24/7 Burning with medium stoves - real world accounts anyone?

[burninwood]

Hi Folks,

I'm looking for some real world advice on a replacement, non-cat stove that is 'friendly' for 24/7 burning; while working full time hours. We're usually away from the house anywhere from 8-10 hours a day during the work week and I need a stove that is going to easily spark back up upon return while delivering the BTUs throughout a good chunk of the time away.

I am considering stoves in the 2-3 cubic foot range - there is a local PE dealer not too far away and they usually put on some pretty good sales before the season begins.

House itself isn't that big...about 1000 sq ft on the main level to heat and another 600 or so upstairs. My current stove is centrally located in the middle of the house on the main level and heats alright when I am home to keep it fed with splits....it is a PE Vista. It gets somewhat cold here (-20 Celsius not uncommon in January and February).

The local dealer basically told me they won't sell me a Summit - I am hesitant to go for the Super 27 at 2.2 cubic feet. For you folks with stoves that are around 2 to 2.5 cubic feet, are you able to easily burn 24/7 with them? I'm leaning towards a Summit sized stove given the fact that I can always build smaller fires. Burning only hardwood here. Also, due to exceptional draft issues, I get no where near the burn times the Vista states...more like 3-4 hours of OK heat.

Any thoughts truly appreciated - thanks

 

[kennyp2339]

Take a look at the Englander Madison, its an epa tube stove with a t-stat air control, you may be able to keep a fire in that up to 6 maybe 8 hrs, if that's to short of a time your gonna have to go cat, either blaze king or wood stock stoves for true long burns (+10 hrs) BK and I can attest to it 24hrs per load low heat, no blower.

 

[burninwood]

Take a look at the Englander Madison, its an epa tube stove with a t-stat air control, you may be able to keep a fire in that up to 6 maybe 8 hrs, if that's to short of a time your gonna have to go cat, either blaze king or wood stock stoves for true long burns (+10 hrs) BK and I can attest to it 24hrs per load low heat, no blower.

I'll check it out - thanks.

BKs are pretty expensive up here and likely out of the budget.

Maybe I should rephrase question a little too: As long as I can get the stove fired up easily after eight to ten hours of being away, I'd be pretty happy. If the propane furnace kicks on after say 6 or 8 hours away to keep the house in the low 60s, that would be ok as well. So would a medium sized stove generally have a good enough coal bed after this length time to start up with smaller splits and no kindling? I understand several factors play into this loaded question...but in general I'm curious what others experience.

Thanks

 

[Tar12]

I don't know why you wouldn't want a cat stove as that seems like what is needed here...guaranteed to come home to a stove that is ready to roll is the reason I chose a cat stove over a non cat stove and it has not disappointed.

 

[bcrtops]

I believe that the T5 has the same size fire-box as the Super 27, although mine lists @ 1.97 cu.ft. It will give out good heat for 4-6 hrs. & hold enough coals to restart (usually) after 8-10 hrs. It will depend on what you are burning -- a good hard hard wood should work well for you. We burn mostly a fir-mix. Our local maple & alder burns no longer than good tight grain fir, as it is on the "soft" end of the hardwoods. 3 -- 4"-8" fir logs will usually give me coals after 9 hrs. & that is not a packed stove. Large fir splits may or may not hold good coals overnight, depending on the density/grain tightness of the pieces. I can understand why you'd want the Summit, but that might be over-kill in your situation, especially if you are going to burn some good hardwoods.

(The Super 27 used the very same label as the T5 in 2007, so pretty sure they the same size)

 

[burninwood]

I don't know why you wouldn't want a cat stove as that seems like what is needed here...guaranteed to come home to a stove that is ready to roll is the reason I chose a cat stove over a non cat stove and it has not disappointed.

Hey Tar,

I haven't ruled them out completely and I don't doubt their effectiveness. I was just trying to gauge what I can expect if I go the avenue I am leaning towards. I would think there are several folks on here heating smaller homes primarily with non cat stoves that are working standard hours. Like I said above, if propane furnace kicks on to keep it on the warm side near hours 6-8, I'm fine with that...

 

[DuaeGuttae]

I'll check it out - thanks.

BKs are pretty expensive up here and likely out of the budget.

