Blaze king or regency

  • 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
Not open for further replies.

Highbeam

Minister of Fire
Dec 28, 2006
19,349
Mt. Rainier Foothills, WA
@kennyp2339 There's no need to defend the stoves, especially to me. I even said they are great products. My comment about them was simply they aren't my cup if tea aesthetically.

The previous comment from @brazilbl was funny cause it's true and you're kind of proving the point. The only thing BK folks love more than their BKs is talking about how awesome their BKs are. ;)

Again, they seem like great products and I'd love to try one someday. But you have to admit the fanboi-ism can be a little funny sometimes. It's all in good fun!

I definitely didn’t buy my princess for the looks. It’s not a disaster but there’s a reason that Bk has since come out with the 20 and 30 box series of slightly lower performance but much better looking stoves.

BK did not come out with a pretty version of the big king.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bholler

kennyp2339

Minister of Fire
Feb 16, 2014
6,124
07462
What stove did you replace with the bk?
There was suppose to be some jab humor in that post, but I replaced a country hearth 2500.
 

Caw

Minister of Fire
May 26, 2020
1,032
Massachusetts
There was suppose to be some jab humor in that post, but I replaced a country hearth 2500.

It's all good Kenny...just having a little BK fun ;).

Actually this coming week is the perfect time to have a cat stove. Its going to be t-shirt and shorts weather in March.
 

Olson24

Member
Feb 5, 2017
8
Appleton wi
We have a 2200 sqft house it’s a tri level that’s was gutted out and re insulated 1 year ago. 2x4 construction so we could only get r15 on the walls. Wood stove would be in the basement.
 

marty319

Feeling the Heat
Nov 17, 2014
393
Belair mb
Personally I prefer a stove that's pretty as I sit here and look at it all day.as far as burn times I don't care as I'm retired and have nothing better to do then snowmobile and load the stove lol.so the prettier the better but I guess if you want the king to look nicer just have a few more drinks
 
  • Like
Reactions: Caw and stoveliker

stoveliker

Minister of Fire
Nov 17, 2019
2,023
Long Island NY
I can't handle the Blaze King Holy Wars any more. I hear enough stories of using 3 toothpicks and a Blaze King can burn on that load 354 hours and magically, have coals in which to relight...

You know, I think it was a Blaze King that was used to lift the Apollo Saturn V off the ground. I think it was 5 of them arranged in a circle at the bottom of the stage...

Are you saying Blaze King is the Chuck Norris amongst the stoves?:)
 

stoveliker

Minister of Fire
Nov 17, 2019
2,023
Long Island NY
If the stove is in the basement, then looks matter less, but more importantly, in my experience the basement reservoir will also even out the heat input into the main floor. Hence the Tstat of the BK (and I can't say anything bad about it) may be creating less of an advantage as compared to a stove in the main floor.

On the other hand, the control it offers will just allow you to be confident in not walking down every 6 hrs to check on the stove.

Regarding btu output, compare firebox sizes, get the average number of BTUs of a lbs of dry wood, and assuming they both can burn down that load in 8 hrs when all winter hell breaks loose you divide the numbers and you have your high output range. Of course you have to take a quarter off to account for the heat up the flue etc. (The efficiency of the stove is the ratio of btu out over btu in, more or less 75%.)

Just some thoughts rather than fanboy talk...
 
Last edited:

lsucet

Minister of Fire
May 14, 2015
1,688
San Ysidro, New Mexico
I don't know why people get so much into the btu thing. I can get the same heat with the BK that I used to get with previous stoves. The difference is that I tell the BK how much heat I want and when to go black. The tube stove always want to make the decision for you and you have to time it and be careful or it goes nuclear.
We all be reading here in this site, how things can get when is real cold outside and draft increases, how they like to run away.

Yeah, that is when two and three dampers comes into place to control the beast and covering some holes and bla blah blah.

Regardless outside temperature and draft, I tell the BK, is time to go into a black box just with a dial.
About look, well, to me, a pretty stove with 2 and 3 dampers in the pipe plus meny other precision instrument hook up, that many like to use, makes the stove ugliest than a BK. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: logfarmer

bholler

Chimney sweep
Staff member
Jan 14, 2014
26,199
central pa
I don't know why people get so much into the btu thing. I can get the same heat with the BK that I used to get with previous stoves. The difference is that I tell the BK how much heat I want and when to go black. The tube stove always want to make the decision for you and you have to time it and be careful or it goes nuclear.
We all be reading here in this site, how things can get when is real cold outside and draft increases, how they like to run away.

