Ugly Blaze Kings

  • 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.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Don't worry about the numbers, we don't even know if they're talking about wet or dry basis in the video. ;)

Battenkiller used to post a lot on moisture content, here is one of his posts on the subject that talks about the two. 25%-19% on the meter should put you in a good spot according to BK.

"There are different ways of expressing moisture content, which don’t at all have to do with the method of determining them. The EPA test loads are Douglas fir that is between 16 and 20% wet-basis. That is expressed by taking the weight of the water present and dividing it by the weight of the entire split. Your moisture meter is calibrated for Doug fir as well, but the calculations done by the chip inside of it (or the width of the scale divisions if you are using an analog meter) are done using the dry-basis method of expressing moisture content. That is expressed by taking the weight of the water and dividing it by the weight of the dry fiber that would be present in the wood after all the water has been theoretically driven out (as would be done in a 215º oven in a lab).

Naturally, you get very different numbers, and this effect grows increasing more substantial as MC rises. It’s a mathematical thing, and has nothing to do with the actual wood, which always has the same amount of water in it.

If you want a real easy way to convert dry-basis meter readings to the wet-basis used by the EPA tests, just divide the number on the meter by that same number plus 100, and you will get the correct wet-basis MC every time.

For example, the meter says the wood is 25% MC. Add 100 to 25, then divide that number (125) by the original reading. 25/125 = 20% MC wet-basis. The high end of the EPA test range… perfect for you stove.
In another case, the meter says the wood is 19% MC. Add 100 to 19, then divide that number (119) by the original reading. 19/119 = 16% MC wet-basis. The low end of the EPA test range… perfect for your stove.

As far as a definite cutoff number, I don’t believe it exists. The way you load the stove, the type of wood, the way the wood is split, the amount of coals in there, the internal stove temps, the timing and size of wood additions, the strength of your draft…. all things that can and sometimes do have a more profound effect on the burn then just MC and draft opening. For me, the theoretical cutoff is 25% MC wet-basis (33% MC on the meter). That’s 5% more water in the wood than the maximum allowable MC in the EPA test loads. Above that, you will likely have a progressively harder time burning your wood without micro-managing the stove."
That makes it somewhat tangible...and sorry about today!
 
You lust for a Blaze King naturalized Okie. You know you do. Just do it. ;lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: neumsky
That makes it somewhat tangible...and sorry about today!

Let me clarify a little, my last post is confusing if you've never seen us refer to BattenKiller as BK. " 25%-19% on the meter should put you in a good spot according to BK" BK=BattenKiller not BlazeKing sorry if I caused any confusion, after re-reading it I seen what I had done. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: neumsky
They aren't the most aesthetically pleasing of stoves but they don't half live up their name. It's a shame really because so many people choose stoves based on looks. Fair enough really - one of the main purposes is to enjoy watching them burn - I suppose it's not quite as therapeutic when the flames are encased inside a big steel slant. :confused:
 
  • Like
Reactions: neumsky
You lust for a Blaze King naturalized Okie. You know you do. Just do it. ;lol
Actually...I'm very fond of my Jotul...but I won't lie...the mechanics of it all intrigues me. But you all heard my wife...she would have to put a bag over it! Time will tell. Very funny BB.
 
No one has ever walked in my house and said 'Ewww, why did you put that hideous thing there. You need to cover it up, I can't stand it.' Ever. I guess I should be surprised.
 
No one has ever walked in my house and said 'Ewww, why did you put that hideous thing there. You need to cover it up, I can't stand it.' Ever. I guess I should be surprised.

They're being polite. ;) Just like they never come into my house, take one look at me and start crying, "It's so ugly . . . get him away from me." :)
 
They're being polite. ;) Just like they never come into my house, take one look at me and start crying, "It's so ugly . . . get him away from me." :)

Or, "what's that awful smell?"
 
