Progress Hybrid Installed 12/21 replacing Fireview

  • Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.

    We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.

    We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm beginning to think that engaging that cat so soon will be a problem. Why would this stove be different on engaging the cat than the other stoves? I also do not understand why some folks do not want the secondaries firing off. Is this not how the stove was designed? Secondaries AND a cat.
 
When those secondaries get cranking, you are getting a TON of heat. That's why folks are trying to burn with the cat and not the secondaries in this warmer weather. I'm just doing about half loads, not getting the secondaries, and still getting 8 to 10 hour burns. I can load a bit over 60% full without getting the crazy secondaries and get close to 12 hour burns. When I fill it up, I get a ton of heat that also easily lasts for 12 hours. It just needs to be cold to fill it up!
 
I think back to the Woodstock Open House when they had a Progress burning. Yes, it threw some good heat but I did not think so much that it would roast you out of the house. Of course they did not put that much wood in the stove at one time either. I say if the cat gives problems, this is the reason why by trying to get an all cat burn.
 
Backwoods Savage said:
I'm beginning to think that engaging that cat so soon will be a problem. Why would this stove be different on engaging the cat than the other stoves? I also do not understand why some folks do not want the secondaries firing off. Is this not how the stove was designed? Secondaries AND a cat.

I think your thinking is correct by engaging the cat too soon they're causing issues. When I had my secondary tube stove once the secondaries started going there wasn't much stopping them for a couple hours and it puts out a TON of heat. This is the reason I bought a cat stove I got tired of being in a room that was pushing 80 degrees all the time.

The reason people love the cat stoves is the low burn capability in the warmer type weather and we've had a bunch of that this season. People who like secondary burn type stoves don't like cat stoves due to the extra "maintenance and cost" we hear it all the time. People who like cat stoves don't like tube stoves due to the amount of hard to control heat they put out along with the unregulated secondary air. Seems this stove has put together the things both sides of the cat/non cat folks dislike! :lol:

I had really hoped once the cat was engage and the air was turned down the secondary air would get closed off and it would allow a normal low cat burn. As Todd has said before it looks like we have a tube style stove(with a baffle of course) with a cat to clean up what the secondary combustion misses. I'm sure it makes it one of the cleanest burning stoves on the planet but not what I had hoped for. From what I've read I do think it has better control than a lot of the non cats on the market though.
 
rdust said:
The reason people love the cat stoves is the low burn capability in the warmer type weather and we've had a bunch of that this season. People who like secondary burn type stoves don't like cat stoves due to the extra "maintenance and cost" we hear it all the time. People who like cat stoves don't like tube stoves due to the amount of hard to control heat they put out along with the unregulated secondary air. Seems this stove has put together the things both sides of the cat/non cat folks dislike! :lol:

I had really hoped once the cat was engage and the air was turned down the secondary air would get closed off and it would allow a normal low cat burn. As Todd has said before it looks like we have a tube style stove(with a baffle of course) with a cat to clean up what the secondary combustion misses. I'm sure it makes it one of the cleanest burning stoves on the planet but not what I had hoped for. From what I've read I do think it has better control than a lot of the non cats on the market though.

I'm beginning to wonder if this stove would have been better if Woodstock had just decided to build a larger stove with just a cat instead of trying to combine the two technologies.
 
wood4free said:
I'm beginning to wonder if this stove would have been better if Woodstock had just decided to build a larger stove with just a cat instead of trying to combine the two technologies.

I'm not sure I would say that, I think the stove performs great from what we've heard, just not like a cat stove dialed down low. People are reporting 12-14 hours plus easy out of this stove so it must burn lower than a lot of non cats cause not many non cats with a 2.7 cubic foot stove burn in that range very easily.
 
I keep saying it, but I'll say it again:

The Progress is basically two stoves. If you fill it up, you have the most efficient secondary stove ever produced which will throw enough heat to heat a barn. I you fill it 60% or so, you have a cat stove about the size and with the approximate performance of a Keystone. Fill it in between, and you get in between performance. It is not a cat stove and it is not a secondary stove. Here are some of my approximate results.

50% full: Stove top peaks at 400 to 450, after 8 hours stove top at 250.
60% full: Stove peaks around 450+, after 10 hours stove top at 250, after 12 hours stove top at 200.
80% full: Jet-like secondaries take over, stove peaks at 550+ (depending on air setting), stove top after 12 hours at 250.
That's about as full as I've had it.

It is not a BK, but what's not to love?
 
Yes, it threw some good heat but I did not think so much that it would roast you out of the house.