Yeah, that is when two and three dampers comes into place to control the beast and covering some holes and bla blah blah.

Regardless outside temperature and draft, I tell the BK, is time to go into a black box just with a dial.
About look, well, to me, a pretty stove with 2 and 3 dampers in the pipe plus meny other precision instrument hook up, that many like to use, makes the stove ugliest than a BK. ;)
I used a tube stove the same size as the bk on the same chimney with the same fuel and the bk absolutely does not put out the same btus. And if you install the stove within draft specs they are perfectly controllable. It absolutely is not an issue with bk stoves they are very good stoves and work very well in many situations. It is a problem with people acting like they are the right stove for every situation and any other stove is useless.

I actually found the bk to be more hassle than most of my previous stoves with less heat.
 

lsucet

Minister of Fire
May 14, 2015
1,688
San Ysidro, New Mexico
I used a tube stove the same size as the bk on the same chimney with the same fuel and the bk absolutely does not put out the same btus. And if you install the stove within draft specs they are perfectly controllable. It absolutely is not an issue with bk stoves they are very good stoves and work very well in many situations. It is a problem with people acting like they are the right stove for every situation and any other stove is useless.

I actually found the bk to be more hassle than most of my previous stoves with less heat.
How many people can have the ideal setup? Including the perfect setup test it at some conditions, can behave different when conditions change. I don't believe on a setup with the proper draft for all conditions. We all shoot for a setup that allows us to burn on those warm days if possible, meaning draft can get way higher in cold days and offset the system. Many don't have the option of an install by manufacturer recommendations.
Of course a BK is not for everyone. Like an electric car is not for everyone, like many other things is not for everyone.
 

bholler

Chimney sweep
Staff member
Jan 14, 2014
26,199
central pa
How many people can have the ideal setup? Including the perfect setup test it at some conditions, can behave different when conditions change. I don't believe on a setup with the proper draft for all conditions. We all shoot for a setup that allows us to burn on those warm days if possible, meaning draft can get way higher in cold days and offset the system. Many don't have the option of an install by manufacturer recommendations.
Of course a BK is not for everyone. Like an electric car is not for everyone, like many other things is not for everyone.
If you can't install to spec it shouldn't be installed. You either need to add height or add resistance to get there. What exactly would prevent someone from installing to spec?
 

lsucet

Minister of Fire
May 14, 2015
1,688
San Ysidro, New Mexico
If you can't install to spec it shouldn't be installed. You either need to add height or add resistance to get there. What exactly would prevent someone from installing to spec?
I can't understand why you're asking that question, cause we see here all the time those issues. There are countless threads about those situations here. Some are unable to meet the conditions to avoid 90s, straight run recommended before a 45 etc etc etc.
I think and I am sure you know more than me about those situations. I don't know why you asked. But is okay, everything is good. I am not going to be the reason of a closed thread.
 

bholler

Chimney sweep
Staff member
Jan 14, 2014
26,199
central pa
I can't understand why you're asking that question, cause we see here all the time those issues. There are countless threads about those situations here. Some are unable to meet the conditions to avoid 90s, straight run recommended before a 45 etc etc etc.
I think and I am sure you know more than me about those situations. I don't know why you asked. But is okay, everything is good. I am not going to be the reason of a closed thread.
Again if you can't meet that stoves specs to make it work You should pic a different stove or change the install to make it work. There are lots of times I tell people I can't install a stove because I can't meet spec.
 

Highbeam

Minister of Fire
Dec 28, 2006
19,349
Mt. Rainier Foothills, WA
There is no magic. The noncat guys seem to forget that any stove of “approximately “ the same efficiency will make the same amount of heat as the other when burning the same amount of fuel in the same time frame. That knife cuts both ways.

From a good cat stove I can get the same total heat spread over 30 hours or the same heat as any noncat over 8 hours. Flexibility and control are pretty great for some of us with properly sized stoves.

The big regency 5200, the topic at hand, is a hybrid which is fine but doesn’t add any peak output or magical energy. It still burns lbs of fuels at a somewhat controlled rate. If you close your eyes and stand in front of each of these stoves when they are at max temperature you can’t tell which stove you are standing in front of. Both are 800 degree large stoves with flames.

When run at max safe temperature all same sized and same efficiency stoves are pretty equal for output over the same timeframe which tells us that 5200 or king are pretty darn close to equal performance when heating a mansion in Alaska in January. Now, come spring, I would appreciate the ability to run long and low to match the lower heating needs of the seasons with steady output. The safety and comfort from a thermostatically regulated appliance is a big plus too.

