My personal nightmare with wood!

[Michael6268]

How bout a photo of the stove and set up?
Sounds more like a 13 than a 30.
No way it should be burning through a full load in anything less than 8-10 hours +

Its def a 30 Put the legs on (not sure if 13 has leg option) 3 cu ft firebox. Stove about 36" deep. Trust me its a 30. Ive seen the smaller 13s.
8-10 hrs 1/16th open and I would be lucky to have a small handfull of coals left. Who knows. Its got me stumped.

 

[Swedishchef]

Maybe a picture of the setup would help.

I am not near a pro when it comes to wood burning but something is not working properly here. A fire requires 3 things: heat, fuel and an oxydizing agent (usually oxygen). Too much of one and not enough of the other tips the scales too far one way. By the sounds of it you either have too much oxygen (draft) or the wood is at like 1% MC.

Andrew

 

[begreen]

About 1/2 to 2/3 out.

If the wood is dry that can lead to faster wood consumption with no higher stove top temp. My take on this is that the house heat loss is high requiring lots of btus to keep up with it when in a deep freeze like this past winter.

 

[Michael6268]

Thats what I thought, but I usually use 3tons of coal+ - and a house temp of near constant 75. Im probably gonna let this be for now as the season is almost over up here. I may try agaiin in the fall and I can post pics or videos. Thanks to those of you who tried to help. Your input was much appreciated.

 

[HotCoals]

8-10 hrs 1/16th open and I would be lucky to have a small handfull of coals left.

Sounds about right if the wood is really dry.

 

[stoveguy2esw]

a few things that dont seem to add up for me, stack temps would have to be of the chart high to consume a full load that quickly. the consumption of the wood is going to release the stored energy , it has to go somewhere.

where are the upper baffles positioned? are they all the way to the back which would force the exhaust along the tubes and around the front or are they forward which sends the exhaust around the back side of the baffles straight to the flue?

 

[Michael6268]

Baffle boards all the way back and tight together. They actually were RTV' d to the back of the stove from the factory. Most likely to avoid damage in transit. RTV has given way since but always made sure all the way back. You probably dont remember me Mike, but I was the guy that worked with your ex colleague Lee Couch and you for about a year troubleshooting that pellet furnace you offered many years ago. You took it out of your line up right after that. Seem like yesterday but it was about 14 years ago. Lol

 

[stoveguy2esw]

yeah i guess its been a while, i think we built that furnace up til 02. just didnt get many orders for it. i dont think we sold more than a couple hundred a year

 

[Michael6268]

yeah i guess its been a while, i think we built that furnace up til 02. just didnt get many orders for it. i dont think we sold more than a couple hundred a year

Ended up with your pdvc. Its since been retired to my shop but still going strong 12 yrs later!

 

[stoveguy2esw]

yeah, the C model is quite a successful stove for us , to date we have built just over 120 thousand of them since 1998 when the model was "born"

 

[Michael6268]

Maybe we will chat next season. I really like the 30's look and size. I would love to make it work.

 

[flyingpile]

Honestly, it doesn't sound any worse than my EPA secondary air stove i tried running this winter. 2-3 hrs per load and the house was still cold. Finally sold it and put in a Blaze King King. I get abou 12 hrs on high burn now, 36 on low. I figure it holds about twice the wood and is twice as efficient (my stack temps are about half what they were with the burn tube stove), hence the 4x longer burn and a warm house. My wife loves it. At first she said it was ugly, but now she can look past that and appreciate the awesomeness!

 

[BrotherBart]

4x longer burn

Than what stove?

 

[flyingpile]

A Napoleon 1400. I know that's quite a bit smaller at 2.25 cu. ft. but man it was going through a lot of wood and the chimney was always super hot. Good for emissions and a clean chimney I guess, but bad for heating the house.

 

[Michael6268]

Thanks Flyingpile! Starting to think I was nuts! I think its just the nature of the beast nowadays. I mean how can you get a long hot burn with all the secondsry air etc to make it meet EPA standards. Hmm maybe a Blazeking someday!

 

[stoveguy2esw]

with a noncat the operation is a bit different than an older tech stove . older stove draft controls were kinda self explanatory , the more you open them the hotter the stove ran and the faster it ran through wood.

with a noncat you have a "ratio" of air divided between primary and secondary, think of it this way
a chimney will pull "X" air
we will call the primary air (fed to the logs) "A"
the secondary air (out of the tubes in the top we call "B"
so X=A+B

now , when you open the draft conmtrol all the way , A is getting the highest percentage of air and B gets very little. this will make the fire burn fast but not really do much with the secondaries, so the stove actually will NOT run as hot.

when the draft control is pushed in as you push it in you decrease A and in doing so increase B, the decrease in A makes the wood burn slower , but release more fuel for the secondaries , allowing them to burn hotter. the ideal situation is to maintain enough A air to feed the right amount of smoke and B air to the secondaries thus producing a long hot burn.

the biggest variable is the chimney , every one has different charatoristics, though usually they fall within a certain range. finding the "sweet spot" for the draft control is the trick to getting both heat and longevity out of the fire in this type of unit

 

[begreen]

Based on the coal consumption it appears that the house is losing heat at an average rate of approximately 30K BTUs/hr. It wouldn't surprise me if this was closer to 40K+BTUs/hr or more during very cold weather. If the desire is to heat with wood it sounds like you would be better off with a larger cat stove like the Blaze King King that can provide coalstove-like, 40-50K BTUs, continuous heat for 12 hrs. Or reduce heat loss by tightening up the house and improving insulation.

