Woodstock Soapstone Progress Hybrid Stove

[Machria]

It is ridiculously wrong.

No, it is not what they are showing. AND, the 30 easily puts out more heat with the same amount of wood than the Encore. Which isn't even what the original chart is showing.

There ya go. You've repeated that same concept throughout..... ? Nobody, especially me is saying, or is claiming the graph is saying, that any particular stove out heats any other particular stove.

 

[macleary2000]

Not sure where your gettign your materials, but I just re-did my hearth, and although I did the all above it as well,it was MUCH more than $600. $1,500 for labor for the 1/2 slate install (included the thinset and Durarock for walls and hearth). $950 for 14 boxes of Silver slate 1/2" stone/tile, $300 to bullnose 3 or 4 boxes of it, about $200 of lumber (2x4's, 3/4" plywood, durarock...). Wish I could have bought one for $600!

When I estimated $100-$150, I was referring to just building a flat floor hearth pad. It sounds like your specific specs describe a floor and backsplash wall as well as maybe a raised ledge the way a traditional fireplace ledge might be designed? (since you said you had alot of bullnose) My estimate also indicated no labor charges (as I'd build it myself), hence the low cost. Sounds like you've got a nice hearth, show us a picture!

 

[Machria]

When I estimated $100-$150, I was referring to just building a flat floor hearth pad. It sounds like your specific specs describe a floor and backsplash wall as well as maybe a raised ledge the way a traditional fireplace ledge might be designed? (since you said you had alot of bullnose) My estimate also indicated no labor charges (as I'd build it myself), hence the low cost. Sounds like you've got a nice hearth, show us a picture!

Yes, I did a bunch more.... but I was just pointing out it goes a bit higher than you would think when all is said and done. We ussually forget about the things like bullnose, thinset, grout, screws, nails..... it all starts adding up making the $600 not sound so bad

Pics of mine over at: https://www.hearth.com/talk/threads...problem-progress-hyrbrid-install-pics.101580/


.

 

[Machria]

Browning, It's ok to disagree with somebody, relax. I completely disagree with your views on the subject, I don't beleive all stoves are made equal. You do think they are, and the only difference is their size. I think the chart is meaningful to some degree, you do not.

Great. Enjoy!

 

[rdust]

Browning, It's ok to disagree with somebody, relax. I completely disagree with your views on the subject, I don't beleive all stoves are made equal. You do think they are, and the only difference is their size. I think the chart is meaningful to some degree, you do not.

Great. Enjoy!

The chart has NO meaning on how well the stove will heat your house. It's doubtful anyone will ever run their stove the way it's run during the test. That is what BrowningBAR has been saying this whole thread. The two of you disagree, seeing how BrowingBAR is our resident stove mover I think his personal experience carries more weight for me than the chart.

I've always been curious how the flue and stoves don't melt down during the EPA test on the high burn.

 

[HotCoals]

I gota go with BB on his one..that chart is goofy!

 

[Machria]

The chart has NO meaning on how well the stove will heat your house. It's doubtful anyone will ever run their stove the way it's run during the test. That is what BrowningBAR has been saying this whole thread. The two of you disagree, seeing how BrowingBAR is our resident stove mover I think his personal experience carries more weight for me than the chart.

I've always been curious how the flue and stoves don't melt down during the EPA test on the high burn.

Correct. Again, I don't know how many times I need to repeat this to you guys. I AM NOT SAYING IT IS TELLING YOU HOW IT WILL HEAT YOUR HOUSE. OR, how much heat a stove wil normally put out. What it is doing, is comparing stoves MAX OUPUT and emmisions, plain and simple. Why is that a problem? They are simply facts. Unless you think the EPA is lying?

 

[HotCoals]

How can the max output be that much diff between almost the same size stoves..bull..unless maybe that is when the stove is running the cleanest..even then I doubt it..I gota look at the chart again.

 

[rdust]

Correct. Again, I don't know how many times I need to repeat this to you guys. I AM NOT SAYING IT IS TELLING YOU HOW IT WILL HEAT YOUR HOUSE. OR, how much heat a stove wil normally put out. What it is doing, is comparing stoves MAX OUPUT and emmisions, plain and simple. Why is that a problem? They are simply facts. Unless you think the EPA is lying?

