Old vs Modern wood stove
- Thread starter jreed
- 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
BrowningBAR
Minister of Fire
firefighterjake
Minister of Fire
BrowningBAR
Minister of Fire
firefighterjake said:
*COUGH* Intrepid *COUGH*
[Yes, yes, it is working much better, but it still falls short of my expectations]
firefighterjake
Minister of Fire
krex1010 said:
I'm not quite sure I agree with the statement that I put into bold type . . . I'm just a dumb firefighter and not an engineer, but it seems to me that with a pre-EPA burn you will get X BTUs from the wood as the combustible gases off-gas from the wood and are ignited . . . but with an EPA stove you would get those X BTUs from the same wood as the combustible gases off-gas and are ignited PLUS with the secondary burn you would get more BTUs as the combustible gases in the smoke (that would normally go right up the chimney with a pre-EPA stove) would be burned resulting in the second burn and more heat. Of course, in all seriousness, I am just a dumb firefighter so I could be wrong.
jreed said:
A heat belching, utilitarian stove that has a heck of a following and a heck of a support system and regular representation on this here website. I would consider it. :lol:
Jags said:
Heat baby, heat! Thats all I need. I dont need anything pretty!
Looks like the Napolean 1400 and the NC30 are pretty similar. Which one would win of the two?
jreed said:
Both are good units, but based off of the support system that the Englander has, I personally would go with that. But ultimately, if you are married, the choice is hers. :lol:
LOL! It's in the basement, I cut and split the wood. That would make the choice all mine 
By the way, she wants to keep the Alaska stove.
By the way, she wants to keep the Alaska stove.
Backwoods Savage
Minister of Fire
wkpoor said:
This has been touched on but I'd also like to touch on it myself. The main reason is that I had some of these same misgivings before we purchased our last stove. Also, like Mr Wkpoor, we have our own woodlot so cutting and burning more wood is certainly not a big deal for us. However, I do admit that doing only half the work we used to do has some very good benefits.
As to the size of the new EPA approved stoves, you can get what you want with no problem. But most do find they can get a smaller stove and it does the job. I recall one of the first thoughts that hit me when I saw a stove like ours. My thought was, "How on earth would that little thing heat our home?" I seriously had doubts. I had also been to another home that had a very small stove and claimed it heated their huge old farmhouse very well. I doubted it.
Enter next thought: Test driving a new stove. This is exactly what we did with our stove; we test drove it. We narrowed our purchase to 2 or possibly 3 different stoves. We purchased the one we could test drive first and knew if it did not work we could quickly make a switch. We never made a switch and are very happy with our little rock of a stove. Still hard to believe this thing weighs almost 500 lbs....until you try to lift it up on a 16" raised hearth.
We've burned several different stoves over the years so we know what can be done with the old stoves. However, we try to keep an open mind and still enjoy learning. Learn we have! The very first thing we learned was that we were staying a whole lot warmer with this stove.....and then we found we were burning only half the amount of wood we used to! Nice test drive, huh?!
So I say keep your mind open rather than closing it to the newer type stoves. Yes, you will need to make sure you have perhaps better fuel than you've used in the past but by doing it, you will reap some great benefits. As stated, we use a lot less wood and we are starting our 4th season of heating with this stove. Our chimney has been cleaned one time....with less than a cup of soot and no creosote.
At the start we were also a bit closed mind with the cat type stoves because we had heard and read of some terrible experiences that people had. Then there are the so-called salesmen out there trying to sell stoves by running down other stoves; especially one that has a cat! Long story short is that we did purchase a cat stove and I fully expect if we ever buy another, it too will have a catalyst in it.
Most old folks tend to set their minds to the old ways and we do make an attempt to guard against that if at all possible. We do find that many of the new ways are indeed better than the old. It is the same with the fuel. Many older folks still think you can cut your wood in the fall and burn it that winter. I see it being done all around us here. Some just will never learn simply because they do not want to. Some just close their minds because what they know is all there is to know.
Another point is how the heat "feel" to you. There is a big difference between how the heat feels coming from a steel, cast or soapstone stove. I kept reading and hearing about this "soft heat" from a soapstone stove. Naturally, I thought Bull! Heat is heat. Now with a little more experience, I understand and can feel a definite difference and yes, it is a soft heat from a soapstone stove. It makes us very, very happy.
krex1010
Minister of Fire
firefighterjake said:
if you look at the btu charts for different wood species, there isnt different numbers based on what kind of stove you burn the wood in. the btu potential for those 5 oak splits are the same no matter what how old or new the stove. i do agree that epa stoves are more efficient at utilizing all of that btu potential, especially when you start cutting air back and you get your secondaries firing. however i dont think that makes an epa stove produce more percievable heat. they are without a doubt more efficient heaters than smoke dragons.
the point i was really trying to make is that old stoves feel hotter sometimes because they generally burn more wood, if you have two identical homes with two stoves of the same size, one and epa stove and one an older stove and over an 8 hour period you burn 5 splits in the epa stove and 10 splits in the smoke dragon, the house that you burnt more wood in is going to feel warmer, even if you are getting 15-20% more efficient combustion in the stove burning less wood.
