2017-18 Blaze King Performance Thread PART 2 (Everything BK)
- Thread starter webfish
- 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
black smoke signals
Feeling the Heat
Isucet This torch effect you are having is the same I have burning full load of Beetle kill ponderous pine( low moister) I tried mix of Elm Spruce with Beetle kill (didn't help) cat gauge would go to 6 o'clock on reloads with very few hot coals. All gaskets passed the dollar bill check and the only way I could run the stove was at horizontal on the t/stat less air the cat would slowly creep to 6 o'clock or higher. Eight months of burning the cat failed to light off got a different cat (not sure steel or ceramic) my stove now operates like it should with no torch effect no excessive cat temperatures.Are all cats made the same? Is it possible my old cat was my problem all along?
lsucet
Minister of Fire
hard to tell, I just know that the draft on the taller chimney is strong, that's why i have to closed the tstat some once the wood catch but i can have a complete black box if dial it low instantly. I did adjusted, checked and bill test it before and after i fired up.
shoot-straight
Minister of Fire
Yep learned my lesson, bought 20' this year so I will never worry about having some.
So I have been burning in my new Princess insert installed on Tuesday. My first assessment of the stove is how easy this thing is to get going. One does not have to work hard to get a fire going, I have been using a couple pieces of mixed hard wood, some 2x4 scrap and 2 sheets of newspaper. The next thing is the burn time....very long and the burn is super controllable with the adjustments. I am curious though about it's high end output, do you think on the high end it is as efficient as a tube stove? I was just wondering what others thought on this topic and by no means am I unhappy with the stove. Also this morning I thought the glass was cracked but it was delaminating the creosote on the glass right by the blaze king emblem in the shape of a heart......a sign of things to come?
BKVP
Minister of Fire
Before too many responses...
As of May 15th, 2015, manufacturers are required to post specific data (test reeports) on their websites.
Your manual also had gr/hr and CO numbers for each burn.
This data can be used to indicate how each unit burns at each burn rate.
Now that's all well and good, but as of today, most stoves are tested with dimensional lumber, not cord wood. A cord wood test method, which may be a better indicator of real world performance, is just around the block....or two.
As of May 15th, 2015, manufacturers are required to post specific data (test reeports) on their websites.
Your manual also had gr/hr and CO numbers for each burn.
This data can be used to indicate how each unit burns at each burn rate.
Now that's all well and good, but as of today, most stoves are tested with dimensional lumber, not cord wood. A cord wood test method, which may be a better indicator of real world performance, is just around the block....or two.
jetsam
Minister of Fire
My princess insert has zero creosote on the door- that just depends on outside temperatures. When it's cold out, I turn the stove up, the glass cleans itself. When it's warm, the glass blackens up again. I've never had a little heart on the door, but I frequently get clevage, so I'll have to be content with that. 
In terms of combustion efficiency, I would guess that it is roughly as efficient as a tube stove on high, and vastly more efficient on low. I don't know if the cat can keep up on high, but you have a firebox full of primary and secondary flame on high anyway, so I think most of gasses are getting reburned even if the cat isn't doing all of it.
It's cold out... go put some wood in that thing and set the knob to 'clean door'.
In terms of combustion efficiency, I would guess that it is roughly as efficient as a tube stove on high, and vastly more efficient on low. I don't know if the cat can keep up on high, but you have a firebox full of primary and secondary flame on high anyway, so I think most of gasses are getting reburned even if the cat isn't doing all of it.
It's cold out... go put some wood in that thing and set the knob to 'clean door'.
Take a look at the rated output of btu’s of a tube stove on high and the efficiency I’m sure there posted on the websites. I’m guessing the blaze king due to the cat has a slight edge. The question is with a hot chimney is the draft spec the same as published by the manufacture? My guess is mosts folks draft is higher which means maybe more heat but less efficiency due to the higher volume of air going up the chimney.
