Blaze King Efficiency Claims

[xman23]

Did you hear the claim of 40 hour burn time. I did like the open stove pipe to view the exhaust.

Question for the Pro's. Is there a single wall pipe part made that has a access door. The door would have to seal when closed. This could be used just above the stove, to allow bottom up cleaning?

 

[Rearscreen]

As this burning season is starting I am hearing a lot of claims coupled with a lot of hot air.

 

[tarzan]

Did you hear the claim of 40 hour burn time. I did like the open stove pipe to view the exhaust.

Question for the Pro's. Is there a single wall pipe part made that has a access door. The door would have to seal when closed. This could be used just above the stove, to allow bottom up cleaning?

The crazy thing is the 40 hour burn time is true!

 

[bholler]

Question for the Pro's. Is there a single wall pipe part made that has a access door. The door would have to seal when closed. This could be used just above the stove, to allow bottom up cleaning?

just clean through the stove almost all stoves allow for that now

 

[bholler]

The crazy thing is the 40 hour burn time is true!

Yes but at very low heat output. But still is is extremely impressive that they can burn clean that long

 

[tarzan]

Yes but at very low heat output. But still is is extremely impressive that they can burn clean that long

Your right but it's useful for me. Right now is almost the perfect example. High 30's to mid 40's at night with day time temps in the high 50's to mid 60's. I could do without the mid 60's for sure but low and slow can last a day and a half.

I live on the north side of a mountain and don't get much solar help once the sun gets low in the sky.

 

[RopeS]

'Four times more fuel efficient than any non-catalytic wood stove' is what was said in the video. While that makes a little more sense than just 'four times more efficient', it still is obviously an exaggeration. Oh, and since we are criticizing, someone also needs to teach him how to use a moisture meter (around the 5 min mark).

 

[jophysx]

OK. I just reconnected after a weekend of working on my barn. I am going to summarize the thread so far. Two points.
1. BK stoves are great. Superior burn times. Very high efficiency.
2. The claim of 4x better fuel efficiency than any non-cat stove is bogus.

-Jim

 

[ohlongarm]

Yeah I get it they are great stoves but they are not pretty lol. For me it would not matter it sits in the basement so I could not care less what it looks like but if it was in my living room I would not go for the looks of them. I assumed you were adding another because it is rather odd to replace a 5 year old stove that you love so much but I get it.

If it's good enough to sit in my living room it will go in most,I don't exactly live in a shack by far.But then again i didn't shop for the prettiest stove.Those are a dime a dozen ,and some barely worth a dime.

 

[ohlongarm]

OK. I just reconnected after a weekend of working on my barn. I am going to summarize the thread so far. Two points.
1. BK stoves are great. Superior burn times. Very high efficiency.
2. The claim of 4x better fuel efficiency than any non-cat stove is bogus.

-Jim

Let's call for BKVP to give his explanation,this should settle the debate,I'm in.

 

[jophysx]

I would very much like to know whether this claim is completely bogus, or if some clever person in the marketing department has a very subtle definition of "fuel-efficiency" that makes it possible for BK to make such a claim. Either way I think it is very misleading. I wish BK would take the higher road and stick to the engineering/science, not borderline-fraudulent marketing hyperbole.

-Jim

 

[BKVP]

There is no way our woods stoves are 4x more thermal efficient than any modern wood stove. I looked back at the video and can see how it could be viewed...

So while the original script folks are all but gone, we will clarify what I believe the points were.

1) The stoves are more thermal efficient by on average 11% using the HHV calculation.

2) The stoves burn much longer due to use of catayst and lower combustion temperatures needed due to chemical conversion.

3) The stoves, in most cases, vastly provide more even heat distribution over the greater period of time.

4) In the vast majority of cases, the stoves produce less creosote and particulate emissions.

These 4 facts are 4 ways in which the stoves are 4 times better...not efficient.

Thank you all for bringing this to my attention. When I return to Walla Walla we'll get the video edited.

 

[ohlongarm]

There is no way our woods stoves are 4x more thermal efficient than any modern wood stove. I looked back at the video and can see how it could be viewed...

So while the original script folks are all but gone, we will clarify what I believe the points were.

1) The stoves are more thermal efficient by on average 11% using the HHV calculation.

2) The stoves burn much longer due to use of catayst and lower combustion temperatures needed due to chemical conversion.

3) The stoves, in most cases, vastly provide more even heat distribution over the greater period of time.

4) In the vast majority of cases, the stoves produce less creosote and particulate emissions.

These 4 facts are 4 ways in which the stoves are 4 times better...not efficient.

Thank you all for bringing this to my attention. When I return to Walla Walla we'll get the video edited.

