So you would recommend something like the PE Super Insert over the Jotul C450 because the PE is a hearth insert?
Ready to Join The Gang - Time For a Wood Stove!
- Thread starter Log Splitter
- 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. -
Super Cedar firestarters 30% discount Use code Hearth2024 Click here
So you would recommend something like the PE Super Insert over the Jotul C450 because the PE is a hearth insert?
brenndatomu
Minister of Fire
You may lose a bit, but if you look at convective stoves (have a air jacket) or any insert, they are designed to move the heat out into the room
Both are good inserts. The PE has a bit of an edge because it is larger, has a unique baffle system and a coupled secondary air control. The Jotul has an edge in the looks dept..
I'll talk to the wife and see her thoughts on flush vs on hearth. I think if we go flush, we may take the plunge on the Neo 2.5 or the Jotul C 450/550.
If I can convince her of something to sit out on the hearth, we'll decide between:
Osburn 2400
PE Alderlea T5
PE Summit
Enviro Kodiak 1700
Got my lists dwindled down, so speak out if you have any strong feelings one way or another!
If I can convince her of something to sit out on the hearth, we'll decide between:
Osburn 2400
PE Alderlea T5
PE Summit
Enviro Kodiak 1700
Got my lists dwindled down, so speak out if you have any strong feelings one way or another!
Ashful
Minister of Fire
It can help to look at photos of existing installs, in making your choice. Nick Mystic has one particularly nice looking install of a Jotul Oslo stuffed into a fireplace opening. In his case, I believe his fireplace is completely interior to the home and the stove sticks well out of the fireplace, so he doesn't have the same troubles I did with putting a cast Jotul inside a fireplace on an exterior wall. There are also several photos of my fireplaces on this forum (probably enough that most regulars on this forum are sick of seeing them), to show what a stove inside a fireplace would look like. Jharkin also has some nice photos of his fireplace/stove rig, his big old fireplace being bricked in to a much smaller size (maybe similar to your opening).
There is also a photo gallery linked of the main hearth.com page (or there used to be), for more ideas. Anything you have listed above would work well enough, so check the photos and decide what you like.
Any reason there's not a BK Ashford 20 or 30 listed above? While a little more expensive than most of what's listed above, it's a much better stove for one who wants to heat in all weather with wood. It can rip full-bore like a Jotul or Osburn, but also dial back to run slower than any other stove on the market.
There is also a photo gallery linked of the main hearth.com page (or there used to be), for more ideas. Anything you have listed above would work well enough, so check the photos and decide what you like.
Any reason there's not a BK Ashford 20 or 30 listed above? While a little more expensive than most of what's listed above, it's a much better stove for one who wants to heat in all weather with wood. It can rip full-bore like a Jotul or Osburn, but also dial back to run slower than any other stove on the market.
Can't say I have any good reason besides from my limited time on here, and through my few trips to the shops, I have not heard of the Blaze King stoves as frequently as the ones mentioned. I would say it's likely we go with the insert just because it's the most seamless looking one. And with the BK inserts, we'd be hitting the Catalytic insert market, which I have very little knowledge of. I would say my choice against it would be less moving parts and less to worry about breaking. But again, I know very little about how they work and are integrated into wood stoves.
I'll certainly take a look into Blaze King as well as some photos on here to get some better ideas.
Last edited:
Ashful
Minister of Fire
No intent to sway you one way or another, and cat vs. non-cat is an oft-debated topic here, so I'll just leave it at this:
1. Many forum members realize the better performance of cat stoves only after coming here, and make the switch from non-cat to cat. I have not seen many members go the other way.
2. Cat stoves have a wider range of heat output, than non-cat stoves. It is easily feasible to stretch a 3 cu.ft. load of wood for 36 hours in a cat stove, at very low heat output, whereas most non-cat stoves will max out under 12 hours. This means a cat stove is far superior in the shoulder seasons, where lower heat output is desired. It also means less concerns with heating yourself out of the house, if you go with a big stove. In very cold weather, when you're running the stove at higher settings, the differences mostly disappear.
3. Of all cat stoves, BK is at the top of the heap on performance and burn time, and their stoves are mostly convective designs. Woodstock also makes excellent cat stoves, but their stoves are radiant designs.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
1. Many forum members realize the better performance of cat stoves only after coming here, and make the switch from non-cat to cat. I have not seen many members go the other way.
