Jotul Kennebec vs Harmon Oakwood

[Youngblood]

My wife wants the insert (based solely on looks), i want the freestanding oakwood because i think it will heat more (we have about 3000 sq ft thats NOT much of an open floor plan) ... for the sake of not getting a divorce i may just give in to the insert ... now here's the question , am i making a big mistake for the amount of space i would like to heat? i know the kennebec is only rated for about 1600 sp feet, but being as hot air rises i should still get somewhat of a temperature rise in the bedrooms no? (directed to all the kennebec owners out there). The fact that my childhood stomping grounds of Strong Island have this guy Mike Wilson who seems to love the kennebec might make this a little easier to stomach if i go with the insert. thanks for all the great info, really beneficial site to all those just getting into wood heating/supplementing.

 

[Mike Wilson]

Yeah look, I love the Kennebec, really, but there's just no way it's going to heat 3000sq/ft. I have it heating one 1700sq/ft zone in my three zone 3200 sq/ft home, and it does that pretty well. That said, I think asking more of it would be a bit much.

-- Mike

 

[begreen]

How big an area is the stove going to be located in? If you don't have much of an open floor plan the Kennebec may be a better choice. It sounds like you won't be able to heat the house with a single stove no matter how large it is.

 

[boostnut]

As a kennebec owner I have to say that its a tough decision. My Jotul puts out enough to heat our 1500 sq feet but I think you're goona be dissappointed if you try to heat 3000 sq. feet. I really doubt the harmon would do it either, thats a lot of space to heat. Both stoves look nice but my opinion is that a traditional wood stove looks a little out of place parked in front of an existing masonary fireplace, thats why they make inserts. Good luck, Aaron

 

[MANIAC]

We really like the Oakwood so far but I too think you will be hard pressed to heat 3k sq feet with it.

 

[jjbaer]

My wife wants the insert (based solely on looks), i want the freestanding oakwood because i think it will heat more (we have about 3000 sq ft thats NOT much of an open floor plan) ... for the sake of not getting a divorce i may just give in to the insert ... now here's the question , am i making a big mistake for the amount of space i would like to heat? i know the kennebec is only rated for about 1600 sp feet, but being as hot air rises i should still get somewhat of a temperature rise in the bedrooms no? (directed to all the kennebec owners out there). The fact that my childhood stomping grounds of Strong Island have this guy Mike Wilson who seems to love the kennebec might make this a little easier to stomach if i go with the insert. thanks for all the great info, really beneficial site to all those just getting into wood heating/supplementing.

The key is "not much of an open floor plan"........it's difficult to get heat into other rooms so the C450 may work because either stove may end up blowing you out of the room it's located in long before it heats up other rooms....depends on your layout. I have the C450 in my 1700 sq ft ranch and it really heats up the 350 sq ft living room it's located in and then using the furnace fan, I can pump heat over a few hrs period into the family room located on the other side of the wall from the C450 but not much heat reaches down the hall into the bedrooms......some but not much...

Also, I looked at the Oakwood stoves and of the three free-standing wood stoves, two are lower BTU output than is the Jotul C450 and the third one, the TL300, says the max BTU for "test wood" is 34,500 and the max for "cord wood" is 75,000 BTU while the C450 says a max of 55,000 BTU which is in the middle. Also, the C450 has a fan which heats the air directly and is more easily transported via my cold air returns in conjunction with using the furnace fan while I believe the TL300 heats primarily by radiation (didn't see a fan option) which would take longer to heat the air and to circulate. But, the firebox on the TL300 I think is bigger (3 cu ft vs Jotuls where we have to guess because they don't publish the information).......

Hope this helps.

 

[elkimmeg]

Cast measure the fire box and post the Cu ft's since Jotul won't do it I think we should know what realistically can be loaded

 

[My_3_Girls]

Here's my opinion..... no way in hell the kennebec is going to heat 3000 sf. The end. I love my kbec, but it won't heat that much space. I have a 24x32 2 story colonial (1536sf). From a cold start, it takes about 2 hours to warm up the masonry, cast surround and the rest of the stuff in the room. If you are running 24/7, it will get too hot in the living room within 4 hours, but the entire house will be warm. Firebox size is king. Repeating, I love my kennebec, but I picked it based on the info here at hearth.com, and knowing that it was only rated for about 1600 sf

 

[jjbaer]

