I couldn't possibly heat 100% with the princess. It simply isn't even close to keeping up with my heating needs when it gets really cold and windy.
I'm buying new, curious why some woodstoves so much more expensive than others
- Thread starter fireboss1237
- 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.
Ok but are you saying most here or most people in general? I would tend to agree most people switching to a blaze king are probably seeing wood savings but that has more to do with the stove they are replacing than the bk itself. The same could be said for most people switching to any modern wood stove. The efficiency difference just isn't enough between most modern stoves to make much difference in wood consumption.
EbS-P
Minister of Fire
I looked up HVAC design temps. It just doesn’t make sense to size any single heating/cooling appliance for the hottest/coldest hours of the hottest/coldest 10 days a year, but that’s when we really notice the limitations and those stick with us. For instance out cooling design temp here is 91df. July and August highs are regularly well into the upper 90s. Record high temps are in the 100s. Yeah the AC might not shut off for 6 hours but it has never run for 24 hours straight. It will not hold a set temp below 80 from 4pm to 8-10pm if it’s above 95. I’m not saying my system was sized correctly or incorrectly but using it as an example. It won’t keep the house at a constant temp if the daily high is not above 35.
So back the the discussion. Which would you rather run extra hard on the really cold days, a BK or a cheaper but still quality tube stove? I feel like, and I could be totally wrong the thermostat on a BK would likely reduce the max heat output as compared to a tube stove that has no feedback loop for air supply.
I'd say that the thermostat indeed limits the heat output. But to the level that the engineers that designed it thought was safe.
You may be able to get more out of another (tube) stove with the same designed heat output, but that might not be something you want to do...
I'd surmise that BK has no incentive whatsoever to limit the upper output range farther than what safety requires. (In particular when their bragging rights are about stability in a large range of outputs.) If one follows that logic, then, no, the Tstat does not limit the high output extreme. Not more than what safety dictates.
Then why doesn't the princess put out as much heat as a regency 3100 in the same house on the same chimney with the same type moisture content of fuel etc?
Switching from a 69% efficient stove to a 78% efficient stove will bring about a notable reduction in wood consumption. Switching from a 74% efficient stove to a 78% efficient stove will bring about a trivial savings. Where the BK may save more wood is where the thermostatic operation does a better job of regulating the burn than the 74% efficient stove is being operated sub-optimally. This is not an unusual case. It's easy to get distracted at times with 2-3 fires a day over many months and to turn down the air too late. If there is no flue thermometer, it's very easy to happen.
Highbeam, correct if I am wrong, but I recall regular reports of 800º stack temps with the ineffient Heritage. That was wasting a lot of heat up the stack. Now, with the Princess the stack temps are less than half, which equates directly to fuel savings. However, when pushed harder for heat, we get consistent reports of burn times and stack temps more close to a well run, efficient non-cat. For me that was the deciding factor to stay with the T6. I'm retired and can stay on top of stove and flue temps. Yes, I may burn a bit more wood, but that gets made up for by running the heat pump during milder weather. This is more efficient, less costly and much cleaner than the wood stove. Also, I am admittedly biased toward KISS design in a stove. Less tech means less to maintain and less to go wrong and lower operational costs over time. That said, I can appreciate why a cat stove is a good solution for some people. If our house was better insulated with less window area and we only had an oil or propane furnace, a cat stove would look more attractive.
Highbeam, correct if I am wrong, but I recall regular reports of 800º stack temps with the ineffient Heritage. That was wasting a lot of heat up the stack. Now, with the Princess the stack temps are less than half, which equates directly to fuel savings. However, when pushed harder for heat, we get consistent reports of burn times and stack temps more close to a well run, efficient non-cat. For me that was the deciding factor to stay with the T6. I'm retired and can stay on top of stove and flue temps. Yes, I may burn a bit more wood, but that gets made up for by running the heat pump during milder weather. This is more efficient, less costly and much cleaner than the wood stove. Also, I am admittedly biased toward KISS design in a stove. Less tech means less to maintain and less to go wrong and lower operational costs over time. That said, I can appreciate why a cat stove is a good solution for some people. If our house was better insulated with less window area and we only had an oil or propane furnace, a cat stove would look more attractive.
I’ve always monitored flue temps and the noncat heritage definitely spent more time at the upper end of the normal range. The Bk spends more time at the lower end of the normal range while doing the same job. Also keep in mind that the burn rate is much lower but constant on the BK which effects flue temperatures. It makes sense that higher efficiency would be linked to lower flue temps at a given stove output. I mostly monitor for over fire safety and to prevent creosote from too cool temps. 24 hours at 400 or 3 cycles per day of high/low with a noncat. Not sure that flue temps are so easy to compare and draw conclusions.
I have no idea how the rated efficiency of that modern hearthstone product compares to a BK. I do know that I used 20% more fuel to do the same job with the noncat.
All each of us has to offer is our personal experience. I have no agenda, I don’t sell stoves, sell marketing, and don’t manufacture. I own and appreciate both cat stoves and noncats. There is a difference.
Yes, well put. It should also be noted that the cat and non-cat stoves are being used in very different applications and needs. One is in a steady-state role and the other is in a high heat, on-demand role.
Well said. To me it is much more about heat output levels than efficiency. The efficiency is fairly close for most so I don't see that as a big factor. Cats are definitely the choice for lower output situations and noncats are better for higher output needs. Good hybrids are more of a balance. But there are unfortunately none with thermostatic control at this point. And there are a fair number of unproven hybrids on the market now. And some I don't think are using the cat effectively.
When equipped with a cat, I think the Dauntless is sort of a hybrid with thermostatic control. I'm curious to see how this stove works out this winter. It qualifies for the 26% tax credit. According to the engineer on the project the new flexburn systems have less pieces, better access cover engagement and are 100% removeable from the front, without the need to loosen the damper frame or try to slip refractory pieces underneath it.
I certainly hope their improvements make a difference in their durability. They have some really nice features no one else offers. And they are all great looking stoves
I saved a cord a year switching from a Lopi Endeavor to the Princess. Real similar results to Highbeam. Only issue with the Lopi was turn down, it had none.
Yes like I said if you need more turn down clearly a bk is the right choice. And if your stove is overheating the house clearly you will save wood by having more control. My real world experience tells me I didn't save any wood. It all depends upon your heating needs.
All of this being said I have nothing at all against bk stoves. They are fantastic in some situations and the even heat is very nice. I just wish the princess I was using put out the same heat in an 8 hour burn cycle the regency did. Overall I am still fairly happy with it I just burn more oil when using it than I did previously.