2. Cat stoves have a wider range of heat output, than non-cat stoves. It is easily feasible to stretch a 3 cu.ft. load of wood for 36 hours in a cat stove, at very low heat output, whereas most non-cat stoves will max out under 12 hours. This means a cat stove is far superior in the shoulder seasons, where lower heat output is desired. It also means less concerns with heating yourself out of the house, if you go with a big stove. In very cold weather, when you're running the stove at higher settings, the differences mostly disappear.
3. Of all cat stoves, BK is at the top of the heap on performance and burn time, and their stoves are mostly convective designs. Woodstock also makes excellent cat stoves, but their stoves are radiant designs.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
kennyp2339
Minister of Fire
Everytime I feel I have refined the search to just a few stoves, there's more and more I continue to read and learn about what the possibilities are. I'm glad it seems like the list I've mentioned would all be good decisions, but you always want to strive to make the BEST decision.
Do you have any advice on resources to learn more about the catalytic technology in a stove? From a very rudimentary understanding, it seems that the catalytic stove will add another component that should give longer burn times and greater control over low level burns.
Ashful
Minister of Fire
edit: I typed this in response to your post #60, and you entered #61 before I clicked Submit, so much of what I have in this post is somewhat academic, now. Nothing wrong with an insert, but I'll let the folks who know those models give better advice on which to choose.
Now you know why so many here are on their second (or sometimes more) stove. We're always learning. This forum is probably the best resource in the world, although not all the advice you read here will be good advice, as with any forum.
Here's a short and crude history: In the early 1980's, new legislation was proposed that would require improvements in efficiency and reduction in emissions from wood stoves. Wood stove companies were often small, without serious engineering resources, and so most copied the same path. That path was to simply add a catalytic combustor to the exhaust path of existing stove designs. This had variable rates of success, with many not working very well, since the stoves were not correctly designed to work with a secondary combustion system. This gave catalytic stoves an unfairly bad reputation.
During this time, many of the small stove manufacturers ended up closing up shop, or being consumed by the larger companies. The first non-catalytic stoves were born, being mostly new stoves designed completely around the secondary burn system. These stoves work by ensuring the exhaust gases entering the secondary burn system are hot enough to support a re-burn, with the addition of fresh (often pre-heated) air to the secondary burn chamber. They work very well, but due to the need to maintain exhaust gas temperature high enough to support secondary burn without the aid of a catalyst, they can not be run as slow and low as stoves of the past. Folks had to learn to manage their fire, and avoid run-away, but technology and instruction improved to the point where now it's almost as reliable as concrete.
The benefits of catalytic technology were not forgotten, though. While it takes exhaust gas temperatures over 1100F to support a secondary burn without a catalyst, a catalytic combustor can support the same at temperatures down to 450F. This left a void for companies like Woodstock and Blaze King to continue developing and improving stoves designed specifically around catalytic combusters. Due to the ability to support reburn at much lower temperatures, these stoves have much better LHV efficiency and wider burn range than any non-cat stove.
So, today both exist. I suspect that, had folks not had bad experience with the early and improperly designed cat stoves of the 1980's, non-cats might have never existed. As to the pros and cons of each, you could read arguments on that topic from now until the end of time. Both work very well at medium to high burn rates, but only cats work as well at low burn rates. There are not any extra maintenance requirements of cat stoves, other than replacing your combuster every 5 to 10 years (about $200), and keeping the gasket on the bypass damper in good order.
Now you know why so many here are on their second (or sometimes more) stove. We're always learning. This forum is probably the best resource in the world, although not all the advice you read here will be good advice, as with any forum.
Here's a short and crude history: In the early 1980's, new legislation was proposed that would require improvements in efficiency and reduction in emissions from wood stoves. Wood stove companies were often small, without serious engineering resources, and so most copied the same path. That path was to simply add a catalytic combustor to the exhaust path of existing stove designs. This had variable rates of success, with many not working very well, since the stoves were not correctly designed to work with a secondary combustion system. This gave catalytic stoves an unfairly bad reputation.
During this time, many of the small stove manufacturers ended up closing up shop, or being consumed by the larger companies. The first non-catalytic stoves were born, being mostly new stoves designed completely around the secondary burn system. These stoves work by ensuring the exhaust gases entering the secondary burn system are hot enough to support a re-burn, with the addition of fresh (often pre-heated) air to the secondary burn chamber. They work very well, but due to the need to maintain exhaust gas temperature high enough to support secondary burn without the aid of a catalyst, they can not be run as slow and low as stoves of the past. Folks had to learn to manage their fire, and avoid run-away, but technology and instruction improved to the point where now it's almost as reliable as concrete.
