Lets throw another hat into the ring...... HARD COAL Completely automatic,never a shortage,twice as efficient as pellets, no smoke, virtually no maint. and delivered either in bulk or bagged.
Wood vs Pellet
- Thread starter rakuz66
- 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
Roospike
New Member
Well if thats the case I'll have to vote for Natural gas if wood isnt free. Our natural gas prices are just above wood and less than pellets , not sure about local coal prices but if its about the same or less then there is still work involved that would off set the lower cost to not make it worth wile.
Just thinking out loud .......
Just thinking out loud .......
I'd probably do the same, but natural gas is not available and pellets here are consistent and affordable. After my energy log experiment, I think I'm going to stock a palette of Thomas's mondo pellets next winter for burn ban periods and when I want maximum heat out of the stove.
Gooserider
Mod Emeritus
tygrant said:Is this it? http://sharron_reive.tripod.com/catalogue.htmlUncleRich said:I think you're looking for Sedore Stoves. A crude comparison seems it's the goat of multi-fuels. I couldn't find the thread either.
Andre B. said:Marty S said:
No, it was back around December.
I think the name of the stove was in the thread title, Sedor or something, I am not finding any stoves like it at the moment.
Wishing I had put the link in my bookmarks.
Sedore Multifuel stoves
That's it, official factory site... They look like nice stoves for what they claim to do, although they are a tad bit ugly. Not one I'd consider, but only because they physically won't fit in our setup. Otherwise I like the idea, top loading, burns pretty much anything you can get in the hopper, what more could you want... Only potential issue I see is that they have a 7" flue outlet, don't know if they'd work with the standard issue 6" liner or not.
Gooserider
bwolfe1
Life of Fire
This is the official US site. www.sedoreusa.com
These stoves are for real and are being manufactured in the US now. The website is under construction but will give you the basics. The Sedores do everything thats claimed and more. The ones I'm making here in the US come with a 6" flue as that is the recommended flue size for the stove. The Cadian's used 7" because up there they can't go from 6" to 8" pipe so they use 7" to make the stove compatable with either 6" or 8" pipe. The wesite referred to in an ealier post does describe the stove but the companiey has been sold and there is a Canidian and US manufacturer, both with different websites.. I dont have the new Canidian website address right now but will add it later for those interested that live in Canada. The stoves are different looking but will fit anyplace any others do. There are options that make the stove more attractive and they look different because of the operating principles. I have had my Sedore burning straight for six months without shutting it down and it always burns for 8 plus hours depending on the fuel being burned. I tipically gets burns of 12 plus hours and the stove is easyiest to operate I've used or seen. Once its going you just add fuel fuel twice a day. Other advantages are the top loading, it burns wood, pellets, corn and 12 other fuels. The stove is ULC approved for 15 different fuels so you can burn most anything eliminating the need to be concerned about going with just a wood or pellet stove. No electricity required is another big advantage and they can be shut down and run at 100 F on the stack and go for up to 30 hours on one load so it doesnt blow you out when its warmer. As to wood splitting the Sedore does not require much wood splitting because they will take wood as big as will fit into the chamber. Once the stove is got a head of steam it will even burn wet and green wood. The key is to start it with seasoned wood but once it has a head of steam going it will burn any old crappy wood available. The Sedore is truely a stove that does things no others do and is as simple to operate as any, with three moving parts. I think it would be good for everyone to see one in action as that's the best way to judge what this stove does? I've been burning wood, pellets ,and corn for many years but have seen nothing that compares.
I'll admit they are a bit (different looking) but one grows accustomed to them quite quickly due to the versitilly and capibilities of the stove. They come in several different sizes to fit your application. Please take the time to see one in action because I know these claims are hard to believe, Please feel free to contact me about any further questions on the Sedores?