I guess what we're trying to say is the "max output" number is meaningless in the real world so who cares what it is. The chart does not offer helpful guidance to someone shopping for a stove for the first time. Firebox size is the best judge of how well a stove will heat. Sure there are different materials and slightly different designs but in the end the firebox size is the key. My Endeavor was a 2.2 advertised firebox rated at 70K my BK is 2.8 and rate at 4xK, the BK will out heat that Endeavor ever step of the way in my real world experience. Maybe the Endeavor could throw more heat wide open, that was never a use case of mine.

 

[Waulie]

I guess what we're trying to say is the "max output" number is meaningless in the real world so who cares what it is. The chart does not offer helpful guidance to someone shopping for a stove for the first time. Firebox size is the best judge of how well a stove will heat. Sure there are different materials and slightly different designs but in the end the firebox size is the key. My Endeavor was a 2.2 advertised firebox rated at 70K my BK is 2.8 and rate at 4xK, the BK will out heat that Endeavor ever step of the way in my real world experience. Maybe the Endeavor could throw more heat wide open, that was never a use case of mine.

I don't want to sound like I'm saying that chart is useful here. But, I will point out that the Endeavor was almost certainly reporting cord wood ratings that they themselves determined while the BK was reporting EPA figures. This, of course, is totally apples to oranges. Most manufacturers report both the EPA outputs and their own tests with cordwood. What's strange is that while these usually vary significantly, WS reports a maximum BTU with cordwood of only 80,000 which is not much higher than the EPA tests. I'm sure WS is being conservative with their cordwood ratings as they are with everthing else.

While I agree that the chart is not useful, we have to keep in mind that WS did not create any of the data. They just plotted the EPA data that is readily available in tabular form directly from the EPA. If there is blame here, it should be towards the EPA test procedures which "determine" an output range even though that is not what their real function is.

Is WS smart enough to create a stove that simply performed fantastically in the EPA tests so they could score big on the test results? Yes, they're probably smart enough to do that. Did they? We'll never know if there was some conspiracy here, but I do know that PH is capable of throwing an AMAZING amount of heat in real world heating. That's what matters.

 

[Machria]

What do you guys think of the 2nd shooter theory's? Was there somebody in the grassy knoll?



Sorry, couldn't resist after reading that.

 

[Waulie]

What do you guys think of the 2nd shooter theory's? Was there somebody in the grassy knoll?



Sorry, couldn't resist after reading that.

Yeah, I just edited to hopefully indicate I'm not claiming a 2nd shooter. Original wording was ambiguous.

 

[BrowningBAR]

I don't want to sound like I'm saying that chart is useful here. But, I will point out that the Endeavor was almost certainly reporting cord wood ratings that they themselves determined while the BK was reporting EPA figures. This, of course, is totally apples to oranges. Most manufacturers report both the EPA outputs and their own tests with cordwood. What's strange is that while these usually vary significantly, WS reports a maximum BTU with cordwood of only 80,000 which is not much higher than the EPA tests. I'm sure WS is being conservative with their cordwood ratings as they are with everthing else.

While I agree that the chart is not useful, we have to keep in mind that WS did not create any of the data. They just plotted the EPA data that is readily available in tabular form directly from the EPA. If there is blame here, it should be towards the EPA test procedures which "determine" an output range even though that is not what their real function is.

Is WS smart enough to create a stove that simply performed fantastically in the EPA tests so they could score big on the test results? Yes, they're probably smart enough to do that. Did they? We'll never know if there was some conspiracy here, but I do know that PH is capable of throwing an AMAZING amount of heat in real world heating. That's what matters.

This isn't about Woodstocks claims. This is about the ratings of all the other stoves and where they are located on the chart and how it does not make any logical sense.

Explain the Drolet and Englander discrepancy.
Explain the Mansfield and Equinox discrepancy.

 

[Waulie]

This isn't about Woodstocks claims. This is about the ratings of all the other stoves and where they are located on the chart and how it does not make any logical sense.