For aesthetics, the 5200 is not any prettier than the king. The new king is a little less weird shaped and pretty similar to the 5200. They’re both just big, plain, black, boxes that heat stuff. Thermostatic control, excellent cat access, time tested design, and lower low end output all lean towards the king being superior. Not efficiency, not aesthetics, and not peak output.

That was the question of this thread.
 

bholler

Chimney sweep
Staff member
Jan 14, 2014
26,199
central pa
There is no magic. The noncat guys seem to forget that any stove of “approximately “ the same efficiency will make the same amount of heat as the other when burning the same amount of fuel in the same time frame. That knife cuts both ways.

From a good cat stove I can get the same total heat spread over 30 hours or the same heat as any noncat over 8 hours. Flexibility and control are pretty great for some of us with properly sized stoves.

The big regency 5200, the topic at hand, is a hybrid which is fine but doesn’t add any peak output or magical energy. It still burns lbs of fuels at a somewhat controlled rate. If you close your eyes and stand in front of each of these stoves when they are at max temperature you can’t tell which stove you are standing in front of. Both are 800 degree large stoves with flames.

When run at max safe temperature all same sized and same efficiency stoves are pretty equal for output over the same timeframe which tells us that 5200 or king are pretty darn close to equal performance when heating a mansion in Alaska in January. Now, come spring, I would appreciate the ability to run long and low to match the lower heating needs of the seasons with steady output. The safety and comfort from a thermostatically regulated appliance is a big plus too.

For aesthetics, the 5200 is not any prettier than the king. The new king is a little less weird shaped and pretty similar to the 5200. They’re both just big, plain, black, boxes that heat stuff. Thermostatic control, excellent cat access, time tested design, and lower low end output all lean towards the king being superior. Not efficiency, not aesthetics, and not peak output.

That was the question of this thread.
If the same sized stoves put out the same btus why doesn't the princess heat as well as the 3100? If the peak btu output is always the same why are the peak btu output ratings so different? The answer is a purely cat stove may be hotter over the cat but the tube or hybrid stove with higher firebox temps has more surface area at s higher temp leading to more btu output.

You guys keep stressing the low and slow. The problem is many of us really never use that. In your climate it may be more important. Here it really isn't at all.


It all comes down to what you need.

And btw the 5200 cat access is just as easy as bk
 
  • Like
Reactions: Todd

begreen

Mooderator
Staff member
Nov 18, 2005
90,660
South Puget Sound, WA
How many people can have the ideal setup?
I really have no complaints about our setup. It has been fine-tuned for our circumstances and has been almost maintenance-free. Sitting in our living room it had to look good as well as heat well. No complaints. I can nitpick about a few details, but after 12 yrs the stove is still doing its job excellently. A friend just put in a new T6 this season and they are constantly bragging to me how they have not run the furnace this season.
 

mar13

Feeling the Heat
Nov 5, 2018
466
California redwood coast
I often wish stoves were as easy as light bulbs to swap out and affordable enough to do so. Then we wouldn't fret or argue so much about which is the best stove or whose is better for which situation. We'd just try it and see for ourselves. It'd be fun. (I guess if your were a tycoon, stoves would seem cheap and you could hire someone to swap it out on a whim - like those wealthy retired comedians who have cable TV shows about driving one of their many fancy old cars around town.)
 
Last edited:

stoveliker

Minister of Fire
Nov 17, 2019
2,023
Long Island NY
The answer is a purely cat stove may be hotter over the cat but the tube or hybrid stove with higher firebox temps has more surface area at s higher temp leading to more btu output.

It all comes down to what you need.

I completely agree with the latter statement.
The former, though, focuses a bit on the wrong thing - and I did the same in my earlier post.
In the end, we put BTUs in ("stuff it" or "tetris"). What matters is how fast we can work through those (how fast we have to reload). In cold weather, fast. In warm weather, we'd like to spread out. The latter has been talked about enough.

The former has a caveat: it's easy to work through a full load in 4 hours, by sending a boatload of heat up the flue. That's BTUs used, but lost.

What matters therefore, is the flue temperature, *on high* for the BK versus a tube stove with a similar sized firebox.

I know the flue temp for the BK is low when running low (i.e. on low air, my cat is still bright orange, but most of the heat gets into the room). Fine. There is even data from BK showing that (the "famous" graph of fuel weight, cat temp, flue temp, for 40 hrs or so). But that's on low.

Are there data on running the stove high? Because that is where the debate (here, and often elsewhere) hinges on. How fast (bypass closed) does a King or Princess run through a full load on high? And what are the flue temps?
And, how does that compare to [your favorite tube stove]?

@BKVP: I'd be interested in such data. It would avoid discussions based on opinions rather than facts. - at least if tube stove mfgs would also provide such data.
 

bholler

Chimney sweep
Staff member
Jan 14, 2014
26,199
central pa
I completely agree with the latter statement.
The former, though, focuses a bit on the wrong thing - and I did the same in my earlier post.
In the end, we put BTUs in ("stuff it" or "tetris"). What matters is how fast we can work through those (how fast we have to reload). In cold weather, fast. In warm weather, we'd like to spread out. The latter has been talked about enough.

The former has a caveat: it's easy to work through a full load in 4 hours, by sending a boatload of heat up the flue. That's BTUs used, but lost.

What matters therefore, is the flue temperature, *on high* for the BK versus a tube stove with a similar sized firebox.

I know the flue temp for the BK is low when running low (i.e. on low air, my cat is still bright orange, but most of the heat gets into the room). Fine. There is even data from BK showing that (the "famous" graph of fuel weight, cat temp, flue temp, for 40 hrs or so). But that's on low.

Are there data on running the stove high? Because that is where the debate (here, and often elsewhere) hinges on. How fast (bypass closed) does a King or Princess run through a full load on high? And what are the flue temps?
And, how does that compare to [your favorite tube stove]?

@BKVP: I'd be interested in such data. It would avoid discussions based on opinions rather than facts. - at least if tube stove mfgs would also provide such data.
I have the data I need. Running 8 hour loads through the princess vs the 3100 my oil furnace runs much more with the princess. That is the same chimney same house with actually improved insulation since the bk went in. Same type of wood very similar moisture content etc.

These are facts not opinions. Then just look at the btu ratings.

Chris is a great guy and I don't think he would ever lie about the specs or numbers. But he is selling a product and he is clearly going to be biased towards his own product. That is absolutely understandable and expected.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Woody Stover

stoveliker

Minister of Fire
Nov 17, 2019
2,023
Long Island NY
Ok. Still I'd like to see more standardized data.

Your experience also suggests to me that you need even more heat than either of the stoves you mention can supply.
 

Hoytman

Feeling the Heat
Jan 6, 2020
360
Ohio
Have an energy audit done on your home. That’s the best way to know what your needs are. I have been able to skip that step by being able to figure btu’s/hr to maintain my house temps.

My BIG stove is cited as a 100,000 btu output stove. In reality it is capable of about half of what the brochure says, as are most stoves. Those numbers simply aren’t realistic.

As of the last 57 days burning coal I have calculated my average fuel consumption per hour. Turned out to be burning 1.03 lbs per hour. Since my fuel has 12,500 btu’s per lb that translates to virtually my average heating needs per hour 24/7 to maintain my home at at 70-74 degrees.

That then tells me that in all but the warmest of days I could get by with the largest BK stove. However, there would be days it would be too hot, which then translates to @BKVP’s suggestion to me some time ago, that I could burn a Princess as well, but according to him my home would be better suited to a Sirocco...and after looking (at the time he said that to me), if my memory doesn’t fail me, his suggestion according to what I’ve been able to calculate using this coal stove I have, his suggestion of a Sirocco was spot on the numbers.

In other words, I could turn the stove down even lower yet than my current hourly average of 12,500 btu per hour, but I’d still have plenty of range to go above that 12,500 average I’m currently using if the weather would call for additional btu’s to maintain my house temps.

I feel most people buy wood stoves far larger than their needs actually call for.

Oh the beauty of a stove with a thermostat. Combine that with a catalyst and you now have a wood stove capable of acting like a coal stove. That is, capable of serious heat, and a major turn down capability with additional burn times...which is something any user would love once experienced.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Olson24 and bholler

Woody Stover

Minister of Fire
Dec 25, 2010
12,277
Southern IN
I used a tube stove the same size as the bk on the same chimney with the same fuel and the bk absolutely does not put out the same btus.
the regency has air tubes as well which increases the firebox temp considerably meaning more surface area at higher temps leaning to higher btu output....really depends which side of the btu range is more important to them. If it is low end go with the bk no question. High end I would go with the regency.
Yeah, I think the BK is probably efficient enough at low burn rates, where the stove has a chance to capture and transfer more of the heat (generated by the cat and coming through the top of the stove in low burns.)
I don't know how much validity this theory of mine has, but it seems to me that at higher burn rates, the shields inside the firebox of the BKs would keep the sides of the stove from capturing as much of the radiant heat of the flames, and with more air moving through the stove faster, heat goes out the flue. I'd also think that with the air open wider, more of the fuel (smoke) is going to blow through the cat without getting burned, losing potential BTUs there as well.
It would be interesting to see some IR thermo gun readings from the sides of the Regency vs. BK when they are burning at medium or higher rates.
We have a 2200 sqft house it’s a tri level that’s was gutted out and re insulated 1 year ago. 2x4 construction so we could only get r15 on the walls. Wood stove would be in the basement.
Getting heat from the basement all the way through that layout, R15 walls, in Appleton...I think I'd go with the big Regency.
There are ways to move heat to where it's needed, using a couple small 8" fans on low. Look into those threads on here.
Also, basement installs can be problematic as far as draft from what I've read here. I'd guess that where the chimney is in relation to the house/roof geometry and prevailing wind could be one consideration..
 
  • Like
Reactions: Olson24

stoveliker

Minister of Fire
Nov 17, 2019
2,023
Long Island NY
Yeah, I think the BK is probably efficient enough at low burn rates, where the stove has a chance to capture and transfer more of the heat (generated by the cat and coming through the top of the stove in low burns.)
I don't know how much validity this theory of mine has, but it seems to me that at higher burn rates, the shields inside the firebox of the BKs would keep the sides of the stove from capturing as much of the radiant heat of the flames, and with more air moving through the stove faster, heat goes out the flue. I'd also think that with the air open wider, more of the fuel (smoke) is going to blow through the cat without getting burned, losing potential BTUs there as well.
It would be interesting to see some IR thermo gun readings from the sides of the Regency vs. BK when they are burning at medium or higher rates.
Getting heat from the basement all the way through that layout, R15 walls, in Appleton...I think I'd go with the big Regency.
There are ways to move heat to where it's needed, using a couple small 8" fans on low. Look into those threads on here.
Also, basement installs can be problematic as far as draft from what I've read here. I'd guess that where the chimney is in relation to the house/roof geometry and prevailing wind could be one consideration..


I've also thought about your theory. It could be true. But, one has to note that the tube stove will also have a higher flow rate, and more heat up the flue when burning on high. Possibly even more so (is what I suspect).

I do not see smoke, even at high burn rates, suggesting the cat has enough capacity to burn most if not all. I'd assume the cat is dimensioned for the range of gas flow rates anyway. Moreover, when going on high, the cat is often hotter (again; running low it's hot b/c a lot of fuel, smoke, to be combusted; on medium the cat is often a bit less hot for me, but on high there is more hot gas going thru the cat, even if the combustible gases may be less - the latter I don't know, because without tubes I can imagine the combustion efficiency inside the firebox may also be less when running high, creating more fuel again for the cat).

The IR gun won't tell you, though, because of convection. If the BK has good convection (my double-wall sides with the holes...), the wall may look cooler in the IR gun, but that may be because the heat is efficiently transferred to the air, that gets replenished often, cooling down the wall precisely by doing what you want it to do: heat the room.

Hence my suggestion to compare stove by flue temperature; I believe most modern stoves burn the wood down to about the same level of residue (ashes). Then the stove that has the lowest flue temps when burning on high (and for the same time, similar draft etc, so still a lot of parameters...), will be transferring more heat to the room. It's simple: wood (BTUs) in. That gets divided between BTUs into the room, BTUs up the flue, and BTUs in the remnants (which I think won't be different).
So measure (a proxy for) the BTUs up the flue (i.e. temps, at least one could compare that for stoves with similar gas throughput), and compare.

BK has a curve like that for a long and slow burn.
They also have a number for BTUs "on high" (they give low and high values in their data on the website), but as those numbers are doubted here (not necessarily BKs numbers, but a comparison between stoves, with experience suggesting something else as those numbers), a curve "flue temp vs time" for a stove within normal specifications with cordwood, could allow for more understanding (in comparison to other stoves) for its operation on high.
The numbers listed on their website suggest the same amount of heat transferred to the room for a 10 hr high burn as for a 30 hr low burn (for my Chinook): 359,800 (vs 359790), suggesting the efficiency does not change.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Olson24
Status
Not open for further replies.