Dennis, this obviously depends on the house and the weather, but in my house and these temps those secondaries would certainly roast us right out!
 
I find this stove interesting as I am not sure what the designers wanted from this stove. Its easier to think of this stove as a marketing idea.

I at first thought when hearing of this stove that the secondaries somehow improved the cat operation but a second thought about it I realized that wasnt going to happen as they work at 2 different temps.

But it was said above that it throws a ton of heat in the secondary mode , is that because the cat is also generating some heat from what little is left from the secondary burn which we all know secondary burn isnt perfect it still leaves some stuff to clean up by the cat.
 
Waulie said:
I keep saying it, but I'll say it again:

The Progress is basically two stoves. If you fill it up, you have the most efficient secondary stove ever produced which will throw enough heat to heat a barn. I you fill it 60% or so, you have a cat stove about the size and with the approximate performance of a Keystone. Fill it in between, and you get in between performance. It is not a cat stove and it is not a secondary stove. Here are some of my approximate results.

50% full: Stove top peaks at 400 to 450, after 8 hours stove top at 250.
60% full: Stove peaks around 450+, after 10 hours stove top at 250, after 12 hours stove top at 200.
80% full: Jet-like secondaries take over, stove peaks at 550+ (depending on air setting), stove top after 12 hours at 250.
That's about as full as I've had it.

It is not a BK, but what's not to love?

Thanks for the detail Waulie. I did not expect the Progress to be a Blaze King but with an advertised 16 hour burn time (I understand Woodstock to be very conservative with their figures) it is 80% of the BK Princess 20 hour advertised burn time. So it definitely approaches Blaze King performance although it is anyone's guess which is a better heater. My primary concern is being able to control the burn during the shoulder season. If Waulie's experience is indicative it appears it will be necessary to avoid filling up the stove during that time period.
 
The PH is definitely an order of magnitude better than a cat only stove. It tests 87% efficient, versus Cats at about 72 %, and my experience with this stove definitely bears out that test result. I am sure a lot of the efficiency is gained from the combined secondary burning methods, but that is not the whole story. I definitely get significantly more heat from less wood with this stove over the Fireview even when I have a long 16 hour straight cat burn. I am not sure how thay have achieved this; but I do get very complete clean combustion with hardly any ash left at the end of the cycle. I also find stove temperatures remain high and steady for a much longer time than in the Fireview...a really long time. When the stove does start to cool down I feel the difference in the air NEAR the stove immediately. but overall home temps remain remarkably steady, even with a 16 hour slow burn. I only have 16 inch wood seasoned, as I cut it for my Fireview, so have not challenged this stove yet.

This stove is no marketing tool, and definitely represents a significant advance in wood burning, in my opinion.
 
Good info rideau. There's a lot of engineering that has gone into this stove to make it work well. I don't see this as a marketing idea either. Instead I think both VC and Woodstock have tried to address the multitude of burning conditions that a stove faces. The goal is to keep emissions down under all these conditions while still providing a predictable and pleasurable burning experience. Cat burning is great for shoulder season burning with low to moderate fires, but not so relevant for large, hot fires. This is where secondary burning can be more efficient. The net result of the hybrid is a more efficient and cleaner burning stove over the wide range of burning scenarios. It's quite a feat to pull this off well.
 
rideau said:
The PH is definitely an order of magnitude better than a cat only stove. It tests 87% efficient, versus Cats at about 72 %, and my experience with this stove definitely bears out that test result. I am sure a lot of the efficiency is gained from the combined secondary burning methods, but that is not the whole story. I definitely get significantly more heat from less wood with this stove over the Fireview even when I have a long 16 hour straight cat burn. I am not sure how thay have achieved this; but I do get very complete clean combustion with hardly any ash left at the end of the cycle. I also find stove temperatures remain high and steady for a much longer time than in the Fireview...a really long time. When the stove does start to cool down I feel the difference in the air NEAR the stove immediately. but overall home temps remain remarkably steady, even with a 16 hour slow burn. I only have 16 inch wood seasoned, as I cut it for my Fireview, so have not challenged this stove yet.

This stove is no marketing tool, and definitely represents a significant advance in wood burning, in my opinion.

My experience is the same. I second what you have said above.
 
Thanks very much for your post.

