Formidable Blaze King load.

[ohlongarm]

This is a wood combo, I use that really kicks arse,burns long great flames and smell if you're outside.Fifteen splits,ash on the bottom then cherry and hard maple and red oak interspersed.This load will burn minimally 12 hours in temps down to 15 to 20 degrees and produce a great amount of heat.

 

[BKVP]

Surely you have a hammer and can keyhole another 1lb into that box!

Great looking load...

 

[TheBigIron]

Looks great.... 12 hour burn time, that's pretty impressive...

 

[Blaine]

A 12-hour burn time sounds pretty impressive until you realize that we're talking about a roughly 4 cu. ft. load of firewood here. That equates to 3 hours of burn per 1 cu. ft. of wood. So, with relatively mild winter temperatures, you're going through a full cord of wood in 16 days.

 

[BKVP]

A 12-hour burn time sounds pretty impressive until you realize that we're talking about a roughly 4 cu. ft. load of firewood here. That equates to 3 hours of burn per 1 cu. ft. of wood. So, with relatively mild winter temperatures, you're going through a full cord of wood in 16 days.

The proper way to evaluate consumption is pounds of fuel. Anyone can weight their load and get the weight, multiply that by Btu's and do the math.

Keep in mind, that not all full firebox loads are equal. 4 cu. ft. of cottonwood is not equal to 4 cu ft of oak. Through this site we have learned the load could be as little as 48lbs or as heavy at 90lbs in a King model. That is quite a discrepancy, weight is a much better method. Then, you have to keep in mind each homeowner has a different definition of comfort. Setting the burn rate in my own home (built in 1895) has to be higher than perhaps another home to sustain that comfort level.

As to this years winter, here in Walla Walla it has been anything but warm. Record snow fall, ice, low temps etc.

On another note, I'm trying to convince my wife that an increase in consumption of certain beverages is not just tied to hot summer days.

 

[firestorm]

Now this is where it gets a little confusing for me. I have been sitting on the fence, whether to up grade from my pre epa Englander to a "more efficient" epa approved stove. I'll preface my conundrum with some information about what I'm heating. Its a 1500 sq. foot ranch with a full basement that houses my stove. Built in the early 80's by myself, and insulated well. 12 inch blocks below grade have 1inch foam on the outside and there is 1 inch foam completely around on the inside. If I were to put 4 of the largest splits pictured in my stove, like I did last night at 11 pm, here there was an outside temp of 28 over night, but not in the teens like the op's location. The inside temperature this morning is 76 degrees. Its 9:20 the next morning and I have not put any wood on yet, but there will be enough coals to ignite another 4 splits. And I'll include that I burn around 5 chords of quality hardwood through the season, maybe run the oil furnace on occasion in the early fall and late spring, 275 gallons last 5 or 6 years. The amount of wood in the op's blaze king would last me close to 12 hours as well , my question is, would it be beneficial to upgrade to a epa stove or would the expense never be returned? Would appreciate to hear what the savings are from those that did make the change. Don't intend to take away from ohlongarm's impressive load of splits! Might add that wood in my area has never been too hard to come by.

 

[ohlongarm]

A 12-hour burn time sounds pretty impressive until you realize that we're talking about a roughly 4 cu. ft. load of firewood here. That equates to 3 hours of burn per 1 cu. ft. of wood. So, with relatively mild winter temperatures, you're going through a full cord of wood in 16 days.

Your calculations are certainly impressive, i can assure you and all reading here that my consumption is far below the levels that your formula has generated.So I'll just go with my real world experiences with the king and leave it at that.In 6 years burning a Bking ,king and parlor with the 4.4 cu foot box my wood consumption has been a low of 3.5 cords to 6.5 cords,of course weather delegates wood consumption as well as window and insulation etc. the 2 years i used 6.5 we had 45 below wind chills. I burn 24/7 and never use the gas except to heat hot water..

 

[bholler]

.This load will burn minimally 12 hours in temps down to 15 to 20 degrees and produce a great amount of heat.

That much wood would easily give me more than 12 hours of good heat out of my regency in those temps. Yes it would be split up over 2 loads but that is no big deal to me.

 

[jatoxico]

The amount of wood in the op's blaze king would last me close to 12 hours as well , my question is, would it be beneficial to upgrade

The benefit I see to the BK technology/design is that you can load less often and that the heat output will be more even or constant than you would get from a unit that cannot auto regulate, that is unless you sit in front of the stove and continually adjust the air.

That worth changing to you? Your call. If your current stove is heating your house and you don't feel its overly difficult to keep running then I would probably stick with what you have.

