Hmmm, This all sounds so familure. Do any of my posts back in 2007 make any sense now?
LOL
I think there are more & more "believers" every year
Are you getting any of this wind & rain. Satellite shows it turning East, heading in your direction?
First real Test For My New Blaze King
- Thread starter Todd
- 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.
- Status
I think there are more & more "believers" every year
Are you getting any of this wind & rain. Satellite shows it turning East, heading in your direction?
I enjoyed my Fireview for many seasons, but tomorrow it gets sold and this will be my second happy year with the Progress.
I started out keeping detailed records of my burn times, weight of wood in the stove, stove top temps etc, because I was so impressed with the improvement over the Fireview, but then it just got so ridiculous because basically it was a great stove that used little wood and was easily controlled. However, I have had my statement about last years wood usage questioned, and I see comments about the shortcomings of hybrid technology, which I certainly did not experience, so I plan to keep detailed records with photos, volume and weight of wood burned, burn times, stove top temps, time to cat engagement, etc. I had burned a Fireview as my primary heat source previously, for many years, with electric backup. Didn't turn the electric on once last year and had a warmer home with much less wood consumption...it was also, of course, a mild winter for us...still average cold was -3 to +10 I'd guess...just no heavy snow and not a lot of temps below
-10.
I will start a thread and post once I start burning this year. Have only had one or two isolated fires that I lit for the purpose of preserving food, so got the house pretty hot even with the windows open...it as really too hot out to be doing what I did, but didn't want to use Hydro at our ridiculous rate.
They've sold and are selling a good number, so I'm sure you'll get lots more feedback. Many of u got our stoves in late December and burned through the true winter months.
Looking forward to it. I'm interested in it's ability to burn low and long like the fireview and how much the size and mass comes into play.
Definitely. There are so many variables to wood burning. Having lots of detailed reports really helps. Don't forget to add a review to the somewhat orphaned Hearth.com stove reviews.
https://www.hearth.com/econtent/index.php/ratings/
https://www.hearth.com/econtent/index.php/ratings/
My impression from the reviews of the Hybrid was that its an impressive stove but had some minor quirks that Woodstock is working on or has worked on getting them fixed, they sounded like minor annoyances and not anything that affected the performance of the stove. I like the looks and in the right situation it would be in the top three of my list.
I never got a longer burn than 12 hours out of my Fireview, and that with a full load. That's a really long burn time for a Fireview. 8-10 hours on a full load is more normal.
Have gotten 16 hours with the PH with way less than a full load. Have never loaded the stove to capacity, and have not attempted to see what the maximum burn time I could get would be. I was asking my Fireview to heat a house that was too big for it, which I knew but I wanted a Woodstock stove. The PH has a much larger loading door than the Fireview, which allows the burning of good sized logs, which burn nice and slowly in the PH giving a steady heat for a long time. The PH will coast along merrily for many hours with a stovetop temp of 325 to 350 and heat the house better than the Fireview did with a stovetop of 450-500. Lot more heat comes out the much larger window. On a really cold day, burning the stove hotter, I get 10- 12 hour burns. Shortest burn time I've gotten is about 8 hours, stove about half full, stovetop about 450-500. I've never had any need or tried to get the stovetop much above 500.
Last year I burned mostly Ironwood, some maple, beech and hickory. My wood is very dense. This year I'll be burning a lot of maple, some ironwood and beech and a little hickory, and a very little apple and dogwood. One of my big maples (31 in diameter) grew in the clearing N of the house so had no competition from the time we built 35 years ago, and put on 2/3 of its growth in the last 35 years (inner 80 years of rings only about 10-12 inch diameter), so much of this wood is not as dense as most I burn. Will be interesting to compare burn times of forest grown and clearing grown wood.
I would like to establish an agreed upon definition of the term "burn time". I am of the impression that differnt burners refer to a different end stage as the end of a burn. Is burn time until there are only enough coals to light off, or until the stove is no longer actively burning and producing a steady heat?
My definition of burn time is from loading the firebox until the catalyst probe indicator falls below the active range (although if it's -30 outside this might not be enough heat towards the end of the cycle). My criteria would be to have enough coals for a reload with full size pieces, not kindling. The stove must be producing enough heat at reload to keep the space comfortable. This is effective burn time for me. See disclaimer below:
* Some terms and conditions may apply. Not available in all areas. Your results may vary. See store for details.
* Some terms and conditions may apply. Not available in all areas. Your results may vary. See store for details.
Wow, talk about high jacking a thread! You Woodstock guys need to start your own. Lol. Just kidding I like to read all this info. The PH is a great heater but I want 24 hour burns and Blaze King is the only one I know of that can do it.
Now, to get back to my thread and brag a little more. After 24 hours I still had plenty of wood and turned the t-stat up from 1.5 to 2. I had occasional bursts of flame and red coals. The stove temps came up for a couple more hours then began to fall. The cat was still active at the 33 hour mark with a stove top temp of 250.
Now, to get back to my thread and brag a little more. After 24 hours I still had plenty of wood and turned the t-stat up from 1.5 to 2. I had occasional bursts of flame and red coals. The stove temps came up for a couple more hours then began to fall. The cat was still active at the 33 hour mark with a stove top temp of 250.
A few thoughts here:
First of all, the number of posts on hearth.com has roughly zero correlation to one's experience with wood burning.
Second, there have been some some pretty detailed reports from Progress owners. Those reports have pretty much all been very positive and have included impressive performance details. Some have been met with skepticism. And, despite all the excellent reports from actual PH owners, some of "regulars" who have never seen one, let alone used one, like to make definitive statements like it was a "design failure" or will "never be as good as the fireview", etc.
Third, as had been pointed out, most people didn't get their stove until the end of December at the earliest. Give us "new owners" more than a couple months of burning, and we'll try to give more detailed reports. Deal?
