What we got here is a dilemma

" It took me a month with a physicist to understand or grasp the same theory about the hot water freezing before the cold water when put in the freezer."
More to the water freezing then meets the eye then just a simple test in the freezer, hot water does not freeze faster in a lot of cases.
A quick search verified that fact.

 

the water thing is completely different than the woodstove thing, you are not making an equal comparison. the potential energy in the wood has to be released by combustion this is not going to happen any faster than the 3 elements of combustion allow it to. in the water situation you refer to , the reason for this is due to the delta t, however you are dissipating energy which is already in the form of thermal energy , in wood which has not been burned its is not comverted from "potential" to energy yet. what happens as the firebox is cooled by the convection of air? the hull will absorb RELEASED energy faster , this however does not increase the speed of the release of energy from the wood as it does not affect the physical act of combustion. were this the case a piece of wood would burn much faster in a cold stove than it does in a hot stove with no input from the blower removing heat factored in at all.
so would you say that a 1 lb block of any species of wood would burn faster in a stove which was at a temperature of 32F than the same block of wood would burn in a stove which was at a temperature of say 200F? answer, no. it would not , actually it would burn faster in the hot stove as the ambient temperature inside the firebox being higher would mean the wood would reach the temperature necessary for combustion faster.

unlike the water thing , which is easy to understand. the water is storing energy which is already present in that form the hotter the water the faster the energy is drawn off the more energized particles by the much less energized particles in the air of the freezer. non charged particles are always "craving" energy, and the greater disparity between posessed energy between the two particles the stronger the "craving' of the lesser energized one. thus heat (energy) rushes to "cold" or lack of energy, as in any physical situation , nature abhors a vacuum. the difference again though, is that the "energy" in the wood" is not yet"energy" it is "potential energy" if it was simply "energy" as the energy in the water was, then the wood would be too hot to touch even before its placed in the stove

 

I'm not the one making bullchit claims.

Which does not change burn times.

List the stoves and explain in actual numbers how your burn times were changed.

 

Browning,
PLEASE do us ALL a giant favor. Go out and buy 3 new stoves, and add an oil burner to your house. I'll even pitch in for it. Reason: Cause right around this time of year, you get VERY argumentative, and grouchy. I know exactly why, cause you are tired of being up all night from carrying wood, and feeding 3 stoves all day and night long. Go buy a stove already!

SAY NO TO BLOWERS. They are loud, annoying, don't work without power, and burn more wood!

 

Yep, big steel cat stoves with blowers so you aren't grouchy in October or January and don't have to load them as often

 

Unfortunately your theory is fundamentally flawed. I deal with heat transfer for a living as that is what makes my companies products work.

Think about it this way:
A 95% efficient gas furnace burns with the same efficiency whether the blower fan is on or off. The only difference is the blower speeds up the heat transfer from the burn tubes to the room air allowing you to pull the heat out of your flue gasses before exhausting them. The furnace does not burn with a different efficiency just because the blower is on. If it did there would be modulating gas valves that varied the gas flow and combustion air depending on the CFM being pushed over your heat exchanger in order to meet EPA efficiency guidelines.

Now back to BBars dilema........ lets find you 3 Blaze King King's and see if that makes you ungrouchy

 

It's different when all the fuel is loaded and available(wood stove), compared to a set amount of fuel being delivered (furnace).

 

nope, there is no difference , in order for you're theory to be correct the gas stove which is supplied would either have to produce less btu's per hour as the convection you rely on in a woodstove would be the same in a gas stove. heat is heat regardless of what is producing it or burn more fuel per hour to equate to the same btu's.

face it dude, your theory is seriously flawed. blowers do not cause woodstoves to burn wood at a faster rate , its simply not factual. trust me , ive spent the last 20 plus years in the field of wood heat sat for hours on end with stoves on the test stand in our lab running units with and without blower in a controlled environment with a mechanically adjusted computer controlled dilution tunnel which allow exact control over the flue velocity, the stoves are sitting on a scale which tells us by weight the rate the fuel is being consumed on a constant basis. there are thermocouples all over the unit which record the skin temp data throughout the span of the fire. I know the gas mix in the flue ,Co levels Co2 levels, the amount of PM in the flue stack temperature and literally everything else which is going on inside of these stoves as they burn as well as the in the flue itself. and I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt BLOWERS DO NOT MAKE STOVES BURN MORE WOOD. its just not true. were it the case I'd have long since seen it.