The benefits of catalytic technology were not forgotten, though. While it takes exhaust gas temperatures over 1100F to support a secondary burn without a catalyst, a catalytic combustor can support the same at temperatures down to 450F. This left a void for companies like Woodstock and Blaze King to continue developing and improving stoves designed specifically around catalytic combusters. Due to the ability to support reburn at much lower temperatures, these stoves have much better LHV efficiency and wider burn range than any non-cat stove.
So, today both exist. I suspect that, had folks not had bad experience with the early and improperly designed cat stoves of the 1980's, non-cats might have never existed. As to the pros and cons of each, you could read arguments on that topic from now until the end of time. Both work very well at medium to high burn rates, but only cats work as well at low burn rates. There are not any extra maintenance requirements of cat stoves, other than replacing your combuster every 5 to 10 years (about $200), and keeping the gasket on the bypass damper in good order.
I'm on info overload now. Started this research about two weeks ago. I certainly feel quite a bit more informed thanks mostly to you forum members, but I feel no closer to making a decision. I spoke again to the wife, and after reviewing a few things, she's very high on a flush insert. If I can't convince her of something to sit out a little on the hearth, then I think we'll give the PE Neo 2.6 a shot. If I can convince of the hearth, then we will probably give the PE Super or Summit a go.
At some point I need to simply resign to the fact that all of these options are good, and I'll win either way. If I keep trying to pick the perfect one, I'll be cold and cranky for the rest of the Winter! I'd rather make a good decision now than try to wait for the perfect decision in January.
If there's any other thoughts, keep them coming, as I'm constantly on this thread, and the entire forum in general finding more information and ideas to help make this decision.
Thanks!
And to this, I will give an additional look into the catalytic burns. I appreciate you taking the time to explain the history, and your perspective on where there is such a divide among users.
At some point I need to simply resign to the fact that all of these options are good, and I'll win either way. If I keep trying to pick the perfect one, I'll be cold and cranky for the rest of the Winter! I'd rather make a good decision now than try to wait for the perfect decision in January.
If there's any other thoughts, keep them coming, as I'm constantly on this thread, and the entire forum in general finding more information and ideas to help make this decision.
Thanks!
And to this, I will give an additional look into the catalytic burns. I appreciate you taking the time to explain the history, and your perspective on where there is such a divide among users.
Ashful
Minister of Fire
(broken link removed to http://www.blazeking.com/EN/wood-inserts.html)
No, those burn times are not exaggerated.
No, those burn times are not exaggerated.
I was in your position about 3 years ago. We had moved from Texas up to NY a few years back and now reside in a split level ranch about an hour north of NYC. Our central heat is a natural-gas fired forced-air furnace. We had a list of projects to do around the house, not the least of which was the fireplace. Our house is 1800 sqft on the main level which is the area we wanted to heat. The layout is similar to what you describe. The pre-existing masonry fireplace is at one end of the house with the external brick chimney lined with ceramic flue tiles. It's in the living room with the dining room and kitchen nearby. Then there is the hallway with the three bedrooms at the end of the house opposite the fireplace. We had already done the insulation upgrades consistent of blown-in cellulose in the attic and new siding (Added 1" thick rigid foam insulation at that time) so we were finally ready for the fireplace upgrade last year. My goal was to heat primarily with the fireplace, but not necessarily to be completely independent of the natural gas furnace. We wanted something quite contemporary looking with a large glass opening to see the fire. I wanted to maximize burn time as well. It was pretty apparent to me early in the search, even before I started reading posts here, that the way to get max burn time is to buy a catalytic stove with as big a firebox as possible. Aesthetically, we wanted a very modern-looking stove which mounts as flush to the wall as possible - we did not want something sticking out more than a couple inches. They are so many designs and brands to choose from - most of them are very good and will do the job. I rather arbitrarily just looked at the brands my local dealers carried - all of which have been mentioned in this thread.
