WeldrDave
Feeling the Heat
OUTSTANDING Clint! PM Coaly, he may be able to help you locate one. If worst comes to worst, get a spring handle for now till you find one.
Showing off some NOS Fisher Stoves.
- Thread starter Finest Fishers
- 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.
- Status
WeldrDave
Feeling the Heat
That'll work till you find a ballI did rob a spring from an old fire poker I had laying around for now.
What do you mean?? Fisher's are the Cleanest and Most Efficient. They burn hot, leave hardly NO ash, they recycle the smoke AND they will hold a fire all night. That's efficient. What they make now are junk and do none of the above.
This is my first post. I had a Fisher Grandma Bear stove about 1981 and the wife got it in the divorce. Sunday I'm going to pickup a Mama Bear stove with a single bend handle to put in the house. I can't stand the EPA. I'm going to buy all the Fisher stoves I can find.
Great site
The Bear series is the only stove more efficient. You'll regret selling it.
These Fisher's will never wear out. I'm buying another one Sunday.
raybonz
Minister of Fire
You are hiliarious! I always get kick out of people joking around like this. Too funny!
SO BB. What's the BEST STOVE FOR THE MONEY?? Money being $200-400?? Keep in mind Fisher Bear stoves are nearly 40 Years old.
That's what I'm talking about. Fisher Bear stove sell for $200-400. Best stove for the money.
Are you saying Fisher stoves are no good?? Lots of people are buying, selling and heating their houses very well with them. These stoves will probably last 100 years.
I don't know. That sound pretty good to me.
But you didn't say that. You said they were the the cleanest and most efficient. It's simply not even close to the truth! The new stoves are designed around a secondary combustion system. There is no secondary burn system in a fisher, only a theory. I agree they are a little better than other old smokers, but still only half as efficient as new EPA approved stoves.
Cleaner and more efficient than your efficient stove on a rainy day burning wet wood. You get a good FISHER going and you don't have to babysit it and worry if you can leave it and what you will come back to. They work and always have.
no way an old Fisher is the cleanest burning stove or the most efficient. that title probably belongs to one of the new stoves entered into latest wood stove competition. some of the wood stoves entered have emissions so low .. they are equal to vent-less natural gas heaters.
but let's not slight all non-epa stoves .. some like the Fisher has elements of secondary burn and has never been measured for efficiency. but plenty of anecdote evidence abounds of old Fisher stoves burning all night and puts off LOTS of heat .. while burning extremely clean.
after operating a Buck 91 for almost a season with a new cat installed in Jan .. it's my contention that my old JUCA non-epa insert burns cleaner than Buck 91 which is rated at 86% efficiency and uses 1/3 of the wood JUCA did. but JUCA with 12 cubic Ft firebox would put out 2x+ more heat than Buck 91.
the tale of the chimney really tells the story if a wood stove is burning clean ... after startup and stove has reached operating temps .. you should see little to no smoke on a truly clean burning wood stove.
to achieve secondary burn .. a place must be provided for smoke to gather before exiting and there must be a source for fresh O2. if you look at design of a Papa bear .. there's a shelve immediately above fire .. then smoke moves rear to exit stove .. while not efficient as a modern secondary burn system... it's my contention that old Fisher stoves had indeed elements of a secondary burn.
Last edited:
No need for a lesson here, I'm well aware of the efficiencies and deficiencies of both types of stoves.
12 cubic feet? Really? That's hardly a comparison to any Woodstove. That's like comparing a locomotive to a car. I would expect 4x the heat with that monster!
yup .. not a typo .. my JUCA insert recently taken out of my fireplace has a 12 cubic feet firebox and was custom constructed to my monster size fireplace measurements .. Buck 91 is early one without firebrick on sides and has a slightly different construction. it's firebox is definitely larger than newest Buck 91 which claims a 4.4 cubic feet box.
so JUCA is not quite 3x bigger and operates on an open burn system. meaning wood is allowed to burn at it's own rate .. no choking down air. burn is incredibly clean. chimney has never needed to be cleaned after 8 seasons of use, yes I've checked each season just to be sure. reason is JUCA burns so hot no creosote goes up. insert is one huge heat exchange with a blower that moves 3x more air than Buck 91.
catch is JUCA burns 3x more wood than Buck 91 and puts out at least 2x more heat. so during extreme cold JUCA does a better job at heating my 2500sf single level open floor plan home. but during moderate cold and should weather Buck 91 does a better job due to longer burn times and more even heat output.
estimated wood usage this season for Buck 91 will be about 2.5 cords vs JUCA would have been closer to 6-7 cords.
Sounds like you need a bigger blower on the Buck The JUCA's seem to have an xtra-large fan. Plus they have a large heat shield on top that puts off a lot of heat. I'm thinking they are not very efficient though. But they burn hot which the older stoves did too. How long will your JUCA hold a fire??
I'm building a sheet metal box around the bottom of my Mama Bear with a blower. That should increase the efficiency. Paint it black and it won't look too bad. Great site.
just switched to latest blower for Buck 91.. airflow did go up but there's only so much air a tiny fan assembly can move. JUCA is massive in size ... it's completely different than any other wood stove that I'm aware of. blower motor assembly is at least 3x bigger so moves 3x+ more air.
JUCA is extremely efficient at extracting heat from exhaust before allowed up chimney. burn times range from 4 hours to 12+ hours depending on type of wood. rounds burn the longest .. preference is to use green wood to slow the burn down. JUCA is the only stove that I'm aware of that burns green wood clean .. JUCA burns so hot, no smoke emitted when green wood is burning. you've got to start fire with dry wood good and hot before green wood is added.
reason JUCA is able to pull this off is acceleration of draft created by internal design. it's like running a aux air injector similar to modern high efficiency natural gas furnaces. drawback to JUCA is the massive amount of wood it consumes. since it's an open burn system that's allowed to burn fast as it wants.
really love my JUCA wood stove .. but it just burns too much wood!
it'd be ideal for someone wanting to heat a 4,000sf to 5,000sf home with one stove and has say 50 acres of woods.
Bottom and rear shield connected as shown below allows natural circulation from front under ash fender, up the back and out. This was standard on the Model VI for added floor protection.
If you want to extract heat, a rear shield with blower at the bottom is best, extending up the back and around the exhaust vent to remove heat from the hottest area around exhaust collar. A curl at the top directing heat forward was used on the double doors;
CamFan on this site still has original 'new in box' blowers that hang on the bottom. Black or Brown with variable speed.
If you want to extract heat, a rear shield with blower at the bottom is best, extending up the back and around the exhaust vent to remove heat from the hottest area around exhaust collar. A curl at the top directing heat forward was used on the double doors;
CamFan on this site still has original 'new in box' blowers that hang on the bottom. Black or Brown with variable speed.
It would be possible to connect, but a lower CFM than Insert blowers. They only blow straight up the back and out. You need to move air the entire length of the bottom, up the back, then forward, half the depth of the insert with enough force blowing it into the room.
Here's a thread with many original blower styles and installation instructions showing duct dimensions for attaching common blowers available today;
https://www.hearth.com/talk/threads/made-a-blower-for-my-fisher-insert.117672/
Here's a thread with many original blower styles and installation instructions showing duct dimensions for attaching common blowers available today;
https://www.hearth.com/talk/threads/made-a-blower-for-my-fisher-insert.117672/
- Status
Similar threads
