From what I can gather, the bottom feed pellet stoves, like the harmon 38, might have an edge in low settings for the efficient low burn.
What are the advantages of one vs the other?
What are the advantages of one vs the other?
Pro's and cons: Top vs. bottom feed.
- Thread starter tubbster
- Start date
-
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
webbie
Seasoned Moderator
I don't think that is the case...in fact, I think most other models have higher efficiencies at lower burns.
Bottom feed, in my experience, can result is a slightly more realistic flame and can put up with higher ash pellets.
All in all, I don't think one is better than the other. I wouldn't be surprised, though, if top fed stoves came in a bit higher in efficiency.
Bottom feed, in my experience, can result is a slightly more realistic flame and can put up with higher ash pellets.
All in all, I don't think one is better than the other. I wouldn't be surprised, though, if top fed stoves came in a bit higher in efficiency.
- Status
Similar threads
