Another woodstove recommendation.

[Battenkiller]

Thanks for the number. I was reading a few things about the Buck 94, and it seems although it's new, there's a few mixed reviews. However, a quick question about the efficiency and burn times, etc. A lot of people seem to like the Englander NC30. That stove has a much lower efficiency rating (63 vs 75 for the buck), the same BTU rating. The buck has an 8" flu, correct? I would need to step it down since I currently am setup for 6". Would the greater firebox size and efficiency of the Buck make it more worthwhile over the Englander even though the latter is much more proven?

Don't know where you are getting that 63% efficiency on the NC-30. Sounds like the generic EPA-assigned efficiency rating for all non-cat stoves (the EPA doesn't test for output). It put out 1.63 gr/hr during the EPA test. That's about as efficient as any stove gets, almost cat effiency. It's affordable, it will do the job, and Doggone it... people like it.

Another option (my pick) is the new Woodstock Progress Hybrid (say that three times fast) with an 80,000 BTU output, high efficiency at all heat outputs (both secondary and catalytic burn technology), and very long burn times (up to 16 hours). It's the stove of the future. Want more convection? Blow a fan at it. Available at an incredibly low introductory price right now of only $2400. And if it fails to perform as expected... full money back guarantee from Woodstock. Try to beat that deal anywhere on the planet.

 

[Battenkiller]

I have a wood stove in the basement, and my previous non-epa stove would cook me out of that space. Upgraded to a newer (not new) stove that is convection style, and it seems to have helped, along with burning drier wood than in the past, I am much happier with the heating system now. I have also placed a couple of small fans in appropriate places and been able to circulate that heat better.

Just curious...

I have the same problem with my basement installation. If it ain't real hot down there, the house upstairs is too cold. You need the heat output that you need. But how does burning drier wood help to not "cook you out of the space"? Sounds like the old stove was putting the heat out in spades, even with the wetter wood. It also sounds like your basement is cooler now. I think the convection stove and fans were the key, not the condition of the fuel.

 

[mgh-pa]

Thanks for the number. I was reading a few things about the Buck 94, and it seems although it's new, there's a few mixed reviews. However, a quick question about the efficiency and burn times, etc. A lot of people seem to like the Englander NC30. That stove has a much lower efficiency rating (63 vs 75 for the buck), the same BTU rating. The buck has an 8" flu, correct? I would need to step it down since I currently am setup for 6". Would the greater firebox size and efficiency of the Buck make it more worthwhile over the Englander even though the latter is much more proven?

Don't know where you are getting that 63% efficiency on the NC-30. Sounds like the generic EPA-assigned efficiency rating for all non-cat stoves (the EPA doesn't test for output). It put out 1.63 gr/hr during the EPA test. That's about as efficient as any stove gets, almost cat effiency. It's affordable, it will do the job, and Doggone it... people like it.

Another option (my pick) is the new Woodstock Progress Hybrid (say that three times fast) with an 80,000 BTU output, high efficiency at all heat outputs (both secondary and catalytic burn technology), and very long burn times (up to 16 hours). It's the stove of the future. Want more convection? Blow a fan at it. Available at an incredibly low introductory price right now of only $2400. And if it fails to perform as expected... full money back guarantee from Woodstock. Try to beat that deal anywhere on the planet.

Thanks. The 63% was quoted from the ad in HD. It seemed low to me, but I wasn't sure.

I would be happy keeping the basement (~600 sq ft) and the main floor upstairs (~900 sq.ft) VERY comfortable. If I managed to heat some upstairs with it as well, that would be great. I want the stove that will give me the best possibility at accomplishing this. Another thing I should mention is the basement ceiling IS insulated (fiberglass batting). So I only have a vent directly above the stove, and the stair well at the opposite end of the basement serving as openings to the rest of the house.

 

[daleeper]

I have a wood stove in the basement, and my previous non-epa stove would cook me out of that space. Upgraded to a newer (not new) stove that is convection style, and it seems to have helped, along with burning drier wood than in the past, I am much happier with the heating system now. I have also placed a couple of small fans in appropriate places and been able to circulate that heat better.

Just curious...

