Highbeam said:A little tempting never hurt. Actually, the point is that until you run one you will never know the difference. It's hard to imagine when the flue is 900, the fire has been raging for like 30 minutes, and heat is burning your knees through the windows that you can place your hand on the cool stovetop.
Woodgeek's post demonstrates that you just don't know until you try one. It stays warm for hours after the fire goes out, not minutes. I have actually owned both and experienced the difference.
As I said, haven't burned the stove--but physics is physics. I checked my maths, started in thread I mentioned. Looks like the specific heat of soapstone is 0.25 BTU/lbF, vs 0.12 for steel. So a ss stove will store twice as much heat as a steel stove of the same mass. For a big 500 lb ss stove, swinging 300F, the stored heat is ~38 kBTU, about 30 minutes of peak output, or one hour of average output. For a steel stove, halve these numbers. So, draft issues aside, a ss should be 20-30 minutes slower on startup than steel, and will release that heat later in the cycle for the same nominal total heat per cycle. Whether this is desirable or not is in the eye of the beholder.
I guess my point is that a lot of the message about the ss stoves is even-even-even heat. That steel stove thar will blow you out of the room, but my rock will just keep you comfortable for hours. I'm not buying it. In the end, all the BTUs end up in your living space--and in the end the heat storage of your house is way bigger than that of your stove. If you are getting too hot in your stove room, you should work on your layout and heat distribution first, rather than dropping change to get a 'magic' stove that can supposedly store hours of heat.