Woodstock Soapstone Progress Hybrid Stove

[rideau]

quote="BrowningBAR, post: 1322687, member: 5809"]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!"[/quote]

That's right, BB. Keep the lawyers employed, adding value to all our lives.

 

[BrowningBAR]

Super. Maximum BTU output is three times that of the 30. Which seems to indicate that it is putting out three times as much heat. So, with a full load of wood, the Progress will put out three times as much heat as the 30.

If that isn't what it means, than what does the chart tell the user? Specifically. What can a potential buyer take away from this chart in terms of how the stove will operate in their home as it regards BTU output?

Because, looking at the chart a user will look at it and say, "oh, the Fireview will provide more heat than an Equinox."

 

[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!"

That's right, BB. Keep the lawyers employed, adding value to all our lives.

I'm only thinking of the economy.

 

[Machria]

BB, maybe this explanation will help a bit. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think your looking at this as if the BTU #'s listed is the cumulative # of BTU's that were output with the load. By cumulative, that means the total BTU's that were output over the entire course of the burn of EPA test load. In other words, if they put in 200k BTU's worth of wood, each stove should then have produced something just under 200k BTU's of heat (under 200k because there will obviosuly be some loss of BTU up the chimney). One stove (lets call it stove YY) might burn all the wood in 1 hour, in which case the YY stove put out ~200k in one hour. Another stove (lets call it stove XX) might burn it over 10 hours, in which case stove XX put out the same ~200k, but did it over 10 hours. So in your words, you could say "they both put out the same amount of heat or BTU's". Right? Great. But that is not what the chart is showing. What it is showing is, stove YY peaked at 200k output for one hour (it put out 200k in one hour). Since stove XX put out 200k in 10 hours, you can derive that 200k/10 hours = 20k peak output per hour. Hence, on the graph stove YY would be plotted at 200k BTU's per hour max heat output, while stove XX would be plotted at 20k BTU's max heat output. In the interest of simplifying the explanation, I of course smoothed the heat output lines over time (which we all know is not the real case), and assumed similar heating efficiences between the two stoves (which we also know is not the case). But you get the idea.

So both stoves (XX and YY) put out the same amount of heat with the same load of wood. The difference being, stove XX put it all out at once, and the stove YY spread it out over time. It is only showing one snapshot of the potential of the stoves, which of course happends to be the one the EPA is interested in, a full blast burn (since they want to see the emmisions at this burn rate). Does it tell you all you need to know about a stove? Absolutely not. Does it give one a "reference point" (ability to compare to other tested stoves) of how much heat a stove can produce at max output with EPA test wood? Yes. Is this # the same number you will get in your home? No. But again, it's a reference pioint to be used for comparisons only. From reading the chart, I now know that stove XX can blast more heat in a short period than stove YY if required. That can be a good thing, and that can be a bad thing. It's not saying a stove is better than another.

To me, the important thing is this number (max heat ouput) in combination with the LOW burn number, which gives you a reference point of the range of a stoves output. This is where I think the PH excels, it has a pretty low low end, and pretty high high end, or as Woodstock claims, the widest range of heat output of any stove in it's class. Whether that is true or not, I'll let you guys with stove experience argue that point out.

 

[Waulie]

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.

As long as you realize you'll have to sue the EPA and not WS. The EPA has a LOT of lawyers, they're pretty used to getting sued. Just warning ya...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the label that goes on all approved stoves list the output range as determined by the EPA testing?

 

[Machria]

Because, looking at the chart a user will look at it and say, "oh, the Fireview will provide more heat than an Equinox."

No, an educated user will say: A Fireview has a MAX heat ouput using EPA test wood, higher than the Equinox. Again, it does NOT say it ill put out more heat. Your confusing a PEAK output, with cumulative generated heat.

Look at it this way:
If a ford mustang can go from 0 to 20 MPH in 1.8 seconds and a Porche 911 can go from 0 to 20 MPH in 1.9 seconds, does that tell you a Ford Mustang is "faster" than a 911? No. A 911 can do 300mph, a mustang can only do 220. But the mustang is simply faster off the line, but in the long run the 911 will leave the mustang in the dust. (I made up these numbers for demonstration purposes, you get the idea). Summarizing that the mustang is faster than the 911 based on this little snapshot of info is wrong. Similarly, your making an inapropriate gernalized summation based on a very small snapshot of information by saying "the chart says it will out heat stove xx by 3 times...".