Here's my opinion..... no way in hell the kennebec is going to heat 3000 sf. The end. I love my kbec, but it won't heat that much space. I have a 24x32 2 story colonial (1536sf). From a cold start, it takes about 2 hours to warm up the masonry, cast surround and the rest of the stuff in the room. If you are running 24/7, it will get too hot in the living room within 4 hours, but the entire house will be warm. Firebox size is king. Repeating, I love my kennebec, but I picked it based on the info here at hearth.com, and knowing that it was only rated for about 1600 sf

Depends on insulation in the home and the layout.......A well insulated 3200 sq ft home should require about 30,000 BTU/hr to heat so a 55,000 BTU insert like the Jotul C450 does have the output capacity to heat that large of a house. The big problem with ANY stove and their ability/inability to heat homes is can you distribute the heat to where it needs to get to?? Also, since the Jotul has a smaller firebox than the Oakwood, you'd have to re-load it more frequently to get 34,000 BTU/hr out of it but from a straightforward heat calculation standpoint, the C450 can put out the heat a house this size requires. The question is one of heat distribution.

If it were not a question of aesthetics, then pick the larger one but I don't think there's even an option for a fan on the Oakwood (someone check this for me) and the C450 is a convection device meaning it circulates hot air.

Calling Rhonemas for a heat calculation (well insulated house vs Jotul output).....LOL.....

 

[jjbaer]

Cast measure the fire box and post the Cu ft's since Jotul won't do it I think we should know what realistically can be loaded

burning now...will do later...definitely smaller than the Oakwood though, I'm guessing

 

[Mike Wilson]

Mine's cold, maybe I'll run a tape measure on it later on...

-- Mike

 

[jjbaer]

Mine's cold, maybe I'll run a tape measure on it later on...

-- Mike

Mike...let me know what you get....measured mine while running hh: I get 2.25 cu ft but the hard dimension to measure while burning is the height..it's lower at the back and increases in height as you approach the stove door so one measurement won't do it and I can't get the back measurement while burning.............. :bug:

 

[Mike Wilson]

Question is what do I measure? I am going to measure from the back of the stove to the door, by putting the end of the tape measure on the brick and pulling a number off the front. Then I will go from side to side, measuring only the space between the bricks. There is additional space above the brick but below the baffle (it's wider up there), but I assume I should not count this?
Then I will pull a measurement from the back, bottom to top, then at the front, bottom to top, and we go from there to the calculator.

What measurements did you get so far?

-- Mike

 

[jjbaer]

Question is what do I measure? I am going to measure from the back of the stove to the door, by putting the end of the tape measure on the brick and pulling a number off the front. Then I will go from side to side, measuring only the space between the bricks. There is additional space above the brick but below the baffle (it's wider up there), but I assume I should not count this?
Then I will pull a measurement from the back, bottom to top, then at the front, bottom to top, and we go from there to the calculator.

What measurements did you get so far?

-- Mike

I hear ya....there are many different "areas" that need to be computed separately...I couldn't do it while running so I measured and estimated as though it were a square: about 20 wide x 13 avg height by 15 deep for about 3900 cubic inches or 2.25 cubic ft. When mines cold in the AM I'll measure each separately. What did you get?

 

[Mike Wilson]

Question is what do I measure? I am going to measure from the back of the stove to the door, by putting the end of the tape measure on the brick and pulling a number off the front. Then I will go from side to side, measuring only the space between the bricks. There is additional space above the brick but below the baffle (it's wider up there), but I assume I should not count this?
Then I will pull a measurement from the back, bottom to top, then at the front, bottom to top, and we go from there to the calculator.

What measurements did you get so far?

-- Mike

I hear ya....there are many different "areas" that need to be computed separately...I couldn't do it while running so I measured and estimated as though it were a square: about 20 wide x 13 avg height by 15 deep for about 3900 cubic inches or 2.25 cubic ft. When mines cold in the AM I'll measure each separately. What did you get?

I got 21 wide from brick to brick, 15 deep from brick to the lip, 11 high in the back, 13 high in the front.
On top of the bricks is an area best described as a triangle on both sides of the stove. It is 23.5 wide, 4.5 high in the front, 1 high in the back, and 13 deep... BUT, when adding this to the firebox area, you must subtract the inside area of this zone. The firebrick area is 1.25" wide, 4.5 high in the front, 1 high in the back, and 13 deep on both sides. Plus there is the rectangle of 1 inch high by 1.25 inches (one firebrick depth?) deep, by 23.5 wide (or it should really be 21 inches wide, so as not to double count the area where the side triangles intersect) You have to compute it as a ring around the main volume number, so as not to count volume twice.