Explain the Drolet and Englander discrepancy.
Explain the Mansfield and Equinox discrepancy.

I can't explain it other than to say that's how they tested in the EPA certified labs. I already agree it doesn't really mean anything in the real world. My only point is that if I created a product that tested great in the only objective test there is comparing my product to others (and one that I'm required to do by law by the way), I'd probably point out how well my product tested. It is a flawed test. It is misleading and doesn't mean anything in real world heating. But, it is the only objective test there is that almost all new stoves are subjected to. Sucks doesn't it?

 

[rideau]

Unfortunately, you are both incorrect. The EPA test for emissions uses a load of varying size, based on firebox size. Because this graph was presented as data based on the EPA emissions testing, the conditions are disparate, in that the various size stoves are tested with different loads of wood.

http://www.woodheat.org/emissions-testing.html

I don't think anyone here is knocking your beloved Woodstock's performance, so there's no need to get heated over this, rideau.

edit: Waulie nailed the underlying theme.

As I stated in one of my posts, I'm not really very vested in this discussion. Certainly don't feel anyone is knocking any stove's performance. Was just commenting on my impression of the testing....which I never felt was the be all and end all of stove performance. I've learned a bit from this discussion, which is always nice. Like Waulie's summation....and certainly believe BB's real world experience.

I've just had a new thought, and am tempted to raise the question related to it, but I think I've "contributed" enough to this discussion. Time to move on.

There are lots of good, and even great, stoves out there, as is obvious to anyone who reads much on this forum.

 

[rdust]

But, I will point out that the Endeavor was almost certainly reporting cord wood ratings that they themselves determined while the BK was reporting EPA figures.

You would be correct, those are cord wood numbers. Pretty much the problem with those numbers since a potential consumer who doesn't spend their free time in the evening browsing this site doesn't even realize there is a difference between EPA test fuel and cord wood. This is a different problem though and not related to the "chart".

Yep, I think this thread has "run it's coarse" for me.

 

[HotCoals]

None of that matters..what does matter is that I have the "king" of stoves..lol.

 

[Ashful]

My primary trouble with the chart, and the implication that started this whole debate, is that the soapstone stove with most mass and an exceptionally high specific heat material, is shown as achieving an exceptionally high peak BTU/hr on a fixed test load, whereas other steel or iron stoves known or advertised (by Woodstock themselves) to be much more responsive ("less even heating", by Woodstock advertising) are shown as not achieving the same peak BTU/hr. It goes against 20+ years of Woodstock's own advertising, where they tout soapstone's ability to moderate the peaks of the heating cycle, and provide a more constant output. We all assume there's a fixed number of BTUs in that test load, so the stove hitting highest peak BTUs will also have the shortest overall cycle, again against Woodstock marketing.

 

[rideau]

My primary trouble with the chart, and the implication that started this whole debate, is that the soapstone stove with most mass and an exceptionally high specific heat material, is shown as achieving an exceptionally high peak BTU/hr on a fixed test load, whereas other steel or iron stoves known or advertised (by Woodstock themselves) to be much more responsive ("less even heating", by Woodstock advertising) are shown as not achieving the same peak BTU/hr. It goes against 20+ years of Woodstock's own advertising, where they tout soapstone's ability to moderate the peaks of the heating cycle, and provide a more constant output. We all assume there's a fixed number of BTUs in that test load, so the stove hitting highest peak BTUs will also have the shortest overall cycle, again against Woodstock marketing.

Jotul, don't lose track of the fact that the PH is a different stove. It has different burn technology. It has both secondary and cat tech, and automatically switches back and forth between the two burns, or sometimes burns both ways simultaneously, so it is a diffrent bird than previous Woodstock stoves. It heats up faster, throws much more heat through the glass, loses less heat up the chimney, circulates hot air around the inside of the stove, uses a steel inner jacket between two layers of soapstone...a whole diffferent bird. One gets the advantages of soapstone and steel, as well as the advantages of both types of burn, gets really great heat output at any point in the burn by simply feeding a bit more air, and gets no dip in steady more moderate heat output despite occasionally asking for peak output, because the soapstone/iron mass stores a lot of heat. .