I had never seen those figures on the Fireview before. I'm surprised at them. Woodstock seems to indicate the PH is more efficeint than the other stoves because it combines the techniques, optimizing burn opportunity; but the HHV is listed slightly higher on the PH, the LHV slightly higher on the Fireview, which is amazing to me, having experienced both stoves. I loved the Fireview, but there is no question I am getting more heat from the PH when burning the same amount of wood...significantly more. Also get less ash at the end of a burn. Don't know how that can be anything other than higher efficiency. PH goes into cat mode much more quickly than Fireview, which should result in increased efficiency. Also get a longer burn with a more steady temperature when in cat. My Fireview often burned with a higher stovetop temp than the PH in the early stages of the burn, but (a) less heat came out the (much smaller) window) and (b) the stovetop temperature fell more quickly with the Fireview. Wonder whether tests have been done of the cat burn only efficiency vs non-cat or combined on the PH. It is definitely possible to get a 16 hour burn which is pretty darn close to all cat. This stove can handle bigger loads than the Fireview, though I seldom fill the firebox more than 60% full of 16 inch seasoned wood cut for the Fireview; and it can burn wood quickly, putting out a tremendous amount of heat, when I ask it to by opening the damper a bit. In that situation I don't get anywhere near a 16 hour burn (8 to 12 hour depending on amount of air fed the fire). Perhaps when one burns at this greater rate although one gets greater heat output one slightly reduces efficiency...maybe more heat goes up the chimney? Overall, I find a long cat burn with the PH keeps my home comfortable even in quite cold weather, which the Fireview did not do. This summer when Woodstock is less busy, I will ask Woodstock some questios about the relative and absolute efficiencies of the stoves.
Again, thanks for your post.
 
Den said:
No doubt that the PH throws more heat, but it's probably due to better heat transfer(more surface area, larger glass, heat exchanger in the flue) rather than combustion efficiency. www.hearth.com/econtent/index.php/forums/viewreply/697558/

I think a HUGE part of the FV vs PH difference is the basic stove construction: FV has soapstone panels separated by a layer of air, PH is a steel box encased in soapstone. I always felt the FV airgap reduced the heat transfer capabilities. It took MUCH longer with the FV to get the room temps to climb. With the progress, room temps start to climb as soon as the fire gets going. Some of it is the bigger glass area, but the entire stove heats up much faster.

I totally agree that with even less wood, the Progress heats better than the FV.
 
My stovetop cracked pretty badly...about 6 inch or so through and through crack from front left point going back at about a 45 degree anlge. Smoke stains around crack. I had a piece of soapstone on top of the stovetop, so did not know about the crack until I took the supplemental piece of soapstone off immediately prior to lifting the top for cleaning. Woodstock has mailed me a new top, at my request to my NY home which is not where I have the stove, and I have burned with the covering piece of soapstone while awaiting the new top. I see on the ss cat thread that the new tops are all three pieces. I hope the replacement I have received is one piece...I think the one piece is beautiful, but I can attest that the large piece can be a problem. This is vey early for the soapstone to crack. Mine had no shock, thermal or mechanical. I imagine a three piece top will be a pain when cleaning the cat, which one has to do relatively frequently on this stove. If my new top (free replacement so I can't complain) is three piece, I will get Woodstock to watch for a really nice piece of soapstone during their off season and pay for a new one piece top. I'd love a photo posted from anyone who has a thee piece top. Is it in a frame that lifts as a unit and rests in the stove for cleaning, or is it three separate pieces that have to be removed? I guess it must be in a frame to prevent smoke leakage....so maybe cleaning isn't a problem? If a frame, is it raised? If the top isn't smooth all the way acrosss and one only has 1/3 area for cooking, this stovetop won't be nearly as good for cooking. The large top was great for cooking. I do use the stove for cooking, and if my piece of soapstone top had an inherent defect, the weight of the material being cooked combined with the minimal support for the stone may have played a role in the early failure of my piece. I do tend to keep a lot of soapstone slabs on top of the stove during the day for nighttime heating of beds. I had asked Woodstock if the weight would be a problem for the top when I had the Fireview, and was told NO, but DID NOT ASK with relation to this top. I think I'll give htem a call about this now....Anyone else had a cracked top develop?
 
Rideau:

Please keep us posted, I have many of your same questions regarding the configuration for the 3 piece top. I knew they were looking at making a change because it was hard to find defect free soapstone panels suitable for use as a lid. Evidently it has to be carefully screened because of the temperatures involved, and it's not easy to get decent yield from the quarry.

It's neat the way you were able to cook on this stove (I read your ealier detailed posts), but now I would be worried about the weight/stress issue.
 
The new 3 piece top will look very close to the original and for placing that other stone on top, you will be able to do it the same.
 