I have the same problem with my basement installation. If it ain't real hot down there, the house upstairs is too cold. You need the heat output that you need. But how does burning drier wood help to not "cook you out of the space"? Sounds like the old stove was putting the heat out in spades, even with the wetter wood. It also sounds like your basement is cooler now. I think the convection stove and fans were the key, not the condition of the fuel.

I really didn't construct the sentence correctly. Burning drier wood has not made any difference in regard to cooking myself out of the room. It has however made starting and running the stove easier, with less creosote. Thus I am happier with the heating system. Sorry for the confusion.

I will say that when it gets real cold, those 2-3 coldest weeks of the year, that in order to get any significant heat upstairs, I still have to keep it pretty warm downstairs. Most of the time, I can keep the downstairs at about 75, and the upstairs will not get below 70-72, and will keep the furnace from kicking on. I really don't mind the furnace kicking on early in the morning, but I sure hate to hear it run in mid afternoon when I am home.

 

[mgh-pa]

Wow, this stove buying is ridiculously difficult I just spent a little time reading over the Woodstock PH thread, and the projected efficiencies and btu output is impressive. A little concerned about the firebox size.

What advantages MIGHT I see with a stove like this over, say, the aforementioned stoves like the Napoleon 1900 or the QF5700?

 

[BrowningBAR]

Wow, this stove buying is ridiculously difficult I just spent a little time reading over the Woodstock PH thread, and the projected efficiencies and btu output is impressive. A little concerned about the firebox size.

What advantages MIGHT I see with a stove like this over, say, the aforementioned stoves like the Napoleon 1900 or the QF5700?

Firebox size is 2.7 cu ft. Which is more than the QF5700, I believe.

Based on specs and past performances of other Woodstock stoves I would gather that it would put out more heat than the 5700 and Probably the same amount of heat as the Nap 1900. While giving much longer burn times. Claimed burn times on the Nap is 1900 is 12 hours which usually translates to about 9 hours, maybe less. I believe the burn times on the the QF5700 are about the same if not a bit shorter than the Nap's. Meanwhile the burn times on the Woodstock PH is 12-16 hours which should be pretty accurate as the Fireview, which is smaller, is known to get 12 hour burn times.

Other advantages is shoulder season flexibility due to the catalyst. You can burn it at lower temps while still maintaining a clean burn. This means you use less wood during shoulder season.

The drawback is that it is a catalytic stove. Some people just don't like them as there is an additional cost of the catalyst to maintain the stove. The additional cost does not bother me and I need the temperature control it provides due to my home layout and heating needs. I am simple letting you know that some stove owners do not like catalytic stoves and you should be aware of the negative feedback along with the positives.


You are close to the same climate as I am. If this was my purchase, it would be the Woodstock. If price were a real concern, the Napoleon is the cheaper of the three if you get the basic model. Nothing wrong with the Napoleon. BUT, this is a basement install. So, I have no idea how well any of these stoves will perform. I would still go with the Englander or preferably the large catalytic Buck 94.

 

[Battenkiller]

What advantages MIGHT I see with a stove like this over, say, the aforementioned stoves like the Napoleon 1900 or the QF5700?

A huge advantage in your case is their iron-clad guarantee. Use it for 6 months, and if it doesn't do the job for you, they will buy it back at full price... including return shipping. Really, what do you have to lose? Very worst case scenario, you get to enjoy a beautiful state-of-the-art soapstone stove for free for the season. They wouldn't be offering this if they didn't think their stoves did the job.

http://www.woodstove.com/our-guarantee

Personally, I think they are being a bit conservative with the heat output figures. Remember, peak output figures don't tell the whole tale at all, it is average output that will maintain warm buns day and night in the cold weather. Regardless of the size of the firebox, all soapstone stoves have very thick walls, so at a given firebox size they will have a larger radiating surface on the outside. You can hear them talking in the video about the stove temp being at 800º, which they said is just about right. That represents a massive amount of heat that is being radiated from a fairly large surface area. But even at a more moderate 600º stove temp, you should get a very long burn that will continue to put out heat from that 640 pounds of soapstone all through the night.

I would be pretty confident that this stove would be enough gun for your setup, and it will be extremely thrifty with your wood as well. I only wish I knew where I was going to end up living this winter. If I had already started the closing process on a new home with a suitable spot for a PH, I'd be putting a deposit on one today. It truly seems to be the stove of my dreams.

