half of your question. I will say that your house has a given rate of heat loss, for a given outside temperature and wind speed/direction. You need to put BTU's back into the house at a rate similar to the loss, or your house begins to cool. The advantage of a BK is that it simply has a wider range of burn rate, and so you have more control over the rate at which you're putting BTU's back into the house. You correctly assumed there's a fixed number of BTU's in a given load of wood, and all you control is the rate at which they're released, so (minus a small discrepancy in efficiency) both stoves are putting the same overall BTU's back into the house. However, do not forget that your house loses BTU's at a rate proportional to the difference between inside temps and outside temps, so keeping your house at a constant 70 will mean losing slightly less BTU's than cycling up to 75 and letting it fall back down to 70F. If outside temp is 40F, then you're losing BTU's 16% faster at 75F, than you are at a constant 70F [1]. This also have a noticeable effect on yearly wood usage.

[1] - dT = 19.4'K vs. dT = 16.7'K yields 16.2%

Thanks Joful. I'm amazed by the level of knowledge in this community.

The first half of my question referred to the photos posted by Webby. They seemed to show both stoves running at 350 degrees, though the Ashford showed barely a glow and the Cod was running full tilt. So it seemed like the Ashford was running way more efficiently.

 

[webby3650]

Thanks Joful. I'm amazed by the level of knowledge in this community.

The first half of my question referred to the photos posted by Webby. They seemed to show both stoves running at 350 degrees, though the Ashford showed barely a glow and the Cod was running full tilt. So it seemed like the Ashford was running way more efficiently.

Both stoves were at about 600.

 

[Parallax]

Both stoves were at about 600.

Great. Same question for you, then, Webby. How does the Ashford manage to do it without any great blaze? Would seem to indicate the reported efficiency numbers, which are nearly equal, cannot be accurate. Am I missing something?

 

[aaron1]

We were just discussing this on another thread. The Ashford is more efficient due to keeping more of the heat from going up the chimney. If you measure the flue temps of the CC and the BK in Webby's photos, the BK temp would be cool enough to put your hand into the flue (or closer to that) and the CC would scorch your hand. Isn't that true, Webby?

Also, the BK at 600F is not really the same as the CC at 600F. The Cod is putting out more heat, as the entire stove is getting pretty hot and a ton of heat is coming out of the front glass. The 600F on the BK is just the area where the combustor is. the rest of the stove is cooler than that, so it's not really a "fair" comparison that way. However, over the entire burn cycle, the total amount of BTUs released into the room is much larger for the BK than the CC.

The thing I'm confused about as well, Parallax, is how the EPA efficiency rating for the BK and non-cat stoves can be anywhere close to each other. Efficiency, at least the HHV, should be a measure of the % of heat content of the wood that is released into the room. The balance goes up the flue, is not combusted completely by the stove, or is used to get the wood up to temp, drive off water, and get the flue gasses up to temp. It seems to me that the real efficiency of non-cat stoves must be below 70% and the BKs must be closer to 80%. I don't think the EPA efficiency numbers are believable? The emissions numbers (grams/hr) are probably pretty good numbers as some sort of avg, as that is easier to measure.

 

[webby3650]

If you measure the flue temps of the CC and the BK in Webby's photos, the BK temp would be cool enough to put your hand into the flue (or closer to that) and the CC would scorch your hand. Isn't that true, Webby?

This is correct.

Maybe BKVP will chime in here and shed some light on this topic. He's a wealth of knowledge on all things EPA/Efficiency related.

 

[BrotherBart]

The EPA default numbers for non-cats was established in 1987. With 1987 stoves. There were around four of them then. Just more confusion in the mix.

But I am convinced now. I would now allow my sister to marry a guy that owns a cat Blaze King.

 

[aaron1]

This is correct.

Maybe BKVP will chime in here and shed some light on this topic. He's a wealth of knowledge on all things EPA/Efficiency related.

Please, BKVP, help us out here!