Bruce W. Wolfe
Sedore Stoves USA
Alternate Energy Solutions
47909 County Road 37
Deer River, MN. 56636
218-556-5024
218-246-2908
218-444-0480
[email protected]
[email protected]
www.sedoreusa.com
These stoves are for real and are being manufactured in the US now. The website is under construction but will give you the basics. The Sedores do everything thats claimed and more. The ones I'm making here in the US come with a 6" flue as that is the recommended flue size for the stove. The Cadian's used 7" because up there they can't go from 6" to 8" pipe so they use 7" to make the stove compatable with either 6" or 8" pipe. The wesite referred to in an ealier post does describe the stove but the companiey has been sold and there is a Canidian and US manufacturer, both with different websites.. I dont have the new Canidian website address right now but will add it later for those interested that live in Canada. The stoves are different looking but will fit anyplace any others do. There are options that make the stove more attractive and they look different because of the operating principles. I have had my Sedore burning straight for six months without shutting it down and it always burns for 8 plus hours depending on the fuel being burned. I tipically gets burns of 12 plus hours and the stove is easyiest to operate I've used or seen. Once its going you just add fuel fuel twice a day. Other advantages are the top loading, it burns wood, pellets, corn and 12 other fuels. The stove is ULC approved for 15 different fuels so you can burn most anything eliminating the need to be concerned about going with just a wood or pellet stove. No electricity required is another big advantage and they can be shut down and run at 100 F on the stack and go for up to 30 hours on one load so it doesnt blow you out when its warmer. As to wood splitting the Sedore does not require much wood splitting because they will take wood as big as will fit into the chamber. Once the stove is got a head of steam it will even burn wet and green wood. The key is to start it with seasoned wood but once it has a head of steam going it will burn any old crappy wood available. The Sedore is truely a stove that does things no others do and is as simple to operate as any, with three moving parts. I think it would be good for everyone to see one in action as that's the best way to judge what this stove does? I've been burning wood, pellets ,and corn for many years but have seen nothing that compares.
I'll admit they are a bit (different looking) but one grows accustomed to them quite quickly due to the versitilly and capibilities of the stove. They come in several different sizes to fit your application. Please take the time to see one in action because I know these claims are hard to believe, Please feel free to contact me about any further questions on the Sedores?
Bruce W. Wolfe
Sedore Stoves USA
Alternate Energy Solutions
47909 County Road 37
Deer River, MN. 56636
218-556-5024
218-246-2908
218-444-0480
[email protected]
[email protected]
www.sedoreusa.com
Attachments
cbrodsky
Member
BrotherBart said:Roospike said:
I just shut down all threes stoves, put pot plants on top of'em and plugged in the space heaters
Ok Spike, now we can start posting about which oil filled heater is the king. DeLonghi or Pelonis. Which one will hold more oil, heat the longest, made of the thickest tin, comes in the prettiest colors etc.
You guys are heroes for saving the earth! I'm so glad you're displacing your particulate emissions to someone else's backyard where all that electricity, oil and gas will be produced!
I am going to nominate you both as burningissues.org Men Of The Year!
;-)
Bruce W. said:
Bruce, is there any movement within the company to redesign the exterior of the stove? I respect the flexibility of the stove and like it's ease of use. But it in all honesty, it would never get closer to my house than the workshop due to looks. The current design of hanging plates of marble or tile on the exterior lower half looks like a dolled-up RV. Seriously, I think these stoves could (and should) sell better by hiring a good industrial designer to come up with a new look. Don't change the efficiency or ease of use, that is a real strong point. But perhaps consider making it look more like a kacheloven?
bwolfe1
Life of Fire
Be Green,
There are several things in the works for redesigning the stove but at this point we have to get off the ground first. I also don't like the tiles on the stove and that's why I don't offer any of those items you see one the Canadian website. Its a real basic stove and those items don't do anything for me. I guess I'm so used to the different look that it doesn't seem to look that bad but I've also heard it from others. There will be a furnace coming out ASAP but it also is not your glittery looking stove. Its a good question about changing the looks but the whole design concept works on having the corrugated sides for three reasons. 1. Strength these stoves do not have firebricks inside so this is important. 2. More radiant heat surface. 3. The corrugated walls keep the fuel inside from choking off the natural circulation that happens inside the front chamber. The fire only burns at the bottom of the stove but circulates the heat and gas's around the entire load which is how it conditions the fuel while its dropping to the fire. There is a second chamber in the back which pulls air when all the particulates are burned from it and becomes light enough to be pulled under the baffle into the back chamber and out the stack. I have to look into your idea about casing the stove with a more professional looking exterior but it will be a while as everything has to be approved by UL. I'm just getting to the point where I have more time for design changes so we'll see what comes of it? I have looked into having the stove powder coat painted which would help but you would still have the corrugated walls which seems to be what most don't like the looks of? I appreciate your honest input and will be looking into some options for improving the looks. I would have to build a prototype with a jacket around the stove and make sure it doesn't have any effects on the operation. Some people are putting them into there homes including myself but I will admit they are not the most attractive stove out there. I feel that once you see one work and how little fuel they burn, and the long burn times they start looking better. It is definently a look one must get used to, but the benefit's are many as far as the wallet is concerned. I'll post some pictures of some of the new models soon which I think look somewhat better.