If all is equal, I think the BK is the clear winner at all settings. A cat is more efficient at converting heat than tubes. But you get what you pay for.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
If all is equal, I think the BK is the clear winner at all settings. A cat is more efficient at converting heat than tubes. But you get what you pay for.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
lsucet
Minister of Fire
Not always.lol the place i buy the piping they sale Quadras, Jotuls etc and the prices are the same and some higher that what i paid for the princess. You can paid for a lot of other stuff none related to efficiency. remember some like the look, cast, enamel etc.
Highbeam
Minister of Fire
Even at high output the bk thermostat reduces the intake to maintain the max safe temperature. The air inlet is really small compared to all the holes in a noncat.
I believe that a noncat at 800 passes way more air through the stove than a bk at 800. The noncat flue temps are the same or even higher so that tells me that more energy is being puked up the noncat stack Which means lower efficiency.
This is why wood noncat furnaces run that exhaust through a heat exchanger to recover so much otherwise wasted heat.
I believe that a noncat at 800 passes way more air through the stove than a bk at 800. The noncat flue temps are the same or even higher so that tells me that more energy is being puked up the noncat stack Which means lower efficiency.
This is why wood noncat furnaces run that exhaust through a heat exchanger to recover so much otherwise wasted heat.
The efficiency difference at high burn is small. Not worth talking about, really, as residency time is very short for both types. A few people have their stoves at high burn for long periods but the vast majority of people don't. A correctly sized stove is important here and I do realize with some situations preclude adequately sized stove(s). The bottom line is Most stoves spend %80 of the time operating at medium fire or lower. This is where the BK truly shines. Operation at low and very low fire is excellent, far surpassing all air tube stoves in efficiency and in particulates as secondary tapers off to the point of non existence. At some turndown point they become smoke dragons. No air tube stove has anywhere near the turndown ratio of a BK. People will turn down their stove to fit the heating needs even if it is way below the rated turndown specification. Other than visible smoke and creosote buildup, they have now way of knowing if the stove is being operated too low. That is where the cat thermometer is of great value.
At high burn, my old stoves had flue temps >900F regularly. At medium fire 500-600. My BK runs hundreds of degrees lower. A lot of heat went up the stack for a lot of years with those old stoves.
A BK stove makes perfect sense in my situation as I live in a permanent shoulder season. Save the load char, I never floor the stove.
At high burn, my old stoves had flue temps >900F regularly. At medium fire 500-600. My BK runs hundreds of degrees lower. A lot of heat went up the stack for a lot of years with those old stoves.
A BK stove makes perfect sense in my situation as I live in a permanent shoulder season. Save the load char, I never floor the stove.
Last edited:
sprawlnstall
Burning Hunk
I know a Blaze king is the cadillac of stoves but the 10 hour burn Max on the Princess does not see seem impressive 37,587 BTU's/h for 10 hours. This would have trouble heating in many small Minnesota homes. Is there something I am missing?
lsucet
Minister of Fire
That's a real good question/statement, but real life experience says something else. Most of the members here ( excluding me ) have been using different brand/models over the years and they claim at this point staying warm, some warmer, plus better wood consumption as bonus. Now you go figure that. I am sure there is people in Minnesota heating with a BK.
Yes. Let's do some math. But first a quick story.
In 2010 my parents moved outside of winnipeg mb to a 1300 sq ft house built in the 50s. We quickly found out that winter how incredibly leaky and cold that house is. When it was really cold (-30 actual temp with windchill in the -40s) the 20kw electric furnace would be on maybe 80% of the time. Talk about heat hungry! Except it wasnt.
Turns out only one stage was on. It was 10kw. Which is equivalent to 34,000 btus. Most furnaces are drastically oversized when it comes to the raw btu equation.
Now getting to the princess they say 60 lbs of oak per load. Let's assume white oak that's dry. That's 24 million btus at 3600 lbs. So put of a cord you will get 60 loads and out of a load you have 400,000 gross btus before any efficiency drop. Depending on the but content of the wood this value could be lower or higher.
Since we know the princess is very efficient especially at lower heating values now the math simply becomes a function of box volume and how much we can stuff into it. higher btu wood per volume the better.
I wish they would make an oversized princess with the same sized catalyst and flue. maybe 15% to 20% larger firebox.
