Separate names with a comma.
Post in 'The Hearth Room - Wood Stoves and Fireplaces' started by Machria, Nov 7, 2012.
Helpful Sponsor Ads!
After owning all three types of stoves, Soapstone gets my vote. The stove in my avatar will burn for 12-18 Hours. When I say burn, I mean that there are coals still going up to that long. Another major point is though it does eat some wood, that stove stays warm and radiates heat long after the actual fire has went out. So, if you load it up and forget to reload at a certain time, it's ok because it holds the heat and still disperses it even though there is no fire. It is a Smooth Radiating type of warm heat. Deceptive at that. You will build a fire and if you take note of your self and you feel "ok" or comfortable. Then you put more wood on thinking, "it could still be hotter. The next thing you know it is raging heat. This is because the way the heat radiates is not harsh. A good bad thing. I love Soapstone heat and would never own another type of stove.
This is true, but you neglected to mention that some of this benefit is due to the fact that the firebox of your stove is actually larger than a new Hearthstone Equinox. When your stove is that large, no matter the material that is used, it is going to stay warm long after the fire is down to coals.
Well said sir!
This came from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I think it makes the point that a large surface area and a high thermal mass efficiently heats at a very low surface temperature. It takes a large soapstone stove to the the extreme.
A masonry heater (or masonary stove, ceramic stove, tile stove) is a device for warming an interior space by capturing the heat from periodic burning of fuel (usually wood), and then radiating the heat at a fairly constant temperature for a long period .
Masonry takes longer to heat than metal; but once warm, the heater will radiate this heat over a much longer period of time and at a much lower temperature than a metal stove would use (the metal is hot only when there is a fire burning inside the stove and for a short time thereafter). A masonry heater is warmed by fires that burn for a short time; it is mostly the heat stored by the heater's mass that heats the living space. Both in Europe and in America seating and even beds are occasionally built adjoining the masonry stove; this is possible because the heater's exterior surfaces are cool enough to touch safely.
These heaters are primarily fired by wood, and those fires are meant to burn hot and quickly (never damped down, as is often the case with standard wood stoves). They are not burned continuously. This method of heating may have been a reaction to the dwindling resource of wood before the advent of coal and other mineral energy sources.
That's an excellent point. Dimples/ridges would not have as much of an effect as cooling fins, but would certainly increase the surface area some.
The thicker the stove as in steel or cast..or soapstone..the longer it takes to get the stove to your desired temp.
So in the meantime more heat is wasted up the flue the thicker it is.
Sure when the fire burns out the thicker stove will give heat longer..but in my little mind you won't get all the heat back you lost up the flue to begin with.
Now if you are burning 24/7 it won't matter much...transfer of heat means more as in temp differential between one side of the surface area to the other side...the ability of the medium to conduct the heat from the fire then transfer the heat to the room.
Any larger epa stove will work fine..buy the one you would like to look at.
I myself prefer a cat stove..mostly because I can burn clean at low temps in the shoulder seasons but yet turn the t-stat up in real cold weather and watch the fire and be warm.
It depends on the house. In a large open space a radiant stove is very nice. But if space is tight due to furniture, it's often not the best solution. Also a convective stove with a blower is going to circulate heat down lower where it's needed. Some convective stoves will push out a hot stream of air for 15-20ft in front of them.
Fire Man brought up the point that I wanted to raise here -
You keep saying "Money no object". Well, if it really were no object for me then I would indeed install a masonry heater. You can get your pizza oven built into it as well while you are at it. You will have efficiency and very significant heat output that will spread throughout that room - just build it tall and wide.
There are several companies out there selling these things, but again - they are NOT cheap. Given that you intend to put it on the second floor your cost may well go up even higher once you consider the engineering required to strengthen/build support under the stove (likely some sort of build up will be required, these things are HEAVY), but maybe you work that into the overall design and actually heat downstairs too...
Here are some great pictures: http://www.mha-net.org/html/gallery.htm
Someday I hope to build my dream home around such a heater...
Money is no object, but the question was still about wood stoves, not masonry heaters. There are reasons beyond finance for which some of us heat with wood stoves.
Oh I do agree, many good reasons to consider. I have not actually spent any time in a home heated with a masonry heater so I'm not sure how many of the things I consider benefits of wood burning would overlap and what (if anything) I might miss from wood stove burning if I were to go that direction. I suppose one obvious thing would be rate of heating as I can't imagine the masonry heaters can heat a cold home very quickly. But I digress - your point is taken that the question was directed toward stoves however sometimes thinking a little bit out of the box (yet in the same class "wood burning appliance" that doesn't require electric) could be welcomed by some reading the thread so I toss it in the conversation.
