Maybe one of the other BK 30 models allow for stovetop cooking,I'm not sure.
They have the ashford and sirocco.Same firebox size just difference in design.
They have the ashford and sirocco.Same firebox size just difference in design.
Blaze King Chinook 30
- Thread starter drstorm
- 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.
Highbeam
Minister of Fire
Hard to say.. New regulations require different presentation of information. Maybe you should look back to an older 30 box spec sheet. Princess is almost equal to the 30. Performance edge to princess in all except for emissions rate and aesthetic options.
I got over 50 hours once!
Granted that was loaded up with compressed sawdust fuel logs.
But yes,something is amiss here.
WoodyIsGoody
Minister of Fire
Yeah, well my specs were cut/paste straight out of the manufacturer's manuals for each model as published on their website. These manuals have more detailed specs than the ones you posted (such as interior firebox dimensions, door opening dimensions, catalytic combustor type, etc.).
Last edited:
WoodyIsGoody
Minister of Fire
I would hope the manufacturer would remove info on older versions, after all, I'm shopping for a new stove and want the info to be relevant to available models. Here's the thing:
Each set of specs came from parallel documents, neither were cherry-picked.
Is it possible both specs are correct and its the difference between the 30 series and 30.1 newer models?
Just a guess.
lsucet
Minister of Fire
And i understand and I know those links posted by you are real but something is wrong with some info there.
WoodyIsGoody
Minister of Fire
That can't explain it because both one set of specs is from the PDF manual mentioning it's for the 30.1 and the other is lifted right off the 30.1 webpage.
The heat output differences on the same model stove are likely due to different test procedures. It's possible for two different model stoves to have very similar results under one set of test parameters while having very different results under a different test with different test parameters.
BKVP
Minister of Fire
I have looked for the reference you mentioned in this post of the low Btu's at 6107. I have checked our website specs and brochures that list the value at 11,940 http://www.blazeking.com/EN/wood-chinook30.html
Can you please post a link to the location you found the 6107 reference, obviously a mistake and I would be happy to have it fixed. Thank you.
BKVP
Highbeam
Minister of Fire
Wouldn't 6107 btu be great? That's just 1800 watts. Would be able to maintain house temperatures even when it's quite warm outside, not to mention ridiculously long burn times. Ah, we can dream. Of course, I still want the high end we already have!
WoodyIsGoody
Minister of Fire
Sure. It's in the second link of my post:
http://www.blazeking.com/EN/PDF/manuals/OM-CK30-E.pdf
This link is on the main website page for the Chinook 30.1 as a stove "Manual" and the low BTU reference is in the text just below the table of other specifications.
Much appreciated!
WoodyIsGoody
Minister of Fire
BKVP, while we have your attention, can you shed any light on why the CO emissions on the Chinook is so much higher vs. the Princess and the Chinook particulate emissions are so much lower?
Both fireboxes appear very similar in size. I realize the Chinook has a steel catalytic unit vs. the ceramic one in the Princess but they are both about the same size and thickness. Is there that much difference in performance of steel vs. ceramic? And why do the CO emissions move in opposite direction to the particulates in these two stoves? I would expect them to move hand in hand.
Both fireboxes appear very similar in size. I realize the Chinook has a steel catalytic unit vs. the ceramic one in the Princess but they are both about the same size and thickness. Is there that much difference in performance of steel vs. ceramic? And why do the CO emissions move in opposite direction to the particulates in these two stoves? I would expect them to move hand in hand.
WoodyIsGoody
Minister of Fire
The Regency Pro Series F5100 claims a 4.3 cubic foot fire box and a btu output range of 8,000-80,000 btu's:
http://www.cleanaironthecoast.com/images/stoves/Regency-ProSeries.pdf
Of course 8,000 btu's is not 6100 btu's but it's close.
Highbeam
Minister of Fire
It's also false. That stove can't burn very long, 24 hours max according to users, which tells us that the burn rate is much much higher than 8000 btu/hr. The burn rate information from EPA is out of wack and can't be trusted.