Thank you BKVP we can put this to rest.PS when someone can point me in the direction of a better stove for my needs,i'm ready to switch,I can easily sell my new Parlor and make the transition.Everyone enjoy what you burn,if everybody liked the same there would not be enough to go around.

 

[jophysx]

There is no way our woods stoves are 4x more thermal efficient than any modern wood stove. I looked back at the video and can see how it could be viewed...

So while the original script folks are all but gone, we will clarify what I believe the points were.

1) The stoves are more thermal efficient by on average 11% using the HHV calculation.

2) The stoves burn much longer due to use of catayst and lower combustion temperatures needed due to chemical conversion.

3) The stoves, in most cases, vastly provide more even heat distribution over the greater period of time.

4) In the vast majority of cases, the stoves produce less creosote and particulate emissions.

These 4 facts are 4 ways in which the stoves are 4 times better...not efficient.

Thank you all for bringing this to my attention. When I return to Walla Walla we'll get the video edited.

Thank you for a straightforward and honest response. I still hope to get a BK in the not too distant future.

-Jim

 

[bholler]

Thank you BKVP we can put this to rest.PS when someone can point me in the direction of a better stove for my needs,i'm ready to switch,I can easily sell my new Parlor and make the transition.Everyone enjoy what you burn,if everybody liked the same there would not be enough to go around.

Ok no one ever said they were not more efficient than non cats or that they did not burn longer. We just questioned the 4x claim. Which bkvp very honestly answered and agreed that they are not 4x more efficient at all.

 

[ohlongarm]

Thank you for a straightforward and honest response. I still hope to get a BK in the not too distant future.

-Jim

I'll sell you my new Parlor if someone can find me a better stove before I start burning mine.

 

[RAPhomme]

My guess is that the claim originally came from data like these:

from this older article: http://www.chimneysweepnews.com/Combustors.htm.

So: "about 4 times fewer emissions over the range of outputs people usually use."

 

[bholler]

I'll sell you my new Parlor if someone can find me a better stove before I start burning mine.

Why are you so defensive? No one is putting down blaze kings. Other than the looks of some I know they also have some really good looking ones as well and regardless if you like the looks that is all that matters to you. We just questioned the claim of 4x as efficient which bkvp confirmed.

 

[bholler]

My guess is that the claim originally came from data like these:

That is possible but the claim was 4x more fuel efficient nothing about emissions. And yes I know the 2 are related but 4x the emissions does not equate to 4x the fuel efficiency. I also question the claim that stoves spend 80% of their time burning low. Yes for some that is true but many it is not

 

[RAPhomme]

That is possible but the claim was 4x more fuel efficient nothing about emissions. And yes I know the 2 are related but 4x the emissions does not equate to 4x the fuel efficiency. I also question the claim that stoves spend 80% of their time burning low. Yes for some that is true but many it is not

Looks to me as though the editors of the video probably confused-conflated those measurements. How old is that video?

 

[bholler]

Looks to me as though the editors of the video probably confused-conflated those measurements. How old is that video?

Yeah very possible. Or they did it on purpose either way bkvp says he will fix it. I have always been impressed with bk because in general they seem to give more accurate numbers for their stoves than most others. This one was just a slip up you will have that.

 

[kennyp2339]

I remember *surprisingly a while back seeing a data line chart showing a BK King burn with temps and time, it literally went forever, and I think (use that term very loosely) there was a comparable sized epa reburn stove used to test against the Bk King

 

[ohlongarm]

Why are you so defensive? No one is putting down blaze kings. Other than the looks of some I know they also have some really good looking ones as well and regardless if you like the looks that is all that matters to you. We just questioned the claim of 4x as efficient which bkvp confirmed.

LOL,me defensive,more like you are.I'm just debating isn't this what you do on internet forums,i'm not denigrating anyone here,irregardlous what you burn,and that includes a 55 gallon drum stove if it works for you.Fifteen years ago I thought an NC 30 was the cats buttocks,how times have changed.

 

[bholler]

NC 30 was the cats buttocks,how times have changed.

And I think that is probably the best stove for the money available now. Yes you are defensive because You keep defending blaze kings even though none of us are putting them down. We all agree with you they are great stoves. They just are not 4x more fuel efficient than all non cat stoves and bkvp agrees with that I think he may know more about them than you do.

 

[jophysx]

I remember *surprisingly a while back seeing a data line chart showing a BK King burn with temps and time, it literally went forever, and I think (use that term very loosely) there was a comparable sized epa reburn stove used to test against the Bk King

And by "literally", I'm guessing you mean "figuratively"
-Jim