We are talking 600 degree stove top temp, not stack temp. Loading to firebricks is suggested as some overzealous owners can bang the splits into the burn tubes or break the baffle board. We are talking about a wood stove here, not a fireplace. My insert peak to 700ish every night during 24/7 burning season, settling at a 600-650 cruising temp, and that does not harm the stove. If the stack temp was that high, then I might be concerned, but again we are talking stove temp, not stack temp. Very few manufacturers list an "overfire" stack or stove top temp, and they do that on purpose.
No where in he manual will you find an overfire temp. 600degrees stove top temp is prime running temp, and no where near an overfire, nor hurting the stove.
No where in the manual does it say loading above the fire brick line is an overfiring condition. It merely says do not overfire the stove. A load level does not indicate an overfiring condition.
Congratulations on measuring stack temps for the last 30 years, and not knowing the difference between stack temp & stove top temp. That is truly something to boast about. There is a big difference, and if your stack temp is 600-700 degrees, your stove top temp may be a couple hundred degrees hotter than that, and you may be very well overfiring your stove. Yes, there is a big difference. The manual is a reference, and not a wood burning bible. They keep it vague because every application & system is different. Yes there is some common ground between all stoves, but the manual is kept limited in info for a reason.
As has been said many times, just because a person claims to have burning for 20,30,40,50 years, does not necessarily mean they have been using the best burning practices. At 600 degree stack temp, you have a bunch of heat going up and out, that is fact.
Thanks for your comments.
Recommending that the firebox be loaded to a limited level is the only objective guidance on how big a fire to build. We agree that there is no specific objective guidance as to what an overfired condition is. So I continue to suggest that the recommended amount of fuel is the best guide available.
You are happy firing your stove to a temperature of 600-700 degrees by measuring the surface temperature of the stove. My stove manufacturer provided me with no such guidance, so I decided for myself what was reasonable. A stack temperature of 600 degrees is a good maximum that I aim for. If a fire boosts the stack temperature to 700 degrees I'm looking to cut that down.
You seem to have great confidence in your recommendations, having never seen either stove. I suggest that may be misplaced in both cases.
I used to analyze the combustion of gas furnaces and boilers after conversion burners were installed. A conversion burner allows a very wide range of fuel and combustion air to be directed into the equipment, making it necessary to use instruments to test the combustion for satisfactory levels of CO2, oxygen, stack temperature and carbon monoxide. All of these characteristics can vary widely, and usually the combustion air and gas input can be adjusted to bring about a safe and efficient operating condition. So for me, using a stack temperature as a guide to operation is natural, and I happen to have a good thermometer to use for that purpose.
Perhaps I'll buy a thermometer for measuring the stove surface temperature and compare that with the stack temperature. It sounds like your time spent using a wood stove has been spent knowing the stove surface temperature but not the stack temperature of the actual combustion products.
<<The manual is a reference, and not a wood burning bible. They keep it vague because every application & system is different. Yes there is some common ground between all stoves, but the manual is kept limited in info for a reason.
I usually hear comments like that from people who are substituting their own judgement for that of the people who designed their equipment.
<<As has been said many times, just because a person claims to have burning for 20,30,40,50 years, does not necessarily mean they have been using the best burning practices. At 600 degree stack temp, you have a bunch of heat going up and out, that is fact.
Well, I'l agree that that is an OPINION. A fact would be to do a combustion analysis of the flue gasses and stack temperature, which you have never done and which I haven't done with my stove. Actually, running 600 degrees is hotter than I prefer to do. It's really the maximum I'd see before taking active measures to reduce the stack temperature. My main concern is overfiring the stove. At 700 degrees I'd take positive action to cut down the temperature, at 600 degrees I'd typically let it burn down further on its own.
I don't suppose you have a reference to someone who has done that kind of combustion analysis on different stoves, allowing the actual efficiency to be determined? That's the practical real way to test and determine efficiency that I know about. My opinion and experience is my opinion and experience, and the same for you, my friend.
Do you have any references to recommended stack or stove surface temperatures? I've never seen any guidance on that, but perhaps it's out there somewhere. Comparisons between stove surface temperature and stack temperatures and recommendations on either or both of those I'd be glad to see as well, if you can refer me to that kind of information.
I'll look around and see if I can find information on recommended stack temperatures for gas, oil, coal and wood fired equipment. Perhaps there's some useful guidance out there somewhere.
I suggest that with most fuel burning equipment, measuring surface temperature isn't of much use, since appliance surface temperatures usually aren't exposed to the fire. Stack temperature is, I suggest, a far more widely used way to understand the heat being produced by the appliance.
But surface temperature on a typical wood stove may indeed be useful, since if you choose a suitable place to measure the temperature it ought to reflect .the combustion that is taking place. Even so, measuring the surface stack temperature would seem to me to be a more sensitive guide to what is happening.
Thanks again for your interesting and useful comments, bringing up ideas I hadn't considered in detail before.