Baffle design... low thermal mass, or high thermal mass?

[EddyKilowatt]

I'm just asking this out of curiousity, since I've seen claims made in both directions.

My Avalon has a plain ole firebrick baffle (backed up by a thermal blanket), and I recall reading that this was a better design because it holds heat better when reloading, thus kicking off the secondary burn quicker for the new wood.

On the other hand, I've read similar market-speak for higher-tech stoves with more exotic refractory baffles (this might also apply to stainless baffles), claiming that they come up to secondary-burn temperature faster and hotter, and do a better job tracking the actual burnable-gas emissions of the wood.

I'm wondering if you folks who have experience with several different stoves, or with stove design, have any thoughts about the differences between the two approaches to designing a baffle?

regards,
Eddy

 

[TMonter]

That's a two way street. If you don't reload the stove soon after most of the heat has dissipated it's going to put out more emissions and light off slower because it has more mass. I would think a low mass baffle in most cases would be more beneficial because of the cyclical nature of loading the stove, however is has a lot to do with the design and geometry of the firebox.

Most modern fireboxes have a ceramic board baffle for the reason you want the baffle to hold the heat in but not soak any of it up. You want that heat there to ignite gases below the baffle and extract the heat after they have burned.