The long burn times are for low burn rates. BTUs contained in the wood X stove efficiency = the heat placed in the house. The BTUs contained in the wood X stove efficiency / hourly house BTU requirements = burn time. Generally.
Within reason, the longer the hot burnt gasses remain in the stove, the more BTUs are transferred to the house. This is known as residency time. This is the major reason why burns lower than high are more efficient. Also the longer the residency time within the cat, the more particles and gasses are burnt resulting in higher burning efficiency.
I’m in Rochester MN, 2,200sq with tuck under garage. Stove in basement circulate air with furnace. Princess keeps up until -10f. That’s at 6 hour burn on high. At 5f it’s 8 hour burns medium high and at 15f its 12 hour loads.
Garage is insulated. But drafty and these numbers reflect hearing that as well as I leave the door open to the garage so it keeps the cars warm. I think the garage really throws the numbers off. And they would be much better if I left the door closed.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
sprawlnstall
Burning Hunk
Thats helps a lot, I don't think the princess would do well in my 2300 square foot house -20 below
Highbeam
Minister of Fire
Truth is, you almost certainly have no idea how many btu you actually need unless you’ve done the calculations. The size of your current furnace is worthless since it is defined by input btu, before efficiency losses, before duct losses, and it cycles.
You can’t compare peak output from another brand to the bk specified constant output for 10 hours. You can only compare firebox size along with burntime and efficiency to get a feel for stove output. Many manufacturers lie about firebox size so you must measure.
The max btu spec is really a worthless measure and more misleading than most specifications.
We just went through a cold snap here, -9 at night single digits during the day. The princess did just fine my drafty house.
sprawlnstall
Burning Hunk
My current pellet stove is 50,000 BTU and it struggles. Why can't BTU's between brands be compared?
Well, it’s a pellet stove... of course it’s struggling. Definitely don’t compare woodstove btus to a pellet stove. Night and day difference.
lsucet
Minister of Fire
Remember that pellet stoves lack of radiation, they are convective. I have two and one still connected but i don't use it any more. I used to have both running at some point. I need to keep them running constantly to keep the house nice. I do like them but it is different. radiation gets into everything, furniture, wall, floor, etc. convective takes longer to achieve that but is good for bring the space to temp faster.Same issue with furnace.
Sounds like you badly need to upgrade to a king!
PS sell me the princess
Edit to here they call that style of house a cabover. Usually it's a bedroom above the garage and they're notorious for being colder than the rest of the house. The fix is to spray foam the ceiling of the garage with 2 part, and maybe double insulate any north or west facing walls in the bedroom.
Last edited:
BKVP
Minister of Fire
Important Update, hot off the press....
A little story first. I was hunting bears last year, big open spaces. Identified likely freezer candidate. Used very high end range finder, 1147 yards. Dropped round into .338 RUM, adjusted for NXS 12-42 for MOA (elevation and wind). Freezer filled. Turned to my son and expected "Great job dad",
Nope, instead he said "It's only math dad"!
Where are the Btu's numbers coming from? Marketing!
A little story first. I was hunting bears last year, big open spaces. Identified likely freezer candidate. Used very high end range finder, 1147 yards. Dropped round into .338 RUM, adjusted for NXS 12-42 for MOA (elevation and wind). Freezer filled. Turned to my son and expected "Great job dad",
Nope, instead he said "It's only math dad"!
Where are the Btu's numbers coming from? Marketing!
Ashful
Minister of Fire
We’ve been discussing this in another thread, and @allan5oh aluded to the correct answer. Oak runs right about 7000 BTU/lb., for all individual species. You can put 60 lb. of wood in the stove, so 420k BTU. The stove does 81% efficiency at HHV, so 340k BTU of that is ending up in your house, at high burn.
At a setting comensurate with a 10 hour burn time, that’s a lowly 34k BTU/hour. However, we all know a Princess can rip thru a 420k BTU load of wood in far less than 10 hours, maybe as little as 4 hours. Do your arithmetic accordingly, but I suspect it can hit north of 150k BTU for the first hour, and then hold above 100k BTU for a couple hours after that.
- Status
Similar threads
