Which is the best stove in the world ?

[stoveguy2esw]

marty,
the idea is wonderful, problem i have with it is , i'd have to build a new house just to install one. its a different beast altogether. i read your list of things that we may have extra car, hunting lodge, golf/fishing trips etc. i'd rather keep the extra's and heat with a stove in my existing house, not knocking you or the product , but its way over the top for me and likely a lot of other readers in here. does it have its place? yeah, i guess so, apparantly you love it. would it be practical for me, not even close. i'll stick to my 24-ac (circa 1993) catalytic wood stove and my pellet stove. i can use either to completely heat my house and either will do so in my climate with 1 load in 24 hours. now the woodstove only gets me about 8-10 hours of burn time but insulated out the wazoo i do not lose heat very quickly the pellet unit i can load and run for up to 24 hours on 1 bag of fuel and heat my house. now were i in the market for a home and one of those things like you have were in it it would certainly be a huge selling point to consider, but as i sit here in my home i have now, there is no way i could install one ( wrong floor plan altogether) and even if it were possible the initial cost would likely keep me from doing it. just my 2 cents

 

[stoveguy2esw]

The best stove in the world is the cheapest that heats your house safely with the highest SO approval.

Personally, I think the 2 englanders at Home Depot in Poughkeepsie for 325.00 each is hard to beat!!

Get em while they last.

This whole HD clearance thing is fascinating me. In November when I was trying to buy an Englander NC-30 I couldn't get anybody off of their butt at HD to order one and there were not any stoves but Centurys in the stores. Now everywhere but here they are dumping ESW stoves for pocket change.

Sigh...

they are making room for lawn mowers, lowes bailed really early due to mild fall, had to cost them a crapload of money, depot and lowes usually clearance out in feb/march cause they dont want to store seasonal items. shoot, i bought a lawn mower from lowes in november (bolens tractor) for 400 just cause they didnt want to stoore it all winter.

 

[Martin Strand III]

marty,
the idea is wonderful, problem i have with it is , i'd have to build a new house just to install one. its a different beast altogether. i read your list of things that we may have extra car, hunting lodge, golf/fishing trips etc. i'd rather keep the extra's and heat with a stove in my existing house, not knocking you or the product , but its way over the top for me and likely a lot of other readers in here. does it have its place? yeah, i guess so, apparantly you love it. would it be practical for me, not even close. i'll stick to my 24-ac (circa 1993) catalytic wood stove and my pellet stove. i can use either to completely heat my house and either will do so in my climate with 1 load in 24 hours. now the woodstove only gets me about 8-10 hours of burn time but insulated out the wazoo i do not lose heat very quickly the pellet unit i can load and run for up to 24 hours on 1 bag of fuel and heat my house. now were i in the market for a home and one of those things like you have were in it it would certainly be a huge selling point to consider, but as i sit here in my home i have now, there is no way i could install one ( wrong floor plan altogether) and even if it were possible the initial cost would likely keep me from doing it. just my 2 cents

Guy:

No sniveling. No drooling. No fooling.

You don't have to convince me. If you have rationalized this to yourself and you're OK with that, after some good rem sleep and serious thought, well then, it's fine by me.

Aye,
Marty

Grandma used to say, "If you can please 51% of 'em 50% of the time, you're way ahead of most of 'em."

 

[sgcsalsero]

Marty .. to state the obvious someone who is building new has all the decision making abilities . . so what would be a good guide for those of us who may be interested in retrofitting one of these into an existing house, what are the foundation/structural considerations, square footage incl. hearth needed . . .etc. I've tried to keep up on previous threads so if this was covered somewhere else, jus point me to it. .. Thanks

 

[Martin Strand III]

Marty .. to state the obvious someone who is building new has all the decision making abilities . . so what would be a good guide for those of us who may be interested in retrofitting one of these into an existing house, what are the foundation/structural considerations, square footage incl. hearth needed . . .etc. I've tried to keep up on previous threads so if this was covered somewhere else, jus point me to it. .. Thanks

SGC:

The basic foundation requirements are

1. Footing on undesturbed earth - usually poured concrete w/rebar reinforcements - to support foundation
2. Foundation - can be concrete block, steel beams or wood posts (to spec) - slightly larger sq ft than heater (refer to mfg spec)
3. Floor pad - poured concrete w/rebar reinforcement - to support heater and hearth material

Sizing and materials are dependant on specific heater and Mfg instructions. This is a site built structure falling under the general building code, like an open fireplace, which differs from a wood stove which falls under the mechanical building code. They cannot rely on house floor joists, or other, for support and have to be totally self-supporting.