Tony, I just spoke with Lorin. She thinks my replacement top is one piece, but there won't be any more one piece tops, even special order, because the quarry has to pick out large slabs with lots of talc and was going deeper and deeper to find suitable stone...just too costly to try to find good stone for this purpose, and even some of what they thought was perfect wasn't good enough for this application. The new top design, which will be retrofitted for anyone with an original top that cracks, is a cast iron recessed top with three pieces of soapstone sitting in it, The center one will have the PH tab, so can be lifted out with that. Woodstock is designing a tool to help remove the other two slabs. There is also a small retaining lip, so one can open the top with at least one slab in place...I'm not too clear on that. But to clean the combuster, one will have to remove the slabs prior to opening the top. One can remove one or more slabs for cooking directly on the cast iron, which will certianly give a different rate of transfer and different type of cooking than on the soapstone...hotter faster more like a conventional stovetop, and probably hotter absolutely. One has the option of cooking directly on the soapstone still, and the soapstone will be level as it is on the PH, not have raised areas like on the Fireview. They don't believe the weight of cooking has been nor will be any issue on the original large stones. They believe it is thermal expansion with the size of this slab that is causing the cracks. Some people with the cracks have burned with the crack visable (I have always has mine covered, first because I didn't know it was there and had it covered for cooking, then to prevent smoke entry into the room...), and they have observed that the crack opens as the stove cools, and shuts as the stove heats up.
On a separate front, as of today Woodstock is now using a loose piece of gasketing, which rolls out with the combuster as you remove it for cleaning, to tighten up the seal and prevent smoke leakage around the combuster during burning. Apparently they have tortured their stove in their attemtps to stress but have themselves experienced no problem with the cat, haven't run into the very real problems you and others have experienced. But the SS cat does inherently expand and contract with heat far more than caramic. So this new gasketing snugs everything. I did ask Lorin if this new loose gasket would fall off when we remove the cats for cleaning and have the potential for falling somewhere and being hard to retrieve. She didn't know, because this is really new, so walked back and looked for one to try, then came across Ron who was at that moment installing and removing a cat to ckeck for just that issue and told her that it isn't a problem, it rolls right out on top of the cat. Even though I have had no problem to date, I have asked them to send me a piece of the gasketing.
They are exemplary in their responsiveness and courtesy toward their customers. So nice to experience.
 
rideau:

Thanks for all the great info. That WS crew is right on top of all these issues.

Your statement about the bigger slabs of soapstone being hard to get lines right up with what I heard a couple months ago. I'm sure the ability to remove the soapstone panels and have just a cast iron shelf will make for some interesting and lively thread topics on the transfer rate of heat through soapstone versus just the cast iron.
 
Tony, I had though about that re firing off temperature readings on top of the soapstone with the cast iron under it, and wondered a bit about what would happen to stove top temps as the stove cooled with cast iron under the soapstone...didn't think it through, just wondered for a fleeting moment. Didn't occur to me to consider removing the soapstone to get faster heat radiation into the room.... Did wonder a few other things, so you are probably right: we'll all have another subject to explore.
 
What a perfect day. Heading back out in a minute. Can't bear to waste the day inside. Just a quick update on the stove. It continues to please me. Easy to run, and heats very well. Far more suited to actually heating the house than my Fireview. I have not run into any problems with the cat, other than the early time it and the screen clogged. Used a fan on the floor in the hall, about five feet from the stove room, pointing into the stove room, which gives the fan ability to draw air from the kitchen via the two-opposite-wall-door-bathroom under the stairs, as well as from the stairs at the south end of the hall (that stair has four steps up from the kitchen on one side and the hall on the other side to a landing with windows, before stair turns and goes to second floor, so there is good airflow). Have never used a fan before to spread heat. It does keep the temperatures on the first floor much more even. Ranged from 68 in kitchen to 74 in stove room. Without the fan I was running about four degreen cooler in the kitchen with the 60 MPH winds from the south yesterday. The one thing I have not been able to do is get this stove (stovetop, I don't have an IR gun) over about 520. I have to admit I have not killed myself trying to do so...but it doesn't seem to want to get hotter. I do have active secondaries, and plenty of heat, so I'm not worried. But I am curious about what heat output would be if the stovetop was 600. I'm burning very good, dry wood. Same as I've always used. No issue with it's performance. Same wood in Fireview would easily run into a VERY hot fire if I left damper open by mistake. This does not happen with this stove...maybe it would if I left damper all the way open for a really long time, but certainly doesn't in the twenty minutes max I have left it fully open with a fresh load. So, I consider this stove very safe. Anyone care to share what they have done to get their stove up to 600 or so?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.