Like I've always been polite, and I've never said said that I don't really care for gothic styled cast iron stoves. And even that was polite ;)

You guy's are so funny...anyone for a chicken sandwich??? Lol
 
i saw the princess....she wasn't too bad. besides, i hear the ugly ones try harder. ::P

cass
 
  • Like
Reactions: neumsky
Just had a look at their website, man they are ugly, but one or 2 of the range only look semi ugly
 
They aren't the most aesthetically pleasing of stoves but they don't half live up their name. It's a shame really because so many people choose stoves based on looks. Fair enough really - one of the main purposes is to enjoy watching them burn - I suppose it's not quite as therapeutic when the flames are encased inside a big steel slant. :confused:


What part of their name do they not live up to?

The main reason to own a stove is to heat, and BK stoves do that well, with burn characteristics no other stove has.

I agree that people choose stoves based on looks, and choose BK stoves because they like the features and looks. Warm Morning and Riteway are not beautiful stoves, but there sure are a lot of them in this area. In a lineup of current steel stoves, I would choose the BK Princess/King Ultra stove simply by looks alone. I do realize I might be in the minority, as this poll shows, but why does everyone dump on BK for ugliness?
 
What part of their name do they not live up to?

The main reason to own a stove is to heat, and BK stoves do that well, with burn characteristics no other stove has.

I agree that people choose stoves based on looks, and choose BK stoves because they like the features and looks. Warm Morning and Riteway are not beautiful stoves, but there sure are a lot of them in this area. In a lineup of current steel stoves, I would choose the BK Princess/King Ultra stove simply by looks alone. I do realize I might be in the minority, as this poll shows, but why does everyone dump on BK for ugliness?

It's like every discussion on here...I certainly wouldn't want to admit I didn't make the right choice for me or it's for the purpose of convincing you to make the same decision I made verifying I made a good choice. Human nature!
 
I do realize I might be in the minority, as this poll shows, but why does everyone dump on BK for ugliness?

Cause they're jealous of the burn times we get. ;lol The Blaze King owners should start making fun of the short burn times other stoves get, just joking..... ;)

When I bought mine I really thought there was no way the stove would live up to all the hype it had on this forum, I was shocked when it actually performed better than the hype.

The whole thing is really getting old. The Sirocco looks like any other steel stove and the Chinook has a pretty modern look that may fit well in some homes. I hope we get some Sirocco feed back when the burning season starts up.

I personally don't mind the looks. Sure they could looks better but it looks to me how a wood stove should look. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: fox9988
Agreed, I'm not fond of the squat fat look of the BKK Parlor and Classic, but several of the other models look fine. They wouldn't get past my wife's critical eye, but she is over the top fussy at times.
 
The whole thing is really getting old. The Sirocco looks like any other steel stove and the Chinook has a pretty modern look that may fit well in some homes. I hope we get some Sirocco feed back when the burning season starts up.

The Sirocco is indeed the best / most traditional looking stove in their current line-up, but it's just too damn small to be of much interest to most. Now if they had a Sirocco 30...

Waiting with baited breath to see the new Ashford 30. :eek:
 
The wife just said she likes the looks of the Princess Parlor over the Sirocco. Says it reminds her of some of the old pot belly stoves and isn't boring like most of the square boxy steel stoves. ==c
 
  • Like
Reactions: jeff_t
I'll bet she tell you that the pot belly you're growing makes you look distinguished too. ;lol J/K Todd.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PapaDave
I'll bet she tell you that the pot belly you're growing makes you look distinguished too. ;lol J/K Todd.

That's funny! hahahaha
 
If I only burned 4 months out of the year, the BKK probably wouldn't be my first choice. But since I burn from Sept. to May/June every year, and utilize the stove as my primary heat source, looks are not a concern. Luckily, the BKK is better looking in person than most would expect. My cats even like it. Dog doesn't care.
If I only burned 4 months a year, I'd have a Princess or Chinook.
 
I'll bet she tell you that the pot belly you're growing makes you look distinguished too. ;lol J/K Todd.

Ha ha, I have kinda let myself go, maybe I should trim down to the Ultra?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.