New Technology

  • 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.
Think about what you said in those first two sentences and let it sink in.

You totally missed the second part of my post. What I said had nothing at all to do with them benefiting from selling bi-metallics to other companies. No one faults them for that. That is smart business. Wasn’t even what I was driving at. Now think about what I wrote and let it sink in for awhile.

Any part of a design that attributes to fuel conserved over time defines more efficiency. In the case of stoves that also factors in heat dispersal or extraction, does it not?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: logfarmer
Think about what you said in those first two sentences and let it sink in.

You totally missed the second part of my post. What I said had nothing at all to do with them benefiting from selling bi-metallics to other companies. No one faults them for that. That is smart business. Wasn’t even what I was driving at. Now think about what I wrote and let it sink in for awhile.
I don't see what you are getting at. Long burn times and even temp output doesn't mean high efficiency. They can absolutely go together but you can also have either one without the other.
 
Obviously BK could produce their own springs tailored to their stoves specifically, but that hardly makes any sense to focus on that when these have been made for various things far longer than BK has been around. Much too easy to find one that works, duplicate it or have it made by someone else, and then figure out how to incorporate it into a cleaner burning stove...which would make more sense...to focus on building a cleaner burning stove by using someone else product, rather than producing it themselves.
I guess I misunderstood these statements then. I took them as you saying it didn't make sense for them to manufacture their own.
 
Was that because BK bought the rights to sell such a product to other wood stove manufacturers and they may have perfected how to incorporate them better for wood stove use?

It’s not like they were the first ‘stove company’ to use them because they were used successfully on stoves approximately 40 years prior to BK becoming a company.

“For modern wood burning stoves” you can’t take anything away from BK, but I do know there are companies that specialize in producing these coil springs for various industries and it seems unlikely that BK alone would be the sole perfectionists of such a product.

Obviously BK could produce their own springs tailored to their stoves specifically, but that hardly makes any sense to focus on that when these have been made for various things far longer than BK has been around. Much too easy to find one that works, duplicate it or have it made by someone else, and then figure out how to incorporate it into a cleaner burning stove...which would make more sense...to focus on building a cleaner burning stove by using someone else product, rather than producing it themselves.

I’ve spent a fair amount of time in manufacturing myself and that just doesn’t make sense...especially when the idea is much older than the company itself.

Not doubting you, or trying to make you out as a liar, so I hope you don’t take it that way. Just trying to put some pieces of a puzzle together that’s all. Obviously, BK has used the bi-metallic springs to their advantage and I think they are great. So great, I think, aside from automation as has been discussed, that the next best alternative to making all stoves more efficient is the use of bi-metallics.
I can see you are not familiar with wood stove emissions testing/EPA approved methods, which we can discuss in another thread. The very fact that off the shelf springs (as you noted have been around forever) do not allow for the precision, response time and lag time to hit the precise kg/h burn rates mandated within each of the test methods. We MUST make our own springs. There are mfg's, many my friends that have worked very hard to replicate our designs. They tell me so. Only to find the spring does not allow for the air adjustment needed and in the time frame needed to not have a test run ruled invalid.

As for the prior selling of springs to others, it wasn't proprietary, we just got lucky I guess and they like buying from us. (We try to be nice)

BKVP
 
I don't take exception to anything you wrote. Fact is, most (over 60%) cut their own firewood. They touch it, haul it, smell it, stack it and load. Automation won't preclude any of this. So the user has done all the work. If the user is educated on proper use and maintenance and how the combustion of wood takes place, the stove will burn clean, last a very long time and even work when power goes out. (Texas is our fastest growing state Q1 this year). In an automated unit, if power is needed a back up power system would be advisable. If a thermocouple or O2 sensor goes out, stop burning (for many not an option) cool stove and call in a technician to work or repair or replace it. To be fair, most people in fact have back up systems they can use....if there is power.

I totally get that there is other work to having a wood stove, and that work also keeps many from owning wood stoves. The difference for me is when I do that work, I save cutting, splitting and stacking to when I have time. The only exception to this is hauling the wood 20ft from my outside woodbox to in the house, but that's quick and only happens about every 3 days.

What I can't put off is when the house needs heat, I either have to make time to light the stove and ensure it's burning properly before leaving the house, or it doesn't get lit at all, and the natural gas furnace provides the heat. Now if I could open the stove door, fill the stove, light the wood, close the door and walk away my stove would operate more, and my natural gas bill would be smaller.