 

[FyreBug]

Sorry to get all techie on you. A note on efficiencies vs. Emissions testing. g/hr rating does not guarantee high-efficiencies and vice-versa. They might complement each other but they are separate tests. I'm sure Englander list their own efficiencies which is different than EPA efficiencies.

As far as EPA efficiencies of 63% is concerned, every single stoves made from every single MFG has that rating. It's EPA's way of saying "it this stove is EPA certified then you should get a minimum of 63% efficiencies". It's silly and in the next EPA phase likely to be announced in January, it will be remedied since part of the protocol should include efficiencies.

If you can stand another recommendation for wood stove. Have you looked at the Drolet HT-2000? It's a very large stove (3.4 cu ft) with a built in heat exchanger. It's a favorite with Amish folks. If you put a blower and the thermodisk kit, the blower will come on & off on its own. It is also the only stove on the market to have a split airwash. What that means is you can build smaller fire without likelyhood of smouldering since this redirects the oxygen directly to the base of the fire while allowing your secondaries to fire still.

Disclaimer: I work for the MFG so take my advice for what it's worth - somewhat biased. However, It is the highest rated stove at Northern Tools (4.9 stars out of 5) and you can read consumer comments. http://www.northerntool.com/shop/tools/product_200316353_200316353 good warranty as well.

 

[begreen]

The 5700 is a big honking stove with a capacity of 3.0 cu ft. according to Quadrafire. It's been a while but I thought you could put a 20" log in it E/W or N/S in it. However, it is no more efficient than the Englander 30NC. Though both are exceptionally clean burners, the Englander is the king in non-cats. (5700 = 2.3gms/hr, 30NC = 1.63 gms/hr.)

 

[BrowningBAR]

The 5700 is a big honking stove with a capacity of 3.0 cu ft. according to Quadrafire. It's been a while but I thought you could put a 20" log in it E/W or N/S in it. However, it is no more efficient than the Englander 30NC. Though both are exceptionally clean burners, the Englander is the king in non-cats. (5700 = 2.3gms/hr, 30NC = 1.63 gms/hr.)

Ah. I thought the 5700 was about 2.5-2.7 cu ft. My mistake.

 

[begreen]

There is also the Osburn 2400 at 3.2 cu ft that should be considered. It matches the Englander 30NC for emissions which is no trivial feat.

(broken link removed to http://www.osburn-mfg.com/product.aspx?CategoId=1&Id=512)

 

[mgh-pa]

Tons of great advice guys (actually just more decisions ). Anyways, maybe I should narrow it down to what's best in my situation (basement install). I know as many of you said, there are no guarantees, but in my situation, would I be risking not getting adequate heat MORE or less by going with a purely radiant stove like the Englender? Price isn't a huge issue, but at the same time, I don't want to drop $2500 when/if $900 would have netted me the same possible heat/efficiency gains. I have no need for a pretty stove since it is in my basement, but I WILL pay more for better heat output and efficiency if that's the case.

As for the Buck 94, I have a 6" flu, so wouldn't the 8" of the buck automatically knock it out of contention unless I went with a reducer?

I think (at this moment) it's between the PH, Napoleon 1900, and the Englender. Obviously the latter has the clear price advantage, but again, I'm worried about not having enough heat output to reach my second floor and keep it comfortable without making the basement 100 degrees .

 

[begreen]

In your situation a convective stove would probably be a better choice. The Englander is not a purely radiant stove, particularly with the heat shields and blower being used. It's more of a convecting radiator. :lol:

Your worries have little to do with the stove and a lot to do with how the house convects, not the stove. It will definitely be warmer down there. That is why you will be blowing cooler upstairs down there, right? Or put in a wood furnace for 100% convection to upstairs.

 

[FyreBug]

I am starting to see something in these threads that is relatively new. It's the concept of a 'Radiant Stove' vs 'Convection Stove'. Correct me if I'm wrong but this is a misconception.

First of all no MFG's promote their stoves as more Radiant or more Convection. There are no tests or specs listed on any stoves that shows the % of radiance & convective heat. The reason for this is that every single stoves on the market are both radiant and convective.

If you want to understand the science behind it here a couple of links from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_convection

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiant_heating

In short convection heating as it relates to wood stove is basically warming the surrounding air. You can increase this effect with a blower or fan.