Maybe I should rephrase question a little too: As long as I can get the stove fired up easily after eight to ten hours of being away, I'd be pretty happy. If the propane furnace kicks on after say 6 or 8 hours away to keep the house in the low 60s, that would be ok as well. So would a medium sized stove generally have a good enough coal bed after this length time to start up with smaller splits and no kindling? I understand several factors play into this loaded question...but in general I'm curious what others experience.

Thanks

I'm much farther south than you, but my 2.2 cubic foot firebox (non-cat insert rather than freestanding stove) loaded with oak has plenty of coals for a reload after eight to ten hours. If I don't get to it in the morning before I have to feed small children and nurse a baby, it's still an easy relight nearer to twelve hours. The stove room will have cooled off by then, and if it's really cold, the furnace will have picked up the slack, but having live coals for a relight is no problem.

We're home during the day, so I usually reload partial loads twice, but if we were out of the house we could run a full morning load and have coals at bedtime.

I'd look bigger than 2.2 cubic feet for your climate. Is there another dealer around? I think I just recently read in a different thread about begreen having similar difficulties with stove size and the local dealer.

 

[burninwood]

I believe that the T5 has the same size fire-box as the Super 27, although mine lists @ 1.97 cu.ft. It will give out good heat for 4-6 hrs. & hold enough coals to restart (usually) after 8-10 hrs. It will depend on what you are burning -- a good hard hard wood should work well for you. We burn mostly a fir-mix. Our local maple & alder burns no longer than good tight grain fir, as it is on the "soft" end of the hardwoods. 3 -- 4"-8" fir logs will usually give me coals after 9 hrs. & that is not a packed stove. Large fir splits may or may not hold good coals overnight, depending on the density/grain tightness of the pieces. I can understand why you'd want the Summit, but that might be over-kill in your situation, especially if you are going to burn some good hardwoods.

(The Super 27 used the very same label as the T5 in 2007, so pretty sure they the same size)

Thanks for the info. I'm burning mainly ash, sugar maple and ironwood (ours is the hop hornbeam species here and burns really hot) so if you are getting those burn times with fir-mixes, the Super sized firebox sounds like it may be promising for us.

I do believe the T5 and the Super 27 share the same box (according to my research). Nice looking stove you have there!

 

[Dantheman300z]

Why won't they sell you a summit? What would be their reason behind that?

 

[burninwood]

Why won't they sell you a summit? What would be their reason behind that?

I'm sure they would take my money if I insisted on the purchase (probably against the law for them not to!). They were concerned I would be cooked out of the house and blame them!

 

[Dantheman300z]

My house is a 1360 sq ft ranch. Not at all as cold as your location but I find it to be the perfect stove. I get easy 10 hour burn times with a straight 16 foot chimney. Draft is awesome. Not burning oak yet but lots of ash.

 

[burninwood]

I'm much farther south than you, but my 2.2 cubic foot firebox (non-cat insert rather than freestanding stove) loaded with oak has plenty of coals for a reload after eight to ten hours. If I don't get to it in the morning before I have to feed small children and nurse a baby, it's still an easy relight nearer to twelve hours. The stove room will have cooled off by then, and if it's really cold, the furnace will have picked up the slack, but having live coals for a relight is no problem.

We're home during the day, so I usually reload partial loads twice, but if we were out of the house we could run a full morning load and have coals at bedtime.

I'd look bigger than 2.2 cubic feet for your climate. Is there another dealer around? I think I just recently read in a different thread about begreen having similar difficulties with stove size and the local dealer.

Thanks.

I would certainly have cooler temps here (as you stated) and higher heat demands, however, it sounds like you get fairly impressive burn times with your stove and hardwood.

I'm sure they will sell to me if I want it - they just won't take the blame if I cook myself out!

 

[burninwood]

My house is a 1360 sq ft ranch. Not at all as cold as your location but I find it to be the perfect stove. I get easy 10 hour burn times with a straight 16 foot chimney. Draft is awesome. Not burning oak yet but lots of ash.

I take it with the straight shot and 16 ft, this is on the main level?

 

[NhRocks]

I have a 2014 freestanding Pe Super 27, I have been able to restart from coals after 10hours. We do not use an ash pan so we keep an inch or two of ash, which acts as an insulator. So it is possible. We usually reload every 5 to 6 hours though because we tend to run the stove hot in the winter usually.