WoodyIsGoody
Minister of Fire
The 8,000 btu is not the EPA figure - it came from the Regency sales brochure. The official EPA listed btu rate is 11,700-42,000.
Interestingly, the official EPA January 2017 btu/hr range listing for the BK Chinook 3.1 is 6,100-28,6000 btu/hr. The older Chinook 30 in the same Jan. 2017 EPA listing is 11,200-27,300 btu/hr. So maybe Blaze King fine tuned and updated the design for a wider burn range.
You can see all those figures here:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-08/documents/certifiedwood.pdf
In other words, the Chinook 30.1 has the 6,100 btu/hr rate listed in both the Blaze King manual for that stove as well as the official EPA listing from January 2017. So, I would assume this is the number the testing agency submitted to Blaze King and the number Blaze King submitted to the EPA.
Now I don't know what all the testing parameters of the EPA test are or how these numbers are calculated, but, I wouldn't make the assumption that you can calculate the max burn time from the minimum burn btu/hr figure. The minimum burn figure can likely only be achieved for the second half of a fire.
Last edited:
Ashful
Minister of Fire
You are thinking like an engineer. Please install your sales and marketing brain.
Balsa is rated at 5.8 million BTU/cord. We know the F5100 can burn 4.3 cu.ft. over 24 hours, or .0013997 cord/hour. Multiply and you get 8118 BTU/hr.
Don't bother me with details about how it can't go 24 hours on Balsa... again, Marketing brain.
Highbeam
Minister of Fire
The 8,000 btu is not the EPA figure - it came from the Regency sales brochure. The official EPA listed btu rate is 11,700-42,000.
Interestingly, the official EPA January 2017 btu/hr range listing for the BK Chinook 3.1 is 6,100-28,6000 btu/hr. The older Chinook 30 in the same Jan. 2017 EPA listing is 11,200-27,300 btu/hr. So maybe Blaze King fine tuned and updated the design for a wider burn range.
You can see all those figures here:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-08/documents/certifiedwood.pdf[/QUOTE]
I've seen the chart and think it's BS. There is some funny business going on. There are several "stupid" figures in that chart. For example my big honking NC30 at 3.5 CF has a max output of 28,300 and then the 20% smaller PH from Woodstock makes 73200!? Total BS. The companies, including BK, are not cheating but the numbers are obviously bogus. So we are back to using cubic feet for max output, and user experience for burn times which tells us how low the burn rate can be.
BKVP
Minister of Fire
Guys, we've been through this before...wood stoves are not tested with cordwood. They are tested with dimensional lumber (cribs) that have spacers nailed in specific locations with specified nails. These spaces assure for quick combustion of surface areas. To complicate matters further, the actual fuel load, size, etc, is determined by firebox size (volume).
It is not uncommon to "grab" the peak number during the emissions test and use that figure. We provide both lab and real world data with our products. There is no "B.S." about it with regard to our products and marketing.
I cannot speak for others.
It is not uncommon to "grab" the peak number during the emissions test and use that figure. We provide both lab and real world data with our products. There is no "B.S." about it with regard to our products and marketing.
I cannot speak for others.
WoodyIsGoody
Minister of Fire
Check out the newly released EPA test procedures. The EPA is moving more towards the realization that cordwood provides more accurate real world results. In preparation for 2020 regs, the EPA is currently allowing manufacturer's to test with cordwood instead of cribwood and has even adjusted the maximum allowable particulate number higher by 0.5 when testing using real cordwood.
Regardless of whether stoves are tested with cordwood or cribwood, the numbers should be somewhat meaningful for consumer comparison. I did notice that the independent lab Blaze King hired to test the Princess is a different independent lab than the one hired to test the Chinook. But, assuming the labs are competent and unbiased, that shouldn't affect the results significantly.