Thermal radiation is different from thermal convection and thermal conduction--a person near a raging bonfire feels radiant heating from the fire, even if the surrounding air is very cold. This is due to to the fact this heat comes from electromagnetic waves (radiation). In effect, radiant heat does not warm air but rather any surface it encounters. It also penetrates surfaces. That is why on a cold day people feels a fire 'warm their bones'. They wouldn't get the same effect with warm air. While electromagnetic waves comes from every portion of a stove heated surface, you will get more radiation coming from the glass itself since the material is thinner and transparent to electromagnetic waves. Therefore if you want more 'radiant' heat you want to buy a stove with the biggest glass area.

 

[begreen]

True, all stoves convect, but they don't radiate equally. Jacketed steel stoves are mostly convective. They often only radiate heat from the front. Our Alderlea is like this. In contrast, a cast iron stove like the Quad Isle Royale is a largely radiant stove. It needs much larger clearances and the radiant heat is felt from the front and sides. You can often tell a radiant heater by its clearance requirements without additional heat shields.

 

[mgh-pa]

In your situation a convective stove would probably be a better choice. The Englander is not a purely radiant stove, particularly with the heat shields and blower being used. It's more of a convecting radiator. :lol:

Your worries have little to do with the stove and a lot to do with how the house convects, not the stove. It will definitely be warmer down there. That is why you will be blowing cooler upstairs down there, right? Or put in a wood furnace for 100% convection to upstairs.

I'm ok with it being warmer, just not unbearable.

I suppose blowing a fan down the stairs (furthest away from the stove) would work, but then, there's a fan at the top of the stairs all the time .

So, the Englender "could" do me just as well as a higher end stove? Is there any merit in trying to get a higher sq.ft rating stove than necessary? (i.e., they QF5700 heating UP to 3200sq.ft whereas the Englender is rated up to 2200)?

 

[FyreBug]

Welcome to science Saturday. I'm a spec loving guy and I think many on these threads are also since I see many numbers flying around trying to figure out which is a better stove based on the specs.

So I see on this thread EPA numbers quoted religiously. To the point a 1.5 g/hr assumes such a unit would be so much better than a 6 g/hr stove. It almost becomes a point of religious credo and to question it is folly! Nothing could be further from the truth.

First of all if you ever go near a wood stove manufacturer drop by and see if you can have a plant visit including the lab (call first). Many would be glad to have you visit. If you are ever near Quebec City shoot me a PM and we'll arrange for it. No pics in the lab! You will understand then what is involved in meeting EPA certification and trust me it has nothing to do with real life burning. Therefore, real life difference between a 1.5 g/hr stove and a 7.5 g/hr stove might be negligible if any differences at all.

EPA lab burning is part science/art/experience & black magic. I wouldn't be surprised if some of our lab tech don't have little voodoo dolls or some patron saint of wood burning they can offer sacrifice to. EPA results will differ from individuals who conduct the tests under the exact same conditions! The guys with lots of experience know how to stack wood in such a way so that as the logs burn they fall in such a way so as not to disturb the other logs. Even the way you rake the ashes makes a difference.

EPA initially wanted to to look at ratings around 1 to 2 g/hr when looking at the next phase of NSPS due to be announced soon. However, the industry through HPBA (Hearth, Patio, BBQ association) conducted a test to prove this was not possible. The same stove was sent to about a dozen accredited labs across North America to see what were the results. Now keep in mind accredited labs must pass some very stringent process to qualify, must follow the testing protocols to the letter and can then certify a wood stove if it passes. After this stove was done its rounds, the variance from lab to lab was 4g/hr! Which means this stove may have passed at 4g/hr in one lab then failed at 8g/hr at a different lab. Technically you could have a negative reading and a tree growing out of the flue! There is a law of engineering that states you cannot benchmark below your variance. In effect, unless a better protocol is implemented EPA should not go below 4g/hr.

Wood is not natural gas or any other fuel. There are obviously too many variables at play for consumers to rely solely on a difference of a couple of grams per hours which really will not be noticeable in real life. If any MFG rates 1.5g/hr. Good for them! They had an extremely good run. Its very likely tomorrow they may not achieve it.