Pe Super 27

 

[Squisher]

I have a summit freestanding stove and a super insert and I can get pretty comparable burn times out of them. I'd have to give the nod to the summit but I'm on my first season with the insert and am still getting the hang of it. I burn overnight down to easily reloadable coals very consistently with the summit 8-9hrs with fir, often with other species of softwood mixed in.

When it's cold out like it is now they are going neck and neck nearly for loads and burn time, both getting full loads and running hot.

 

[WayneN]

I get 6-8 hour reloads on my Madison. No major complaint for the price. It's gotten to single digits outside and I was able to pump the heat out to 75/80 on my main floor and 70-75 on the second floor. I only used the fan built in and let gravity heat the rest. That said, my furnace did kick in an hour or 2 before reload in the morning on the coldest days but I still had embers and a warm flue.... no problems tossing small splits and firing her right up. Word of advise....keep the door cracked a hair when lighting for more air.




Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

 

[kennyp2339]

So would a medium sized stove generally have a good enough coal bed after this length time

A medium size say larger than 2.5 cu ft would do you good, make sure its something that can take a split length of 18" front to back for north / south loading (burns better than e/w loading with the front air wash imo. but you should be all right if you want to relight off of coals. Since the stove will be located centrally in your house I would think that the blower would only be used at the coldest of times and you would mainly rely on radiation / gravity.
Don't go any lower than 2.5 cu ft, explain that logical reasoning to the deal, also while looking at models look at how easy the stove guts come out (like baffle board and air tubes, or if its an all in one baffle with build in sec reburn) to make chimney cleanings as easy as possible. I like your attitude going into this, seems very realistic that its ok to let other heat supply's kick in while your away.

 

[bcrtops]

You have mentioned several things:
--the Vista will give you the heat you need
--you want longer burn times
--you willingly subsidize your wood burning with the propane system, & are not totally relying upon wood heat
(so.............go with the next size up)

Often is said: "You can't build a bigger fire in a smaller stove, but you can always build a small fire in a big stove"

This is a true statement, but.................................
You will probably put more pollution into the air by doing so. It is not impossible, but is difficult to keep your secondaries going when you are burning small fires in a stove designed for bigger fires. (I will give credit to the "Cat cult" that they have a product that often helps in this area -- extending small burns while keeping the air clean).

If you were totally depending on wood heat, or were having a huge problem getting enough heat out of you current small stove, then I'd say go big. However, your main objective is burn time, so just get a stove that will accomplish that. Another question is "how often do you plan to burn the stove during shoulder season?" A large stove may work well for you during the heart of winter, but drive you out of the house during shoulder season with even a small fire.

 

[burninwood]

Thanks for all the input so far folks! This forum is such an awesome resource.

I have a summit freestanding stove and a super insert and I can get pretty comparable burn times out of them. I'd have to give the nod to the summit but I'm on my first season with the insert and am still getting the hang of it.

Followed your thread on the Super insert pickup story - glad to hear it is working out for you. I've heard of others that have had both of the stoves as well and mentioned something similar (I believe I read it on this forum somewhere). You would think packing almost another cubic foot of wood in would make quite a difference in burn time - maybe the Summit just burns a little more aggressively which is why you don't see a huge difference in times?

make sure its something that can take a split length of 18" front to back for north / south loading (burns better than e/w loading with the front air wash imo. but you should be all right if you want to relight off of coals.

I have vowed to never own another e/w only loading stove again as I find loading, and as you mentioned, getting it burning off a reload, a little more of a pain than it has to be (especially if the coal bed burns down too much). The e/w splits in the front just starves the whole thing out if one isn't careful...

You have mentioned several things:
--the Vista will give you the heat you need
--you want longer burn times
--you willingly subsidize your wood burning with the propane system, & are not totally relying upon wood heat
(so.............go with the next size up)

Often is said: "You can't build a bigger fire in a smaller stove, but you can always build a small fire in a big stove"

This is a true statement, but.................................
You will probably put more pollution into the air by doing so. It is not impossible, but is difficult to keep your secondaries going when you are burning small fires in a stove designed for bigger fires. (I will give credit to the "Cat cult" that they have a product that often helps in this area -- extending small burns while keeping the air clean).