 

[Michael6268]

I agree Begreen. We had considered the Blazeking King before, but not being sure if we would use full time we didnt want to shell out the $. But after the results we had, and after Flyingpile's comments as well as the reviews on this forum and the internet we may go with a Blazeking King this summer. I have some issues with its "Darth Vader" look, but who cares if it works! Lol I'll keep you posted...

 

[begreen]

The King Ultra has a cleaner look without the center bulge.

 

[rideau]

You are in NH...why not make a trip to Woodstock and look at their new Ideal Steel, their Progress Hybrid, and even their Fireview. The Fireview will produce well over 40,000 BTUs per hour for a good 8 to 10 hours quite easily. the other two will produce more. You could see the stoves in action, see how they burn, how long, the heat they produce. Great stove, great service, built to heat in the NE, and in your backyard.

 

[begreen]

That seems like a bit of an overstatement for the 2 cu ft Fireview. There are only so many btus one can get out of a 2 cu ft stove in 8-10 hrs. One can never pack the stove fully (no air gaps) and if the stove is say 75% efficient, the math just doesn't seem to prove out. For sure the stove will not be putting out the same btus at hour one that it will at hour 8. Blaze King has lab tested their stoves for output over time. The King has 88% LHV Efficiency (82% HHV) and has a tested result of 51,582 BTU's/h constant output for 12 hours. Kind of hard to see a stove half that size and much lower efficiency achieving similar results, but maybe it's magic. Not knocking them, they are a great company, but let's be realistic with the numbers. For sure visit them and consider the Ideal Steel as an efficient alternative.

 

[Grisu]

I am leaning to think the wood is not right. The OP states to burn about 6 cords of oak/maple mix from October to early February. Wood tested to have 12% moisture. First, getting wood in NH to 12% even with 3 years of seasoning would be an accomplishment. I have 3 year seasoned ash and maple but never got below 15%. (Sure not a big difference and the MM could be just a little off but on the other hand it's not oak either.) 6 cords of that wood would also be almost twice as many BTUs than he burned in coal before suggesting it is not just bad house insulation. I would like to see a picture of a split of that oak on a scale. 1 cu ft of dry oak should be ~45 lb. Maybe it was not oak, maybe part of it has become punky, but no one can tell me they burn 3 cu ft of dry oak down to few coals in 4 hours without the stove melting away or the flue showing more than 200 F. The energy has to go somewhere or it was not there to begin with.

 

[rideau]

Don't really feel like arguing, but will correct the size: fireview is 2.3 cu ft, 15% larger than 2 cu ft. Efficiency is quite good. 8 hours is 2/3 of 12 hours. Stove is rated at a max of 54,000 BTUs normal hardwood. Oak, locust, ironwood may be more....so, don't feel with a fully loaded stove 40,000 BTU average over 8 hours is much off. That is about 8 pounds of wood per hour for 8 hours = 64 pounds, assuming 5000 usable BTUs per pound. Fully loaded my Fireview quite easily held that when burning Ironwood or hickory. I don't have oak or locust, but they are similar in weight, are also commonly available in the NE. I used a Fireview as my only heat source for many years. It was easy to reload after 10-12 hours, but in really cold weather I generally got about 8 hour burn times with Ironwood, hickory, slightly less with sugar maple and beech. Yes, my home was chilly during really cold weather (-20 to -30), but my home is over 3000 sq feet. The PH, to compare, heats it well, and it is 2.7 cu ft, 81% HHV efficient. The Fireview is capable of heating a well insulated 2200 sq foot home, if there is a fairly open set up...which is why I said "even" for a fireview.

I stand by my suggestion that the OP visit Woodstock and see how the stoves should be burning, and that he consider a locally built stove that will heat a 2200 sq ft home, and where he will get plenty of assistance if he has any issues or difficulties in heating with wood.

It matters not to me whether he gets a BK or a Woodstock, (or any other stove), but I do think both would work just fine for him. I also don't think the BK long burn times on low are terribly important for most people heating in the NE, although they are for some. Most would be burning their BKs at a rate that would require reloading in 12 hours during the colder months. Equivalent size Woodstocks burn as long. In the more moderate climate of the Pacific Northwest, where the BKs are built, the long burn times at low output are a great asset.

ADDENDUM: Just read Grisu's post. Maybe the OP could take a few of his splits with him when visiting Woodstock. They would gladly take a look at the wood, and rule out or establish any issues with the wood, thus settling that aspect of the issue.

 

[begreen]

Different houses have different heat loss requirements regardless of size. The BK rating at 51.5KBTUS for 12 hrs is not at the low setting. The Fireview is a good stove, but it's not a miracle. It is 2.18 cu ft according to Woodstock's website measurements. I think Michael is going to need more continuous heat to match the Keystoker. That's why I suggested the larger Ideal Steel in the Woodstock line.

64#@ 5000btus/lb = 320,000 btus over 8 hrs. = 40K BTUs /hr. for the Fireview
BKK = 51,582 btus x 12 hrs = 618,894 BTUS or about twice the capacity of a Fireview

 

[rideau]

I don't know why you are claiming I am acting as if the Fireview is a miracle worker.

I am simply stating that with wood that weighs 40 to 45 pounds per cu ft, it is easy to load the fireview with 65 to 70 pounds, which at 5000 usable BTU's per hour equates to 40,000 BTUs per hour over an 8 hour burn.

And, I know your quoted BTU for the BK is not low output...I know you are talking higher output and a 12 hour burn to get that. What wood are they burning to get that very precise 51,582 BTU's per hour? I suspect with oak, hickory, ironwood or locust the BTU's produced would be significantly higher. I am not representing or suggesting that the significantly larger BK King cannot/does not produce a longer burn and a greater potential output than the smaller Fireview, just that the Fireview MIGHT be large enough for the OP's house, if he is lucky enough to have an open layout.