wood box size & burn rate

  • 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.
  • Hope everyone has a wonderful and warm Thanksgiving!
  • Super Cedar firestarters 30% discount Use code Hearth2024 Click here
Status
Not open for further replies.

voner

New Member
Hearth Supporter
Jun 22, 2009
17
front range, Colorado
in the spirit of knowledge attainment, I'd like you folks to address this:

When I read about the wood box size - the EPA & other sites say to get a small wood box - so you can burn effiiciently, but most of you folks say to always go for the larger box.... What causes the difference of opinion?

thanks!

voner (timv)
 
voner said:
in the spirit of knowledge attainment, I'd like you folks to address this:

When I read about the wood box size - the EPA & other sites say to get a small wood box - so you can burn effiiciently, but most of you folks say to always go for the larger box.... What causes the difference of opinion?

thanks!

voner (timv)
The logic behind larger-is-better is that it allows more flexibility. It is possible to build a small fire in a large box, but not the other way around. So, from an operational perspective, important to the folks here, this is more important.

The logic behind smaller-is-better is that the combustion is more efficient (complete) the higher the temperature surrounding the wood, as the gases are more easily ignited. So, from a minimum-emissions perspective, important to the EPA, this is more important. But, it's not quite that simple. Good design decisions in the best modern stoves help to reduce the sensitivity of combustion efficiency to firebox size. The better a firebox is insulated, the less difference size makes, as it's easier to keep the gases hotter in the larger volume. The better the design of the secondary burn tubes and airflow pattern, the less difference it makes, as it's easier to keep the gases burning. If it's a cat stove and the cat is operating well, it also makes less difference because the gases are burned there even if they don't get burned within the firebox volume.

So, with a well-designed, large (though not grossly oversized) capacity stove, you can have a good balance of operational flexibility with reliably low emissions. That's why many folks recommend figuring out the BTU or heated area capacity you think you need, and kicking the stove size up a notch just in case.
 
Ha! What causes difference of opinion? Asking two people the same question does... :)

Seriously...

I am not sure why EPA and other sites (hey - what other site is there but Hearth.com anyway?) would find smaller more efficient other than perhaps to keep folks from loading them up with lots of wood and then trying to damp down the air to the point that the wood smolders for 12 hours and thus puts out tons of smoke. I suppose there may be some argument to keeping the firebox good and hot to keep things burning well. Others I'm sure will have more insight to this side of the argument.

I do know that the reason I have seen sited here for getting the larger firebox is that "you can always build a smaller fire in a larger box, but you can't build a larger fire in a smaller one". Put another way - if you buy a stove that is too small then you are more likely to be dissatisfied with the heat output. Thus you risk trying to push the limits of the designed output and risk running it full bore too much, thus going through more wood and risking overfiring the stove not to mention still being unhappy with the stove. If you get one that is slightly too large you can always just not load it up as full of wood and have a smaller and/or shorter burning fire. With that said, there is a limit to this theory - if you get TOO large a stove you can end up simply blasting yourself out of the room/house anytime you get it up and running well. I don't think you will find anyone here saying "buy the largest stove you can afford or fit in your home" rather the advice is more along the line of "if you are on the line between a 45K btu and a 55K btu stove, go for the larger one and you are not likely to be unhappy"
 
Only the tree hugging pollution fighters want you to undersize your stove. An undersized stove burned at 90% throttle will burn mighty cleanly but will consume its wood load very quickly and will need to be refilled regularly. The small stove will not overheat your home easily.

Real woodburners know that you want to run your stove to get long burns without overheating the house. A long burn comes from a low throttle setting and a lot of fuel in the firebox. The trick though is that too big of a firebox will overheat the house and a low throttle setting can cause more pollution than a high setting.

So basicly, its a pollution thing. If pollution was the highest priority then we wouldn't burn woodstoves.
 
There are some other benefits of burning clean. You get to enjoy a relatively clean glass, your chimney cap is less likely to plug, and you will have less creosote formation at the end of the season.
 
cycloptic pendulum said:
...the primary air is shut off & the overhead secondaries shoot flames...

Buy a EPA certified wood stove Pook and try to "shut off" the primary air. It ain't gonna happen.

Come to think of it, buy any cord wood stove Pook. :lol:
 
I have a stove with about as big a firebox as you are gonna find. Yeah there are bigger ones but most are smaller and do just fine. I wanted the biggest that would fit the application for a completely uninterested in efficiency reason. I am used to large stoves and loading a minuscule firebox drives me nuts. I want some working room in that blazing inferno. And options as to how I configure the load.

Judging by three seasons of burning in the 30-NC I don't see much difference between large and small loads of wood. Get a small load burning good and the stove runs at 600+ with clear exhaust. Get a full load burning and it burns at six hundred+ plus with clear exhaust. The difference being it likes to head over seven hundred for a while with the large load and being experienced with a runaway (previous) stove twice that concerns me. I know it is gonna stop climbing but I am going to stay there with it until it does.