I have to run out for 45 minutes or so... you're the engineer... get cranking.

-- Mike

 

[James04]

30,000 Btu/hr heat loss would have to be a supper insulated house. Like as in an energy star certified house. This involves special construction techniques and very high insulation R values. My newly built 30'x40' 2 story colonial (2,400sqft) with R19 walls, R38 in the attic, and very good windows has a heat loss of 32K Btu per hour at 2 degrees F outdoor temperature. This heat loss was done professionally and by myself to double check the work. I was within 5k Btu's of what the pro came up with.

That said from what I understand the manufacturers claims regarding Btu output is under ideal conditions and not likely to be achieved on the average. Others on the forum will be better able to advise regarding that though. I am still a newbie.

James

 

[Mike Wilson]

Okay, I ran my numbers, and came up with a total cubic footage of 2.254 cu/ft.

Numbers based on the following:
Main area is 21" wide by 15" deep by 12" high (12 being the average height of 11 in the back and 13 in the front)... which gives us a cubic footage of 1.75x1.25x1, or 2.1875.

Then I did the side shelves. I combined them into one volume, for simplicity. Width is 2.5 inches (1.25 inch wide brick times 2), average height of 2.75 (4.5 high in front, 1.0 high in back), and depth of 13 inches, giving a cubic footage of 0.208x0.229x1.08, or 0.0514.

Then, I did the back shelf. 1.25 deep, 1 high, and 21 wide, giving a cubic footage of 0.104x0.083x1.75, or 0.0151.

Therefore, total cubic footage inside the firebox should be 2.1875+0.0514+0.0151, or 2.254cu/ft.

Math checkers, begin...

-- Mike

 

[Youngblood]

the room the fireplace is in is about 240 sq feet so ill probably heat myself out of that room whichever i choose. there are two doors on the room , one that leads to the kitchen on the same floor and the other door just offset the opposite wall of the fireplace that leads to a drafty foyer that centers the upstairs bedrooms. heres an attachment of the hearth. the other problem is that wood mantle will have to go if i choose the oakwood (and im assuming perhaps the kennebec as well) i suppose a bullnosed piece of bluestone to match the hearth would be a good replacement ... sounds like ill have a weekend project...

 

[jjbaer]

Question is what do I measure? I am going to measure from the back of the stove to the door, by putting the end of the tape measure on the brick and pulling a number off the front. Then I will go from side to side, measuring only the space between the bricks. There is additional space above the brick but below the baffle (it's wider up there), but I assume I should not count this?
Then I will pull a measurement from the back, bottom to top, then at the front, bottom to top, and we go from there to the calculator.

What measurements did you get so far?

-- Mike

I hear ya....there are many different "areas" that need to be computed separately...I couldn't do it while running so I measured and estimated as though it were a square: about 20 wide x 13 avg height by 15 deep for about 3900 cubic inches or 2.25 cubic ft. When mines cold in the AM I'll measure each separately. What did you get?

I got 21 wide from brick to brick, 15 deep from brick to the lip, 11 high in the back, 13 high in the front.
On top of the bricks is an area best described as a triangle on both sides of the stove. It is 23.5 wide, 4.5 high in the front, 1 high in the back, and 13 deep... BUT, when adding this to the firebox area, you must subtract the inside area of this zone. The firebrick area is 1.25" wide, 4.5 high in the front, 1 high in the back, and 13 deep on both sides. Plus there is the rectangle of 1 inch high by 1.25 inches (one firebrick depth?) deep, by 23.5 wide (or it should really be 21 inches wide, so as not to double count the area where the side triangles intersect) You have to compute it as a ring around the main volume number, so as not to count volume twice.

I have to run out for 45 minutes or so... you're the engineer... get cranking.

-- Mike

Mike...need to measure mine but if I understand your figures I get around 2.1 cubic ft

 

[Mike Wilson]

Okay, I ran my numbers, and came up with a total cubic footage of 2.254 cu/ft.

Numbers based on the following:
Main area is 21" wide by 15" deep by 12" high (12 being the average height of 11 in the back and 13 in the front)... which gives us a cubic footage of 1.75x1.25x1, or 2.1875.

Then I did the side shelves. I combined them into one volume, for simplicity. Width is 2.5 inches (1.25 inch wide brick times 2), average height of 2.75 (4.5 high in front, 1.0 high in back), and depth of 13 inches, giving a cubic footage of 0.208x0.229x1.08, or 0.0514.