 

[FyreBug]

In your situation a convective stove would probably be a better choice. The Englander is not a purely radiant stove, particularly with the heat shields and blower being used. It's more of a convecting radiator. :lol:

Your worries have little to do with the stove and a lot to do with how the house convects, not the stove. It will definitely be warmer down there. That is why you will be blowing cooler upstairs down there, right? Or put in a wood furnace for 100% convection to upstairs.

I'm ok with it being warmer, just not unbearable.

I suppose blowing a fan down the stairs (furthest away from the stove) would work, but then, there's a fan at the top of the stairs all the time .

So, the Englender "could" do me just as well as a higher end stove? Is there any merit in trying to get a higher sq.ft rating stove than necessary? (i.e., they QF5700 heating UP to 3200sq.ft whereas the Englender is rated up to 2200)?

I wouldnt put too much stock in Sq Ft. There's no benchmark and testing for it. Besides a wood stove is 'zone heater' it has no means to transport the heat from one side of the house to another side. Good rule of thumb is the bigger the firebox (cu ft) the more heat it will generate.

Again, look at the Drolet HT-2000 along with Englander if you are looking for a 'value' stoves. You can find many pricier brands in specialty retailers. The difference is typically customizable look, different material, better quality (most times), better warranties etc...

 

[FyreBug]

Ture, all stoves convect, but they don't radiate equally. Jacketed steel stoves are mostly convective. They often only radiate heat from the front. Our Alderlea is like this. In contrast, a cast iron stove like the Quad Isle Royale is a largely radiant stove. It needs much larger clearances and the radiant heat is felt from the front and sides. You can often tell a radiant heater by its clearance requirements without additional heat shields.

Oh I see what you mean... Good point! The shielding is there to redistribute the heat somewhere else. So in effect the radiance will hit the shield, which in effect becomes a heat sink and through air convection cools the shield itself. There will still be radiance but lessened due to cooler temperatures on the shield itself.

 

[Todd]

Welcome to science Saturday. I'm a spec loving guy and I think many on these threads are also since I see many numbers flying around trying to figure out which is a better stove based on the specs.

So I see on this thread EPA numbers quoted religiously. To the point a 1.5 g/hr assumes such a unit would be so much better than a 6 g/hr stove. It almost becomes a point of religious credo and to question it is folly! Nothing could be further from the truth.

First of all if you ever go near a wood stove manufacturer drop by and see if you can have a plant visit including the lab (call first). Many would be glad to have you visit. If you are ever near Quebec City shoot me a PM and we'll arrange for it. No pics in the lab! You will understand then what is involved in meeting EPA certification and trust me it has nothing to do with real life burning. Therefore, real life difference between a 1.5 g/hr stove and a 7.5 g/hr stove might be negligible if any differences at all.

EPA lab burning is part science/art/experience & black magic. I wouldn't be surprised if some of our lab tech don't have little voodoo dolls or some patron saint of wood burning they can offer sacrifice to. EPA results will differ from individuals who conduct the tests under the exact same conditions! The guys with lots of experience know how to stack wood in such a way so that as the logs burn they fall in such a way so as not to disturb the other logs. Even the way you rake the ashes makes a difference.

EPA initially wanted to to look at ratings around 1 to 2 g/hr when looking at the next phase of NSPS due to be announced soon. However, the industry through HPBA (Hearth, Patio, BBQ association) conducted a test to prove this was not possible. The same stove was sent to about a dozen accredited labs across North America to see what were the results. Now keep in mind accredited labs must pass some very stringent process to qualify, must follow the testing protocols to the letter and can then certify a wood stove if it passes. After this stove was done its rounds, the variance from lab to lab was 4g/hr! Which means this stove may have passed at 4g/hr in one lab then failed at 8g/hr at a different lab. Technically you could have a negative reading and a tree growing out of the flue! There is a law of engineering that states you cannot benchmark below your variance. In effect, unless a better protocol is implemented EPA should not go below 4g/hr.

Wood is not natural gas or any other fuel. There are obviously too many variables at play for consumers to rely solely on a difference of a couple of grams per hours which really will not be noticeable in real life. If any MFG rates 1.5g/hr. Good for them! They had an extremely good run. Its very likely tomorrow they may not achieve it.

Interesting. So how do they come up with the final GPH number? Do they average a low, med and high burn or do they just find the lowest number and go with it? I was always under the assumption that a cat stove was cleaner in the low burn range and many times under 1gph but with higher burn rates the gph goes up. Then the non cats were the opposite being cleaner at higher burn rates.

