Just about to buy my first wood stove...

[stoveliker]

You keep saying that, and you have a lot of experience. I note, though, that you appear to be the only one with that experience. (Or one of the very few.)

That is not discounting your experience or your observations with this stove, but it is putting them in a perspective of statistics that are larger than a sampling of one person's experience.

 

[bholler]

You keep saying that, and you have a lot of experience. I note, though, that you appear to be the only one with that experience. (Or one of the very few.)

That is not discounting your experience or your observations with this stove, but it is putting them in a perspective of statistics that are larger than a sampling of one person's experience.

Look at the numbers. The BTU ratings of most blazekings on high are about the same as most tube stoves on low.

 

[stoveliker]

That is a distortion of the truth when comparing fireboxes of the same size.

 

[Ashful]

And what other stoves have you used to compare blazekings to? They are fantastic stoves but not good at high BTU output

Only the three Jotul Firelights I had prior to these Ashfords, but I wasn't comparing to that. I'm saying I'm heating a space substantially larger than their shop, contructed of uninsulated stone, and with dozens of windows built and installed in the 1770's. When I let the Ashford rip, it has no trouble keeping the place warm in even the teens average daily temperature, for as long as I'd care to keep feeding it.

I don't usually run it that way, but on occasions when blistering cold weather coincides with a free weekend, I have done this. So, I'm surprised a Princess isn't able to heat a small 1800 sq.ft.space in Michigan... that's all.

 

[bholler]

That is a distortion of the truth when comparing fireboxes of the same size.

No it really isnt

 

[stoveliker]

The please provide the numbers to back up your claim. More than one - as you say "most".

And those numbers should be comparable, i.e. from the same testing methods.

Not some randomly grabbed numbers from the web (as in BK Ashford 50,000 BTU cord wood max, see their website - but I don't know what that means in testing methods).

Even then, I hate to say it - but you keep complaining about a stove you have. If others do so, they get shut down. The case has been made that your experience is like this. Then you gotta stop. And when advising others on here about stove sizing, just point them to the numbers that you claim to have. Rather than your personal experience that frankly does not have the statistics on here to be authoritative, given the many other folks heating with these stoves (see next paragraph).

Moreover, if you KNEW this in advance (checking the numbers you have), then you simply bought the wrong stove for you. Then why keep complaining about the stove rather than the person who made the choice?
Why keep bashing a stove that does work for many folks in far colder climates than you with similar sized homes as you that are not necessarily better insulated than yours?

Basically, I'm a bit done with the hammering "they don't provide high output", because the real life experience of many are in contradiction with the one voice on this forum that is yours.

I hope you don't ban me, but I feel this needs to be said.

And thank you for helping people on here install safe and properly performing wood stoves.

 

[bholler]

The please provide the numbers to back up your claim. More than one - as you say "most".

And those numbers should be comparable, i.e. from the same testing methods.

Not some randomly grabbed numbers from the web (as in BK Ashford 50,000 BTU cord wood max, see their website - but I don't know what that means in testing methods).

Even then, I hate to say it - but you keep complaining about a stove you have. If others do so, they get shut down. The case has been made that your experience is like this. Then you gotta stop. And when advising others on here about stove sizing, just point them to the numbers that you claim to have. Rather than your personal experience that frankly does not have the statistics on here to be authoritative, given the many other folks heating with these stoves (see next paragraph).

Moreover, if you KNEW this in advance (checking the numbers you have), then you simply bought the wrong stove for you. Then why keep complaining about the stove rather than the person who made the choice?
Why keep bashing a stove that does work for many folks in far colder climates than you with similar sized homes as you that are not necessarily better insulated than yours?

Basically, I'm a bit done with the hammering "they don't provide high output", because the real life experience of many are in contradiction with the one voice on this forum that is yours.

I hope you don't ban me, but I feel this needs to be said.

And thank you for helping people on here install safe and properly performing wood stoves.

I am not complaining about the stove at all. I say many times it is a great stove just probably not the right choice if you have a high BTU load.

And of course I am not going to ban you for questioning my statements respectfully.

