Fire view in a cat stove

[jatoxico]

We're burning wood here guys this isn't rocket science! I understand a lot of us here are passionate about this hobby but sometimes we tend to over think things.

We're so far off coarse from the original posters question at this point! I think this thread has run it's coarse.

These threads do tend to take on a life of their own but IMO the point about furnaces helps to inform the discussion about the merits of the different technologies in use.

 

[BrowningBAR]

These threads do tend to take on a life of their own but IMO the point about furnaces helps to inform the discussion about the merits of the different technologies in use.

I disagree. Comparing the efficiency of an oil furnace offers little in terms of understanding the specs behind a wood stove.

The main thing behind a wood stove is firebox size. Then the burn technology (cat or non-cat). The rest of the specs are incredibly minor in terms of burn times and heat output. Most of those specs can be argued over in terms of there importance or accuracy to no end and still have no clear results.

For new burners; there are dozens, upon dozens of threads in which a new burner has posted here that have them putting too much importance on efficiency numbers, claimed BTU output, and claimed burn times. When, in fact, firebox size is the main determination for the stoves ability to heat your home.

 

[Machria]

Then explain how a Enerzone 3.2 firebox burns in 6 hours, while a 2.75 PH firebox burns 16 hours. Me thinks the firebox size only tells you the available BTU's to burn, but what the rest of the stove does with those available BTU's is what we end up feeling and seeing in terms of fire and heat, or heat and energy out your chimney for your neighbors to "enjoy".

Your not giving the design engineers enough credit.

 

[jatoxico]

I disagree. Comparing the efficiency of an oil furnace offers little in terms of understanding the specs behind a wood stove.

The main thing behind a wood stove is firebox size. Then the burn technology (cat or non-cat). The rest of the specs are incredibly minor in terms of burn times and heat output. Most of those specs can be argued over in terms of there importance or accuracy to no end and still have no clear results.

For new burners; there are dozens, upon dozens of threads in which a new burner has posted here that have them putting too much importance on efficiency numbers, claimed BTU output, and claimed burn times. When, in fact, firebox size is the main determination for the stoves ability to heat your home.

Well that was exactly the point (I'll speak for myself) I was trying to make. The efficiency #'s are not very useful just as they are not for oil fired furnaces.

 

[BrowningBAR]

Then explain how a Enerzone 3.2 firebox burns in 6 hours, while a 2.75 PH firebox burns 16 hours. Me thinks the firebox size only tells you the available BTU's to burn, but what the rest of the stove does with those available BTU's is what we end up feeling and seeing in terms of fire and heat, or heat and energy out your chimney for your neighbors to "enjoy".

Your not giving the design engineers enough credit.

• I mentioned burn technology being the second important factor. I mentioned this more than once.
• There is no Enerzone 3.2. There is a 2.9 and a 3.4. Neither of which lists burn times on their website. http://enerzone-intl.com/
• List all the stoves modern EPA stoves that throws a lot of heat up the chimney.

"Me thinks" you are getting lost in the details that offer little return.

 

[Machria]

• I mentioned burn technology being the second important factor. I mentioned this more than once.
• There is no Enerzone 3.2. There is a 2.9 and a 3.4. Neither of which lists burn times on their website. http://enerzone-intl.com/
• List all the stoves modern EPA stoves that throws a lot of heat up the chimney.

"Me thinks" you are getting lost in the details that offer little return.

The 6 hrs vs 16 hrs was based on real life numbers from owners.

It's not the difference in "burn technology" we are pointing out. It's the difference in design. There are good designs to things, and there are bad designs to things. There are also deliberate functional design differences, like burn time vs high output for example.

I have a Mini Cooper that has a 200hp motor in it. It is not nearly as fast as the Porsche 911, which also has a 200hp motor, and weights exactly the same amount. In this case they are designed for different purposes. The mini for good mpg(30), while the Porsche for speed (15 mpg BUT 300 mph).

A Kia Rio has a 1.6 liter motor, so does the mini. The kia's motor is 80hp, the mini's is 200hp and yet gets better mpg. In this case, one is designed better than the other, any way you look at it.

You can evaluate stoves the same way. Some are designed for different purposes (the PH vs the BK for example). But some are just plain designed poorly and waste energy(I'm not going to throw any names under this bus!). I don't think this is over thinking it at all. These are exactly the things I considered when purchasing a stove.

 

[BrowningBAR]

The 6 hrs vs 16 hrs was based on real life numbers from owners.

And I can find owners getting less than 16 hours on a Progress. I can find owners reloading a 30 every 4 hours while I reload every 9-10 hours.

It's not the difference in "burn technology" we are pointing out. It's the difference in design. There are good designs to things, and there are bad designs to things. There are also deliberate functional design differences, like burn time vs high output for example.

No, you are wrong. It is the burn technology that is the difference.

Show me a modern stove with a bad design.