 

[Machria]

As long as you realize you'll have to sue the EPA and not WS. The EPA has a LOT of lawyers, they're pretty used to getting sued. Just warning ya...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the label that goes on all approved stoves list the output range as determined by the EPA testing?

Both good points.

And keep in mind, this whole discussion is the same discussion that goes on about the MPG ratings on cars. Have you ever got a car to get the same MPG in real life that the Guberment tested and approved sticker says it will get? NO. But you certainly can use that number as a comparison to other vehicles when purchasing a car. If one says it gets 30mpg, and another says it gets 20mpg, the 30 mpg car will very likley get better fuel economy, but that doesn't mean you will get the sticker 30. Just that you will get better economy than the other.

 

[macleary2000]

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

WOW. I'd of been so nervous about that scaffolding!! Beautiful job. I might have to put in a duct to move the air around in my house too so thanks for the idea, although mine wouldn't be directly over the stove the way yours is located.

Does anyone have any recommendations on reasonably priced IR heat temp guns? I'm getting the impression alot of people own these to track temps on their hearths, different spots on their stoves, etc so I might want to pick one up too.

 

[BrowningBAR]

No, an educated user will say: A Fireview has a MAX heat ouput using EPA test wood, higher than the Equinox. Again, it does NOT say it ill put out more heat. Your confusing a PEAK output, with cumulative generated heat.

I am not confusing the two.

Look at it this way:
If a ford mustang can go from 0 to 20 MPH in 1.8 seconds and a Porche 911 can go from 0 to 20 MPH in 1.9 seconds, does that tell you a Ford Mustang is "faster" than a 911? No. A 911 can do 300mph, a mustang can only do 220. But the mustang is simply faster off the line, but in the long run the 911 will leave the mustang in the dust. (I made up these numbers for demonstration purposes, you get the idea). Summarizing that the mustang is faster than the 911 based on this little snapshot of info is wrong. Similarly, your making an inapropriate gernalized summation based on a very small snapshot of information by saying "the chart says it will out heat stove xx by 3 times...".

For the love of god, man. Stop using car analogies. They aren't very good.

 

[BrowningBAR]

Again, peak out put indicates how much heat/BTUs it can throw at one undetermined time. There is absolutely no way that the Drolet can throw 3x the peak BTUs as the 30. Same design. Same materials. Same size. ( I am using Drolet in this case as it is closer to the same stove as the 30). There are, in now way, enough differences in the two stoves to have such a massive difference in "peak" BTU output.

Again, the Mansfield and the Equinox are made by the same company, usuing the same materials, using the same reburn and air control systems. It is not possible for the Mansfield to have a higher "peak" BTU output than the Equinox.

I am using non-woodstock stoves and stoves that are identical in design and materials.

 

[BrowningBAR]

BB, maybe this explanation will help a bit. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think your looking at this as if the BTU #'s listed is the cumulative # of BTU's that were output with the load.

No, I'm not. I am looking at it as BTUs per hour.

By cumulative, that means the total BTU's that were output over the entire course of the burn of EPA test load. In other words, if they put in 200k BTU's worth of wood, each stove should then have produced something just under 200k BTU's of heat (under 200k because there will obviosuly be some loss of BTU up the chimney). One stove (lets call it stove YY) might burn all the wood in 1 hour, in which case the YY stove put out ~200k in one hour. Another stove (lets call it stove XX) might burn it over 10 hours, in which case stove XX put out the same ~200k, but did it over 10 hours. So in your words, you could say "they both put out the same amount of heat or BTU's". Right? Great. But that is not what the chart is showing. What it is showing is, stove YY peaked at 200k output for one hour (it put out 200k in one hour). Since stove XX put out 200k in 10 hours, you can derive that 200k/10 hours = 20k peak output per hour. Hence, on the graph stove YY would be plotted at 200k BTU's per hour max heat output, while stove XX would be plotted at 20k BTU's max heat output. In the interest of simplifying the explanation, I of course smoothed the heat output lines over time (which we all know is not the real case), and assumed similar heating efficiences between the two stoves (which we also know is not the case). But you get the idea.

