Pumice Stone condition - thoughts?

[Hoytman]

Not arguing that, Ben. Why aren’t performance differences mentioned. You and I both know the differential would be substantial and worth mentioning.

 

[bholler]

Not arguing that, Ben. Why aren’t performance differences mentioned. You and I both know the differential would be substantial and worth mentioning.

Oh sorry. I really doubt the difference is significant personally. But I certainly could be wrong

 

[stoveliker]

I don't know about performance (but think it won't change much for two types of stone). I was only responding to "I highly doubt UL tested both ways just to appease woodstock" (my rephrasing).
UL is a (semi-?) commercial entity. It won't do anything to appease Woodstock or anybody else, it will do something when someone orders something and pays for it. There won't be a UL listing for pumice if it was tested for other brick.

(I once got a quote for some non-listed (electronic, high voltage) equipment to get a UL listing, because of use in a national lab. 2 rack units, one vacuum part. $36,000.)

 

[Hoytman]

Here’s some other thoughts I had on this...

Most manufacturers today would not allow you to place a full sized stone on the top outside of their stoves as it would change the characteristics of the stove.

I’ve seen the question come up either here or on another forum where someone asked about placing a full sized stone on the top of their stove if it would help retain more heat. The responses by some (moderators I think it was) were not to do it because of it changing burn characteristics...yet it has already been done. Anyone recall the old Garrison stoves? Meant to be used with or without a full sized stone on top. I highly doubt it was tested that way. Back then the stone was likely an after thought. Highly doubting it isn’t saying it wasn’t tested that way, but just that some proof is called for to know for sure.

We know that the stone holds additional heat...and we know an entire steel stove full of soapstone will perform at least some different if not significantly different than one with lined fully with regular bricks in it. It’s basically a soapstone stove at that point. Is it ok to lay a big steel plate on top of a soapstone stove to cook on it and protect the stones?

I could be wrong, it just doesn’t make sense to pay the difference for a steel stove fully lined with soapstone if there’s not a significant difference in performance...just to say it’s fully lined with stone.

I’ve got a wood stove here that isn’t fully lined up the sides or back. The floor is full brick and the sides are only one brick wide. These bricks are the old style 2” thick clay brick. I’ve often wondered how it would perform removing those and replacing them with soapstone.

If there’s no substantial difference in performance then it shouldn’t hurt to replace clay or pumice with soapstone, but at the same time there certainly would be no reason to pay such high cost for them either.

Aren’t some of the bricks in some stoves made of actual refractory bricks? If not, I at least thought I seen some replacements made of such somewhere. If I’m not mistaken they are reflective in that they do not absorb heat and yet are still different than pumice bricks. Maybe I am mistaken in that. Been awhile since I researched them.

Seems like I recall the three grades someone else mentioned as well, but for the life of me I can’t recall where I seen where they were for sale.

 

[stoveliker]

Anyone recall the old Garrison stoves? Meant to be used with or without a full sized stone on top. I highly doubt it was tested that way.

The crucial word here is "old". I am not sure back then stoves were even listed. The point is that the new stoves we have now are much more (precisely) engineered to reach high efficiency and clean burning.
Tinkering with that could very well decrease efficiency or cleanliness. Or get some parts too hot.

I think (but others knowing better may tell me I'm wrong) that a big old cast iron stove can deal with more abuse than a highly engineered (and more efficient) modern stove...?

Anyway, this is a bit of scope drift as it's not much about pumice stone condition and replacement anymore.

 

[begreen]

G'nite Gracie.

 

[bholler]

Here’s some other thoughts I had on this...

Most manufacturers today would not allow you to place a full sized stone on the top outside of their stoves as it would change the characteristics of the stove.

I’ve seen the question come up either here or on another forum where someone asked about placing a full sized stone on the top of their stove if it would help retain more heat. The responses by some (moderators I think it was) were not to do it because of it changing burn characteristics...yet it has already been done. Anyone recall the old Garrison stoves? Meant to be used with or without a full sized stone on top. I highly doubt it was tested that way. Back then the stone was likely an after thought. Highly doubting it isn’t saying it wasn’t tested that way, but just that some proof is called for to know for sure.

We know that the stone holds additional heat...and we know an entire steel stove full of soapstone will perform at least some different if not significantly different than one with lined fully with regular bricks in it. It’s basically a soapstone stove at that point. Is it ok to lay a big steel plate on top of a soapstone stove to cook on it and protect the stones?

I could be wrong, it just doesn’t make sense to pay the difference for a steel stove fully lined with soapstone if there’s not a significant difference in performance...just to say it’s fully lined with stone.

I’ve got a wood stove here that isn’t fully lined up the sides or back. The floor is full brick and the sides are only one brick wide. These bricks are the old style 2” thick clay brick. I’ve often wondered how it would perform removing those and replacing them with soapstone.

If there’s no substantial difference in performance then it shouldn’t hurt to replace clay or pumice with soapstone, but at the same time there certainly would be no reason to pay such high cost for them either.

Aren’t some of the bricks in some stoves made of actual refractory bricks? If not, I at least thought I seen some replacements made of such somewhere. If I’m not mistaken they are reflective in that they do not absorb heat and yet are still different than pumice bricks. Maybe I am mistaken in that. Been awhile since I researched them.

Seems like I recall the three grades someone else mentioned as well, but for the life of me I can’t recall where I seen where they were for sale.

You are absolutely correct. It will definitely make a difference. I just don't know that it will make a noticable difference to the user.