 

[FaithfulWoodsman]

Now this is where it gets a little confusing for me. I have been sitting on the fence, whether to up grade from my pre epa Englander to a "more efficient" epa approved stove. I'll preface my conundrum with some information about what I'm heating. Its a 1500 sq. foot ranch with a full basement that houses my stove. Built in the early 80's by myself, and insulated well. 12 inch blocks below grade have 1inch foam on the outside and there is 1 inch foam completely around on the inside. If I were to put 4 of the largest splits pictured in my stove, like I did last night at 11 pm, here there was an outside temp of 28 over night, but not in the teens like the op's location. The inside temperature this morning is 76 degrees. Its 9:20 the next morning and I have not put any wood on yet, but there will be enough coals to ignite another 4 splits. And I'll include that I burn around 5 chords of quality hardwood through the season, maybe run the oil furnace on occasion in the early fall and late spring, 275 gallons last 5 or 6 years. The amount of wood in the op's blaze king would last me close to 12 hours as well , my question is, would it be beneficial to upgrade to a epa stove or would the expense never be returned? Would appreciate to hear what the savings are from those that did make the change. Don't intend to take away from ohlongarm's impressive load of splits! Might add that wood in my area has never been too hard to come by

IMO......no it's not worth it. I have the Englander and a poorly insulated 1500 sq. ft. ranch. I don't get 12hr burns (maybe to the last coal), but I regularly get 8-10. To be fair I don't know the true burn times for the EPA indoor furnaces. However, infrequent searches for diff models seems to uncover constant concerns, problems and issues that require fixing, tweaking, and modifying all with mixed results. For me, I have a tank of a stove, warmth all through cold nights, reasonable burn times and it paid for itself twice the first year. So far nothing I've seen has caused me to rethink my decision. 4 - 5 cords/year

 

[firestorm]

The benefit I see to the BK technology/design is that you can load less often and that the heat output will be more even or constant than you would get from a unit that cannot auto regulate, that is unless you sit in front of the stove and continually adjust the air

It seems the information I have seen on the efficiency ratings on pre and epa rated stoves and the general literature on new stoves leads me to believe there is about a 40% savings on the amount of wood burned. For me that would be a 2 chords a year savings, 20 chords over 10 years, that's my motivation to want to upgrade. But things bet fuzzy when burns like the op aren't too much different than what I'm experiencing. As far as baby sitting the stove to regulate heat output, I very rarely have to adjust the air setting. The colder the outside is the better draft I get to burn hotter, the warmer it is the opposite.

 

[jatoxico]

the general literature on new stoves leads me to believe there is about a 40% savings on the amount of wood burned.

Sorry I missed the part that you have a pre EPA Englander. Recently we have had several threads or posters where people went from pre EPA to EPA in a basement and were not happy but they were uninsulated. From what you describe you have a well insulated basement so going to a newer unit that extracts more heat from a given load ought to save you at least some wood. I don't want to derail the thread though, maybe you should start a new one with your specific situation.

 

[ohlongarm]

IMO......no it's not worth it. I have the Englander and a poorly insulated 1500 sq. ft. ranch. I don't get 12hr burns (maybe to the last coal), but I regularly get 8-10. To be fair I don't know the true burn times for the EPA indoor furnaces. However, infrequent searches for diff models seems to uncover constant concerns, problems and issues that require fixing, tweaking, and modifying all with mixed results. For me, I have a tank of a stove, warmth all through cold nights, reasonable burn times and it paid for itself twice the first year. So far nothing I've seen has caused me to rethink my decision. 4 - 5 cords/year

I'll stick with BK,simplicity and predictability,and I can kick it down in the coldest weather go 16 hours and still maintain a 67 degree home. Upon waking there's a crapload of wood still left for a fast warm up into the 70's range. Sorry but a tube stove won't do it,facts are facts the Englander (had one ) throws a lot of heat very fast but no where as efficient as BK and they eat wood almost insatiably just my experience your may differ.As long as it does what you want that's all that really matters.

 

[FaithfulWoodsman]

I'll stick with BK,simplicity and predictability,and I can kick it down in the coldest weather go 16 hours and still maintain a 67 degree home. Upon waking there's a crapload of wood still left for a fast warm up into the 70's range. Sorry but a tube stove won't do it,facts are facts the Englander (had one ) throws a lot of heat very fast but no where as efficient as BK and they eat wood almost insatiably just my experience your may differ.As long as it does what you want that's all that really matters.

Well I'm referring to wood furnaces (tundra, caddy), not stoves and I wouldn't really call the 28-3500 a "tube" stove. My issue was also not that the EPA stove furnaces aren't more proficient, but that they have so many problems. Mine doesn't eat wood. From what I read EPA stoves are about 20-30% more efficient, but since I get 8-10 hrs of great heat I have no incentive to take a chance. Now if I ever install an insert in my fireplace upstairs, making sure it's an efficient reburner would be a no brainier.

 

[maple1]

Quickie on firebox sizes.

Just wondering if anyone has actually measured their apparent usable firebox volume, and compared it with specs? I did that with my boiler & came up with 25% less than spec'd. So people comparing or using firebox volumes for some figuring might be doing apples vs. oranges.

Curious what people would come up with, on various units...

 

[TheBigIron]

Well I'm referring to wood furnaces (tundra, caddy), not stoves and I wouldn't really call the 28-3500 a "tube" stove. My issue was also not that the EPA stove furnaces aren't more proficient, but that they have so many problems. Mine doesn't eat wood. From what I read EPA stoves are about 20-30% more efficient, but since I get 8-10 hrs of great heat I have no incentive to take a chance. Now if I ever install an insert in my fireplace upstairs, making sure it's an efficient reburner would be a no brainier.

There is a you tube video on how to make the 28-3500 more efficient, where the guy added secondary tubes to that furnace.