Retrofitting to an existing house is possible but totally dependant on location in house, floor plan, basement vs crawl space, budget, amount of house you have to tear up, etc. They work best in an open floor plan as heat is mostly radiant (line of site) vs radiant/convection in a metal wood stove.

Refer to specific mfgs for more info.

Aye,
Marty

 

[heydan]

I had a friend who had a Tulikivi salesman come to see if her house could accommodate a Tulikivi. She wanted to install it in a ground floor room with a poured concrete floor. He said it wouldn't work because the concrete would conduct the heat out of the house into the ground. So she didn't do it. Was the salesman's advice wrong?

 

[Martin Strand III]

Hard to say. Not much information to comment on.

A,
Marty

 

[sgcsalsero]

Thanks Marty, judging by the interest in recent threads maybe it would be a decent idea if one of retailer(s) (Tempcast, Mainewoodheat, etc.) would check out this website now and again . . .

 

[Martin Strand III]

Thanks Marty, judging by the interest in recent threads maybe it would be a decent idea if one of retailer(s) (Tempcast, Mainewoodheat, etc.) would check out this website now and again . . .

I have a inkling they are busy and might feel like a fish out of water here.

If people are really interested in these products, they might be better served by finding a local source, seeing a monolith or two in the flesh, talking with folks who have one rather than prowling cyberspace (aka 'The Wild Wild West').

Aye,
Marty

 

[heydan]

One bad thing about Tulikivis is that I think they want wood that's split thinner than other stoves use. The normal thickness splits you get from wood dealers would be larger than optimal for a Tulikivi.

 

[Martin Strand III]

One bad thing about Tulikivis is that I think they want wood that's split thinner than other stoves use. The normal thickness splits you get from wood dealers would be larger than optimal for a Tulikivi.

I believe my TempCast Manual suggests splits not to exceed 5" in thickness. This is not necessarily a "bad" thing. Once your wood changes from a "round" to a "split", the size of the split is easily and quickly adjustable.

Guyz, you know this is true and you've heard this before, size is not the end all in your wood; it's how you use it that counts...

For a masonry heater, one does not want (or usually get) a long dragged out (smoldering) fire. The goal is to get a very hot fire, which usually lasts about 1 1/2 - 2 hours (depending on the size of the splits). Since incoming air is not restricted during the burn, smaller splits under about 5" burn extremely hot and complete - good for heat transfer to the masonry mass, clean for the environment, clean for the heat exchange channels inside the heater.

Another advantage of smaller splits, perhaps coupled with a smaller fuel load, is they accomodate to those warmer days (Spring, Fall, miscellaneous "off season" days) when less heat output is desired.

As always, the hotter fire is the better fire in a masonry heater.

The concept is the same for Tulikivi.

Aye,
Marty

 

[heydan]

So if you're buying wood from a wood dealer do you ask them to split thinner than normal for you?

 

[Martin Strand III]

I do it. You can do it, or not.

Aye,
Marty

 

[sgcsalsero]

Marty, if you fire up the beastie (3 times in 24 hours ?) on a real cold day (less than zero) how much wood are you going thru (roughly speakin') . . Thanks

I ran thru a large wheelbarrow a day a couple weeks ago, figure between 100-120lbs, which seems to be consistent with others with stoves/inserts

 

[Martin Strand III]

Marty, if you fire up the beastie (3 times in 24 hours ?) on a real cold day (less than zero) how much wood are you going thru (roughly speakin') . . Thanks

I ran thru a large wheelbarrow a day a couple weeks ago, figure between 100-120lbs, which seems to be consistent with others with stoves/inserts

The firebox can accomodate about 50 lbs of wood per load. Three 50 lb loads burned at 8 hour intervals is the maximum the Mfg recommends. I confess, I rarely if ever have done this - packed it to the max for three loads and burns in 24 hrs. Also, the amount of overcast vs sun often makes a 2* - 4* F difference in my upper level since I have considerable glass facing SE. This helps me determine how many fires and how full or not to pack my firebox.