I know there has been some real world tests done in the past like Kallamath Falls in 1992? I remember reading it somewhere and they turned out to be pretty close to the EPA numbers but a bit higher. Where do you think wood stoves actually produce visible smoke, is it 10gph, 15gph, 20 gph? Maybe it's time for another real world study? I'd volunteer one of my chimneys.

 

[Battenkiller]

There will still be radiance but lessened due to cooler temperatures on the shield itself.

And this is not insignificant at all. The difference in IR emission as temperature varies is not linear at all. It obeys the Stefan-Boltzman Law and is proportional to the fourth power of the temperature in Kelvin degrees. How this works out in real life is this: a surface at 400º emits less than half the heat that a surface at 600º does. On top of that, a 400º surface emits a larger fraction of its heat energy through convection than a 600º surface does. This can work out to almost a three-fold difference in radiance between the two surface temps. The rest of the heat is released through convection as Be Green states.

How this works in your particular basement installation depends on a lot of things. In my case, with my stove and the way I burn, a fair amount of the heat gets radiated from the back and sides of the stove and gets absorbed by the massive two-flue interior chimney and the surrounding concrete block that the stove sits directly in front of. It then gets released in the form of low-frequency IR radiation (ala a masonry heater) as the chimney passes through the living space. Convection within the hearth room is of lesser importance to me because I have no way to move that heat from the basement to the upstairs living space. In another situation with vastly better air circulation, convection might be a Godsend.

As far as the stove glass goes, if most of the IR that was radiating outward from inside the firebox was able to pass through the glass, an IR thermometer reading of the face would always be in excess of 1000º and up to 2000º because that is about the range of internal temperatures. Also, clearances from the front glass would need to be about twice as far as they are from the sides in a purely radiant stove, and this is clearly not the case. The reason is that most clear ceramic stove material has a coating on it which is opaque to IR radiation in the most commonly found frequencies inside stoves. Plus, the effect of the thinner glass increasing conduction across its thickness would only matter at startup. Once the glass is up to temp, the only things dictating its rate of emission of IR energy are the emissivity of the glass itself (about .95) and the temperature of its surface.

BTW my mention of the low emissions from the NC-30 was simply as a comparison to another stove that was thought to be more efficient, and was not given as "proof" that it will be so in a real-life situation. I think all of us who have been burning for some time recognize how important operator effect is in the equation. I make this point several times each season here, but some think that a good stove and a good flue always give good results as long as you burn good wood. Yet, after burning for five years in the same stove they are using about 20% less wood for the same amount of heat. When that happens, it just ain't the stove that's responsible for the increased efficiency. Stoves don't learn, only stove operators do.

 

[BrotherBart]

Not even going to mess with quoting. But the 30-NC with the side shields will blow out a BIC lighter when you hold it over the top of the shields when it is cranking. That is some convection. Won't do it without the shields. It just burns your hand from radiance.

Not conjecture. BIC lighter science. Lab tested in my family room.

(Legal Notice: Don't go holding any butane lighter close to a wood stove too long.)

 

[Battenkiller]

If any MFG rates 1.5g/hr. Good for them! They had an extremely good run. Its very likely tomorrow they may not achieve it.

I realize that you work for a stove manufacturer, but my understanding after speaking to a few engineers at a few manufactures is that it is not quite as arbitrary as all that. The makers practice burning test loads and tell the test facility how each stove burns the test charge the best. The size, manner of stacking, and moisture content of the Doug Fir test load can't be varied, but the makers are allowed to give input on the timing and amount of air, bypass engagement, etc. This is quite plausible to me since one must assume that the makers know best how to burn in their own stoves. If this is incorrect let me know.

 

[Battenkiller]

...the 30-NC with the side shields will blow out a BIC lighter when you hold it over the top of the shields when it is cranking.

No need for an Eco-Fan then? :lol:

 

[BrotherBart]

And it ain't just one pass.

Maybe Corie could step in and enlighten us since he has taken stoves from design to putting it in the back of the dualie and hauling it up there for testing.

But the numbers don't mean squat given that operator practices are controlling in real life. But they need something to give us an idea of what they are capable of.