Then, I did the back shelf. 1.25 deep, 1 high, and 21 wide, giving a cubic footage of 0.104x0.083x1.75, or 0.0151.

Therefore, total cubic footage inside the firebox should be 2.1875+0.0514+0.0151, or 2.254cu/ft.

Math checkers, begin...

-- Mike

Cast, You running it with these numbers?

-- Mike

 

[begreen]

the room the fireplace is in is about 240 sq feet so ill probably heat myself out of that room whichever i choose. there are two doors on the room , one that leads to the kitchen on the same floor and the other door just offset the opposite wall of the fireplace that leads to a drafty foyer that centers the upstairs bedrooms. heres an attachment of the hearth. the other problem is that wood mantle will have to go if i choose the oakwood (and im assuming perhaps the kennebec as well) i suppose a bullnosed piece of bluestone to match the hearth would be a good replacement ... sounds like ill have a weekend project...

Sometimes you have to trust your wife's intuition. Stick with the Kennebec, it's better sized to the task and will really dress up the fireplace. Peace is priceless.

 

[jjbaer]

Cast measure the fire box and post the Cu ft's since Jotul won't do it I think we should know what realistically can be loaded

Did it this morning....I get 2.0 on the nose. Others measured a bit more so let's go with 2.1 cubic feet

 

[jjbaer]

Okay, I ran my numbers, and came up with a total cubic footage of 2.254 cu/ft.

Numbers based on the following:
Main area is 21" wide by 15" deep by 12" high (12 being the average height of 11 in the back and 13 in the front)... which gives us a cubic footage of 1.75x1.25x1, or 2.1875.

Then I did the side shelves. I combined them into one volume, for simplicity. Width is 2.5 inches (1.25 inch wide brick times 2), average height of 2.75 (4.5 high in front, 1.0 high in back), and depth of 13 inches, giving a cubic footage of 0.208x0.229x1.08, or 0.0514.

Then, I did the back shelf. 1.25 deep, 1 high, and 21 wide, giving a cubic footage of 0.104x0.083x1.75, or 0.0151.

Therefore, total cubic footage inside the firebox should be 2.1875+0.0514+0.0151, or 2.254cu/ft.

Math checkers, begin...

-- Mike

Cast, You running it with these numbers?

-- Mike

Mike,

Ran mine today and got 2.0 so 2.1 is a good number

 

[jjbaer]

30,000 Btu/hr heat loss would have to be a supper insulated house. Like as in an energy star certified house. This involves special construction techniques and very high insulation R values. My newly built 30'x40' 2 story colonial (2,400sqft) with R19 walls, R38 in the attic, and very good windows has a heat loss of 32K Btu per hour at 2 degrees F outdoor temperature. This heat loss was done professionally and by myself to double check the work. I was within 5k Btu's of what the pro came up with.

That said from what I understand the manufacturers claims regarding Btu output is under ideal conditions and not likely to be achieved on the average. Others on the forum will be better able to advise regarding that though. I am still a newbie.

James

James...I agree BUT we have to decide on what outside temp we're talking about (assume 70 inside) and the poster lives in NW Connceticut. According to this site:

(broken link removed)

the avg temps in NW CT in Nov, Dec, Jan and Feb are about 40F, 29F, 24F, 27F respectively. You've assumed 2 deg F and while it does get colder than that, the averages are far, far, higher than this and so it looks like avg temps in NW CT are around 30 F for these 4 months. Using that figure, your home would use about 19,000 BTU/hr based on an inside temp of 70 F and an avg outdoor temp of 30 F. Now, scale that up to this posters 3,000 sq ft house and we get 24,000 BTU/hr heat loss for an avg outdoor temp of 30 deg. I claimed about 35,000 BTU/hr loss which puts the outdoor temp even colder at about 12 deg F.

The point is, your calculations were done at temps far lower on average than what will be encountered in NW CT. When we use the real avg temps, the heat loss in a 3,000 sq ft well insulated home will be about 24,000 BTU/hr at 30 F outside temp and will be about 35,000 BTU/hr at about 12 F outdoor temp. So, let's use the 24,000 BTU/hr figure because this is based on avg real temps for NW CT. Since the C450 has a max of 55,000 BTU/hr, 24,000 BTU/hr seems easily achieved .......

 

[James04]

Agreed. I hadn't considered that there is no need to, size the stove for the coldest day of the year. Unlike a central heating system. Thank you for opening my eyes about that.

James