As a consumer, what I most want to know is why the test results for the Chinook and the Princess are so different seeing how they are so similar in terms of firebox size, construction and combustor dimensions. I assume they were both tested using the same cribwood.
BKVP, I appreciate any light you can shed on this. But I think you have your work cut out for you if you think the 6100 btu/hr min. burn figure is error considering this is the number Blaze King filed with the EPA. Since the Princess is required to be tested under the same protocol as the Chinook, why are the numbers different by a factor of almost 2?
Last edited:
Highbeam
Minister of Fire
We've been through it before, but have still not received a good reason why this whole btu output situation should be considered anything but pure BS. This is a bigger problem than just one brand. Confidence in the results from all brands is lower than heck.
WoodyIsGoody
Minister of Fire
I agree. The reason for using standardized crib wood in the first place was to achieve consistent (and comparable) results using the scientific method. And the stoves in question were tested using the more consistent standardized cribwood.
As consumers, we pay for this testing and deserve meaningful results that can be used to compare various models.
Highbeam
Minister of Fire
I know you're a smart guy Chris. If I read between the lines I think perhaps I see that the "standardized" test is actually so poorly written that it allows results to be whatever the marketing department is willing to publish. The spec is loose. Some companies take advantage and some try to be honest. Am I getting warmer?
BKVP
Minister of Fire
First off, the EPA Office of Enforcement & Compliance has made many mistakes in their listings. I will look into this further. As to your observations on the cordwood test method, I sit on the cordwood committee, serve as a member of the Government Affairs Commitee and currently serve as co-chair to the solid fuel section of our industry.
1). There is no approved cordwood method.
2). EPA has been conducting studies in a private lab using cordwood.
3). Any approval by EPA for a cordwood "alternate method" is a one shot deal. Burning crib fuel, with an approved EPA method that was fully vetted during the NSPS, almost always permits a manufacturer to receive a five year extension, every five years, for filing the required papaerwork. EPA has not offered the same for cordwood alternate tested units and in fact the rule states that they have the right to revocation an approval and require a manufacturer to retest if an advanced cordwood method is determined to be made available.
4). There are no cordwood tested and approved wood heaters on the market. The first company to submit for such a test using a yet to be approved alternate method, retracted their application and tested with crib fuel.
5). Method 28R, which is the current method, stems from the state of Oregon working with industry and air regulators to develop a wood test method. It was never stated or implied that crib fuel testing would be reflective of real world emissions. Instead, the tight, very deliberate test method, was designed to make it such that one appliance could be compared to another appliance in terms of efficacy.
As to Princess and Chinook data comparisons, I will look into the test reports and post back here.
Highbeam, I agree with the lack of confidence by consumers in posted data. That is why I have posted before, several times, the benefit of this site is for consumers to communicate without prejudice their real world performance attributes for the products they purchase. That and education.
Last edited:
BKVP
Minister of Fire
While the method is indeed refined, the fuel is still not a metered fuel. If the labs would allow consumers to observe testing, which is very unlikely since we as manufacturers cannot even speak to the technicians in matters related to the test while being conducted, you would better relate to the inherent difficulty in testing with wood. I have personally seen many stoves fail by a significant margin at a specific burn rate, only to pass with flying colors at the same burn rate on the next day! What happened? Sometime the wood load spills forward, blocked the airwash and you just look at each other and say..."there goes a few thousand dollars."
Then, there is the whole matter of the latitude within each of the the four prescribed burn rates themselves. Keeping in mind "unmetered", you can test one stove, let us say a Princess and then return a year later and test another model. And although each of the four runs falls with the prescribed burn rates, you cannot compare them because you may have run at the polar opposite on one stoves low burn rate and the other the highest end of the lower burn rate on the other.
Last edited:
WoodyIsGoody
Minister of Fire
Does the EPA write and print the Blaze King stove manuals?
Because the Chinook stove manual is where I first found the 6107 btu/hr min. burn figure.