 

[stoveliker]

Then I refer to forum rules. Endless promoting (or bashing) of a (characteristic of a) stove is not okay.
If 200 different folks say the same, okay, but if one person says it 200 times, then it's not.

My paraphrasing.

 

[bholler]

Ok. I will look up more later. But bk rates the princess at 40,479 on high

Pacific Energy rates the summit at 41,275 at low.

 

[bholler]

Then I refer to forum rules. Endless promoting (or bashing) of a (characteristic of a) stove is not okay.
If 200 different folks say the same, okay, but if one person says it 200 times, then it's not.

My paraphrasing.

I am sorry but I don't see saying a stove is a great stove just not that good at high BTU output as bashing that stove. If someone can use blazekings strong points of low and slow I absolutely recommend them. But I don't think they are the right fit if the BTU load is high.

Which this stove shop seems to agree with

 

[bholler]

Regency 3500
Low of 33,532 because it's hybrid and can be turned down low. But high of 75,000
Lopi liberty states a low of 15,155 which I don't understand there. And a high of 74300

 

[stoveliker]

And what are the numbers for the princess that are measured using the exact same testing method?
(As I see 50,000 BTU on their website.)

 

[bholler]

And what are the numbers for the princess that are measured using the exact same testing method?
(As I see 50,000 BTU on their website.)

I don't know. But you can't deny that the bk BTU ratings are considerably lower than other comparably sized stoves. There is nothing wrong with that and they work very well for many people. But are not the right stove for every situation

 

[stoveliker]

Of course I agree that no single stove is the right stove for every situation. And you can go back in my posts and see that I am not one that always suggests a BK is the right solution. In fact, I suggested above that the Princess was not the right solution for your home...

My conclusion of this debate is that, after you having stated that the high of a BK is the same as a low for other stoves, that you posted some numbers, varying from 15 to 33 k to 40k BTU for lows of other stoves, and that I posted a high of 50k BTU for the princess. Based on these numbers I was correct to call that out as a distortion of the truth.

Of course none of these numbers are demonstrably comparable as having been obtained with the same method.

My conclusion is that there is one person in PA who can't heat their home with a Princess when many folks in colder climates with similarly sized homes do. One datapoint doesn't invalidate a trend. It's an outlier. A true datapoint, but one that is not reflective of the average (user).

 

[bholler]

Of course I agree that no single stove is the right stove for every situation. And you can go back in my posts and see that I am not one that always suggests a BK is the right solution. In fact, I suggested above that the Princess was not the right solution for your home...

My conclusion of this debate is that, after you having stated that the high of a BK is the same as a low for other stoves, that you posted some numbers, varying from 15 to 33 k to 40k BTU for lows of other stoves, and that I posted a high of 50k BTU for the princess. Based on these numbers I was correct to call that out as a distortion of the truth.

Of course none of these numbers are demonstrably comparable as having been obtained with the same method.

My conclusion is that there is one person in PA who can't heat their home with a Princess when many folks in colder climates with similarly sized homes do. One datapoint doesn't invalidate a trend. It's an outlier. A true datapoint, but one that is not reflective of the average (user).

You also have to realize we are on a site that is pretty overloaded with blaze king fans. If you go to another and based your opinions on the experiences there you would think Woodstock's are the best stove in the world and all else are a joke. This stove shop clearly feels BTUs are lacking. I just pulled a princess insert out that I installed 3 years ago for a customer because it doesn't heat their house well enough. I also have some customers very happy with their blazekings btw. It's all about finding the stove that best fits each situation.


And BTU output by blaze king seems to vary by where you look on their site and brochures. I saw the 44000 a 47000 and you said 50000

 

[Ashful]

No interest in getting caught up with a BK versus "X" debate. I agree with bholler that it's not the right stove for every situation, even if we all see some discrepancies in the numbers. No biggie, to me.