Further, if it's below zero, I usually will fire up my basement coal burning beast to make things copesthetic on both levels.

All in all, not much science involved here. It's so easy...

Aye,
Marty

 

[stoveguy2esw]

ok, im starting to get this, marty im not picking im genuinely asking , here is my question; from what i see in the posts about your masonary heater, its designed for a shorter hotter violent fire that creates a lot of heat quickly, this heat is imparted to the thermal mass of the brick/stone/whatever. this holds the heat and slowly releases it. am i right so far?

if so then wouldnt this thing benefit from pockets in the exhaust chamber (im assuming it has one) and if so , would nt this work well with slower burning more conventional fires as well??

if the answer is yes but slow low burning fires are creosote builders could this technology be designed to operate in this fashion with a reburn system , which would produce more output per stick of wood due to longer hot temperatures in the heat absorbtion areas?

sorry to be so long winded , but im generating a theory about this, might be interesting when i get the pieces put together. i'd be williing to bet that the masonary heater and modern reburn technologies could be merged into a setup which would give the best of both worlds... might be more to follow, but im interested in hearing what marty has to say about my questions.

talk to me marty

 

[Roospike]

If the masonary heater didnt have a reburn or secondary burn on the stove box then with an open fire you'll only be getting at most 50% efficiency out of the wood.
With a reburner or secondary burn chamber you could get 74% + efficiency out of the wood and thus more efficiency of the heater in whole.

 

[Martin Strand III]

ok, im starting to get this, marty im not picking im genuinely asking , here is my question; from what i see in the posts about your masonary heater, its designed for a shorter hotter violent fire that creates a lot of heat quickly, this heat is imparted to the thermal mass of the brick/stone/whatever. this holds the heat and slowly releases it. am i right so far?

if so then wouldnt this thing benefit from pockets in the exhaust chamber (im assuming it has one) and if so , would nt this work well with slower burning more conventional fires as well??

if the answer is yes but slow low burning fires are creosote builders could this technology be designed to operate in this fashion with a reburn system , which would produce more output per stick of wood due to longer hot temperatures in the heat absorbtion areas?

sorry to be so long winded , but im generating a theory about this, might be interesting when i get the pieces put together. i'd be williing to bet that the masonary heater and modern reburn technologies could be merged into a setup which would give the best of both worlds... might be more to follow, but im interested in hearing what marty has to say about my questions.

talk to me marty

Hi Mike:

I'll try to answer your questions. Please know I'm an 'ole mule skinner by trade and no engineer.

Your first paragraph was pretty much on the mark. As for the rest, I'm not so sure. Not sure of what you mean by "pockets", but most masonry heaters have a long exhaust system functioning as a heat exchange chamber before the flue even starts. And more importantly, you seem to have the idea that "slower burning more conventional fires", as occurs in metal wood burning stoves to prevent overfiring, might be a good thing since it would allow more time for the heat to be absorbed. I have a problem with this concept. Here's why.

Heat banking in a thermal mass appliance is best suited to take advantage of the fact burning a fire hot and fast, the wood is a clean fuel with the most heat being released, with little ash, almost no sulfur, not much smoke. If the fire is choked down too much it changes from flaming to smoldering combustion, an incomplete combustion process producing more smoke, tars, creosote and atmospheric pollution. We don't want this. We want hot clean fires. In a masonry heater, there is no need for add-on devices or slower burn rates because of the effectiveness of heat absorption with the long exhaust chamber, absent in modern conventional metal wood burning stoves. You may not be aware that in one of my "violent" burns (I call them "spectacular"), the heat in the firebox (about 1800* F, or so) is absorbed in the exhaust chambers into its thermal mass to the point where it measures only about 300* F about 7' off my floor in my chimney (only after 7' of chimney which begins at floor level; don't know what it is another 20' up before penetrating the roof).

