Now I am really confused...

[jadm]

Someone posted a topic on adding just a couple of splits at a time to your fire and getting the same results as loading up your stove. Lots of you have chimed in that you do that a lot.

A few weeks ago there was a topic about never adding less than 3 logs at a time or you loose efficiency.

I have been reading here for a year and thought that the most efficient way to burn is with a load of wood left alone, once it has settled in, to burn through it's cycle.

That it is a big 'no-no' to add wood during a cycle as it cools down the stove - taking heat from the logs burning to start burning.

So my head is spinning and I'm trying to find space in my brain to let this new info. in without blowing a few brain cells. Wondering how temps. stay high enough to maintain the secondary burn. My insert has to get really hot for them to stay lit or else my chimney starts smoking. Thinking if I do the 1 or 2 logs at a time I would have to burn with the air wide open which means all the heat is going up the flue.

I try to burn with the air as closed as possible and maintain no smoke from my chimney...Isn't that how you get longer burn times??

So here I sit - confused. I know I probably will be even more confused by some of the responses I get back but I'm going to brave it and see what happens :gulp:

 

[oconnor]

I add a few at a time when I want low output pretty flame fires, but I let them burn down until no flame before the next logs go on. There is a good article on the "fire cycle" on here somewhere - as well on woodheat.org I think too. Give it a read. There is no true fire cycle doctrine.

 

[wellbuilt home]

I can go either way on the loading . In the past I had a VC DW and it worked very good . I could add 3 splits at a time and the temp in the house could stay around 68o and the stove would burn at around 350 to 375 . The stove didn't smoke and it stays warm in the house . If i filled the stove and had the cat burning it would get to hot and burn more wood . At night i could fill the stove and let it rip . The stove will burn all night.

Now I have a hearthstone Equinox and the stove will burn OK 300o on a few logs but i cant get it hot unless its about 2/3s full. (Then look out ) The stove just starts to pump out the heat . To be efficient you need to get the secondary burn going . I don't add wood until I'm down to coals or the heat starts to drop off. The new stoves are kinda picky ! Ive used 15 stoves in the last 30 years and i like most of them. John

 

[SlyFerret]

People can give their opinions on what they think is the most efficient way to burn, but without a lab with controlled conditions, and a properly conducted experiment, I don't know that we'll solve the efficiency question.

Maybe the guys at Englander can chime in with information from their test lab? I'd be interested to know!

I find I get the best results by burning in loads, and timing reloads carefully so as not to overheat the house. If I constantly kept my stove hot enough to burn properly, I would run us out of the house!

I don't know that it's so much a matter of which method is most efficient. I think it's a matter of what produces the results that you require to keep your house comfortable.

-SF

 

[jadm]

I find I get the best results by burning in loads, and timing reloads carefully so as not to overheat the house. If I constantly kept my stove hot enough to burn properly, I would run us out of the house!

With our old insert I pretty much threw wood in whenever temps started to drop. It had a much smaller fire box so it burned a lot differently than what I have now.

I have been doing the burning in loads too now which is new to me and is taking some getting used to...cutting air back and then opening it back up as load burns down to coals. Just very different as I already said.

I guess from what I have been reading I have assumed that burning in loads is how these epa stoves are designed to be burned...Bottom line, as you said, burn the way that works best in your stove, in your house according to your life style.

Thanks-

PS Hope you're keeping warm. Hear it's pretty cold where you are right now. I have a sister in Wisconsin and they are seeing temps. as low as -25*. Just makes me cold thinking about it.

 

[Corey]

It's true, we mostly deal with anecdotal evidence for most of the 'theories' on this site as lab testing is pretty expensive and hard to come by. But many times 'thinking' your way through the situation is almost as good. In this case, I think there are several things to mostly agree on:

- There is a certain temperature required for secondary burning.
- The stove operates in some type of temperature curve. Initially starting below the secondary burn temp, then reaching and exceeding that temp during the burn, eventually falling below that temp at the end of the burn.
- The maximum stove efficiency is during the secondary burn period. You are combusting smoke and generating heat from material which would normally be lost up the flue.

Based on that, it would make sense to add wood before the stove fell below the secondary burn point as the initial wood load is consumed. If you wait and add wood to a cool stove, some smoke would be lost up the flue as the stove warms back up to the secondary temp. Additionally, I have never known adding wood during the burn to significantly cool the stove. Usually, just the opposite...the fresh load immediately combusts and lights off the secondary burn driving the stove to very high temps.

The flip side is your house temp. Just like gas, oil, electric, etc heat, keeping the house as cool as you can tolerate saves the most amount of fuel. If you are adding wood simply to keep the stove from cooling off, but it's already 80F indoors, then you're probably wasting that wood anyway. You would probably be better to go ahead and let the house and stove cool, then fire back up when the temp falls to say 68F.

 

[LLigetfa]

There are way too many variables to come up with a "one size fits all". My current home has the same model stove as my former home did and the differences in insulation, square footage heated, stove and chimney location/length exhibit very different results. It is comparing apples to oranges.

This board has a diverse group of people, some with cat stoves, some EPA non-cats, and some with old classics, so it's to be expected that there will be contradictory anecdotal evidence. Even lab tests could not cover all the variables.

 

[johnsopi]

With anything people do things different. They think they are doing it the best way possible. Really if you think it sound good try it, it may or may not work.
After a while you find something that work well for you.

 

[Bill]

Different strokes for different folks, but I get the hottest fires with a big load. Putting in a split hear and there is what I do in the shoulder seasons. But for this below zero weather lately, I fill it to the gills and let her rip.

 

[edthedawg]

I tried both variants this weekend, w/ perpetual 10-25 F temps over 3 days, and only very rarely using the oil heat to bolster performance. My experience was that the pack-and-burn-full-cycle method far and away was better than interrupting the cycle to throw a couple more on the fire. Woodstove Goddess asked a couple times "what'd you do to my fire??" so there's the clear indicator that some of my experiments did not work