The other thing I forgot to say is that you can boost the BTU output of the BK by running the fan on it. That will effectively cool the area where the combustor is. then, the thermostat will let in more air and the combustion rate will increase in order to keep the temp at 600F (or whatever you choose). Of course, the loss is then going into your room in that case. So, instead of just radiating a ton of heat at once, like in the CC, the BK is more carefully putting heat into the room through the use of the fan in combination with the combustor. The genius of this setup is that the flue gas temp stays the same for higher BTU output to the room. All that changes is the fuel consumption rate and the BTU/hr. (I think all of what I have said is true)

And, apparently all of this adds up to much more efficient use of wood.

 

[aaron1]

The EPA default numbers for non-cats was established in 1987. With 1987 stoves. There were around four of them then. Just more confusion in the mix.

But I am convinced now. I would now allow my sister to marry a guy that owns a cat Blaze King.

Wow, BB, you're really a non-cat, man, eh?

If you look up the EPA numbers listed today you'll find only a handful of stoves with *actual* efficiency ratings. The Jotul 602 CB is at around 70% and the BK King is around 80%. This is perplexing to me. Maybe when you run the CC (or a pure non-cat stove) the huge blast of heat coming off would dwarf the output of the BK unless you had a big fan on it. The BK is listed at around 52K BTU/hr and the CC at 86K BTU/hr. That's a huge difference in high output. If your house has high heat demands, the CC would probably be better, but you have to realize that to get that high output, you will be putting a lot more waste up the flue.

It's interesting that the HHV on the BK site for the King is 82%. An article I read recently said that was close to the maximum efficiency for a wood stove if you don't reclaim the flue gas heat by condensing water. It just may be the most efficient stove that will ever be evented (or within a few percent of it) until we can reclaim heat from our chimney systems.

Anyone chime in if I'm full of S--- on any of this. I am new to getting a grip on this too.

 

[BrotherBart]

I agree that the BK gets everything out of the hog but the squeal. Point is that I wish more of the non-cat manufacturers would spend the ten grand or so on plopping their stoves into a bomb calorific room and get current efficiency numbers. I am real tired of hearing about numbers from stoves that are over twenty years old.

That and hearing about "low and slow". Four cubic feet of low and slow? I wanna hear about kicking that thing in the ass and heating a house in the winter. Which most say is a twelve hour loading schedule just like with a large firebox non-cat.

 

[webby3650]

That and hearing about "low and slow". Four cubic feet of low and slow? I wanna hear about kicking that thing in the ass and heating a house in the winter. Which most say is a twelve hour loading schedule just like with a large firebox non-cat.

First off, I am heating my house, I have no central heat source. Why do you insinuate that we aren't heating our houses? You've said this several times.
12 hour burns on high? Sure, but I don't know anybody that runs their stove on high. If they do, then they have undersized their stove by a long ways!
BTW, non-cats are testing and getting real numbers, they just aren't good! So they go with the default numbers that are allowed by the EPA.

I will always have a non-cat as well as a cat stove, I appreciate features of both combustion systems. There is nothing like the burn times I am experiencing with the BK! It was sub-zero last night and I did not need to add wood to the BK this morning, I simply turned up the air for a short time before I left. Believe it or not!

 

[rdust]

That and hearing about "low and slow". Four cubic feet of low and slow? I wanna hear about kicking that thing in the ass and heating a house in the winter. Which most say is a twelve hour loading schedule just like with a large firebox non-cat.

I get an easy 12 hours with a 2.8 cubic foot stove with indoor temps moving up or down maybe a degree or two during the burn. If I had a King I'd be loading once a day in single digit weather. To be fair I don't run the temps to the moon in here, I like the stove room in the mid 70's, which puts the rest of the lower level in the upper 60's/low 70's and upstairs(bedroom) in the lower 60's. If I had to burn hot enough to keep this place 80+ like some members claim they like it I'd probably be tearing through the wood just like I did with my non cat. I used to tell myself I liked it that hot in here when I had an uncontrollable non cat, now I don't have to pretend anymore.

A couple members with Kings can torch a load of wood in 12 hours but they have high heat loads.