Just Checking--Any Significant Real-World Efficiency Differences Between Types and Models of Good EP

[Renovation]

Greetings!

As a newbie learning about stoves, I find reading your past discussions fun and useful. Today I'm pondering real world efficiency.

I'm wondering if there's any significant, proven, real-world efficiency difference between types (sheet/cast/soapstone, cat/secondary burn), and models of good EPA stoves?

From searching your discussions, I'm guessing the answer will be "No, just relax and buy what you like." , but I'm a confirmed geek so I'm asking! ;-P

I'm not wanting to rehash, or create controversy (which posters here seem to be blessedly skilled at avoiding), just checking.

Thanks again for your friendliness and resources. Reading and mentally designing my eventual setup keeps my spirits up while rebuilding my place.

 

[begreen]

Heating efficiency is somewhat relative to the need. The T6 will heat up more slowly than some stoves, but it will also radiate heat gently long after the fire has died down. This works great in a house in which the temps are not allowed to drop a lot. If one needs more of a radiant heater for quick heatups of a cold space, then an unshielded stove may work better. In general, I agree with the get a reliable stove that you like the best. Both of your proposed choices will do the job well.

 

[Battenkiller]

Disregarding published efficiency figures, cat stoves will generally be a lot more efficient at low burn rates and secondary combustion burn tube/manifold type stoves are more efficient at high burn rates. Soon you will begin to see more and more hybrid stoves that use both technologies. This is regarding burn efficiency, not necessarily heating efficiency.

In the real world, I believe a stove that burns at the steadiest rate will be the most efficient at warming your house, provided that it is properly sized so that burning it at it's optimum rate is not too much heat for the space.

 

[Todd]

If your rebuilding maybe consider a masonry heater, I hear they are most efficient. Otherwise I totaly agree with Battenkiller.

 

[Renovation]

If your rebuilding maybe consider a masonry heater, I hear they are most efficient. Otherwise I totaly agree with Battenkiller.

Thanks Todd,

I did a search on masonry heater here, and... friggin' awesome! Also out of my present scope and budget, since I have to put my time and money into stuff like insulating and closing the walls before I lose the last o my sanity. ;-P

That said, it does sound like the ideal for me--long gentle heat with high efficiency. Maybe in my next house...

 

[Battenkiller]

That said, it does sound like the ideal for me--long gentle heat with high efficiency.

Well, perhaps you will be first in line for the new Woodstock Stove Co. wunderkind coming soon. Hybrid secondary/cat combustion, soapstone walls for unsurpassed heat retention, an estimated 90%+ burn efficiency, probably pretty as a picture to look at.....

We're all like kids waiting for Santa on this one.

 

[cycloxer]

No, they are all about the same.

 

[Renovation]

Disregarding published efficiency figures, cat stoves will generally be a lot more efficient at low burn rates and secondary combustion burn tube/manifold type stoves are more efficient at high burn rates. Soon you will begin to see more and more hybrid stoves that use both technologies. This is regarding burn efficiency, not necessarily heating efficiency.

In the real world, I believe a stove that burns at the steadiest rate will be the most efficient at warming your house, provided that it is properly sized so that burning it at it's optimum rate is not too much heat for the space.

Thanks Battenkiller (stop luffing! ;-P ), and fair enough. So I asked the size question under a new topic title, hoping that will help folks to find it more easily later.