But on a technical point, one thing I have noticed on my somewhat unique setup with a Magnehelic and damper is that the stove is a completely different beast when running on high, if I simply re-tune the bypass damper to change the draft by just 0.01"WC. I mean, it can go from that raging to lazy with a very small change in draft setting, without ever moving the thermostat knob off the wide-open throttle stop. I do believe this is why Poindexter or I can regularly consume full fireboxes of oak or doug fir in 4-5 hours, and both stoveliker and bholler report much lower maximum rates.

To put some numbers on it, when closing the bypass and starting my usual 15-20 minutes running on high bake-out phase, I usually set my damper to a position that I expect to settle out to 0.05" WC. But sometimes I'll come back to the stove after 5-10 minutes and find I had overshot my position a bit, and that the stove is running at only 0.03" or 0.04" WC. Opening the damper just a hair to nail the usual 0.050" ± 0.005" WC really wakes it up more than you'd expect, from just a few lazy flames at 0.03"-0.04" to very lively fully-engulfed fire at 0.05". It makes me think that if I only had 0.04" WC instead of my tuned 0.05" WC, I might see the same 10-hour burn times on a high setting as stoveliker, rather than less than half the time as I can do on high now.

This isn't to say the BK is uniquely sensitive to draft. Anywhere in the middle of the dial, it doesn't really seem to matter much what the draft is, and there's absolutely no reason the average burner should want or need a magnehelic permanently mounted to their rig. But when pushing the envelope at either end, going for either absolute minimums or maximums, it definitely helps to have everything dialed in just right.

 

[begreen]

When I let the Ashford rip, it has no trouble keeping the place warm in even the teens average daily temperature, for as long as I'd care to keep feeding it.

Just to clarify, I thought it was mentioned in a prior post that these stoves are supplemented with a fair amount of oil heat to keep up with the heat loss of the stone house.

 

[Ashful]

Just to clarify, I thought it was mentioned in a prior post that these stoves are supplemented with a fair amount of oil heat to keep up with the heat loss of the stone house.

Correct. But that was noted in the very next sentence within the post you quoted:

I don't usually run it that way, but on occasions when blistering cold weather coincides with a free weekend, I have done this.

I know my various one-weekend tests are no true proof of heating a house long term, a house with stone walls that have a time constant longer than 2 days. But I do know I can keep the first and second floor of the main part of our house, which is the square footage I was using in comparison to the stove shop, warm for at least a day or two in our coldest weather by ripping thru several loads per day with one Ashford on high.

But could you imagine stuffing that stove with that much wood, every 5 hours in cold weather? It's not how I want to get thru the winter, which is why I'm also burning oil.

 

[bholler]

Correct. But that was noted in the very next sentence within the post you quoted:



I know my various one-weekend tests are no true proof of heating a house long term, a house with stone walls that have a time constant longer than 2 days. But I do know I can keep the first and second floor of the main part of our house, which is the square footage I was using in comparison to the stove shop, warm for at least a day or two in our coldest weather by ripping thru several loads per day with one Ashford on high.

But could you imagine stuffing that stove with that much wood, every 5 hours in cold weather? It's not how I want to get thru the winter, which is why I'm also burning oil.

But what if you could load a stove that was better at high BTU output every 8 hours? That is my experience. Yes the princess could easily keep up with heat demands if I loaded it more often. But loading more often than every 8 hours isn't really feasible for me so oil fills in during the colder periods. With my previous stove those times the stove needed extra help were much fewer( pretty much only teens or below with high wind) the princess is 20s or below. And yes a 10 degree difference doesnt sound like allot but we spend allot of time in the 20s here. Not nearly as much in the teens. Now I will say 30s and above I prefer the way the princess runs but it just isn't as good as heating my home when BTU demands are higher.

 

[Ashful]

But what if you could load a stove that was better at high BTU output every 8 hours? That is my experience. Yes the princess could easily keep up with heat demands if I loaded it more often. But loading more often than every 8 hours isn't really feasible for me so oil fills in during the colder periods. With my previous stove those times the stove needed extra help were much fewer( pretty much only teens or below with high wind) the princess is 20s or below. And yes a 10 degree difference doesnt sound like allot but we spend allot of time in the 20s here. Not nearly as much in the teens. Now I will say 30s and above I prefer the way the princess runs but it just isn't as good as heating my home when BTU demands are higher.