If less heat is desired, the fuel charge is decreased but still burned as hot as possible.

Below is the Masonry Heater Association's definition of a masonry heater which may help you improve your understanding of its structure.

Hope this helps.

Aye,
Marty
_______________________________________________
MHA Masonry Heater Definition

A masonry heater is a site-built or site-assembled, solid-fueled heating device constructed mainly of masonry materials in which the heat from intermittent fires burned rapidly in its firebox is stored in its massive structure for slow release to the building. It has an interior construction consisting of a firebox and heat exchange channels built from refractory components.

Specifically, a masonry heater has the following characteristics:
* a mass of at least 800 kg. (1760 lbs.),
* tight fitting doors that are closed during the burn cycle,
* an overall average wall thickness not exceeding 250 mm (10 in.),
* under normal operating conditions, the external surface of the masonry heater, except immediately surrounding the fuel loading door(s), does not exceed 110 C. (230 F.),
* the gas path through the internal heat exchange channels downstream of the firebox includes at least one 180 degree change in flow direction, usually downward, before entering the chimney,
* the length of the shortest single path from the firebox exit to the chimney entrance is at least twice the largest firebox dimension

(passed unanimously at 1998 MHA Annual Meeting, June 8, 1998)

 

[sgcsalsero]

but im generating a theory about this, might be interesting when i get the pieces put together. i'd be williing to bet that the masonary heater and modern reburn technologies could be merged into a setup which would give the best of both worlds... might be more to follow, but im interested in hearing what marty has to say about my questions.

so Stoveguy, what is your theory . . .

 

[Gooserider]

I've read several sites with stuff on masonry stoves, Marty, and it seems there are two sorts of smoke passage schools of design - the convoluted path setup that has a fairly uniform width smoke passage - (I think this is what your stove has) and the "pocket style" smoke path like the Russian Igor Kuznetsov Stoves These stoves have a series of chambers connected by passages that run between the bottoms of the chambers, or bells. As I understand his theory the hottest combustion gasses rise into the bells and transfer their heat to the stove walls. As they cool below the temperature of the incoming gasses, they fall to the bottom of the bell and are drawn out it's exit to the next bell where the cycle repeats (at a lower temperature). Thus each bell has a certain amount of turbulent mixing of the gasses in it, but if one was to take a set of measurments there would be a clear temperature gradient from the top to the bottom of each bell, and the gas at a given height within a bell would all be at the same temperature.

This may be what Bob was referring to. I found the Kuznetzov site to be interesting but hard to follow - English is obviously not the author's primary language, so the grammar can be a bit strange, and there are problems like diagrams with Russian captions that are hard to match to the text, etc. However they have some interesting design concepts.

One question that sort of relates to why I think Bob was wanting to add some sort of afterburner to your setup. I know you claim to be burning cleaner due to your short, hot fires, but I know that when I go to a bike rally and we are all standing around the fire pit, the fire there is definitely hot, and obviously is getting plenty of air, but it still is putting out LOTS of smoke - albeit less than my smoke dragon in "overnight strangle" mode. Presumably if you could get a reburner on that campfire smoke, it would be cleaner, like a reburner equipped woodstove. So can you explain what it is about the fires in your masonry stove that makes them cleaner than a campfire, and put them in the same league as a secondary burning woodstove?

Gooserider

 

[Martin Strand III]

So "pockets" look like bells for mixing gases in your described design (sounds like a nightmare to make not to mention clean out, if required). So what? There are numerous MH designs from multiple countries that go back hundreds of years. I'm in no position to comare monoliths. I know mine works and surpasses my satisfaction.

