Interesting Quadrant Chart

I picked this off the Woodstock website.

Interesting chart.

 

I've seen that chart lead to some interesting debate with the BK fanboys.

 

My first thoughts that come to mind, is that I find it difficult to believe these are meaningful numbers, as for instance the Jotul F600 which I "thought" was a high performing heater is way down the chart of BTU output. Ditto for the T5 which I have to believe is every bit the equal to the Fireview.

What am I missing with a chart like this, or is it that these tests look good for some stoves, but that doesn't make it the end all in real life applications? Or, are they really as straight forward as this chart makes out?

 

Well and the BKs aren't even on this chart?... But, for instance the Chinook 30 has 36K BTUs per hour max heat output, which is pretty unimpressive. I guess what it is pointing out to me, is that the parameters might be interesting, but are maybe not all that meaningful.

What I mean by that is, Max heat output, for example, VERY important if you are heating a BIG space, and need every last ounce of heat, for the coldest days, hopefully. But in real life,... maybe not as important as efficiency at a less maximum setting. Which would go too realistic hours of burn time and a realistic heat output setting. Or, is simple terms, "can this thing heat my house over night till I get up in the morning, or get home from work to refill it?"

..and emissions Grams/Hr? meh.. important to mother earth, but maybe as long as I'm happy it passes EPA laws.. is it really going to change my purchase decision one way or another?

 

Right
So no need to debate

BKs chart probably wouldn't have the WS stoves on it. LOL

 

There needs to be some kind of standardization in the wood stove industry so that consumers can compare apples to apples when it comes to max BTU ratings. The EPA ratings are obviously a joke and simple firebox size comparisons are inadequate to get a big picture comparison. Some stoves send more BTUs up the flue than others. Some stoves sip all the possible BTUs out of the wood and the smoke before sending a relatively cool exhaust up the flue. Some stoves do great on high burns, some on low, some on both. EPA ratings and firebox sizes don't tell any of that story and stove manufacturers' sales literature can't be compared apples to apples with other manufacturers.

And I don't know how that status will be improved. I think the new cordwood standards are an attempt to go in the right direction though.

 

Interesting....and here I am thinking that my F500 was a decent heater. It does not even compare in numbers with Woodstock. Yeah, and why didn't BK make it to the dance, avoiding some of the potential drama??

 

Kinda like a political poll,
You need to know what results you want to see
before you make the chart.

Bias is a wonderful thing for manufacturer's to use to market their product.
I've been on wood burning sites that have a bias toward particular stove brands. ( )

Real World wood burning facts are found at,( the no stove bias ):

THE FIREWOOD HOARDER'S CLUB




The Firewood Hoarder's Club
The Firewood Hoarder's Club

Rah Rah!

 

I'm shocked, SHOCKED to learn there is bias on other wood heat forums. I'm certainly pleased to know that no such bias exists here. We are all equal opportunity fanboys. (Heck, I'm so unbiased I'd even buy a BK if they weren't such ugly black boxes.)

 

Where to view these?

 

LOL
Thanks
I needed a good "Laugh Out Loud" moment
Made my day LOL
I'm Still smiling

 

Was a "Need Glass cleaner laugh"
Gotta clean the computer screen now

 

Everything I can think of to compare one stove directly with another, on any significant scale in terms of numbers of stoves, would be massively inconvenient to homeowners.

Maybe the EPA could encourage the presentation of more real life burn information by establishing a special certificate that they would issue about real life burn times to stove manufacturers who voluntarily ran each of their stoves in each of, say, thirty specified (or at least thirty different)settings, with sensors in the home to records temps at all times in various rooms as well as outside temps and wind speeds. Have as well a requirement that their wood stack be examined, moisture content recorded of random sampled splits, as well as species and average split size recorded, and total cubic feet of dry firewood available (and amount of wood left at end of season). Have those results clearly presented in stove literature.

 

Oh. Ok, I had to read that twice. I thought someone needed glass cleaner for the door glass on their BKK. (That was a joke.)

 

The Blaze King propaganda:
LINK

"There are only two rating methods that mean something to you, the consumer:


1. The first is the BTU output that is achieved during EPA testing. This testing is quite complicated and costly milled woods are burned. This is a standard for all manufacturer testing and is not intended to provide consumers with a model for how a stove will burn in their home.
2
2. the 2nd is what Blaze King refers to as the "Real World" method. These BTUs are achieved during in house testing using the same thing a consumer burns, split, dry cordwood. In our tests, we use fir. The "Real World" BTUs listed are what the average consumer can expect to achieve, with slight variations depending upon geographical location, type of wood, elevation and amount of fuel added. Higher BTUs are possible. If you were to stand in front of your stove and frequently add fuel, burn the unit on high and have optimal conditions, the PE1006 could produce as high as 87,850 BTUs and the KE1107 could exceed 90,000 BTUs!

However, maximum BTUs would only be achievable at a certain "peak" during the burn.

Blaze King does not wish to mislead you, so we give you all the facts."


LINK

The $300 Tax credit ends Dec 31 2013.


Everyone has there marketing approach

 

Apparently there are newly proposed ANSI standards for cordwood testing. See the Woodstock blog entry at http://blog.woodstove.com/2013/11/cordwood-testing-efficiency-over-80.html?m=1
And this EPA article
http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/conference/ei17/session4/houck.pdf

 

Yea
Though I saw similar dirty glass on Machrai's WS PH :
http://www.firewoodhoardersclub.com...rep-for-emptying-ashes.1471/page-2#post-31496

I call it my :HEAT DRAGON" Looking at you:

 

Well the Ideal Steel can become a little opaque during a low burn too, truth be told.

 

My mistake
I thought you were talking about real cord wood (fire wood)
not stove efficiency standards. Some new fire wood BTU standards, like % moisture for BTU/cord standard.

 

Some call it Ugly
All in the Eye (& heat out put) of the beholder .
I call it "mean & a heat dragon" but it sure cranks out the heat.

With the efficiency & long burns I'm getting, I can handle other's calling it an Ugly black box.
duck Butkus was ugly, but was & still is the best

BK, Kings's, are not for the "Dainty occasional wood burner".
(all in fun, not to be taken serious )