Respectfully
Bruce W. Wolfe
www.sedoreusa.com
There are several things in the works for redesigning the stove but at this point we have to get off the ground first. I also don't like the tiles on the stove and that's why I don't offer any of those items you see one the Canadian website. Its a real basic stove and those items don't do anything for me. I guess I'm so used to the different look that it doesn't seem to look that bad but I've also heard it from others. There will be a furnace coming out ASAP but it also is not your glittery looking stove. Its a good question about changing the looks but the whole design concept works on having the corrugated sides for three reasons. 1. Strength these stoves do not have firebricks inside so this is important. 2. More radiant heat surface. 3. The corrugated walls keep the fuel inside from choking off the natural circulation that happens inside the front chamber. The fire only burns at the bottom of the stove but circulates the heat and gas's around the entire load which is how it conditions the fuel while its dropping to the fire. There is a second chamber in the back which pulls air when all the particulates are burned from it and becomes light enough to be pulled under the baffle into the back chamber and out the stack. I have to look into your idea about casing the stove with a more professional looking exterior but it will be a while as everything has to be approved by UL. I'm just getting to the point where I have more time for design changes so we'll see what comes of it? I have looked into having the stove powder coat painted which would help but you would still have the corrugated walls which seems to be what most don't like the looks of? I appreciate your honest input and will be looking into some options for improving the looks. I would have to build a prototype with a jacket around the stove and make sure it doesn't have any effects on the operation. Some people are putting them into there homes including myself but I will admit they are not the most attractive stove out there. I feel that once you see one work and how little fuel they burn, and the long burn times they start looking better. It is definently a look one must get used to, but the benefit's are many as far as the wallet is concerned. I'll post some pictures of some of the new models soon which I think look somewhat better.
Respectfully
Bruce W. Wolfe
www.sedoreusa.com
Gooserider
Mod Emeritus
Bruce W. said:
Welcome aboard Bruce, and I hope you do well with your stoves. The design does sound good in terms of capabilities, but I agree with many of the others that it needs some improvement in the "looks" department. (Though I do consider how it heats to be more important than how it looks)
Going from your website (and the site mentioned earlier that I pointed at) however, I would mildly challenge your statement that a Sedore "will fit anyplace any others do" - as I don't think it would fit in my application... This is NOT intended as a general dump on the stoves, as there are MANY (most?) stoves that will not fit in our space - (I think it may have been my earlier remark that prompted the "fits anywhere" comment). This includes all the Englanders, PE's, and many others, all of them good stoves but just not ones that will physically able to go into our space.
From the pictures on your site, it looks like all the Sedore stoves are quite tall, or at least taller than most standard design stoves. In addition, they all appear to have top exit flues. We have an extremely unusual chimney setup, and unless we want to do a MAJOR rebuild on it, we are limited to stoves that have rear exit flues, and a maximum height to the top of the flue of no more than about 30". OTOH, the top load is excellent as it would presumably mean lower requirements for front clearances, and possibly mean we wouldn't have to extend our hearth, which any front load stove would demand.
If I'm wrong about the dimensions and configurations on your stoves, let me know, but from what I've seen so far, it looks like your units don't make my "short list" much as I might wish otherwise.
Gooserider
Best of luck and success Bruce. I hope jacketing it won't compromise the design. It should reduce clearances quite nicely.
bwolfe1
Life of Fire
I want to thank everyone for they're support as I know it will be a tough market to break into competing with the giants in the stove industry. I appreciate your honest comment's about the stove, as these issues will have to be considered. I've already found that just having a product that will do many things that the others don't won't sell the stoves alone. Any constructive input will certainly help me in the future.