Oh, I agree with you bholler. I wasn't pretending the Princess is some maximum-BTU monster, clearly it's not.

But I will still argue it should have no trouble heating any normal 1800 sq.ft. space in Michigan. If it's not able to easily swing that chore, something is wrong with the operator, the setup, or the space is something very different from a typical 1800 sq.ft. house. Period.

 

[begreen]

But I will still argue it should have no trouble heating any normal 1800 sq.ft. space in Michigan. If it's not able to easily swing that chore, something is wrong with the operator, the setup, or the space is something very different from a typical 1800 sq.ft. house. Period.

There's the rub. What is typical? An old farmhouse, a ranch home, a 3 story colonial? Houses vary all over the place. The amount of insulation, glazing, vaulted ceilings, etc. makes it hard to make assumptions. The Princess is doing a good job for Highbeam and his area is colder than mine, but I am skeptical that it would heat our house when the temp drops below 20º. This is when I am pushing our stove for the higher BTUs and have switched to hardwoods and probably on a 6hr burn cycle if it is also windy. The difference is the architecture and location. When Michigan gets into sub-zero temps, I would want that headroom in the stove or would be supplementing with the central heating system.

This is not to fault the Princess, but it has a thermostatically-capped maximum output. This has been posted frequently in the BK threads as a great feature to take the worry out of the stove running away. It's more of a set-and-forget-it appliance. But many houses need a steady output of 50,000+ BTUs in bitterly cold winter temps.

 

[BillBurns]

My house was built in 1886, so yeah, theres NO insulation. My stove keeps her warm in here all winter. The house leaks like swiss cheese, but I LOVE it. I was born here. Rock foundation, single pane windows, thick walls....gotta love it. Its like a stove...depends on whos running it. I do fine.

 

[Ashful]

My house was built in 1886, so yeah, theres NO insulation. My stove keeps her warm in here all winter. The house leaks like swiss cheese, but I LOVE it. I was born here. Rock foundation, single pane windows, thick walls....gotta love it. Its like a stove...depends on whos running it. I do fine.

"Old" is a relative term! My house was 152 years old when yours was built.

 

[Woody Stover]

And what other stoves have you used to compare blazekings to? They are fantastic stoves but not good at high BTU output

The please provide the numbers to back up your claim. More than one - as you say "most".

And those numbers should be comparable, i.e. from the same testing methods.

A few years back, I used the EPA BTU/hr. output numbers, based on the old crib wood method I guess. The five or so stoves I had run (all cats) agreed with those EPA numbers, in my experience of how much heat each of those stoves put out. The EPA numbers on the BK stoves were very low, so I tended to buy into bholler's assessment of BK output vs. other stoves he had run at home. Add to that the fact that he's had more experience with more different stoves, both at home and in the field, than most people on the forums.
The BK stoves were EPA rated with similar outputs to my little Dutchwest so I didn't consider them, since I needed more heat.
Be that as it may, it seems to me that the easiest way to assess a stove's output, without trying to sort through the varying BTU numbers posted online by the stove makers, EPA etc, would be to shoot the top and sides of the stoves in question with an IR thermometer, at different air settings from high to low.
Now, that might not account for all factors involved in the heat output of a stove, but it might work pretty well. I'm guessing that the sides of BK stoves don't get all that hot, due to the heat/radiation reflecting shields they have inside the box, and that more heat is flushed up the flue at higher burn rates, vs. what makes it into the room, compared to regular stoves. But the BKs are rated very efficient so I don't know how that figures into it..maybe because of their ability to run at very low output?

 

[Ashful]

...it seems to me that the easiest way to assess a stove's output, without trying to sort through the varying BTU numbers posted online by the stove makers, EPA etc, would be to shoot the top and sides of the stoves in question with an IR thermometer, at different air settings from high to low.

How would you handle stoves with a convective jacket? The outside surfaces of my stoves remain pretty cool, while air is being forced behind that panel and over the surface of a screaming-hot steel firebox hiding within.