In the end, we decided to get the Regency CI2600. This is a very contemporary-looking flush-mount stove with a catalyst and a relatively large firebox. They do make a smaller version of this stove as well. Once I learned how to use it, we have been extremely pleased. It warms our whole house even on the coldest days and can go 10+ hours on a low-to-medium setting which is more than enough. I am able to restart a fire using just leftover coals even after 24 hours. I have never run it on high more than a 2-3 hours at a time since the house gets too warm. Last winter I managed to run it continuously for about 6 weeks straight even with both my wife and I working full time - I only had to light it once. The fan is very effective - and I would also say necessary in a flush-mount stove like this. If you are subject to very frequent power outages this could indeed be a concern - but we have a back-up generator as well. The stove does run just fine without the fan and definitely heats the house without it, but on a super-cold day with no power or backup gen the bedrooms would be cold. Generally, there is a temp differential of about 6-10 degrees between the living room and the bedrooms on the opposite side of the house. Not surprising given our layout. This turns out to be a good thing, since we all like it cooler in bedrooms for sleeping anyways. If it's 80 in the room with the fireplace, the kitchen will be 75-78, and the back bedrooms will be 70-72. With our gas furnace we keep the thermostat 65-60 - so the house is much warmer with the wood stove.
I had the dealer install the stove and chimney liner, but I also did a lot of work myself. I built the wood hearth myself (with proper clearances and R values, of course). Between the stove and wood hearth is all tile and non-combustible next-gen Duroc under the tile. My original hearth was a flagstone slab 18" deep but I wanted to extend it to 22". So I removed the flagstone revealing the "wedge" of concrete underneath. I then had to cut away some of the wood floor in front of the hearth to make room for the extension. I removed the drywall ceiling underneath (the basement ceiling) to get easy access to make a new fireproof subfloor. I then built-up the floor with a combination of sheet metal, micore 300, duroc, and appropriate mortar. Once I had finished the hearth extension I then used appropriate cement/mortar to even out the level between the old concrete hearth base and the new extension and over that I placed a single pieced of duroc to make sure the whole thing was on the same level. Finally, I put the ceramic tile over all that. I then placed matching tile around the edge of the fireplace opening. Then I brought in the pros to install the major hardware. After it was installed, I started to read a lot more information here.
Over the summer, I made a sort-of insulated box between the stove and the pre-existing brick firebox in order to reduce the transmission of heat to the external masonry. I used Micore 300 on the sides, where there was only about 2" of space. In the back I had plenty of room so I used much thicker Roxul mineral "boards". The installers did the usual mediocre job of stuffing fiberglass insulation up the flu instead of a real block-off plate, so my project for next year will be to fix that. I will probably use more micore 300 for that and/or sheat metal. Had I known, I would have paid extra for a fully insulated flue liner, but the whole thing works pretty darn well as is.
Good Luck!
In the end, we decided to get the Regency CI2600. This is a very contemporary-looking flush-mount stove with a catalyst and a relatively large firebox. They do make a smaller version of this stove as well. Once I learned how to use it, we have been extremely pleased. It warms our whole house even on the coldest days and can go 10+ hours on a low-to-medium setting which is more than enough. I am able to restart a fire using just leftover coals even after 24 hours. I have never run it on high more than a 2-3 hours at a time since the house gets too warm. Last winter I managed to run it continuously for about 6 weeks straight even with both my wife and I working full time - I only had to light it once. The fan is very effective - and I would also say necessary in a flush-mount stove like this. If you are subject to very frequent power outages this could indeed be a concern - but we have a back-up generator as well. The stove does run just fine without the fan and definitely heats the house without it, but on a super-cold day with no power or backup gen the bedrooms would be cold. Generally, there is a temp differential of about 6-10 degrees between the living room and the bedrooms on the opposite side of the house. Not surprising given our layout. This turns out to be a good thing, since we all like it cooler in bedrooms for sleeping anyways. If it's 80 in the room with the fireplace, the kitchen will be 75-78, and the back bedrooms will be 70-72. With our gas furnace we keep the thermostat 65-60 - so the house is much warmer with the wood stove.
