If I ever buy another stove.......

Woodstock has a gallery of a stove being built. The stone panels are held in place by the iron framing. I guess I'd say that "tension" holds them together. There's a clue in the thread on here about the $200 Fireview on CL. One of the Woodstock guys posted that the legs should be bolted back on before moving the stove, or the buyer would be calling Woodstock for assembly instructions.

I dunno, but they also have a gallery of a ca. 1850 stove being refurbed. Dunno if it had any cracks, but I'm sure they'd be happy to tell you. My guess is that the stone is at least as durable as the iron.

Soupy1957

I switched to a sopastone stove (Woodstock Fireview) after burning Avalon stoves for the last 20yrs. My last stove was the same as your Avalon Ranier.

You can read my Pros/Cons about the Fireview here: https://www.hearth.com/econtent/index.php/forums/viewthread/47750/

That was written after 2 months of burning. I really like the stability of the heat from the soadstone. Once the stove is up and running my room doesn't change more that a degree or 2 throughout the day including the following morning. Ash cleanup was easier with the Rainer (I had the pedestle model with the Ash bin) and I still wish the front door on the Fireview would open. That would make start up easier, however, the thing burns so long I don't build that may startup fires during the season.

The Ranier could through out more heat that the Fireview. That was no surprise given the statistics on both stoves. In my case the Fireview worked better for the room size.

soupy1957 said:

How do they construct the soapstone stoves? I guess what I wanna know is...........how is the soapstone adhered to the cast Iron (?) framing? Is it bolted thru, encased in, glued on?

-Soupy1957

Click to expand...

Hearthstone uses thicker slabs (maybe 1-1/2"?) while Woodstock sides have two thinner (3/4"?) layers. Metal rods extend from the top of each corner down into the four legs, which is why you have to be careful if you take all the legs off - they are a structural part of the cast iron framework. Plenty of stove cement is used to seal all the seams.

The Fireview is actually an octagon, not a rectangle. Take a look here for details, their website is awesome: http://www.woodstove.com/index.php/building-a-fireview . Better yet, take a drive up I-91!

soupy1957 said:

I think I'd seriously consider THIS one...........

Click to expand...

You don't get the scale of that stove from the video.. if you can, go see one in person.

That is one great big good looking rock. My wife saw it and declared we had to build a bigger house so we could get one..lol

.

Den said:

Woodstock has a gallery of a stove being built. The stone panels are held in place by the iron framing. I guess I'd say that "tension" holds them together. There's a clue in the thread on here about the $200 Fireview on CL. One of the Woodstock guys posted that the legs should be bolted back on before moving the stove, or the buyer would be calling Woodstock for assembly instructions.

Click to expand...

I got the tour yesterday. There are four top-to-bottom pins passing through the cast framing that hold it together, then furnace cement (a proprietary product made partially out of soapstone dust) seals it all and makes it rigid and airtight.

soupy1957 said:

Soapstone is as durable as iron? Somehow that doesn't compute in my pea brain. I'll have to think on that one. Not trying to be argumentative here, ..........just puzzled. I'd think that iron was stronger than stone, when subjected to heat. No?. . .

Click to expand...

I'm not a materials scientist, but according to Wiki, phase change of iron begins @912C, and phase change of soapstone begins @1000C. There are other factors, like soapstone absorbing moisture in the summer and needing a small break-in fire to drive out the moisture every fall, but it looks like soapstone will maintain integrity @ higher temps than iron will. Also, the specific heat of soapstone is roughly twice that of iron, so twice the amount of energy that heats a given mass of iron to 900C would be required to heat the same mass of soapstone to 900C. So yeah, I'm betting that a slab of soapstone would stand up to heat stress at least as well as a slab of iron would. . .

. . .but the stove is not a monolith. It's a box made of both materials. I would guess that the most likely cause of failure in a soapstone + iron stove would be the different rates of expansion/contraction in the different materials.

. . .and dig this factoid that bubbled up in my research. Soapstone radiates heat @ the same wavelength that the human body does, 8-9 uM. You always hear about the "soft heat" mojo of soapstone, now we have a number for it: 8-9 uM. www.woodmasonry.com/pages/quotes.html Mmm. . .soapstone.

Den said:

. . .and dig this factoid that bubbled up in my research. Soapstone radiates heat @ the same wavelength that the human body does, 8-9 uM.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I really wanted a Tulikivi, 'til I found out how much they cost, and weigh. But if I win the lottery, I'll design the new house around a masonry heater. Forget about the puny little Equinox!

Where's the best place to buy a stove?

The question is a lil' vague, but www.woodstove.com is an excellent place to buy a stove.

soupy1957 said:

Soapstone is as durable as iron? Somehow that doesn't compute in my pea brain. I'll have to think on that one. Not trying to be argumentative here, ..........just puzzled. I'd think that iron was stronger than stone, when subjected to heat. No?

Anyway, just wondering how they put it together.........I'm investigating.........

-Soupy1957

Click to expand...

i've seen a number of 25 yr old hearthstones- common for the steel parts to be toast, and the stone is perfect.

