I have to go with versatility and what I know vs paper numbers people read from a website. Show me video proof these stoves burn hot for long periods and it will change my mind.
Decisions Decisions
- Thread starter EvergreenKB
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil. -
Super Cedar firestarters 30% discount Use code Hearth2024 Click here
- Status
I'm sorry, the proof is given in personal experience.
But evidently you don't trust that on the internet - which is not necessarily a wrong attitude to have. (!)
The proof is that xxxx BTUs get loaded (you can look up the density of dry wood (species), use that to calculate the total weight one can load in a volume the size of the firebox), and the efficiency (proof of that is documented in formal testing) implies that xxx * efficiency BTUs is being put in the home. If one burns a certain number of hours, the result is that xxx*efficience / hrs is the number of BTUs per hour.
No one at home measures BTUs. (And I suspect that even if I did, you would not trust the number.)
Coal has a nice consistent burn. (We burnt it when I was a kid.) If that makes you feel cozy, go for it.
We only responded to your question *given your concern that you might not be able to keep burning coal*. But if you don't trust that there is a solution that does not use coal - well, then maybe you should not have asked that question...
But evidently you don't trust that on the internet - which is not necessarily a wrong attitude to have. (!)
The proof is that xxxx BTUs get loaded (you can look up the density of dry wood (species), use that to calculate the total weight one can load in a volume the size of the firebox), and the efficiency (proof of that is documented in formal testing) implies that xxx * efficiency BTUs is being put in the home. If one burns a certain number of hours, the result is that xxx*efficience / hrs is the number of BTUs per hour.
No one at home measures BTUs. (And I suspect that even if I did, you would not trust the number.)
Coal has a nice consistent burn. (We burnt it when I was a kid.) If that makes you feel cozy, go for it.
We only responded to your question *given your concern that you might not be able to keep burning coal*. But if you don't trust that there is a solution that does not use coal - well, then maybe you should not have asked that question...
I've never asked for people to measure BTU. I have emphasized surface temp of the stove. 400* is my preferred stove temp. Someone show me their stove can hold 400* for 10 hours without adjustment and I'll be a believer.
My stove can - at the surface where room air is flowing to transfer the heat to the room.
My point is that a 400 F stove top temp is by no means a measure of how much BTUs can be put into a room.
I can give you a stove that keeps a 400 F stove top temp, a 100 F side and bottom temp, and has a total surface area of 6 square foot (i.e. a 1 cu ft cube stove). The heat that that thing puts into your room will be far, far less than a 3 cubic foot stove that is 350 F all around due to the much larger surface area.
Stove top temps are not an indicator of heat provided; heat transfer to your room depends not only on temperature but also (much) on surface area at that temperature. And on air flow along that area.
You're focusing on the wrong measure.
My point is that a 400 F stove top temp is by no means a measure of how much BTUs can be put into a room.
I can give you a stove that keeps a 400 F stove top temp, a 100 F side and bottom temp, and has a total surface area of 6 square foot (i.e. a 1 cu ft cube stove). The heat that that thing puts into your room will be far, far less than a 3 cubic foot stove that is 350 F all around due to the much larger surface area.
Stove top temps are not an indicator of heat provided; heat transfer to your room depends not only on temperature but also (much) on surface area at that temperature. And on air flow along that area.
You're focusing on the wrong measure.
The size has been stated. I thought we were talking about 3 cu ft stoves. My current stove is 2.5 cu ft for comparison. My issue isn't the size of the stove, it's how long the wood can burn to keep the stove hot. I doubt the wood can burn hot for so many hours. Point me to some time lapse videos showing the stove temp staying solid over a good 8 hours and I'll be a believer.
Search more youtubes. you should be able to find something. When you find it post it here.
That's the problem. All the time lapse burn videos show a burning box with no actual temps of heat output. Wood can smolder for a long time but it won't be producing the heat to keep the metal of the stove warm enough to make much difference when air temps are cold.
Here is the only video I have found of a long burn of a Quadra Fire stove. The temps are pathetic after a few hours imo.
Blaze kings can, no question at all. Noncats are going to have more of a peak then taper off. Many noncats can easily heat for 10 hours but it's not going to be as even
I don't have videos. I'm not trying to sell you a thing just telling you what i have experienced by the 10 or so stoves I have run and by talking to a couple thousand customers in pa about their stoves.
I don't have a video.
I know what I have measured myself on my stove that runs through a load of oak in 8-10 hrs at highest setting of 36-37 hrs at lowest setting. The latter is of course the "pathetic" output (but was exactly what I needed at that time). And it's very constant.
This is a graph of the cat temp, which fluctuates more than the stove top temp, of a King firebox.
![[Hearth.com] Decisions Decisions](https://www.hearth.com/talk/attachments/1729557297228-webp.331062/ "[Hearth.com] Decisions Decisions")
And all I can say is that the BTUs in (and trusting the efficiency that has been determined by third party testing) are a given, that burn times are as BK specifies, and that therefore the BTU output is not an unknown anymore.
This is what a King can do. My stove is close to the Princess. The thermostatic control (no electricity required) keeps it even.
![[Hearth.com] Decisions Decisions](https://www.hearth.com/talk/attachments/1729557387912-webp.331063/ "[Hearth.com] Decisions Decisions")
But again, you don't trust what folks tell you, and that's your right. The result is that no one can ever convince you that there's another option than coal. And that's fine.
Use coal, be happy. And be warm. That's all that matters.
I know what I have measured myself on my stove that runs through a load of oak in 8-10 hrs at highest setting of 36-37 hrs at lowest setting. The latter is of course the "pathetic" output (but was exactly what I needed at that time). And it's very constant.
This is a graph of the cat temp, which fluctuates more than the stove top temp, of a King firebox.
And all I can say is that the BTUs in (and trusting the efficiency that has been determined by third party testing) are a given, that burn times are as BK specifies, and that therefore the BTU output is not an unknown anymore.
This is what a King can do. My stove is close to the Princess. The thermostatic control (no electricity required) keeps it even.
But again, you don't trust what folks tell you, and that's your right. The result is that no one can ever convince you that there's another option than coal. And that's fine.
Use coal, be happy. And be warm. That's all that matters.
It's simple math. A BK King for example can be stuffed with about 700k BTUs of hardwood. Burn that load for 12 hrs and the stove will be outputting about 43k BTUs per hour over a 12 hr burn with its 75% efficiency. Stretch that over 24 hrs and it will be half that output per hour.
This is all a moot point if the desire is to also burn coal. A cat stove will not burn coal. It's already been stated that this versatility is the priority, so that ends the discussion.
This is all a moot point if the desire is to also burn coal. A cat stove will not burn coal. It's already been stated that this versatility is the priority, so that ends the discussion.
- Status
Similar threads