So both stoves (XX and YY) put out the same amount of heat with the same load of wood. The difference being, stove XX put it all out at once, and the stove YY spread it out over time. It is only showing one snapshot of the potential of the stoves, which of course happends to be the one the EPA is interested in, a full blast burn (since they want to see the emmisions at this burn rate). Does it tell you all you need to know about a stove? Absolutely not. Does it give one a "reference point" (ability to compare to other tested stoves) of how much heat a stove can produce at max output with EPA test wood? Yes. Is this # the same number you will get in your home? No. But again, it's a reference pioint to be used for comparisons only. From reading the chart, I now know that stove XX can blast more heat in a short period than stove YY if required. That can be a good thing, and that can be a bad thing. It's not saying a stove is better than another.

Again, when stove XX and YY are from the same manufacturer, offer the same materials, the same air controls, the same reburn, it is impossible for the smaller stove to achieve higher peak BTUs.

It would be like listing the Fireview as a higher "peak" BTU stove on that chart than the Progress.

 

[Ashful]

Machria: In BAR's defense, you have consistently used the term BTU's to refer to power, whereas BTU is actually a measure of energy (power * time). I think you know what you're saying, but you're using the wrong units of measure, which is adding to the confusion.

 

[Highbeam]

No, an educated user will say: A Fireview has a MAX heat ouput using EPA test wood, higher than the Equinox. Again, it does NOT say it ill put out more heat.

This is messed up right here and maybe where you went so wrong. It is false that your term "heat output" is different than "heat it will put out". The word output is pretty much the combination of the two words put and out don't you think mac?

 

[BrowningBAR]

And an "educated" viewer will in fact look at that chart and think the Drolet will beat the hell out of the 30 when it comes to heating your home. A viewer will think the Fireview and Mansfield will put out more heat than an Equinox.

To think otherwise means you are choosing to ignore thread after thread after thread of people attempting to figure out which stove will heat their home.

 

[Machria]

This is messed up right here and maybe where you went so wrong. It is false that your term "heat output" is different than "heat it will put out". The word output is pretty much the combination of the two words put and out don't you think mac?

Huh? I was parsing the difference between all the heat a unit ouputs throughout an enitre burn, compared to the PEAK output of a burn. One is cumulative, the other is a peak. Both are heat ouputs measured over different time period.

I haven't gone wrong at all. I'm dead on. Now whether the numbers reported are correct or not, that you can argue all you want. There not my numbers, take that up with the EPA and stove companies. But you can't argue what the numbers represent. A spade is a spade. The graph is what it is. You can dispute the numbers in it, but you can't dispute what the graph is showing you. All I'm doing is defining what the graph tells you.

 

[Rich L]

Can any of you PH users tell me how the PH performed during these past very frigid days?

 

[Waulie]

Can any of you PH users tell me how the PH performed during these past very frigid days?

It wasn't as frigid here as it's been in the NE, but we had several nights with lows in the low teens. Rather than loading it 60 to 75% full like usual, I loaded it full with 16 to 17" splits. Since it holds 22" splits, I really wasn't using the entire volume. Still did 12 hour burns like always with plently of coals (actually a ton) for an easy reload. I'm heating 1,700 square-feet with average insulation, cathedral ceilings, and a few draft issues. House temps have ranged from 67 to 74 like always. The only time I have trouble with 12 hour burns is if we get down near zero. In that case, a couple split make up fire in the evening is a good idea, although not completely necessary.

 

[chipsoflyin]

When temps get below 10 degrees we go to 3 eight hour burns with the fire box 2/3s full. That is with 16 inch splits. With 22s I think 2 twelves will keep the house above 72. We hit zero the other night and the coldest part of the house was 68.

 

[Todd 2]

Can any of you PH users tell me how the PH performed during these past very frigid days?