If you were totally depending on wood heat, or were having a huge problem getting enough heat out of you current small stove, then I'd say go big. However, your main objective is burn time, so just get a stove that will accomplish that. Another question is "how often do you plan to burn the stove during shoulder season?" A large stove may work well for you during the heart of winter, but drive you out of the house during shoulder season with even a small fire.

The Vista will provide decent heat when I can keep it ripping, but when it does really drop outside, there is no question that it is undersized. Once it starts dropping below -10 Celsius, it does get a little cooler than we like but have been dealing with it. I guess I am going to revise my original comment to what I am saying here. It's not as comfortable as I made it seem!

We certainly cannot rely solely on the small stove for heat, so yes, I have been fine with picking up the slack with the propane forced air. I'd be much happier if I could reduce propane usage to a couple hours a day versus the relatively continuous cycling we experience now while not home to babysit the wood stove. I would love to be 100% wood heat but it probably isn't possible in our case. Maybe it would be if we went cat, but I can't help but appreciate the simplicity and low cost of ownership for a tube stove (and I am not trying to bash the cat stove guys at all).

I understand that making a smaller fire in a bigger stove may make it a little more challenging to burn clean, but if the wood is good and dry, I imagine guys can do it quite effectively in the shoulder seasons. Once that firebox is good and hot, wouldn't a quarter or half size load produce enough heat for the secondaries to light up ok?

 

[dafattkidd]

I had a Napoleon 1101 insert (1.5 cf firebox) and upgraded to an Osburn 2400 (3.2cf firebox) insert. The difference in heat output is unbelievable. I was happy with the Napoleon 1101. It certainly kept my house warmer than ever, but once we swapped it out for a 3.2 cubic foot beast, it was a whole new ball game. I was on a very tight budget when I upgraded. The Osburn seemed to be the best bang for the buck. I bought it at dynamitebuys.com. It was shipped to my house. I removed the Napoleon and installed the Osburn myself. I sold the Napoleon on Craigslist to help make up for the cost of the upgrade. My wife and I could not believe the difference in heat output. The Osburn 2400 really is a beast. Summit owners on this site claim the same kind of satisfaction. So my advice is if the larger insert fits in your fireplace, go for it. I rarely have to fill my firebox to the gills (usually load it about 3/4 full) and get tons of heat. I'm able to burn cleanly all the time. When I need to burn a small fire, I just make sure it's a short hot fire. I love having the extra firepower when I need it. I also love having the option to burn NS or EW. Larger fire boxes are not always the right answer but in your case it sounds like you will be very happy with an upgrade.

 

[jebatty]

Real-world accounts are helpful if the wood stove owner's real-world is about the same as yours. I'm going to assume my experience is on the most-demanding end of real-world experience: our 2.3 cu ft wood stove is the primary heat for our 1500 sq ft, single story with basement home; built in 1956 with insulation and window upgrades; cold, northern MN climate (three times so far this winter temps have dropped to -33F real temp, not windchill); SW exposure with passive solar from windows but also exposed to strong winter NW winds. Basement is maintained at 50F with electric baseboard heat.

The stove is Seefire (made in BC), bought in 1990, no longer being made, non-catalytic; rated at 55,000 btu high burn maximum, advertised 9 hr burn with a low fire. Will the stove heat the house comfortably (70F in main living areas, cooler in bedrooms) for 9 hours without reloading and outside temps in the -5 to +20F range or colder: no. Will it have coals suitable for a re-fire after 9 hours on low burn: maybe yes, if the wood is primarily oak or similarly dense wood. Both my wife and I are not away from the house typically for periods longer than 4-6 hours, often one of us is home most of the time, and we re-load as needed when home to maintain temperature. The stove will maintain a 70F temp, even at -30 to -40F outside temperature, but to do that in below 0F weather requires frequent reloading to maintain a near high burn. The stove easily maintains 70F temp at outside temps in the +15F and higher range. In fact in this temp range we frequently let the stove burn out and then re-start when needed because the house gets too warm if we maintain a fire, especially during the daytime when passive solar is adding substantial heat to the house.