I have a Mini Cooper that has a 200hp motor in it. It is not nearly as fast as the Porsche 911, which also has a 200hp motor, and weights exactly the same amount. In this case they are designed for different purposes. The mini for good mpg(30), while the Porsche for speed (15 mpg BUT 300 mph).

Awful comparison.

A Kia Rio has a 1.6 liter motor, so does the mini. The kia's motor is 80hp, the mini's is 200hp and yet gets better mpg. In this case, one is designed better than the other, any way you look at it.

Again, comparing engine performance to a wood stove is a poor comparison.

You can evaluate stoves the same way. Some are designed for different purposes (the PH vs the BK for example). But some are just plain designed poorly and waste energy(I'm not going to throw any names under this bus!). I don't think this is over thinking it at all. These are exactly the things I considered when purchasing a stove.

You can not evaluate a stove the same way you evaluate car engines. Again, post a list of poorly design modern EPA stoves.

 

[rideau]

I'm not getting in this debate at all.

But, Browning Bar, wish I were rich. I'd send you a Progress Hybrid just to see what you think of it. I believe you'd appreciate it.

Not saying anything, except that I think this is kind of a special stove. It's awfully nice.

But for heat produced for cost, it can't touch your Englander. I'd like to see one of those burning sometime.

 

[BrowningBAR]

I'm not getting in this debate at all.

But, Browning Bar, wish I were rich. I'd send you a Progress Hybrid just to see what you think of it. I believe you'd appreciate it.

Not saying anything, except that I think this is kind of a special stove. It's awfully nice.

But for heat produced for cost, it can't touch your Englander. I'd like to see one of those burning sometime.

If you read my post earlier, I stated that I would probably go with a Progress once the VC stoves die on me. I know it is a nice stove. My only gripe with the stove was that it could have been even better if they had added a thermostat and maybe make it only a cat stove. It probably would have made it more flexible.

If you win the lottery, please send me three along with flooring support for the living room.

 

[BrowningBAR]

But for heat produced for cost, it can't touch your Englander. I'd like to see one of those burning sometime.

Actually, the Defiant has it beat. For $400 I am getting 9-14 hours of heat.

 

[rideau]

If you read my post earlier, I stated that I would probably go with a Progress once the VC stoves die on me. I know it is a nice stove. My only gripe with the stove was that it could have been even better if they had added a thermostat and maybe make it only a cat stove. It probably would have made it more flexible.

If you win the lottery, please send me three along with flooring support for the living room.

 

[ddddddden]

We can all agree, fire viewing is soul warming.

Happy New Year.

Fire sure is warm, ain't it?! (lol)

 

[Machria]

And I can find owners getting less than 16 hours on a Progress. I can find owners reloading a 30 every 4 hours while I reload every 9-10 hours.

Those are averages. Nobody said EVERY single person burnign with that stove will get exactly those numbers. Common now.... I think we can generalize a bit, no?

No, you are wrong. It is the burn technology that is the difference.

Huh? That doesn't even make sense. How is the "burn technology" different on two stoves which are both the same size fire box, and same type of stove, CAT or non-cat? We are talking about comparing two similar stoves, same size, same type (cat or non-cat), and same or similar lsited EPA efficientcies. And with those catagories the same, there are yet many different specifications AND real life results between differnt models and brands. The only difference is the design; What material they are made of, what shape they are, what shape the fire box is, what type of stones are on fire box, how thick, how heavy they are, how the air path thru the fire bo, and rest of the stove is. Does it wind aroudn so all the heat can be transferred, or does it just go straight up the chimney from the fire box. Then there is workmanship, are they made in China and put together like crap? .... These are all things that make two of the same size and type stoves, heat completely differently. Some good, some bad, some long, some short.... Some of these are designed to perform the way they do for specific reasons, and some are just poorly designed. Just like the car analogy. Same exact thing.

Show me a modern stove with a bad design.

Suffice it to say, when I was shopping, I saw several, and I am a rookie. If I could see issues, I'm sure there are many more. I'm not going to name drop here, I'll leave that for the more experienced and experts.

Again, comparing engine performance to a wood stove is a poor comparison.

Actually, that was/is a perfect comparison. Same size and weight units, that perform completely different.

You can not evaluate a stove the same way you evaluate car engines.

Why not? You can and should evaluate anything, the same way. You look at functon(does it do what you need it to do?), design(will it last, will it be easy to maintain, is it safe, is it cost effective/efficient, or is just wasting fuel?), astetics (does it fit your decor or liking looks wise), and cost (is it in your price range).

I always start at the top, and find the best I can find for what I'm looking for, and then work on wether I can afford it or not. If not, then I start to strip down what I need the least or can do without, until I get to where I can afford it.

 

[BrowningBAR]

Those are averages. Nobody said EVERY single person burnign with that stove will get exactly those numbers. Common now.... I think we can generalize a bit, no?