One question that sort of relates to why I think Bob was wanting to add some sort of afterburner to your setup. I know you claim to be burning cleaner due to your short, hot fires, but I know that when I go to a bike rally and we are all standing around the fire pit, the fire there is definitely hot, and obviously is getting plenty of air, but it still is putting out LOTS of smoke - albeit less than my smoke dragon in “overnight strangle” mode. Presumably if you could get a reburner on that campfire smoke, it would be cleaner, like a reburner equipped woodstove. So can you explain what it is about the fires in your masonry stove that makes them cleaner than a campfire, and put them in the same league as a secondary burning woodstove?

Gooserider

The robust fire in my firebox is not at all like a smoldering campfire you describe (this relates how to the inside of a closed refractory insulated MH firebox?). MH'ers have secondary burning pure and simple by virtue of the design for the turbulent flame path, the available unrestricted air* and the heat achieved. These factors are not apples-to-apples with a wood burning metal stove.

It's my understanding only (properly functioning) pellet stoves burn cleaner than a MH.

Aye,
Marty

* By unrestricted air, I mean the fire burns without an air adjustment control; the amount is engineered by the design of the air input orifices to be "optimal" for this heater. Too much air, like burning with a door wide open and at your open campfire cools the flame path and the heat output.

 

[begreen]

Thanks for posting the link Goose, interesting stoves. The photos show some of the nicest brickwork I've ever seen in a fireplace/stove. I also liked the combo boiler arangement. My Russian is pretty rusty, but I might be able to help if you need a translation for a specific diagram on Kuznetsov's website.

 

[Martin Strand III]

BG:

Great idea. Here's a small soapstone beauty just less than 1200 Kg:

(broken link removed to http://tulikivi.com/www/tltuoteU.nsf/EN2/KIRAKKA?OpenDocument&id=Takkauunit_pp&id2=EN)

Stok'er once or twice a day and have the rest of the day and night to yourselves!

Aye,
Marty

 

[Gooserider]

I appreciate the offer to try translating Craig, but at this point my interest is more theoretical than anything else - we aren't about to be building a house anytime soon, so Masonry stoves fall in the "Cool stuff" category, and as such I think I have the essence of what the Russians are doing, and don't feel the need for the fine details.

Marty - I don't know that the "pockets" or bells in the Russian stoves would be that hard to build or clean - It appears that the chambers can be pretty much any convenient shape as long as they are as big at the bottom as they are the rest of the way. By the same token, I don't see that they would be that much worse to clean than your monolith - the pictures I saw seemed to show that there were cleanout ports of some sort to let you reach all parts of the smoke path, I don't see that building a chamber would make things worse.

I do appreciate your explanation about the air being limited by design in your firebox, I hadn't really thought of to much air being a problem, I just knew that those campfires were still smoky, even though they were anything but "smoldering" (When the fire-ring is glowing, and people are melting bottles in the fire, it is NOT smoldering....)

Gooserider

 

[Martin Strand III]

I appreciate the offer to try translating Craig, but at this point my interest is more theoretical than anything else - we aren't about to be building a house anytime soon, so Masonry stoves fall in the "Cool stuff" category, and as such I think I have the essence of what the Russians are doing, and don't feel the need for the fine details.

Marty - I don't know that the "pockets" or bells in the Russian stoves would be that hard to build or clean - It appears that the chambers can be pretty much any convenient shape as long as they are as big at the bottom as they are the rest of the way. By the same token, I don't see that they would be that much worse to clean than your monolith - the pictures I saw seemed to show that there were cleanout ports of some sort to let you reach all parts of the smoke path, I don't see that building a chamber would make things worse.

I do appreciate your explanation about the air being limited by design in your firebox, I hadn't really thought of to much air being a problem, I just knew that those campfires were still smoky, even though they were anything but "smoldering" (When the fire-ring is glowing, and people are melting bottles in the fire, it is NOT smoldering....)

Gooserider

Goose:

Just because a monolith is basically a hollow hunk of rock, many people do not realize that there is considerable R & D put into MH'ers despite the fact they are not "UL" listed as are metal wood stoves.

Aye,
Marty

Grandma used to say, "The Devil is in the details."