Name this stove

[cbrodsky]

From a visit to a cabin this winter... anyone know what model stove this is?

-Colin

 

[BrotherBart]

Englander 30-NCP.

 

[Corie]

I'm with stupid^.

 

[precaud]

Kinda looks like a Quad. But then all steel stoves look alike, right?

 

[Corie]

Kinda looks like a Quad. But then all steel stoves look alike, right?

Oh no you didn't!

 

[jtp10181]

Kinda looks like a Quad. But then all steel stoves look alike, right?

I kinda does, but the step up is different.

 

[cbrodsky]

For what it's worth - this stove more or less confirmed my prior experiences with steel non-cat stoves with difference being this one was in a much better insulated building and thus you could really appreciate the heat it threw off. I was wondering if it was a known reputable brand using modern design features. (see other threads discussing whether steel could in fact emulate soapstone behavior with the right design)

It had amazingly high and fast heat output compared what I'm used to - but much less ability to control and regulate the heat output. Burn times were a lot shorter and we tore through wood while staying at a rate I couldn't possibly manage in our stove. However, in doing so, it kept a huge area quite toasty warm.

For the application in mind, users showing up at a large cold cabin, and something that could take abuse, it was likely the right call - behaved as I would have expected.

-Colin

 

[BrotherBart]

Pretty much the experience with any stove new to you. After a few weeks with the 30-NC controlling output and burn times weren't a problem here at Casa de Brobart. What you find is that the stove can achieve nice secondary burn at a much lower burn rate than you would expect. And stove top temps of 450-500 for long periods with good wood consumption while it just cruises along with a blue pillow rolling up top. My wood usage from month one to month two dropped by half.

Of course if you "let'er rip" things are going to get real warm around there.

 

[Corie]

With everything you say about these ultrainsulated stoves Colin, it makes me want to try doing to same thing with a steel stove.

 

[BrotherBart]

With everything you say about these ultrainsulated stoves Colin, it makes me want to try doing to same thing with a steel stove.

Yeah, I have looked at a few ads for soapstone firebricks and eyed the 30-NC while I was reading them.

Same thing that Hearthstone does with the Clydesdales and Morgans. I just don't want the heat going up the pipe instead of staying around to make me warm.

 

[precaud]

Minimalist that I am, I'd rather keep the heat-producing and heat-storage events separate. I don't see "insulation" outside the firebox being of significant benefit to combustion. And isn't the top plate the primary heat exchanger in a stove? Steel stoves generally have large, unobstructed top plates, hence the quick heat delivery.

Are all Woodstocks cats?

 

[Corie]

Are all Woodstocks cats?

You betcha.

 

[precaud]

Are all Woodstocks cats?

You betcha.

And where's the art in that?

 

[Corie]

Hahah. They took the easy route!


I actually like catalytic stoves much better, but I am of course unlike the vast majority of people.

 

[cbrodsky]

With everything you say about these ultrainsulated stoves Colin, it makes me want to try doing to same thing with a steel stove.

Yeah, I have looked at a few ads for soapstone firebricks and eyed the 30-NC while I was reading them.

Same thing that Hearthstone does with the Clydesdales and Morgans. I just don't want the heat going up the pipe instead of staying around to make me warm.

Per another thread, I think the issue is a balance of slowing down but extending the fire with lower air feed rates. Both are good in different ways, and assumption is you control it to maintain the same chimney temperature. The more insulated the firebox, the easier it will be to keep the fire hot for complete combustion at slower burn rates. But you trade off max BTU potential.

Of course the holy grail would be a stove that could easily modulate the level of insulation to the firebox so you could change all this on demand. Could probably be done with a smartly designed sealed air chamber around the stove that with the slide of a lever could open it up to significant convection to allow much more rapid heat transfer with shorter burns to keep the firebox up to temp, and when going away for a while, could be closed to seal it off into a static airspace with limited heat transfer to significantly reduce the rate of heating. Hook it up to a thermostatic system that slows the air feed while keeping the firebox/chimney at the same temp for a long clean burn.

And before any smarta** pellet stove owners chime in, I still want to burn free hardwood :lol:

-Colin

 

[cbrodsky]

Are all Woodstocks cats?

You betcha.

And where's the art in that?

Who said chemical engineers like art?

-Colin

 

[precaud]

The more insulated the firebox, the easier it will be to keep the fire hot for complete combustion at slower burn rates. But you trade off max BTU potential.

Huh?

 

[precaud]

Who said chemical engineers like art?

Are stove designers chemical engineers?
Speaking from experience, the art is in balancing the engineering tradeoffs.

 

[cbrodsky]

Who said chemical engineers like art?

Are stove designers chemical engineers?
Speaking from experience, the art is in balancing the engineering tradeoffs.

No, I am. I take the application of a catalyst as common sense application of known technology over "art"

-Colin

 

[cbrodsky]

The more insulated the firebox, the easier it will be to keep the fire hot for complete combustion at slower burn rates. But you trade off max BTU potential.

Huh?

See the other thread on this topic... it's a simple energy balance statement. Easiest way to see why a Woodstock burns very different from a steel stove, say like the one in this thread. Both have their place.

The less you insulate the firebox, you lose heat faster, which means to maintain cat or secondary combustion temps, you have to burn faster. in the process, you get higher potential heat output into the room per hour. Assuming of course you are aiming for a consistent stack temp and overall burn efficiency when making the comparison.

-Colin

 

[precaud]

The less you insulate the firebox, you lose heat faster, which means to maintain cat or secondary combustion temps, you have to burn faster.

I see your point. It would be interesting to play with moveable firebox insulation to control burn rate. My sense is, there's an upper limit to how insulated it can be and still have some control (via primary air feed) of the burn rate. I never really experienced this until I got the Quad. I'd say it lives on the edge of that limit.

 

[Corie]

There's an upper limit to optimizing firebox insulation for a couple variables. Too much insulation will decrease heat transfer efficiency too far, will also raise cost, as well as having some effect on the burn control of the unit.

I'd really like to build a super insulated stove just for kicks and see how it would perform. I know how I could do it too, but the money and the time just aren't there right now.

 

[precaud]

What geometry would you use for it, Corie?

 

[Corie]

That's a good question. I've got like three I keep throwing around, but I don't want to build a stove that may not function perfectly on my own dime. Hopefully Englander would pay for it.


I've got a pretty nifty little Everburn style burn chamber, quite a bit different in concept, but similar in placement. Also had thrown around a traditional top mount secondary, except with a flat top firebox and then a channel above the flat top where secondary happens. Having that really insulated probably would make that the best application of the super insulated firebox.


We'll see. I'm watching an older vigilant on ebay that looks like it might go for peanuts, so I might pick that up, disassemble it and then insulate the hell out of every inner surface with castable refractory and kaowool board and see how it performs.


Who knows. What would be nice is if Englander gave me the freedom and time to explore some of this on my own but with their money.

 

[precaud]

I've never studied the Everburn thing, perhaps I should. What are you trying to accomplish with the "channel above the flat top"? The Morso has pretty much soured my interest in having any channels/baffles on the top plate.