I do realize that BK stoves are more like the automated type I'd prefer than most other stoves on the market, once the bypass is closed the thermostat takes care of the rest. I also believe a BK would be one of the easiest to automate, a few thermocouples, an actuator on the bypass, a servo on the thermostat, and a sensor to know when the door is open, plus a very basic control board. The controller would close the bypass exactly when the cat is hot enough to operate, reducing emissions, it would also control temperature of the stove, ideally with an input from a room mounted temperature sensor. And because the controller could see the catalyst temperature it would minimize the chance of it going in-active by preemptively opening the air control. The bypass could automatically open when it senses the door has been opened. In the event of a power outage a small battery could take over powering the control system, and especially on a BK it could revert to complete manual control in the event of complete control system failure.
 
I totally get that there is other work to having a wood stove, and that work also keeps many from owning wood stoves. The difference for me is when I do that work, I save cutting, splitting and stacking to when I have time. The only exception to this is hauling the wood 20ft from my outside woodbox to in the house, but that's quick and only happens about every 3 days.

What I can't put off is when the house needs heat, I either have to make time to light the stove and ensure it's burning properly before leaving the house, or it doesn't get lit at all, and the natural gas furnace provides the heat. Now if I could open the stove door, fill the stove, light the wood, close the door and walk away my stove would operate more, and my natural gas bill would be smaller.

I do realize that BK stoves are more like the automated type I'd prefer than most other stoves on the market, once the bypass is closed the thermostat takes care of the rest. I also believe a BK would be one of the easiest to automate, a few thermocouples, an actuator on the bypass, a servo on the thermostat, and a sensor to know when the door is open, plus a very basic control board. The controller would close the bypass exactly when the cat is hot enough to operate, reducing emissions, it would also control temperature of the stove, ideally with an input from a room mounted temperature sensor. And because the controller could see the catalyst temperature it would minimize the chance of it going in-active by preemptively opening the air control. The bypass could automatically open when it senses the door has been opened. In the event of a power outage a small battery could take over powering the control system, and especially on a BK it could revert to complete manual control in the event of complete control system failure.
But why? I just don't see the benifit to the added layers of complication. Yes of course it could be done but I don't want it.
 
I totally get that there is other work to having a wood stove, and that work also keeps many from owning wood stoves. The difference for me is when I do that work, I save cutting, splitting and stacking to when I have time. The only exception to this is hauling the wood 20ft from my outside woodbox to in the house, but that's quick and only happens about every 3 days.

What I can't put off is when the house needs heat, I either have to make time to light the stove and ensure it's burning properly before leaving the house, or it doesn't get lit at all, and the natural gas furnace provides the heat. Now if I could open the stove door, fill the stove, light the wood, close the door and walk away my stove would operate more, and my natural gas bill would be smaller.

I do realize that BK stoves are more like the automated type I'd prefer than most other stoves on the market, once the bypass is closed the thermostat takes care of the rest. I also believe a BK would be one of the easiest to automate, a few thermocouples, an actuator on the bypass, a servo on the thermostat, and a sensor to know when the door is open, plus a very basic control board. The controller would close the bypass exactly when the cat is hot enough to operate, reducing emissions, it would also control temperature of the stove, ideally with an input from a room mounted temperature sensor. And because the controller could see the catalyst temperature it would minimize the chance of it going in-active by preemptively opening the air control. The bypass could automatically open when it senses the door has been opened. In the event of a power outage a small battery could take over powering the control system, and especially on a BK it could revert to complete manual control in the event of complete control system failure.
I like everything you wrote. We've worked along those lines in the past, perhaps someday again. But consumer research and the shear increase in cost per unit has us scratching our heads. Thermoelectric Generators are also having research work conducted.
 
But why? I just don't see the benifit to the added layers of complication. Yes of course it could be done but I don't want it.

Which is fine, I'm sure manufacturers will continue to build manual control stoves for a long time to come.

That's the key factor in technological advancement, people don't realize they want or need something until it exists and they see the benefits for themselves.
 
Which is fine, I'm sure manufacturers will continue to build manual control stoves for a long time to come.

That's the key factor in technological advancement, people don't realize they want or need something until it exists and they see the benefits for themselves.
I see maybe 2 to 3% of our customers being interested in that. The rest want simple reliable stoves that will work no matter what
 
I can see you are not familiar with wood stove emissions testing/EPA approved methods, which we can discuss in another thread. The very fact that off the shelf springs (as you noted have been around forever) do not allow for the precision, response time and lag time to hit the precise kg/h burn rates mandated within each of the test methods. We MUST make our own springs. There are mfg's, many my friends that have worked very hard to replicate our designs. They tell me so. Only to find the spring does not allow for the air adjustment needed and in the time frame needed to not have a test run ruled invalid.

As for the prior selling of springs to others, it wasn't proprietary, we just got lucky I guess and they like buying from us. (We try to be nice)

BKVP
So you are saying BK, a company barely more than 40 years old, has cornered the market on the most accurate of bi-metal springs available? Suggesting companies 100 years old haven’t been able to produce and are still in business? There’s actually more than one or two companies who produce these last time I looked. Then BK only sell springs to 5-6 other stove companies and no other companies in various industries? I might come closer to believing that if they provided springs to companies in other industries...and they may as far as I know.