As for Gooserider, you are correct that my statement about my stoves fitting anywhere others do stands corrected. All three models are 40" high and I was not thinking about the stove height as being a issue. It certainly would not fit in your area without major renovation. I will still however stick to my guns on the fact that these stoves will out perform any others and can hardly wait until this can be tested? I know quite a bit about stoves, but on the manufacturing and marketing end I'm continually learning. Anybody out there that would like to see one in action please contact me. There are not a lot of them around but I do have a dealer in Cortland NY were the stove can be seen in action if that's doable? I am trying to establish dealers in other area's at this time and will post about them as they come on. The biggest problem I'm facing right now is that the transaction of purchasing the US right took so long that I missed most of the heating season. I will keep plugging away on it though as I anticipated that this year would not be prosperous. Its been a long hard 2 year struggle to get this far and I can at least get a stove out to customers in a week now. I still don't think the stoves are ugly but I'm used to the look and biased. One really has to see one in action personally to really get the full picture and that will take some time? Again thanks for your input as it is extremely helpful.
I'm attaching some IR Images of the stove as it tells a bit more about stoves ability to put out lots of heat with 200 F stack temp.
As for Gooserider, you are correct that my statement about my stoves fitting anywhere others do stands corrected. All three models are 40" high and I was not thinking about the stove height as being a issue. It certainly would not fit in your area without major renovation. I will still however stick to my guns on the fact that these stoves will out perform any others and can hardly wait until this can be tested? I know quite a bit about stoves, but on the manufacturing and marketing end I'm continually learning. Anybody out there that would like to see one in action please contact me. There are not a lot of them around but I do have a dealer in Cortland NY were the stove can be seen in action if that's doable? I am trying to establish dealers in other area's at this time and will post about them as they come on. The biggest problem I'm facing right now is that the transaction of purchasing the US right took so long that I missed most of the heating season. I will keep plugging away on it though as I anticipated that this year would not be prosperous. Its been a long hard 2 year struggle to get this far and I can at least get a stove out to customers in a week now. I still don't think the stoves are ugly but I'm used to the look and biased. One really has to see one in action personally to really get the full picture and that will take some time? Again thanks for your input as it is extremely helpful.
I'm attaching some IR Images of the stove as it tells a bit more about stoves ability to put out lots of heat with 200 F stack temp.
Attachments
Gooserider
Mod Emeritus
Thanks for the quick response Bruce, and a repeat of good wishes. As I said, I don't feel that your stove not being able to fit my application is a mark against it, other than when doing my own shopping... It simply doesn't work for me, while still being a good stove.
I think you have a nice advantage in your ability to burn so many different sorts of fuels, which gives you an advantage over other designs, and I wouldn't hesitate to reccomend your stoves to some one looking for a multi-fuel type stove.
One thing I didn't see mentioned though, on either your website or the Canadian one, is whether or not you have gotten EPA approval, and if so, what your stoves have for GPH emissions ratings. I realize you might have a bunch of different numbers for different fuels, but we are probably most interested in seeing how you do with wood.
Gooserider
I think you have a nice advantage in your ability to burn so many different sorts of fuels, which gives you an advantage over other designs, and I wouldn't hesitate to reccomend your stoves to some one looking for a multi-fuel type stove.
One thing I didn't see mentioned though, on either your website or the Canadian one, is whether or not you have gotten EPA approval, and if so, what your stoves have for GPH emissions ratings. I realize you might have a bunch of different numbers for different fuels, but we are probably most interested in seeing how you do with wood.
Gooserider
gooserider,
I don't think Bruce is going to reply to your question about EPA, he hasn't yet in the forum. He emailed me back one time that they are not EPA approved. I don't know, maybe the multi-fuel part excludes them from having to be tested?
I like the concept of the stove.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I don't see the sedore stove as being all that ugly. In fact if it would do all it says it does, it would be a very beautiful stove at my house. I don't like the looks of most soapstone stoves, and many of the cast stoves, but many people do. The main thing cosmetically that I want on my next stove is a window to see what is going on in there. The sedore does offer a window, although on the side. Bruce, if you are still monitoring this thread, don't spend so much time on redesigning this stove that you don't get out to the public with it. I want to see this stove in action. I am from Missouri, Show Me. List shows you are going to be at on your web site (if you get close to Missouri, let me know). As soon as you can possibly afford to, get it EPA tested.
I think multi fuel would be great, as the market changes, fuel can change. I can't run anything but propane through my furnace. I have a wood stove that I can use to heat at my convenience. It would be nice to be able to burn corn, pellets and other biofuels efficiently in my stove, without the use of electricity. There is a great deal of wood going to waste at the local sawmill that could be used for heat. I have seen the time when corn was cheap enough it would be great to burn it rather than propane. I want the option of burning both wood and pellets, because I think there is room for both fuels in the market.