I had the dealer install the stove and chimney liner, but I also did a lot of work myself. I built the wood hearth myself (with proper clearances and R values, of course). Between the stove and wood hearth is all tile and non-combustible next-gen Duroc under the tile. My original hearth was a flagstone slab 18" deep but I wanted to extend it to 22". So I removed the flagstone revealing the "wedge" of concrete underneath. I then had to cut away some of the wood floor in front of the hearth to make room for the extension. I removed the drywall ceiling underneath (the basement ceiling) to get easy access to make a new fireproof subfloor. I then built-up the floor with a combination of sheet metal, micore 300, duroc, and appropriate mortar. Once I had finished the hearth extension I then used appropriate cement/mortar to even out the level between the old concrete hearth base and the new extension and over that I placed a single pieced of duroc to make sure the whole thing was on the same level. Finally, I put the ceramic tile over all that. I then placed matching tile around the edge of the fireplace opening. Then I brought in the pros to install the major hardware. After it was installed, I started to read a lot more information here.
Over the summer, I made a sort-of insulated box between the stove and the pre-existing brick firebox in order to reduce the transmission of heat to the external masonry. I used Micore 300 on the sides, where there was only about 2" of space. In the back I had plenty of room so I used much thicker Roxul mineral "boards". The installers did the usual mediocre job of stuffing fiberglass insulation up the flu instead of a real block-off plate, so my project for next year will be to fix that. I will probably use more micore 300 for that and/or sheat metal. Had I known, I would have paid extra for a fully insulated flue liner, but the whole thing works pretty darn well as is.
Good Luck!
Glad to hear you have had success heating a similar layout/size house with a wood stove insert.
I have looked into that Regency insert as well. It's towards the top of my list along with the PE Neo 2.5 insert.
I have someone from the dealer coming out on Friday to do some measurements and to provide a quote. I will be sure to question hard about insulation and block off plates. I doubt for most installers this is standard, but I will see what it will take to get it done.
I have looked into that Regency insert as well. It's towards the top of my list along with the PE Neo 2.5 insert.
I have someone from the dealer coming out on Friday to do some measurements and to provide a quote. I will be sure to question hard about insulation and block off plates. I doubt for most installers this is standard, but I will see what it will take to get it done.
I have until Friday to make a final decision. The company I plan on using is coming out to do some measurements to confirm that the units I'm looking at will work fine in the space available. Finally ready to make some progress on this! Was outside for half of the day today cleaning up some tree clearing we had done last week. Lots of big logs moving up a hill so I can prepare/split/stack for next season. A few dead trees we took down that may be ready now.
As you look, consider the shape of the firebox. Often flush inserts need to have a shallower firebox in order to fit the depth of the fireplace. Many shallow fireboxes are constricted to E/W loading or will not load N/S unless the splits are short (like 12").
That's another thing I've read a lot about. Is there really a big difference in N/S vs E/W loading besides not having to worry about logs rolling out or into the glass?
Yes, it is very nice to be able to load both ways. I usually load N/S for faster starts and I am able to pack the stove more without concern of a log rolling up against the glass. If you like the 2.5 cu ft size firebox take a look at the Enviro Boston. It will load 16" N/S and has good WAF.
`
Is there a reason this would be preferred over PE Summit or Super insert for a non-flush insert?
Is there a reason this would be preferred over PE Summit or Super insert for a non-flush insert?
I like them both. The Boston/Venice/Cabello gives you a .5 cu ft larger than the Super with a choice of trim. It's in between the Super and Summit in capacity and a nicely finished insert.
I feel like at this point I'm leaning towards the Summit or the Neo 2.5, with the deciding factor being whether or not I can convince my wife to allow for the stove to extend onto the hearth.
With the previous specs I mentioned, is the Summit overkill? If it is, I could look again at the Super Insert and Enviro's line.
With the previous specs I mentioned, is the Summit overkill? If it is, I could look again at the Super Insert and Enviro's line.
Ashful
Minister of Fire
A problem with E/W loading is that you rarely use as high a fraction of the firebox, as one can with N/S loading. This is because you usually need to put fewer logs on top than on bottom, forming a bit of a ramp, lest they tumble out on you. I'd argue a 2 cu ft NS stove may on average see as much wood as a 3 cu ft EW stove.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The Enviro's surround makes the insert look built-in which minimizes the non-flush aspect as the front is flush with the side pillars. The Alderlea T5 has a similar effect.
Yes the Summit is large, but given the house description large can be an asset. The Super or T5 though would handle it and still meet your criteria for burn time and would be closer to your budget desires. This is what I would most likely choose with what I know so far.
Yes the Summit is large, but given the house description large can be an asset. The Super or T5 though would handle it and still meet your criteria for burn time and would be closer to your budget desires. This is what I would most likely choose with what I know so far.
Last edited:
Similar threads