Now you are talking averages, even though you were talking specifics previously on a stove that isn't even listed on the model line up.

And with those catagories the same, there are yet many different specifications AND real life results between differnt models and brands. The only difference is the design; What material they are made of, what shape they are, what shape the fire box is, what type of stones are on fire box, how thick, how heavy they are, how the air path thru the fire bo, and rest of the stove is.

Which matters very little in terms of how well the stove will heat or how efficient it is.

Does it wind aroudn so all the heat can be transferred, or does it just go straight up the chimney from the fire box.

What?

Then there is workmanship, are they made in China and put together like crap? .... These are all things that make two of the same size and type stoves, heat completely differently. Some good, some bad, some long, some short.... Some of these are designed to perform the way they do for specific reasons, and some are just poorly designed.

Again, which ones are poorly designed EPA stoves? Which ones are put together like crap?

Suffice it to say, when I was shopping, I saw several, and I am a rookie. If I could see issues, I'm sure there are many more. I'm not going to name drop here, I'll leave that for the more experienced and experts.

Oh, right. You won't "drop names." You make claims that their are poorly designed stoves out on the market, back them up.

Actually, that was/is a perfect comparison. Same size and weight units, that perform completely different.

A Porsche 911 does not have a 200 horse power engine nor does it weigh the same as the MINI. And, unless you have a John Cooper Works MINI, the S has 181 horses. The Kia Rio, which weighs less than the MINI) gets a better gas mileage than the Cooper S MINI, which has the same horse power. The Kia gets better gas mileage than the JCW MINI.

So, again, awful comparison.

Why not? You can and should evaluate anything, the same way. You look at functon(does it do what you need it to do?), design(will it last, will it be easy to maintain, is it safe, is it cost effective/efficient, or is just wasting fuel?), astetics (does it fit your decor or liking looks wise), and cost (is it in your price range).

Again, name an EPA stove that is "just wasting fuel."

And this is pretty far removed from comparing a stove to a car engine. You've moved your goal posts on this.

 

[ddddddden]

I've been a "car nut" for some years now, and when I look at the specs of a new car, my eye goes to the curb weight first. Many innovations have come out, but the bottom line is that a given car with whatever technology you care to name would perform better if it were lighter. I think BAR is just trying to relate a similar perspective to you regarding stoves. . .after looking at stove specs for years, you will probably come to categorize stoves as S, M, L, XL. Maybe you will look at the burn technology first, but you will look at the size soon after.

Suppose someone came out with, say, a 2.75-cu-ft stove that was 100% efficient. At 4.32 cu ft, the BKK has 57% more capacity. 100% efficiency would be only a 22% improvement over the BK's 82% HHV, so the BKK would still have 35% more BTU's available(I think. . .%'s of %'s can get tricky. ) Of course, you have to load those BTU's into the firebox, but some perspectives would view the larger firebox with pretty-good technology as 'beating' the the smaller stove with perfect technology. Sorry to present an absurd argument, but I think BAR is jus' sayin' don't get too hung up on all the fancy numbers.

That said, the truth is out there™, if you want to dig.

Regarding EPA testing, this thread contains some clues.
https://www.hearth.com/talk/threads/anyone-post-this-yet-epa-stove-comparisons-from-woodstock.84712/

Here's some good stuff on fast burn vs. slow burn.
https://www.hearth.com/talk/threads/somebody-explain-this-please.64328/

Flue temps. . .
https://www.hearth.com/talk/threads/why-do-cat-stoves-have-lower-flue-temperatures.58630/

Anyone recording flue temps for the PH?

 

[Cross Cut Saw]

I didn't read through all of the replies but my 2 cents would be the following from my very limited experience with my Woodstock Progress Hybrid.

It all depends on the fire I want, the heat I want (need) it to put out, and where I want the heat to be coming from.

For me when it's anywhere above 35 degrees outside I get really nice flames and LOTS of heat from the front of the stove when I load it about 1/2 way (sorry, I haven't reached the point of weighing a load of wood, I consider half way to be half way up the glass when I'm looking at the front of the stove), engage the cat at around 400 degrees on the stove top, but only close the air down to about 3/4 closed. I really like the heat coming off of the glass.
Burn times average 5-7 hours depending on how anxious I am to get another fire started.

When it is under 35 for any sustained amount of time I'll load the bad boy up full, leaving just a few inches below the top for secondaries.
With these fires I engage the cat at around 400 but shut the air down completely just under 500 degrees or they tend to get away from me and over fire.
I don't get a lot of flames, mostly just secondaries but I do get 10+ hours of over 400 degree heat from the stove!

For me the longer burn times are a good trade off for less flames and if I want flames I can just open the air a little and POOF flames...

 

[Light in the Dark]

Oh don't worry, we lost the op a long time ago!

Nope... just sitting back watching the horde do what it does.