I'm surprised we don't hear about, or see more of the Palladian. IMHO it is a real looker. If I had a house that was large enough to accommodate two stoves, the Palladian would be my small room heater for sure.

mikepinto65 said:

I'm surprised we don't hear about, or see more of the Palladian. IMHO it is a real looker. If I had a house that was large enough to accommodate two stoves, the Palladian would be my small room heater for sure.

Click to expand...

I like it, too, but as with the Fireview it has an ornate quality, although in a totally different way. It's all a matter of individual preference, of course, but the Keystone is so clean and elegant. To me, it's the best-looking little stove I can think of.

Den said:

. . .and dig this factoid that bubbled up in my research. Soapstone radiates heat @ the same wavelength that the human body does, 8-9 um.

Click to expand...

You know, I really like the soapstone stove thing, but that Tulakivi site is claiming a lot of hooey AFAIC.

Soapstone, or any material, doesn't possess a "frequency" of radiation all by itself. I've heard the same claims at the stove store about steel having a "higher frequency" than cast iron. Bunk. The frequencies that a material radiates energy are entirely dependent on its surface temperature. When I was at the Woodstock factory, the back of my hand really couldn't tell the difference between the 500º top of the Fireview in the assembly room and the 500º top of Frankenstove in the lab. Both felt nice and toasty to me, even though Frankenstove has a steel skin.

So why does the Tulikivi radiate at 8-9 µm? Because it enormous surface area is about the same temperature as the human body. It does its work by storing a lot of heat and releasing it over a very long time period at low temperatures via a large surface area. Nothing magic about the material itself. Radiant flooring systems give off heat the same way. The several thousand pounds of cement block that surrounds my masonry chimney does the same thing, and it ain't made of soapstone. It keeps the temps in my home remarkable stable long after the stove has cooled.

I won't go into any of the other malarkey they claim. It should be enough to advertise their fireplaces for what they really are - beautiful masonry heaters. That alone should be sufficient to reach a receptive audience of folks who would like to heat that way. For me, nothing feels as good after snowblowing the driveway as standing next to a searing hot surface - steel, cast iron, soapstone or glass - and basking in the bone-warming heat. I doubt anybody comes in and warms their hands by the heat of their Tulikivi.

I think that you have it backwards- I think that Woodstock uses thicker slabs, and when Hearthstone has thick sides it's 2 ply construction so that thermal contact is not as good as a single piece. I will not be offended if I am corrected on this.

The slabs are cut with grooves etc in the edge so that they fit nicely into the iron frame. I took the facility tour and was really impressed. They have few secrets- they'll outright show you how things are machined. Awesome company.

I saw some of those ancient stoves in their showroom. I was drooling.

branchburner said:

soupy1957 said:

How do they construct the soapstone stoves? I guess what I wanna know is...........how is the soapstone adhered to the cast Iron (?) framing? Is it bolted thru, encased in, glued on?

-Soupy1957

Click to expand...

Hearthstone uses thicker slabs (maybe 1-1/2"?) while Woodstock sides have two thinner (3/4"?) layers. Metal rods extend from the top of each corner down into the four legs, which is why you have to be careful if you take all the legs off - they are a structural part of the cast iron framework. Plenty of stove cement is used to seal all the seams.

The Fireview is actually an octagon, not a rectangle. Take a look here for details, their website is awesome: http://www.woodstove.com/index.php/building-a-fireview . Better yet, take a drive up I-91!

Click to expand...

No, I'm pretty sure the Woodstocks have two layers. I can't remember if Tom said they were 1 1/2" or 1 3/4" total, but they are definitely two-ply to the best of my knowledge. You're correct about the thermal contact. I shot the Fireview top with my IR gun. The side with the additional cooktop was about 50º lower than the plain side. I attributed this to the thin air space between them acting as an insulator and interrupting heat conduction because of the imperfect contact. One piece of stone twice as thick on the top would have been at the same temp after all that time running.

Yeah, I was hoping someone would comment on the old stoves. I just loved them. If I had a barn I just might get into collecting old stoves. I'd rotate them around and use a different one each season, just because.

I went onto Woodstock's site and found this: http://www.woodstove.com/pages/pdffiles/Woodstock Wood Brch.pdf

It says they are double wall, which evens out hot spots. One wall is 3/4" thick, the other is 1 1/8" thick. That's a lot of stone.

Adios Pantalones said:

It says they are double wall, which evens out hot spots.

Click to expand...

Personally, I'd rather they were in one piece and the stove was 50º hotter. ;-)

They are remarkably even in temperature, though. My IR gun has a scanning function on it that allows you to get an average temp for any given surface by systematically covering the entire surface. Tom thought that was wicked cool. The Fireview was about 475º on the top at one point in the burn, but the entire stove (OK, I didn't do the bottom or back) was averaging 425º. That's incredibly even to me. I have scanned my Vigilant and found it to have a 500º average temp, but one corner on one side might be 275º, the top was at 600º, while the left door was pushing 900º+. Both stoves are giving off roughly the same heat from similar surface areas, but the Fireview would definitely feel a lot "softer" on the legs.

OTOH, they claim that Frankenstove gets up to about 1000º on the front glass. Not soft, not soft at all. Makes me understand the appeal of their "Classic" model, with no glass at all.