Hi Rich, Waulie pretty much summed it up for me too, I'm using left over 3 yr seasoned locust cut for the old stove (14-15") on the coldest nights.
2000 sq ft basement & upstairs combined, less than average insulation, some drafts, Basement 76-80 deg, upstairs 73-75 deg, on those last couple of single digit nights.(we hang out in the basement alot, we like it warm) I feel my burn times will increase past the 10-11 hr mark next winter when I can put an actual full load in.
With temps in the avg 30's I use half to 2/3 loads (short wood= less than my figures)
Using less wood, warmer, & more even temps than my PE Summit stove - it worked good for me but this PH's performance is still amazing me.
The single digit nights was the icing on the cake for me, with sprinkles happy happy happy

 

[Slow1]

We missed the coldest nights here having just returned from a vacation in Tx, however loaded it up last night then this morning had coals at 5:30 to fill the box (packed it really) as the house was still cold from our trip. Had left thermostat on 50 when gone and raised up to 61 overnight upstairs and 57 downstairs. This morning the central heat was running for both zones, but an hour after loading up full (outside temp was <20) both zones stopped running and house was warming up. Ran the PH on the hot side (hottest I ever have) and by noon I had a large coal bed and the kitchen near stove was up to 70*, upstairs up to 66 which is far better than I was able to do with the FV in years past. I put 4 pcs (< 1/2 load) in at noon as I had to run some errands and came home to even warmer house. 8pm load on good solid bed of coals, packed it again and it is now running almost 500* surface temps and looks to have burned about 1/3 of the load after 2 hours (will slow down the volume burn as it goes on of course). Kitchen thermometer is up to 73+ and I don't expect the oil to kick in again until the next time we go out of town. I'm heating something around 2500+ sqft of decently insulated space (2000 build 2x4 walls).

I'll probably back of on these packed stove burns now that the house is up to the temps that we like, but it has been interesting. Even got the "new stove" smell this morning as I was heating it up. Really nice fire show too. Nothing but the iconal screen glowed though (and that almost always does - pretty normal operation). All in all I burned 26 splits today as many were rather small (10+4+12).

 

[Waulie]

Wow Slow1. You got your house back up to temp pretty darn fast, especially considering it was still cold out. Isn't it fun burning real hot? I don't get very many opportunities to do it. I need to go out of town more!

 

[Rich L]

I'm considering a used PH $2200.00.I'm looking to replace my LOPI Liberty with a stove that gives off similar heat but with longer heat times.So I thank all for your feed back.It'll help me to make up my mind one way or the other.I'd hate to move 700lbs. and the stove fails me.Plus since I'm buying it used I won't be able to engage the return policy.

 

[Waulie]

I'm considering a used PH $2200.00.I'm looking to replace my LOPI Liberty with a stove that gives off similar heat but with longer heat times.So I thank all for your feed back.It'll help me to make up my mind one way or the other.I'd hate to move 700lbs. and the stove fails me.Plus since I'm buying it used I won't be able to engage the return policy.

Yeah, I remember your post on the topic the other day. As I recall, you're burning your stoves pretty hot because you need a lot of heat. Overall, the PH will give your a higher range of heat outputs than the Mansfield, a bit more heat from the same wood (better efficiency), and probably a tad higher, high burn rate. The thing is though, if you need a ton of heat then your burn times are going to suffer regardless of the stove you own. If you're always burning hot (and therefore fast), you're not going to see a huge benefit from having a stove that has the ability to burn lower (and therefore longer).

 

[Slow1]

Wow Slow1. You got your house back up to temp pretty darn fast, especially considering it was still cold out. Isn't it fun burning real hot? I don't get very many opportunities to do it. I need to go out of town more!

I'm surprised as well. Happy too. It hasn't been all that cold really - I think the low last night was just in the 20's and it is somewhere around freezing now. However, was happy to wake up this morning (late) to find that I had a nice bed of coals in the stove after 13hrs and over 70 in the kitchen and 68+ upstairs (actually warmer than when I loaded last night!). I'm beginning to think that better draft (colder weather) actually is extending my burn time - can that possibly make sense? The burns look different in that I'm getting a lot of secondary burn inside the top of the stove (jets of fire) throughout the first 3-4 hours unlike before when the fire would go out and then come back later in the burn. This also seems to be getting me higher temps on the stove in the first part of the burn. Of course it could be change of wood as I work through the pile - maybe I am hitting on better/dryer wood? I don't know but whatever it is, I'm a happy camper at the moment.

 

[Waulie]

I've concluded that having the secondaries fire off doesn't really hurt burn times very much compared to keeping them snuffed out. It seems odd, but that's what I experienced.