Re-starts with no coals is not a big deal and is easy and fast. The key is to have well seasoned stove wood of varying split sizes and a supply of very dry kindling. It is nearly as easy to start cold as to start from a bed of low coals. Our wood supply is primarily aspen, with some birch, ash, hard maple and oak. We save the oak to use in the coldest periods. The aspen burns fast and hot, and most of our aspen splits are large. They maintain a very nice, hot fire for 1-2 hours, and do not have excessive coal build-up. If your wood is not well seasoned, you may find all sorts of trouble getting the stove performance you hope for.

Probably the best thing you can do is to acquire as soon as possible and maintain an adequate supply of well seasoned stove wood to get through each heating season. I cut, split and stack our wood, and nearly all of our wood has had at least 2 full summers of drying in covered wood sheds with good air circulation, but some limited amount in open stacks, but also covered on top with good air circulation. So we start each heating season with 2 years supply of wood on hand: with half the supply having dried 2 summers for current season use, and the other half having dried one summer and for next years use. Your stove experience may not be good if you don't have good wood. Two years of seasoning assures us that our wood always will be very good.

Keep in mind that wood burns best and efficiently, and most stoves perform best, when stove operating temperatures are in the "sweet" spot of output. For us, that sweet spot is single wall flue temp at 18" above the top of the stove in the 300-350F range. 400F is the maximum we allow (coldest periods), and for a fresh load of wood the temp needs to reach 250F before the stove moves into a quality secondary burn phase. Other stoves may perform differently.

I wish you success in your search. Keep your expectations reasonable. Wood heat from a stove is not the same as heat from a furnace. My wife and I think it is better, but also the house has temperature variations. Not too much better than that first cup of coffee on a cold morning and sitting in an easy chair in front of the stove and enveloped in radiant heat.

 

[Tar12]

Hey Tar,

I haven't ruled them out completely and I don't doubt their effectiveness. I was just trying to gauge what I can expect if I go the avenue I am leaning towards. I would think there are several folks on here heating smaller homes primarily with non cat stoves that are working standard hours. Like I said above, if propane furnace kicks on to keep it on the warm side near hours 6-8, I'm fine with that...

I don't like buying propane period! lol I do have it as back up but I have not burned 1 single gallon of it since installing the cat stove. I simply don't have to and this is super easy to achieve.I was on the fence like you are a few months ago. The way I view this is that you are not only saving money by not buying propane but your wood consumption is also greatly reduced along with your labor and overall costs and you are guaranteed to come home to a stove that does not need to be restarted! I don't want to start a fire when I walk in the door after a long day!This is priceless to me with my busy day to day schedule which has me away from home anywhere from 8 hrs to 12 hrs. I have ran everything from barrel stoves on up to boilers.The cat stove wins hands down for me. Yes they cost more up front but they save you so much more in the long run.

 

[MDWOOD]

We work full time and heat our old farmhouse 24/7 with a PE super27.
Easy start after 10 hrs regularly and burning sycamore.

Bill

 

[RandyBoBandy]

Go cat. Paying for propane is lame. Fortunately I don't have to. I still don't like to hear the furnace run though. Have you looked at the Woodstock line up?

 

[burninwood]

I had a Napoleon 1101 insert (1.5 cf firebox) and upgraded to an Osburn 2400 (3.2cf firebox) insert. The difference in heat output is unbelievable. I was happy with the Napoleon 1101. It certainly kept my house warmer than ever, but once we swapped it out for a 3.2 cubic foot beast, it was a whole new ball game. I was on a very tight budget when I upgraded. The Osburn seemed to be the best bang for the buck. I bought it at dynamitebuys.com. It was shipped to my house. I removed the Napoleon and installed the Osburn myself. I sold the Napoleon on Craigslist to help make up for the cost of the upgrade. My wife and I could not believe the difference in heat output. The Osburn 2400 really is a beast. Summit owners on this site claim the same kind of satisfaction. So my advice is if the larger insert fits in your fireplace, go for it. I rarely have to fill my firebox to the gills (usually load it about 3/4 full) and get tons of heat. I'm able to burn cleanly all the time. When I need to burn a small fire, I just make sure it's a short hot fire. I love having the extra firepower when I need it. I also love having the option to burn NS or EW. Larger fire boxes are not always the right answer but in your case it sounds like you will be very happy with an upgrade.

Sounds like your stove upgrade would be inline with my plans if I were to move to the Summit. I have a freestanding setup and the current hearth is plenty big enough to take the larger stove while meeting the Canadian clearances. Glad to hear that it worked out for you!