 

[Machria]

My primary trouble with the chart, and the implication that started this whole debate, is that the soapstone stove with most mass and an exceptionally high specific heat material, is shown as achieving an exceptionally high peak BTU/hr on a fixed test load, whereas other steel or iron stoves known or advertised (by Woodstock themselves) to be much more responsive ("less even heating", by Woodstock advertising) are shown as not achieving the same peak BTU/hr. It goes against 20+ years of Woodstock's own advertising, where they tout soapstone's ability to moderate the peaks of the heating cycle, and provide a more constant output. We all assume there's a fixed number of BTUs in that test load, so the stove hitting highest peak BTUs will also have the shortest overall cycle, again against Woodstock marketing.

I understand where your trying to go with it, and that makes sense. Except, your mixing up burn times in there, and assuming all stoves would generate the same amount of heat with the same load of wood. That simply is not the case. Just like different cars get different MPG with the same amount of gasoline, some can go faster for a short distance, some go further but do it much slower, and some can do both (and those would be the ideal cars, good MPG plus lots of power/speed). Similarly, a BK can burn alot longer than a PH, but a PH can put out more heat.

The fact the PH can blast alot of heat out at it's peak, has nothing to do with the other fact that that the extra mass and specific heat index of Soapstone can smooth out the heat output. What its saying is, the PH can do both. From my very limited experience with it, I can agree with that. I can burn us out of the house in 30 minutes, and I can let it slow burn all night with a nice even heat as I did last night. Pretty cool stuff...

To me and where I live (Long Island), I think one of the most important specs to look at when picking a stove is the range of output. Long Island can sometimes be moderate due to the ocean air/warm gulf stream, but at the same time we can also sometimes get blasted with very cold cold fronts from the north and west that hang over us for weeks. The wide range of the PH is what I like.

 

[Machria]

None of that matters..what does matter is that I have the "king" of stoves..lol.

You sure do!! And the way your hearth is setup for that thing, I'm surprised the BK isn't sitting up on a throne! It really does look like a kings thrown up there.

 

[BrowningBAR]

I look forward to my lawsuit when I buy the PH in five years and it doesn't put out three times as much heat as the 30 or the Defiant.

"But, your honor, this chart clearly states that the PH will put out three times as many BTUs at it's peak!"

 

[Machria]

I look forward to my lawsuit when I buy the PH in five years and it doesn't put out three times as much heat as the 30 or the Defiant.

"But, your honor, this chart clearly states that the PH will put out three times as many BTUs at it's peak!"

LOL! For the seventeenth time, that is NOT even close to what the chart is saying. Please go back and re-read my posts. Your not getting it, and your mis-understanding the test results, which explains why you don't like or agree with them at all.

 

[BrowningBAR]

LOL! For the seventeenth time, that is NOT even close to what the chart is saying. Please go back and re-read my posts. Your not getting it, and your mis-understanding the test results, which explains why you don't like or agree with them at all.

Spell it out then. What is the chart saying as it regards BTU output?

 

[Machria]

I don't think you are reading this correctly. Are you taking into consideration the fact it is ONLY comparing MAXIMUM BTU OUTPUT? The chart is not saying "a Progress puts out 3 times as much heat as a 30". It is saying, with a full load of EPA test wood, the MAXIMUM heat each unit will put out is xxx btu's. That does not mean it can do it for very long, or very short, or any lenght of time for that matter. Just that it can do it.

Here's an experiment for you to try someday. Load all three of your stoves with the same amount of the same type wood. Say, two 4 lb splits of oak for examle in each stove. Light them up, and leave them full blast open. Now measure (as best you can), how much heat each seems to put out, and how long it takes each one to burn down to the same point (10 or 20% left in coals). THAT, is what I believe they are showing you in the graph. (EDIT: All three will very likely product completely different results, different outputs spread over different time period, with different peak outputs, and different low outputs.)

Does it show you exactly what a stove will do in your home? of course not. Nobody is saying that. It is a reference point.