I don't think Bruce is going to reply to your question about EPA, he hasn't yet in the forum. He emailed me back one time that they are not EPA approved. I don't know, maybe the multi-fuel part excludes them from having to be tested?
I like the concept of the stove.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I don't see the sedore stove as being all that ugly. In fact if it would do all it says it does, it would be a very beautiful stove at my house. I don't like the looks of most soapstone stoves, and many of the cast stoves, but many people do. The main thing cosmetically that I want on my next stove is a window to see what is going on in there. The sedore does offer a window, although on the side. Bruce, if you are still monitoring this thread, don't spend so much time on redesigning this stove that you don't get out to the public with it. I want to see this stove in action. I am from Missouri, Show Me. List shows you are going to be at on your web site (if you get close to Missouri, let me know). As soon as you can possibly afford to, get it EPA tested.
I think multi fuel would be great, as the market changes, fuel can change. I can't run anything but propane through my furnace. I have a wood stove that I can use to heat at my convenience. It would be nice to be able to burn corn, pellets and other biofuels efficiently in my stove, without the use of electricity. There is a great deal of wood going to waste at the local sawmill that could be used for heat. I have seen the time when corn was cheap enough it would be great to burn it rather than propane. I want the option of burning both wood and pellets, because I think there is room for both fuels in the market.
Gooserider
Mod Emeritus
daleeper said:
I agree that beauty is subjective, which is why I initially described the Sedore as only "sort of" ugly - by the standards of the stoves we are most used to seeing, it is, but it has it's own sort of "industrial" charm and I'm not going to complain about the looks of anything that does it's job well.
At the same time, I think an EPA rating for wood (and if they have EPA test procedures for other types of fuels, those as well) is important to me as evidence that the stove really IS as clean burning as it claims. I can't use this stove for reasons already mentioned, but if I did, I would be most concerned about the wood rating because that would almost certainly be my primary fuel. I would just like the multifuel / small bits ability because I'm a cheapskate that wants to burn ALL my fuel, including the bark and small chips that come off when I split, the odd bits left over when bucking logs into rounds, the chips from branches, and all the other bits of debris that really won't burn well in a standard stove (I do use some of it presently as tinder, but I get more than I can burn...)
Also if one is trying to be a good neighbor, putting in an "exempt" smoker won't make friends with anyone - ask an OWB owner.... I currently have an 80's smoke dragon, and I haven't been getting complaints, but we have a big lot and a high chimney so the smoke isn't real obvious, plus I try to burn fairly clean. If / when we do replace the stove, I definitely want to put in an EPA II stove, though I'm not going to sweat over the numbers beyond that. However I would insist on seeing evidence that anything I got was EPA II emissions compliant even if it is technically "exempt"
So IMHO Bruce would benefit from getting an EPA rating, even if he is technically exempt... If he doesn't want to pay the 20K that a formal test costs, it would seem to me that he could at least arrange to run his own test under similar conditions so that he could give an approximate equivalent....
Gooserider
Andre B.
New Member
- Oct 25, 2006
- 391
Gooserider said:
While I would hope they can do their own emissions testing they may not be legally able to use the results in advertising.
I know there was a big stink about some cattle ranchers and small meat packers wanted to do there own BSE testing 100%, every cow and the government told them they could not even do the tests let alone use the results in their advertising.
Gooserider
Mod Emeritus
So much for the "land of the (not very) free" I don't agree with that, but I could almost see why Big Brother might object on the grounds of not being able to ensure that the tested label only made it onto cows that actually had been tested. (I'm not sure why the cows objected)Andre B. said:
I would hope that it would be slightly different if Bruce were to say something on the order of "Unofficial testing shows this stove meets EPA II requirements when burning dry cordwood, however the stove is not certified, nor has it been tested with other fuels" as long as he could back it up in some way.
Gooserider
Andre B.
New Member
- Oct 25, 2006
- 391
Gooserider said:
I think it went more along the lines of unfair marketing. As in customers could possibly want to buy meat that came from cows which had been 100% tested. And the larger slaughter plants did not want to test at that level and since they could pay for more lobbyists they get the laws they want.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll
