Fire box size question

[skinnykid]

I have a small wood stove, I think the fire box is 1.45 cubic feet. I cannot get an all night burn out of it and it is slowly making me mad.

I was thinking of getting a Medium sized stove and the fire box is 2.0 cubic feet.

Not will there be a huge difference between 1.45 - 2.0 cubic feet as far as amount of wood and length of burn?

Basically will I be able to get a longer burn with the little extra room?

Thanks

 

[Todd]

If you need a long burn with a small stove look at cat stoves. If a cat stove doesn't sit well with you, then yes look for a 2 cu ft or larger non cat it should give you a couple more hours.

 

[Corey]

In general, I would think not. But it may depend on how you're operating the current stove. Do you shut down the air control all the way or operate it at some percent open to get more heat? Modern wood stoves have a minimum draft setting to prevent smoldering, smoky fires, so I suspect the burn rate would be similar across all sizes of stove - but the heat output would be different.

For instance (and just using numbers to illustrate a point - they may not be totally accurate):

If you have a 2 cu.ft stove and stuff it full of wood, on the lowest setting, you may expect 20,000 btu/hour and a 6 hour burn, 120,000 btu total. If you have a 3 cu. ft. stove full of wood on the lowest setting, you may expect 30,000 btu/hr and a 6 hour burn, 180,000 btu total. So comparing lowest setting to lowest setting, you aren't getting any longer time, just more heat during the same time. But if you have to run the small stove with the air control half open to get the desired heat of 30,000 btu/hr, you'd burn through your wood in about 4 hours. So in that case, you may actually see an increase going to a larger stove.

The bottom line would be: Are you getting enough heat out of the smaller stove at the lowest air control setting? If so, a larger stove would give more heat, but not necessarily longer burn. If you have the small stove throttled up to get more heat, then a larger stove may allow you to burn at a lower air setting and give a slightly longer burn time.

Also, there have been tons of discussions on here about increasing burn time. Mainly: Use large chunks of the densest wood you have available. Pack the stove with square chunks if possible, rounds if available, and splits as a last resort.

 

[Jags]

As Corey laid out (a very good analogy by the way), its about heat output. Its gonna be tough to get a 2.0 Cu ft. stove to put out a fair amount of heat AND burn long. HI heat, shorter burn. Low heat, longer burn. Kind of a balancing act. If possible, look into the 2.5 or larger stoves.

 

[skinnykid]

Thanks guys. Lots of good info. To answer some of the questions.

In my small stove I mostly run the air at the lowest setting so I get some heat all night, not lots of heat for a short time. Some times I will open the air a shmidge if the wood is being not user friendly.

If I keep the air open, when I wake up I have no coal bed. Air closed I at least have a coal bed to work with.

I was thinking that if I had a slightly larger fire box, I could fit more wood into it to get longer burn due to more wood.

oh and it don't matter what size splits I use either!

 

[InTheRockies]

Well, I would disagree about the burn time and heat output on a 2 cf stove. My stove is 2 cf and I'm able to get a 7-hour burn overnight. I'm also waking up to a good bed of coals and house temps of 70-71 F (we're dropping down below 20 F at night here--we'll have spells with much lower temps once winter's truly descended upon us so the morning house temps may go slightly lower once we're stuck in multi-day cold spells with nighttime temps at 0 F or below). A lot has to do with your wood and how you pack your stove (as well as firebox size). My stove will take 22 inch logs when loaded EW; however, I intentionally cut my wood into two sizes--longer pieces at 18 inches so I have room to pack short pieces NS at each end of the long pieces and shorter pieces to only 14 inches for NS loading. (I also use small diameter rounds for EW loading for overnight burns, not splits.) I will pack the stove and get the fire well-established before I damper down at night. So far, I'm impressed; this new EPA stove with the 2 cf firebox is outperforming the old smoke dragon, which had a firebox that was almost 4 cf. Before you go to the expense of replacing your existing stove, play with how you load it at night. You might get a slightly longer burn. (Whether it will last all night, who knows?) Good luck.

 

[skinnykid]

my fire box will take a 18 inch piece E-W.

My best burn time is 6 hours will air closed and all hard wood.

Thanks for the info.

 

[jqgs214]

I can get 10 hrs, like last night out of 1.9CF. Reloaded at 9:30 last night and 7:30 this morning, most coals I ever had after that long. got down to mid 20's. Might have had enough coals 2 hrs later but had to go to work. This is will 16-18mo old red oak and packed to the gills.

 

[Ithaca]

I got an 8 hr burn time using soft wood last night doing this (2.0 box):

Top down fire after packing it with wood. I left a small space below the upper baffle for paper and kindling. Once the draft started pulling from the top air tubes, I closed the primary air all the way. It put out just enough heat to keep the room temp from dropping and I had a good bed of coals to start with in the morning.

 

[skinnykid]

ya it seems like the guys with the bigger fire boxes are doing well!! That may be something to look at for me when I have a little money to play with. Of course I need a new saw and splitter also!

 

[gyrfalcon]

Thanks guys. Lots of good info. To answer some of the questions.

In my small stove I mostly run the air at the lowest setting so I get some heat all night, not lots of heat for a short time. Some times I will open the air a shmidge if the wood is being not user friendly.

If I keep the air open, when I wake up I have no coal bed. Air closed I at least have a coal bed to work with.

I was thinking that if I had a slightly larger fire box, I could fit more wood into it to get longer burn due to more wood.

oh and it don't matter what size splits I use either!

Skinny, I know what you mean. There's no room for error with a small stove. One less than ideal piece of wood in the mix and it's a quarter or more of your wood load and can screw things up pretty good. If I get just the right pieces of wood in for the overnight, there are usually enough coals to get started in the AM with a little fussing with building it up from kindling and small splits, but even then the stove temp is down to 200 or less, so not enough heat in the firebox for easy combustion of more than little scraps and bits of kindling. And the room is pretty cold. I've never had enough coals to just throw a few splits on and open the air to get the fire going again. So with or without coals, I still have to fuss more than my bleary morning brain can concentrate on very well, especially when I'm shivering!

From what I read here, I think a bigger stove, in addition to giving you a longer part of that overnight with good heating capacity, will also leave more and hotter coals for you in the AM, which makes starting up again a lot easier. The fire also won't go into sulk mode as easily from a bad piece or some fractional error in loading, so you can more reliably close the primary air down all the way without problems.

I haven't seen any real difference, either, between packing the box with three or four larger (medium-size, I'm sure, to these guys with the big stoves) or half a dozen or more small splits. Seems to behave pretty much the same way with both.

It's been encouraging to read over the last several days that other people with small stoves are having the same problems I am. Well, not encouraging since there don't seem to be any magical solutions out there, but good to know my problems aren't because I'm a big doofus, anyway.

 

[skinnykid]

If you are a doofus then I am your brother. Yes I have compared smaller to larger splits, loading E-W or N-S, air a little open or not at all. Basically I am lucky to have coals that I can work with in the morning.
I am the type of guy that gets up in just enough time to do the routines and get out the door toward work, I have tried to wake up earlier to mess with the fire but the snooze button keeps tapping my finger.

Trust me, I don't want to go spend $$ on another stove since mine works and looks fine, but if it will get me a better all night burn then I will. That is if I have the cash.

 

[gyrfalcon]

If you are a doofus then I am your brother. Yes I have compared smaller to larger splits, loading E-W or N-S, air a little open or not at all. Basically I am lucky to have coals that I can work with in the morning.
I am the type of guy that gets up in just enough time to do the routines and get out the door toward work, I have tried to wake up earlier to mess with the fire but the snooze button keeps tapping my finger.

Trust me, I don't want to go spend $$ on another stove since mine works and looks fine, but if it will get me a better all night burn then I will. That is if I have the cash.

You and me both on the snooze button, Brother Skinny. Some of us wake up easy and some of us just dont. Matter of body chemistry. My willpower (and sense) are just nonexistent until my brain has been awake for a good while.

One thing you might try before you give up and get a bigger stove is using a couple of good firestarters, like those terrific Supercedar things. I haven't tried the tactic yet, but I understand from reading here that folks are able to get a good fire going in good-size splits pretty quickly using just the firestarters. You could do that as soon as you get up, and by the time you've had your coffee or whatever your routines consist of, you might be where you could get in a full load and have the primary stopped down pretty far.

 

[bokehman]

As Corey laid out (a very good analogy by the way), its about heat output. Its gonna be tough to get a 2.0 Cu ft. stove to put out a fair amount of heat AND burn long.

I don't agree.

1.45c.f. firebox configured as a cube would be 1.13' x 1.13' x 1.13' giving a surface area of 7.66 square feet.
2.00c.f. firebox configured as a cube would be 1.26' x 1.26' x 1.26' giving a surface area of 9.53 square feet.

That means if you run both stoves at the same exterior temperature the 2c.f. stove well radiate 25% more heat.

But the volume of the firebox of the 2.0c.f. is 38% larger so even when you take into consideration the extra heat output it is still holding 11% more fuel than the 1.45 model. Also, even though the 2.0c.f. is 38% bigger the chances are that you will be able to get a lot more than 38% more wood in it.

 

[Todd]

One more little tidbit to add. Measure your firebox. Don't go by the manufactures sizes. Some include the firebox as everything including the baffle. My old Homestead wasn't even close to their stated 2.0.

 

[skinnykid]

As Corey laid out (a very good analogy by the way), its about heat output. Its gonna be tough to get a 2.0 Cu ft. stove to put out a fair amount of heat AND burn long.

I don't agree.

1.45c.f. firebox configured as a cube would be 1.13' x 1.13' x 1.13' giving a surface area of 7.66 square feet.
2.00c.f. firebox configured as a cube would be 1.26' x 1.26' x 1.26' giving a surface area of 9.53 square feet.

That means if you run both stoves at the same exterior temperature the 2c.f. stove well radiate 25% more heat.

But the volume of the firebox of the 2.0c.f. is 38% larger so even when you take into consideration the extra heat output it is still holding 11% more fuel than the 1.45 model. Also, even though the 2.0c.f. is only 38% bigger the chances are that you will be able to get a lot more than 38% more wood in it.

WOW! good break down!

Thank you also Todd, I will be sure to check on the "real" size before I buy.

 

[RedRanger]

One more little tidbit to add. Measure your firebox. Don't go by the manufactures sizes. Some include the firebox as everything including the baffle. My old Homestead wasn't even close to their stated 2.0.

Agree totally with this assessment. My new one is supposedly 20% larger. And maybe with those burn tubes removed it might be. Will say though, that even burning only softwood (douglas fir) am managing 7 hours burn time.. With the old beast, best I could do was 5hrs, and that with a lot of smouldering, and hence a lot more creosote.

Reality is-- too small a firebox almost always is gonna equal dissapointment.

 

[skinnykid]

One more little tidbit to add. Measure your firebox. Don't go by the manufactures sizes. Some include the firebox as everything including the baffle. My old Homestead wasn't even close to their stated 2.0.

Reality is-- too small a firebox almost always is gonna equal dissapointment.

The thing I have to keep in mind is I need the over all size to be a small as possible, I don't want it taking up alot of my living room. I know, now I am asking alot!

Edit: the Jotul F400 has caught my eye but it looks pricey and it doesn't say about fire box size or if I could get a blower for it.

 

[RedRanger]

[quote author="skinnykid" date="1227243217"

Reality is-- too small a firebox almost always is gonna equal dissapointment.[/quote]

The thing I have to keep in mind is I need the over all size to be a small as possible, I don't want it taking up alot of my living room. I know, now I am asking alot![/quote]

Then you have to make a decision--do you want heat?? Or more living space that is too damn cold to enjoy? :shut:

Seems simple enough to me=smaller and more comfortable space -- or colder and larger space which no one wants to occupy.

 

[bluefrier]

The F400 is about the same size as your current stove. won't make a darn difference.

 

[skinnykid]

The F400 is about the same size as your current stove. won't make a darn difference.

ok, thanks

 

[skinnykid]

do these dimensions make sense?

It is showing a 1.8 cubic foot fire box on the englander 13 NC
13-NC SPECIFICATIONS:

Dimensions:
25 1/4" W x 26" H x 14" D <---------- 14" deep?

 

[JMF1]

Go with the biggest stove you can. I went from a Lopi Answer to an Avalon Olympic, it is a world of difference! You can always build a smaller fire if you need to.........

 

[RedRanger]

do these dimensions make sense?

It is showing a 1.8 cubic foot fire box on the englander 13 NC
13-NC SPECIFICATIONS:

Dimensions:
25 1/4" W x 26" H x 14" D <---------- 14" deep?

Nothing wrong with the englanders. but don`t throw good money after bad. You want at least a 2.5 or 3.0 cu.ft firebox for a decent overnite burn using hardwood.

Just saying skinnykid, don`t make the same mistake twice. go as big as you can.

If you can buy the one in my avatar, in stove or insert form?/ take a look. decent product for a decent price.

Less expensive than the pe`s, more expensive than the englander`s, but build like a rugged beast.

Keep reading the forum and the reviews, don`t just listen to any one of us.--We all have our predjuices. IE=we will usually reccomend that which we know works for us.

One mistake is understandable-two, when you have been on this forum for a while=no excuses.

Take your time and research this stuff to "death". In the end it will mean more money in your pocket.. :cheese:

 

[skinnykid]

well I had the Englander 30 NC but when the guy came to hook it up and inspect my chimney, he told me that it was WAY to big for the house and it would blow us away. I didn't know any better so I got a smaller stove.

Now I know I want a medium sized one. I will tell you, that 30-NC was a big one! Maybe a little to big!!


I E-mailed Englander to ask how they measure their fire boxes. I asked if the measure the entire box or if the measure from the tubes down (useable space)

Because the advertise their fire box as 1.8 cubic feet. Home cheapo has the englanders in stock for short $$ i would assume they will have them next fall also.