I don't think there is that much of an efficiency difference if you judge by stove top temp and looking at the chimney between my little stoves and the big honker. Sure if you strap a bunch of instruments on them you might find something. But I just want to keep the house warm. And have the neighbor ask again, after two stoves had gone through five cords of wood and were both cranking that day, "Oh, do you burn wood?".
 
Voner, where abouts in the front range are you? What altitude do you live at? Will you be burning our local pine? What size space do you have and what size stove are you looking at?
 
More important than stove size is dry wood. Burning only well seasoned wood properly is going to keep the stove glass and flue clean. Other than that you have to decide if you want a stove that covers say 80% of the heating load, but needs a boost (from furnace, baseboard heaters, etc.) when it gets really cold or if you want a stove that covers 99% of your heating needs all by itself.

Based on experience of trying to get by with the next size down, I can tell you after a couple tries, that we love having a bigger stove.
 
Slow1 said:
Ha! What causes difference of opinion? Asking two people the same question does... :)

if you get TOO large a stove you can end up simply blasting yourself out of the room/house anytime you get it up and running well. I don't think you will find anyone here saying "buy the largest stove you can afford or fit in your home" rather the advice is more along the line of "if you are on the line between a 45K btu and a 55K btu stove, go for the larger one and you are not likely to be unhappy"

45k btu and a 55k btu ??? I have a 97k btu and love it. There's nothing like coming in from the cold and putting on a pair of shorts.
 
karl said:
Slow1 said:
Ha! What causes difference of opinion? Asking two people the same question does... :)

if you get TOO large a stove you can end up simply blasting yourself out of the room/house anytime you get it up and running well. I don't think you will find anyone here saying "buy the largest stove you can afford or fit in your home" rather the advice is more along the line of "if you are on the line between a 45K btu and a 55K btu stove, go for the larger one and you are not likely to be unhappy"

45k btu and a 55k btu ??? I have a 97k btu and love it. There's nothing like coming in from the cold and putting on a pair of shorts.

My point was not the specific btu (I rather picked those numbers out of the air actually), rather that if someone is debating between two close numbers they may as well go for the larger output stove. In your case perhaps it could have been 70K and 97K, only you know... I suspect you will still will agree with the core point though eh?

Now if someone is debating between 30K and 120K then there are some questions to be answered about where the stove is going (house/room size etc) in order to help make a good decision.
 
After running 50K for 4 years because "that stove will run you right out of the house", 120K is looking pretty good. An undersized stove running 24/7 October to May led to cracked glass and warping in our application. I learned this lesson twice, won't do it a third time. The square footage numbers and opinions that were quoted to us did not apply to a house on a windy ridge with a lot of glass.
 
Why do we recommend going larger? It's easy . . . most of us are guys and you know how guys are . . . everything is better when it's bigger . . . most of us think 8 cylinders are better than 4 cylinders (except when it's time to fuel up), a 12 oz. rib eye is better than an 8 oz. rib eye and well you know . . . bigger is always better, right? :) ;)

All kidding aside . . . as others have mentioned, you can always build a small fire in a large firebox if you just need a little bit of heat to take the chill off a cool Fall or Spring Day . . . or even on a cool 4th of July in Maine. Just build a small fire in the firebox with some low BTU wood and voila (or walla if you would . . . refers to another post) you have a small fire in a big fire box that provides a little bit of heat.

Of course, you cannot do the opposite. If it's mid-January and the temps are below the donut and the winds are howling and your smaller stove is crammed to the gills with oak and cranking to beat the band and it's still not warm enough, it isn't really physically possible to build an even bigger fire in that fire box.

One of the best bits of advice I ever got from hearth.com . . . and there have been lots of good advice . . . is to figure out the size of the firebox you need based on square footage . . . and then go one size larger, realizing that there may be especially cold days. I took that advice and I've been very happy with my purchase as it pretty much heated my entire house last winter.

The problem with going with a small firebox, as mentioned, is that burning too hot for too long to try to stay warm (and in some cases failing to stay warm) is not good for your stove (stress), not good for your wood supply (you can go through more wood) or for you (you end up feeding the stove too much, do not have long burn times, worry about your stove's condition, worry about your dwindling wood supply and on top of this are never truly warm).

I like Highbeam's "low throttle" description. This seems pretty appropriate. A woodstove working well in terms of providing good heat and not producing copious amounts of creosote and other pollutants in my opinion should be working, but not working too hard. If you don't get your woodstove up and running hot enough you risk creosote and other pollutants and do not get any meaningful heat. If you over tax your stove by running it full bore too often you risk stressing the stove's components and over-firing.