Please, I was being a little sarcastic above, but I’m not a guru, or know it all, and I don’t mean to sound impolite. Just trying to put some pieces of a puzzle together. That being, it seems using a bi-metal spring would not infringe on any BK patents, as they were not the first to use them. However, how the spring is implemented...the box design BK uses to place the spring in likely is patented. Obviously, Hitzer and DS stoves use a spring on their stoves but it is implemented in a different manner than that of BK. Perhaps it is possible BK may even produce their springs.

I’m just trying to make the point that extremely accurate temperature springs is a very old concept. Use in stoves in general not so old, but older than BK as a company.

That little box on the back of BK may be patented and unique in how BK stove company uses it for burning wood on their stoves by modern standards, but the springs use themselves is not new to stoves in general and the accuracy of the springs by companies 100 years old and still in business speaks for itself. To say they couldn’t produce such springs seems a stretch. To say no other industry needs extremely accurate springs as a wood stove company also seems a stretch.

It’s entirely a different matter for a company to produce their own springs perhaps for their needs, but that too seems cost prohibitive let alone considering the learning curve a younger company would need to go through just to produce them, let alone the tooling set-up and costs associated with their production. Not to mention there are other applications where they are used that far out number wood stove production i.e.; highly accurate wall thermostats for furnaces just being one. I assume there are more furnaces in homes than wood stoves. Perhaps I am wrong and this wouldn’t be the first time. LOL!

Please understand I am not debating BK perfecting their use on wood stoves nor emissions and EPA test results using them, but rather stoves in general.

Maybe not the first stove to use them, but Locke Stove company used them on their Warm Morning stoves as early as 1941 and fulfilled stove contracts for the US military using bi-metallic thermostats on many of these stoves during that time period...some 40 years before BK was ever thought of or ever produced a stove, let alone produced a bi-metallic spring thermometer. It could be that they may have been used on WM stoves as early as the 1930’s since Locke was building stoves at that time though not in mass production.

I’m sure you may be aware of some of this and maybe you could provide even more information in that regard. I’m certainly not the guru, but I do know they have been accurate enough for use on stoves for a long time. Sort of hard to quantify and qualify them on the same level in regards to EPA and emissions testing when neither existed when these springs were first implemented on stoves to make them more efficient....burning coal or wood.
 
I see maybe 2 to 3% of our customers being interested in that. The rest want simple reliable stoves that will work no matter what
You're not far off bholler.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hoytman
So you are saying BK, a company barely more than 40 years old, has cornered the market on the most accurate of bi-metal springs available? Suggesting companies 100 years old haven’t been able to produce and are still in business? There’s actually more than one or two companies who produce these last time I looked. Then BK only sell springs to 5-6 other stove companies and no other companies in various industries? I might come closer to believing that if they provided springs to companies in other industries...and they may as far as I know.

Please, I was being a little sarcastic above, but I’m not a guru, or know it all, and I don’t mean to sound impolite. Just trying to put some pieces of a puzzle together. That being, it seems using a bi-metal spring would not infringe on any BK patents, as they were not the first to use them. However, how the spring is implemented...the box design BK uses to place the spring in likely is patented. Obviously, Hitzer and DS stoves use a spring on their stoves but it is implemented in a different manner than that of BK. Perhaps it is possible BK may even produce their springs.

I’m just trying to make the point that extremely accurate temperature springs is a very old concept. Use in stoves in general not so old, but older than BK as a company.

That little box on the back of BK may be patented and unique in how BK stove company uses it for burning wood on their stoves by modern standards, but the springs use themselves is not new to stoves in general and the accuracy of the springs by companies 100 years old and still in business speaks for itself. To say they couldn’t produce such springs seems a stretch. To say no other industry needs extremely accurate springs as a wood stove company also seems a stretch.

It’s entirely a different matter for a company to produce their own springs perhaps for their needs, but that too seems cost prohibitive let alone considering the learning curve a younger company would need to go through just to produce them, let alone the tooling set-up and costs associated with their production. Not to mention there are other applications where they are used that far out number wood stove production i.e.; highly accurate wall thermostats for furnaces just being one. I assume there are more furnaces in homes than wood stoves. Perhaps I am wrong and this wouldn’t be the first time. LOL!

Please understand I am not debating BK perfecting their use on wood stoves nor emissions and EPA test results using them, but rather stoves in general.