Todd
Minister of Fire
Pagey said:
Bingo! The old stoves were mostly radiant heaters and it just felt like the heat output was more. Most stoves today are convection and block that radiant heat but you get the advantages of closer clearances and blowers to help move the air.
That's why I like the radiant soapstone feel, it's not the searing blast of steel, it's somewhere in between the old steel stoves and today's convection stoves.
corey21
Minister of Fire
All things considered, if you are happy with your old stove then keep your old stove. If you are ready to commit to getting a efficient stove, make sure the flue is right for it and go through the learning experience to learn to burn with it then do it.
But if you plan on just going out and buying a stove and stick it into a sub optimal flue setup, burn that wood you have always burned and not want to be bothered with learning how to burn in a new way. Don't do it.
This old dog is really happy that the love of his life old stove cracked and forced him to make the transition.
But if you plan on just going out and buying a stove and stick it into a sub optimal flue setup, burn that wood you have always burned and not want to be bothered with learning how to burn in a new way. Don't do it.
This old dog is really happy that the love of his life old stove cracked and forced him to make the transition.
BrowningBAR said:
OK, I read your post wrong. I thought you meant you were burning the Vigilant cleanly, as in no visible smoke. That's how I burn mine, so my question is then, "If I'm not seeing any smoke, where is all the waste?"
Personally, I feel the old VCs burn more efficiently that you are giving them credit for. Newer stoves burn more efficiently? Yes, I'm sure they do. New stoves use half the wood for the same amount of heat in my living space? Well, I not even close to believing that. There is no way in hell I'm gonna heat this place as warm as I get it from my basement installation on less than three cord .
SolarAndWood
Minister of Fire
jreed said:LOL! It's in the basement, I cut and split the wood. That would make the choice all mine
That is the card I had to play, but it did win the game. Well, maybe that round anyway.
Todd said:
I think that the blower should be a standard feature on a jacketed stove. I should not have to pay 2-300$ extra for a glorified fan - in my humble opinion. Maybe it's just our particular home layout, but we seem to get so much more heat out of the Endeavor with the blower. At the very least, it moves the heat a lot quicker than it would if we simply waited on the radiant properties of the stove alone.
I have often wondered what a jacketed stove minus the heat shields would feel like. I imagine that the Englander's, say, on which the side shields are an option throw much more radiant heat.
Slow1
Minister of Fire
Battenkiller said:
Clean does not equal efficient heating. Clean (as in all the wood and smoke burned) is only one part of the equation, but keeping that heat in the room so it heats the house is the practical definition of efficient. So back to your question "where is all the waste?" - the answer is simply "up the flue." Basically my understanding is that older stove designs required more air to get to a clean burn. Thus more air in = more air up the flue. That is heat headed right out of the house.
However as others have said - if you have plenty of cheap or free wood and don't mind the extra effort then efficiency isn't a major concern. As someone who shares the environment I do appreciate everyone burning clean - whatever their stove may be. I agree that older 'smoke dragon' stoves CAN be operated such that they burn clean and if everyone did so then it would be great. My morning drive tells me this isn't the case though... but then again, new EPA stoves CAN be operated to smoke just as much as a 'smoke dragon' so where does that leave us? Hmmmm - bottom line seems to be the responsibility lays with the operator.
I do believe it is easier to get an EPA stove to burn cleaner on a consistent basis and that overall the efficiency will be greater.
Let me ask this question, would I be smarter to add insulation to my basement walls before replacing my stove?
BrowningBAR
Minister of Fire
BrowningBAR
Minister of Fire
Slow1 said:
1. That is correct.
2. All the free wood in the world won't make an overnight burn easier. The vigilant is very hit and miss with overnight burns. Sometimes you think you have a good set up and you wake up to a stove that burned it self out and a cold room, other times the stove is still sitting at 300° with an easy start up. So, efficiency isn't just about burning less wood, but making your burns last longer. That convenience is worth a lot, especially in January and February.
- Status
Similar threads