I have to disagree here. Why would you be wasting heat buy sending it up the flue to warm up a soapstone stove? Firebox or flue temps, depending on cat or non cat is what matters, not stone temp. You don't leave the draft open on a stone stove until the stone reaches a certain temp. You leave it open until the secondaries or cat lights off just like any other stove. The extra heat it takes to warm the stone is the same as the extra heat you get as the stone cools. No appreciable extra amount should be sent up the flue.
I've been thinking about the "money no object" thing. With the OP's modern tastes, a Scan Anderson or Morso might be fitting. I'd like to try a couple myself.
Do you think too much of that hot air is going to end up in that huge ceiling space? Unless that can be recirculated down, or if there is living area up there like a loft, I wonder if a predominantly radiant source might be more useful at the floor level. I don't know what's best in that case, but just wondering.
This is exactly my opinion. I have cathedral ceilings with a loft. With the old convective stove, the loft heated up very fast and the temp remained difficult to modulate. With the radiant stove, the lower level warms up much faster and the loft only registers about 4 degress warmer than the lower level. That said, it's hard to compare a 1980's budget convective stove with what I have now, and Begreen's point that it depends on the house is certainly valid.
Yeah, if money is no problem, then neither is a wood-fired oven.
If you throw down a big wad in front of us, you are going to get suggestions straight out of Willie Wonka's Stove Factory.
At one point, Woodstock was talking about an oven option for the top of the Progress. . .dunno the status of that.
Really, if money is no object, then oil or electric heat should work just fine...
Not without electricity.
BK Chinook looks kinda m0d.
I don't know, but maybe thin walls = part of the BK magic.
Of course, Highbeam is assuming that this thin material is steel. . .
most likely tritanium alloy.
(Note that BKVP was curiously silent on this point in his reply. . .)
I think the Woodstock Progress would be on my short list; good heat output for larger room, reasonable long burn times, efficient, cook top, nice looking, softer heat which will be appreciated by anyone sitting in close proximity, all owner comments praise the customer support.
I love the new "alert" system. A thread that I chose not to participate had a quote of mine in it. Turns out to be a good thread.
Money is no object only means we can pick any stove we want. We know the room size is 1400 SF which is actually quite small, think mobile home. Yes, vaulted ceilings but don't let the word "cathedral" fool you, just taller than normal. So we're looking at a standard sized home overall. Then it has been made clear that the owner desires a modern/contemporary stove both by direct request and also in how the owner describes the home.
Don't be silly guys, nobody here has a masonry heater and I don't think any member ever has. Pie in the sky.
Stove material really makes no difference. It is a novelty that some stoves cool off slower than others, a bit of a pain that some take longer to heat up. Really though, it doesn't matter enough to influence stove choice. Looks, on the other hand, are very different between stove materials. In my best impression of a decorator or architect, I claim a smooth metal stove as being the choice of a modern/contemporary look. They all look nice but robots aren't built of cast iron with intricate details, smooth metal is where it's at.
Then comes stove size. Anything under 2.5 CF is too small, that is the real "small stove" limit and barely holds enough wood to burn overnight in the normal non-cat. For the space at hand, 3 CF or larger makes life way way easier.
Don't sweat the convection/radiant thing. Any box at 600 degrees will be making the heat.
So painted steel, 3+CF, freestander, modern looking. This describes many brands but I would start with PE due to their variety of modern looks.
No doubt about it, tritanium is definitely the space-age way to go. BK is way ahead of the others in materials. Can't blame them for being mum. It's rarity may help explain BK's prices, and since it's so difficult to mold, it could also help explain how they look. (Hey, it's just a joke, okay?)
I can't speak for the OP, but I can afford oil or electric, and still prefer to heat with wood. Heck... I've spent more on wood collecting toys this year than I'd spend on oil in two years.
When you put it like that it doesnt sound like it would be that hard to heat. But thats similar to our house (the addition anyhow, heated with the Rockland), and its heck heating it with wood. The addition is 22x36 (792sqft footprint I guess) half is a large great room and the other half is divided with the kitchen on the same level and a bedroom/bathroom on the partial second floor... I suppose that would be around 792x1.5=1200sqft. The addition was cheaply done, thin walls, and a couple drafts I've been unable to figure out.The Rockland heats ok down to about freezing (I mean like maintaining room temp around 68). Much below 32F and the house is cold. If its windy out in the teens or so the house might be struggling to stay in the 60's, even upper 50's last winter.
So even in only a moderately cold climate, with approx 1400sq ft (or a little less, or more if you count the extra open area of the great room) a 3cuft stove struggles. I think the house config and insulating properties can make a huge difference, even when its only as big as a mobile home. If I had known what I do know, I would have done something different. I have enough money invested in it and I can handle a 58º house now and then so I can deal with it, but it isnt really ideal. For the op though, if its just supplementing an existing furnace, then heating isnt going to be as critical.