Hey, you're a died-in-the-wool Woodstock guy...but 33 hrs?
Sounds like you are rapidly becoming an eclectic. 
I imagine those burn times will be a real asset in NW WI in the dead of Winter. I was in the SE corner of the state, and that was bad enough. Now I only visit in the Summer. 
Only downside I see to these long burns is the black glass. I needed a razor blade to clean it off this morning. I tried glass cleaner and ashes and they took off most of it but the lower corners were tough baked on creosote. A hot fire also seems to burn most off but I don't need a hot fire this time of the year.
Thats only a problem in shoulder season, I usually just leave it and once it turns colder the glass cleans right up.
I never said it did.
A lot of the reports weren't as detailed as some of the more obsessive burners here can provide. That's not right or wrong. It just is. And a lot of the reports were not based on full loads and the burn times and ability to burn low are still up in the air.
No one said it was a design failure. A lot of people question it's burning capabilities when compared to previous Woodstock stoves and how they operate. And people are questioning the hybrid technology more than anything else. The same has been said with Regency and Lopi's new hybrid stoves.
Again, no one is bashing Woodstock. I was pretty clear I was talking about the hybrid technology that Woodstock and several other companies are using.
No one is saying Woodstock is a bad company. No one is saying that the stove is bad. No one is saying that people shouldn't buy the PH. People are questioning it's capabilities much like they would with any other new stove, like the new VC 2-in-1 stoves, or the new Regency stove.
When Blaze King releases the new stoves that are rumored to be more traditional looking, people will question whether the stoves will operate the same as some have wondered is the physical design of the stove aids in the long burn cycles.
Do not take questions and criticisms of a stove as a personal slight against your purchasing decision. If that were the case I would be upset all the time since no one likes VC stoves.
Do not take comments that some members here are more obsessed with wood burning than you might be as an insult. It is not an insult to you or your ability to operate the stove you own. Some members here clearly take wood burning to an extremely detailed level which is beneficial when it comes to understanding how a product works.
This was my actual statement, at least get it right, especially when using the little quote marks. Sheesh, you WS guys sure are easy to get fired up. We know that WS is full of some smart folks. We know that they build stoves with half the burn times that their only catalytic competition has. What they do have going for them is better looks and some great customer service.
Anyway, put your money where your mouth is and make your own thread about how the PH is the best for you.
Some of us have climates that are mostly shoulder season burning. Real winter burning is only about 4 weeks here. Last year it was only about 2 weeks. Ironically, if wood heat is one's only option, this is a great stove made in the NW for NW wood. It looks like BK black glass will be most of the season for this side of the Cascades.
Sorry about your thread, Todd. I just have to respond to a these comments than we'll go back to your excellent experience with your BK.
I don't take it that way at all. I just don't think it is fair or accurate to for people who have never operated a stove to make comments on a public forum that are completely contrary to the experiences of people who actually have said stove. That's all.
Todd, I get some dirty glass on the PH too on a low burn. It seems like par for course with cat stoves? Mine does clear up nicely with the next hot burn. What kind of outside temps did you have throughout that burn? Were you roasting?
I brought this up in your other thread, but I'm still wondering about loading up a BK in warmish weather. If you completely fill the firebox but only need heat at night, aren't you actually wasting wood during the day? I'm thinking if I do a small load in the evening, let the fire go out in the morning, and don't need another fire until the next evening, haven't I built the same amount of fires and used a lot less wood than a 24 hour burn in a BK? Obviously, this only applies to warmish days, cold nights, but that seems like what a lot of shoulder season is at least where I am.
I don't take it that way at all. I just don't think it is fair or accurate to for people who have never operated a stove to make comments on a public forum that are completely contrary to the experiences of people who actually have said stove. That's all.
OK, so the quote marks weren't accurate (in one instance). Although "never" and "I don't think it will ever" are about the same thing, no? Highbeam, you did say the PH was a "design failure". It was in a recent thread about the PH. For some reason, the search feature doesn't work from my work computer or I would provide a link. You've recently made several definitive, negative statements about the PH which have not been echoed by PH owners. I'm not offended by this (which would just be silly). I just find it really odd and not fair to people who may be considering the stove.
Todd, I get some dirty glass on the PH too on a low burn. It seems like par for course with cat stoves? Mine does clear up nicely with the next hot burn. What kind of outside temps did you have throughout that burn? Were you roasting?
I brought this up in your other thread, but I'm still wondering about loading up a BK in warmish weather. If you completely fill the firebox but only need heat at night, aren't you actually wasting wood during the day? I'm thinking if I do a small load in the evening, let the fire go out in the morning, and don't need another fire until the next evening, haven't I built the same amount of fires and used a lot less wood than a 24 hour burn in a BK? Obviously, this only applies to warmish days, cold nights, but that seems like what a lot of shoulder season is at least where I am.
Context waulie. I surely do believe that the PH failed to meet expectations in several ways. That's not bad really, since those expectations may not have been in line with the goals of WS. I even think the name Progress fails to be a good name. Does the word fail bother you? WS is my second choice for a stove out of everything else out there. I hold them in high regard, they have not failed as a company. Really, they were #2.
Good question about the long and low fires. Do you suppose the same amount of wood would have been consumed with a single moderate fire than burning constantly over the same period? Certainly it would be less convenient to restart a fire everyday vs. just a single loading of wood allowed to simmer all day. Room temps would swing more but maybe the end result is less wood consumed.
Good question about the long and low fires. Do you suppose the same amount of wood would have been consumed with a single moderate fire than burning constantly over the same period? Certainly it would be less convenient to restart a fire everyday vs. just a single loading of wood allowed to simmer all day. Room temps would swing more but maybe the end result is less wood consumed.
- Status
