Maybe one of the other BK 30 models allow for stovetop cooking,I'm not sure.
They have the ashford and sirocco.Same firebox size just difference in design.
They have the ashford and sirocco.Same firebox size just difference in design.
Wow! Those specs are much closer to one another than the specs I linked to directly from the manufacturer's website (see my two links above). I wonder why?
I got over 50 hours once!You found some bad information. If the low burn rate was truly half then the stove could burn twice as long. no, the 30 box can't do 60 hours!
Actually those are straight from BK website, copy and paste from each model page.
Hard to say.. New regulations require different presentation of information. Maybe you should look back to an older 30 box spec sheet.
Is it possible both specs are correct and its the difference between the 30 series and 30.1 newer models?I would hope the manufacturer would remove info on older versions, after all, I'm shopping for a new stove and want the info to be relevant to available models. Here's the thing:
Each set of specs came from parallel documents, neither were cherry-picked.
Yeah, well my specs were cut/paste straight out of the manufacturer's manuals for each model as published on there website. These manuals have more detailed specs than the ones you posted (such as interior firebox dimensions, door opening dimensions, catalytic combustor type, etc.).
Is it possible both specs are correct and its the difference between the 30 series and 30.1 newer models?
Just a guess.
The specs on the Blaze King website lead me to a very opposite conclusion, that there are significant operational differences between the Princess and Chinook models. Have you had experience with both models? Let's compare specs provided by Blaze King:
Princess: http://www.blazeking.com/EN/PDF/manuals/OM-PE-E.pdf
Chinook: http://www.blazeking.com/EN/PDF/manuals/OM-CK30-E.pdf
Heat range:
Princess: Under specific test conditions this heater has been shown to deliver heat at rates ranging from 12000 to 35600 Btu/hr. This wood heater has a manufacturer-set minimum low burn rate that must not be altered.
Chinook: Under specific test conditions this heater has been shown to deliver heat at rates ranging from 6107 to 28636 Btu/hr. This wood heater has a manufacturer-set minimum low burn rate that must not be altered.
It looks like the minimum burn rate of the Chinook can go down to almost half that of the Princess while the Princess can deliver almost 25% more heat at full blast. Seems pretty significant.
Recommended wood length:
Princess: 16” max. (407 mm)
Chinook: 18” (457 mm) max.
It looks like the Chinook can conveniently accept logs that are 12% longer than the Princess.
Firebox door opening:
Princess: 16 3/8” x 8 1/4” (416 mm x 210 mm)
Chinook: 18 5/8” x 9 7/8” (473 mm x 251 mm)
Chinook door opening is a full 2 1/4" wider and 1 5/8" taller.
Firebox dimensions(WxHxD):
Princess: 21 1/8" x 12 1/2" x 18"
Chinook: 20" x 12/ 7/8 x 18"
Princess is 1 1/8" wider and Chinook is 3/8" taller. Looks like the Princess's deeper belly for ash is only due to a smaller loading door.
Catalytic Combustor:
Princess: Z4400G ceramic
Chinook: Z0336A-M Metal
I see differences here I think most owners would find significant (maybe not Beavis and Butthead) and I haven't even got into the emissions specs!
Can you please post a link to the location you found the 6107 reference, obviously a mistake and I would be happy to have it fixed. Thank you.
BKVP
Wouldn't 6107 btu be great? That's just 1800 watts. Would be able to maintain house temperatures even when it's quite warm outside, not to mention ridiculously long burn times. Ah, we can dream. Of course, I still want the high end we already have!
The Regency Pro Series F5100 claims a 4.3 cubic foot fire box and a btu output range of 8,000-80,000 btu's:
http://www.cleanaironthecoast.com/images/stoves/Regency-ProSeries.pdf
Of course 8,000 btu's is not 6100 btu's but it's close.
The burn rate information from EPA is out of wack and can't be trusted.
You are thinking like an engineer. Please install your sales and marketing brain.It's also false. That stove can't burn very long, 24 hours max according to users, which tells us that the burn rate is much much higher than 8000 btu/hr. The burn rate information from EPA is out of wack and can't be trusted.
[QUOTE="Highbeam, post: 2158815, member: 1382]"The burn rate information from EPA is out of wack and can't be trusted.
Guys, we've been through this before...wood stoves are not tested with cordwood. They are tested with dimensional lumber (cribs) that have spacers nailed in specific locations with specified nails.
Guys, we've been through this before...wood stoves are not tested with cordwood. They are tested with dimensional lumber (cribs) that have spacers nailed in specific locations with specified nails. These spaces assure for quick combustion of surface areas. To complicate matters further, the actual fuel load, size, etc, is determined by firebox size (volume).
It is not uncommon to "grab" the peak number during the emissions test and use that figure. We provide both lab and real world data with our products. There is no "B.S." about it with regard to our products and marketing.
I cannot speak for others.
We've been through it before, but have still not received a good reason why this whole btu output situation should be considered anything but pure BS. This is a bigger problem than just one brand. Confidence in the results from all brands is lower than heck.
Guys, we've been through this before...wood stoves are not tested with cordwood. They are tested with dimensional lumber (cribs) that have spacers nailed in specific locations with specified nails. These spaces assure for quick combustion of surface areas. To complicate matters further, the actual fuel load, size, etc, is determined by firebox size (volume).
It is not uncommon to "grab" the peak number during the emissions test and use that figure. We provide both lab and real world data with our products. There is no "B.S." about it with regard to our products and marketing.
I cannot speak for others.
First off, the EPA Office of Enforcement & Compliance has made many mistakes in their listings. I will look into this further. As to your observations on the cordwood test method, I sit on the cordwood committee, serve as a member of the Government Affairs Commitee and currently serve as co-chair to the solid fuel section of our industry.Check out the newly released EPA test procedures. The EPA is moving more towards the realization that cordwood provides more accurate real world results. In preparation for 2020 regs, the EPA is currently allowing manufacturer's to test with cordwood instead of cribwood and has even adjusted the maximum allowable particulate number higher by 0.5 when testing using real cordwood.
Regardless of whether stoves are tested with cordwood or cribwood, the numbers should be somewhat meaningful for consumer comparison. I did notice that the independent lab Blaze King hired to test the Princess is a different independent lab than the one hired to test the Chinook. But, assuming the labs are competent and unbiased, that shouldn't affect the results significantly.
As a consumer, what I most want to know is why the test results for the Chinook and the Princess are so different seeing how they are so similar in terms of firebox size, construction and combustor dimensions. I assume they were both tested using the same cribwood.
BKVP, I appreciate any light you can shed on this. But I think you have your work cut out for you if you think the 6100 btu/hr min. burn figure is error considering this is the number Blaze King filed with the EPA. Since the Princess is required to be tested under the same protocol as the Chinook, why are the numbers different by a factor of almost 2?
While the method is indeed refined, the fuel is still not a metered fuel. If the labs would allow consumers to observe testing, which is very unlikely since we as manufacturers cannot even speak to the technicians in matters related to the test while being conducted, you would better relate to the inherent difficulty in testing with wood. I have personally seen many stoves fail by a significant margin at a specific burn rate, only to pass with flying colors at the same burn rate on the next day! What happened? Sometime the wood load spills forward, blocked the airwash and you just look at each other and say..."there goes a few thousand dollars."I agree. The reason for using standardized crib wood in the first place was to achieve consistent (and comparable) results using the scientific method. And the stoves in question were tested using the more consistent standardized cribwood.
As consumers, we pay for this testing and deserve meaningful results that can be used to compare various models.
First off, the EPA Office of Enforcement & Compliance has made many mistakes in their listings. I will look into this further.