A similar analogy could be seen with cars. If you're in a race and choose to race with a 4-cylinder car you may find that for some races (heating days) the car works fine . . . but when you face an 8-cylinder car (that mid-winter day in January with the sub zero temps and wind blowing at 20 mph) you will find that your car's engine is redlining (which of course can lead to over heating, stress on the engine, etc.) . . . and on top of this you will probably lose the race. In a similar way, too small a stove may work well on some days, but when you're faced with those inevitable really, cold days in middle of winter, a stove that is too small just will not work for the reasons listed previously.

If, on the other hand, you go with something way, way too big for this race . . . say a V-12 Lamborghini . . . you will find that the car you've bought for the race is wicked expensive and about 95% of the time you do not really need all that power and speed . . . and in fact you could be considered a bit wasteful with both the up-front cost of the car, need for premium fuel, etc. In terms of woodstoves, buying too large a stove is an extra cost considering you do not really use the full potential of the stove . . . and could in fact not be running the stove very efficiently.

Now, if you went with a decent 8-cylinder car . . . you get the best of both worlds. Sure, you may not need 8 cylinders worth of power . . . but it sure is nice to have those extra cylinders there when you need them. In the same way, a stove that is just a bit larger than what you need means you can burn smaller fires (i.e. use less gas using my car analogy) on those shoulder season burns, in normal winter burning you can burn normal sized fires . . . and on those wicked cold days you can use your stove to its full potential by loading it up that well seasoned oak or hickory and maximizing your stove's (or car's) potential.
 
firefighterjake said:
If, on the other hand, you go with something way, way too big for this race . . . say a V-12 Lamborghini . . . you will find that the car you've bought for the race is wicked expensive and about 95% of the time you do not really need all that power and speed . . .

That's funny. Reminds me of a friend who has done well building highways. He has three cars in his garage: Lamborghini, Ferrari and Cadillac. Other than new highway 'testing' or letting the rest of us taste what they feel like, the Lamborghini and Ferrari never get driven.

Great summation and I have two 450 pound pieces of scrap iron to show what happens when you undersize which incidentally I was told was oversized by many experts. When it comes down to it, very few people heat with wood exclusively. Most put a good dent in their heating bills with the stove and let the central heating system pick up the slack when needed. That is not a bad strategy. If that is really what you are going to do, then you don't need to go crazy with the size of the stove.
 
everybody:

Hey thanks! once again, you folks are clarifying everything quite well.

Some additional information for you about my situation --

I'm going to use the wood stove as a secondary heat source -- meaning I have a backup gas furnace that I am using right now it is a "+90% efficient" furnace.

I have very limited cash available for this project. However, I have learned that you should always do things right when you do a major project like this -- and so I'm asking these questions. -- and I greatly appreciate your answers. They will help steer me to a better decision.

more info...

I live in Fort Collins, CO .

20 years ago there was a huge woodstove air pollution problem here -- and I was on the air quality task force for the Fort Collins area and learned a lot about woodstove pollution. I have never gotten a woodstove because of the fact of the pollution factor. We basically have to many people living in a place that doesn't like to have this many people living here.

However, I come across all sorts of wood that is free to me. (Construction site cutoffs, even hardwood). So, I have decided to get a woodstove. Reading the EPA information and the information about how to burn wood in one of these new style wood stoves -- I'm getting a non-catalytic -- tells me to get a smaller size would box and burn hot. [email protected] keeps coming to upgrade the size and I'll be happy if I do that -- because I won't have to worry about not having a big enough stove.

I'm probably going to buy a Pacific Energy Vista -- the smallest stove they make -- rated to heat a house two 1400 ft.². I have an old 1890s vintage double brick house that is one half stories -- 800 ft.² or so on the lower floor and a shotgun type fashion, and the rest is upstairs in the landing area and then 2 bedrooms off the landing area. It sure seems to me that the Vista should be fine for me. I don't mind if I have backup energy on sometimes -- in fact that's fine with me. I just want to burn all the extra wood that I get and have -- it's better than letting it go into the trash. -- which is happening now.

I'm also really short on cash flow -- I live on disability. (does the back-and-forth on the stove size - if I had the cash easily available -- and yet one size up -- but I really don't need to get one size up -- I'll save myself some hard to come by money)


So that's the gig.

To summarize -- being low polluting is important to me -- I believe we should all be responsible citizens and that for the live in a overpopulated area like this we should try to minimize our impact. If I lived somewhere where woodsmoke didn't matter much, pollution wise, I wouldn't be so worried.