Maybe not the first stove to use them, but Locke Stove company used them on their Warm Morning stoves as early as 1941 and fulfilled stove contracts for the US military using bi-metallic thermostats on many of these stoves during that time period...some 40 years before BK was ever thought of or ever produced a stove, let alone produced a bi-metallic spring thermometer. It could be that they may have been used on WM stoves as early as the 1930’s since Locke was building stoves at that time though not in mass production.

I’m sure you may be aware of some of this and maybe you could provide even more information in that regard. I’m certainly not the guru, but I do know they have been accurate enough for use on stoves for a long time. Sort of hard to quantify and qualify them on the same level in regards to EPA and emissions testing when neither existed when these springs were first implemented on stoves to make them more efficient....burning coal or wood.
We no longer sell to anyone. That was in reference to the off the shelf springs of the 1980's. Your observations about EPA are spot on. No oversight, method, prescribed burn rates etc, off the shelf work just fine.
 
I see maybe 2 to 3% of our customers being interested in that. The rest want simple reliable stoves that will work no matter what

Nobody knew they wanted an iPhone either until Apple came out with one.

I'd love to build a prototype automated wood stove, I have the fabrication skills to put one together, and I'm sure I could cobble together the electronics to make the prototype functional. If only I had the time and money to do so.
 
Nobody knew they wanted an iPhone either until Apple came out with one.

I'd love to build a prototype automated wood stove, I have the fabrication skills to put one together, and I'm sure I could cobble together the electronics to make the prototype functional. If only I had the time and money to do so.
And remember, it must be engineered to pass a very specific method....or you can't certify/sell.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nate R
And remember, it must be engineered to pass a very specific method....or you can't certify/sell.

Exactly. It would be fun to build a functioning prototype, maybe convert it to an outdoor pool heater if it was functional. From what I see building a stove to pass certification is at least an order of magnitude more difficult, probably not a road I would ever venture down.
 
Exactly. It would be fun to build a functioning prototype, maybe convert it to an outdoor pool heater if it was functional. From what I see building a stove to pass certification is at least an order of magnitude more difficult, probably not a road I would ever venture down.
Certification for emissions = $25,000
Safety Test to establish clearances = $10,000
2 years R & D = $225,000
Lost Opportunity $50,000 (net)
Marketing Launch $150,000

This is before you sell 1 unit.

Pool heaters, cook ovens not emissions covered, only safety tests.
 
Certification for emissions = $25,000
Safety Test to establish clearances = $10,000
2 years R & D = $225,000
Lost Opportunity $50,000 (net)
Marketing Launch $150,000

This is before you sell 1 unit.

Pool heaters, cook ovens not emissions covered, only safety tests.

Ouch!

I'm talking building a single unit for my own use, not for sale. I make way too good a living in oil and gas to throw it away and gamble on something new.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BKVP
Ouch!

I'm talking building a single unit for my own use, not for sale. I make way too good a living in oil and gas to throw it away and gamble on something new.

I'm sure the various stove companies feel the same way about stoves that would have to have a market created for them.
 
6) Where we are headed....Industry sued EPA over one item from the 2015 NSPS. As an industry we are concerned about EPA's lack of written acknowledgement to the variability in wood stove emissions testing. Both inter lab and intra lab testing. So when EPA presented their case in the court, they took the position they included a 1 gr/hr. level of variability into the standard of 2.0 gr/hr. If this is true (which we certainly do not agree with) then the standard or target was 1.0 gr/hr.

This is a big part of the problem. It's not easy to repeat the same test and get a consistent result, I presume. This is a problem in other industries, too. Test to test variability makes things difficult to design, engineer, spend R&D on, etc.
 
Ouch!

I'm talking building a single unit for my own use, not for sale. I make way too good a living in oil and gas to throw it away and gamble on something new.
Federal law does NOT prohibit your dream. Now your property insurance guy will!
 
There is advanced research being conducted at the university level on nozzle and combustion chamber design for downdraft stoves. I expect to see more downdraft stoves like this and the twinfire in the future, as it has proven to be the cleanest and most efficient design for wood boilers.
 
There is advanced research being conducted at the university level on nozzle and combustion chamber design for downdraft stoves. I expect to see more downdraft stoves like this and the twinfire in the future, as it has proven to be the cleanest and most efficient design for wood boilers.
And let the smoke exit zig zag to get the most heat to exchange into the unit through smart baffles.
 
Blow the dust of Dr Richard Hills design from the 1980's. Put a more sophisticated Lamda control loop on it and go with more modern heat exchanger with a condensing section and it would be hard to beat even today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kennyp2339 and BKVP
Blow the dust of Dr Richard Hills design from the 1980's. Put a more sophisticated Lamda control loop on it and go with more modern heat exchanger with a condensing section and it would be hard to beat even today.
Absolutely I forgot the name of the actual man that put science into woodburning.