Real-world accounts are helpful if the wood stove owner's real-world is about the same as yours. I'm going to assume my experience is on the most-demanding end of real-world experience: our 2.3 cu ft wood stove is the primary heat for our 1500 sq ft, single story with basement home; built in 1956 with insulation and window upgrades; cold, northern MN climate (three times so far this winter temps have dropped to -33F real temp, not windchill); SW exposure with passive solar from windows but also exposed to strong winter NW winds. Basement is maintained at 50F with electric baseboard heat.

The stove is Seefire (made in BC), bought in 1990, no longer being made, non-catalytic; rated at 55,000 btu high burn maximum, advertised 9 hr burn with a low fire. Will the stove heat the house comfortably (70F in main living areas, cooler in bedrooms) for 9 hours without reloading and outside temps in the -5 to +20F range or colder: no. Will it have coals suitable for a re-fire after 9 hours on low burn: maybe yes, if the wood is primarily oak or similarly dense wood. Both my wife and I are not away from the house typically for periods longer than 4-6 hours, often one of us is home most of the time, and we re-load as needed when home to maintain temperature. The stove will maintain a 70F temp, even at -30 to -40F outside temperature, but to do that in below 0F weather requires frequent reloading to maintain a near high burn. The stove easily maintains 70F temp at outside temps in the +15F and higher range. In fact in this temp range we frequently let the stove burn out and then re-start when needed because the house gets too warm if we maintain a fire, especially during the daytime when passive solar is adding substantial heat to the house.

Re-starts with no coals is not a big deal and is easy and fast. The key is to have well seasoned stove wood of varying split sizes and a supply of very dry kindling. It is nearly as easy to start cold as to start from a bed of low coals. Our wood supply is primarily aspen, with some birch, ash, hard maple and oak. We save the oak to use in the coldest periods. The aspen burns fast and hot, and most of our aspen splits are large. They maintain a very nice, hot fire for 1-2 hours, and do not have excessive coal build-up. If your wood is not well seasoned, you may find all sorts of trouble getting the stove performance you hope for.

Probably the best thing you can do is to acquire as soon as possible and maintain an adequate supply of well seasoned stove wood to get through each heating season. I cut, split and stack our wood, and nearly all of our wood has had at least 2 full summers of drying in covered wood sheds with good air circulation, but some limited amount in open stacks, but also covered on top with good air circulation. So we start each heating season with 2 years supply of wood on hand: with half the supply having dried 2 summers for current season use, and the other half having dried one summer and for next years use. Your stove experience may not be good if you don't have good wood. Two years of seasoning assures us that our wood always will be very good.

Keep in mind that wood burns best and efficiently, and most stoves perform best, when stove operating temperatures are in the "sweet" spot of output. For us, that sweet spot is single wall flue temp at 18" above the top of the stove in the 300-350F range. 400F is the maximum we allow (coldest periods), and for a fresh load of wood the temp needs to reach 250F before the stove moves into a quality secondary burn phase. Other stoves may perform differently.

I wish you success in your search. Keep your expectations reasonable. Wood heat from a stove is not the same as heat from a furnace. My wife and I think it is better, but also the house has temperature variations. Not too much better than that first cup of coffee on a cold morning and sitting in an easy chair in front of the stove and enveloped in radiant heat.

Thanks for the well thought out post and the best wishes. You've brought up some key points and it is clear that your recent 'real-world' account would be worst case scenario for me. I am in a good place with my wood supply - it's something that I actual enjoy doing when it it too cold to tinker with anything else. After all, it comes with the territory; I certainly will be realistic with my expectations - as I stated above, if the furnace needs to kick on for an hour or two I can handle that.

Like many on the forum, I am looking to make the most informed decision before emptying my wallet on a new steel box. We plan on toughing it out for the rest of this burning season and setting the pennies aside for an off-season deal. Getting an idea of what I need to spend now will govern what I think I should be stashing away over the next few months for the upgrade. I'm pretty sure my wife thinks I am nuts given the amount of time I seem to be killing these days 'cruising' the threads!

Thanks

We work full time and heat our old farmhouse 24/7 with a PE super27.
Easy start after 10 hrs regularly and burning sycamore.

Bill

Good to hear - thanks, Bill.