Thanks for your replies!!!


timv a.k.a. Voner
 
Contact MSG. He recently saw some PE stoves selling in your area for below cost. If possible, go for the mid-sized stove. It will be worth it in the long run.
 
firefighterjake said:
Why do we recommend going larger? It's easy . . . most of us are guys and you know how guys are . . . everything is better when it's bigger . . . most of us think 8 cylinders are better than 4 cylinders (except when it's time to fuel up), a 12 oz. rib eye is better than an 8 oz. rib eye and well you know . . . bigger is always better, right? :) ;)

That is just not true. I really do need my 3.5cf stove. And my 454 4X4 Suburban. And my 7 1/2" barrel .44 magnum. I do.

Really. :red:
 
I went with a stove that I know will be too small to handle my heat requirement for the cold days and I'm ok with this since my goal at this point is to put a good dent in my heat bill. This winter will be my first so I doubt I'll be heating 24/7. My family room/kitchen is only a 300 sq' room. I didn't want to go bigger, over heat the room and drive us out of it. The floor plan is not real open so I'm not sure how the heat will move around the house. I also had a requirement set by my wife who didn't want the stove to have a large foot print. :)

I figure an 30-NCL isn't too expensive, I can always add that if I get the bug to really make some heat or I'll add an insert to my fireplace in my living room.
 
firefighterjake said:
(or walla if you would . . . refers to another post)

It's wala, not walla. ;-)
 
grommal said:
voner said:
in the spirit of knowledge attainment, I'd like you folks to address this:

When I read about the wood box size - the EPA & other sites say to get a small wood box - so you can burn effiiciently, but most of you folks say to always go for the larger box.... What causes the difference of opinion?

thanks!

voner (timv)
The logic behind larger-is-better is that it allows more flexibility. It is possible to build a small fire in a large box, but not the other way around. So, from an operational perspective, important to the folks here, this is more important.

The logic behind smaller-is-better is that the combustion is more efficient (complete) the higher the temperature surrounding the wood, as the gases are more easily ignited. So, from a minimum-emissions perspective, important to the EPA, this is more important. But, it's not quite that simple. Good design decisions in the best modern stoves help to reduce the sensitivity of combustion efficiency to firebox size. The better a firebox is insulated, the less difference size makes, as it's easier to keep the gases hotter in the larger volume. The better the design of the secondary burn tubes and airflow pattern, the less difference it makes, as it's easier to keep the gases burning. If it's a cat stove and the cat is operating well, it also makes less difference because the gases are burned there even if they don't get burned within the firebox volume.

So, with a well-designed, large (though not grossly oversized) capacity stove, you can have a good balance of operational flexibility with reliably low emissions. That's why many folks recommend figuring out the BTU or heated area capacity you think you need, and kicking the stove size up a notch just in case.

I have to agree....
I'd also point out but not in this case with $$$ being an issue that sometimes a furnace is better than a stove.
I wold also point out that it's not all about how much wood can I stuff in it.

It's more about does it have a afterburn....firebrick,massive heat exchangers, barometric draft regulator and stat to cycle the burn rate.
It is all about making every btu available which also mean you'll have a clean burn then exchanging the heat fast enough giving you long burn time forcing you to go through less wood,dumping ashes less and keeping that expensive liquid fuel from coming on driving up your heating costs.
If your fire is going out then you've got a fuel bill to pay. There are ways to avoid that.

Also to the original poster ...I believe you made mention of burning construction lumber scrap.
This is kiln dried wood and it makes a really hot fire. You may want to ask if it voids the warranties.
 
BeGreen said:
Contact MSG. He recently saw some PE stoves selling in your area for below cost. If possible, go for the mid-sized stove. It will be worth it in the long run.

Or a stove that i will sell ya! :gulp:

if your set on PE, go to IHT on arapahoe and 33rd.
 
CrappieKeith said:
I'd also point out but not in this case with $$$ being an issue that sometimes a furnace is better than a stove.

I think a furnace or boiler would have been best for me needs. My only issue besides the $$ is if I'm busting my hump cutting/hauling/splitting/stacking I want to be able and sit down with an adult beverage and watch a nice fire. :)
 
rdust said:
I want to be able and sit down with an adult beverage and watch a nice fire. :)

That about sums it up.
 
rdust said:
CrappieKeith said:
I'd also point out but not in this case with $$$ being an issue that sometimes a furnace is better than a stove.

I think a furnace or boiler would have been best for me needs. My only issue besides the $$ is if I'm busting my hump cutting/hauling/splitting/stacking I want to be able and sit down with an adult beverage and watch a nice fire. :)

We all have different priorities....I stopped drinking & fired my ex so asthetics are not what I'm after.
Getting 15 -20 hour burn times allowing me to stay out on the ice guiding folks into fish is what's important to me.
Also after 12 years my 100 lb. propane tank is still half full ....it's nice to have the wood furnace here in northern Mn.
It's also nice to bank that 4 grand a year that the gas co. used to get.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.