 

anyone who has loaded a cooler full of beer and ice knows that the beer wont get as cold as quick until the ice starts to melt a bit and water comes in contact with the surface of the somewhat warmer beer cans.
the reason this happens is that the barrier between the warm (energized) molecules in the beer is in contact fully on both sides of the can wall, the colder water which has less energy draws the energy from the warmer surface until the full volume of energy within the cooler is evenly distributed. the reason the water makes it happen faster is that the water being a liquid allows a larger percentage of non energized molecules to come in contact with the barrier surface, when the ice is "dry' there is air there which has less molecules per unit of measure and so does not absorb the energy as quickly.

physic is physics. the way "hot water" can freeze quicker has to do with density as much as anything. take a measured amount by volume of water at say 35 degrees F , now take the same volume of water at say 200 degrees F with both volumes of water occupying the exact same volume , which is heavier? answer, the cold water is as it contains less energy and thus the water molecules will stay closer together, add thermal energy and the molecules become more agitated and spread apart from each other more and more as energy is increased.
now, as water cools, it does so by releasing this thermal energy it possesses into the surrounding medium be it air or water or solid. this however will only occur if the surrounding medium is less energized than the water is. the larger the "delta t" the faster the energy is dissipated out of the water. so water with a lower delta due to already being less energized takes longer on the molecular level to dissipate this energy and the water cools slower as a result

 

Real world facts, cold water pipe in garage used to always freeze before the hot water pipe.

 

its not an "absolute my friend, it depends on several factors water in pipes will freeze faster than a container which holds a larger volume at a different rate with the same temperature. as far as hot water freezing faster im not sold on that in every instance , but with the right conditions it can happen.

 

The fella that is being "VERY argumentative" by posting in multiple threads to avoid stove blowers (while never actually owning a stove with a blower), and being condescending, and arguing with someone that has designed and built stoves (Mike), ain't the guy with three stoves. That would be you.

Maybe you are allergic to soapstone.

SAY NO TO SOAPSTONE.

 

I cut my burn time by many hours if I run the blower on my BK. As the fans transfer heat from the stove the t-stat opens up more to keep the temp up. 24 hours with no blower, same t-stat setting with the blower on low I knock it down to 15 hours give or take a little. I've done this countless times over the 3 seasons running this stove.

My Lopi burned the same with or without the blower.

 

It's only with you, you should realize this since you know it all.

 

in this case (the BK) then there is potential to actually burn more wood, but this is due to the adjustments made by the thermostat of the stove to compensate , not the physical convection of the heated air. were the BK not equipped with a system which adjusts the burn rate mechanically the fire would not change and thus it would behave as this poster's Lopi does.

good point to bring up @rdust i do not know if this is what the other fellow is referring to as i dont know what if any stove he is burning to come to the conclusion he did, but, in this case it somewhat supports the action but it does not support the explanation he was giving.

 

I'm not going by experience, I'm going by what a well known and respected Physicist at the Brookhaven National Laboratory explained to me. Could he be wrong? Sure. But knowing what he does and works on for a living, I VERY highly doubt it. He is splitting atoms and studying their heat transfer.

 

Wait, how is that possible? You are the one with the BK, YOU must know it all, no?

 

Hmmm. I'm pretty sure nuclear physics and burning wood in a box aren't that closely related.

 

did you ask him if blowing air across the reactor increases the rate of fission inside?

im assuming he knows what he is talking about , but i am still wondering where this theory of yours is coming from, its just not correct. maybe you arent understanding him correctly or somthing. FWIW i do not have a PHD in nuclear physics, but i didnt just fall off the turnip truck either. i am well versed on the physical laws of energy trasnsfer and dissipation. especially in the manner these laws affect heat transfer in wood stoves.

 

I don't have a Woodstock, I don't have a BK, so I can't speak to either of them. I have a Lopi Endeavor with a blower, and I don't burn anymore wood with the blower on or off. There is no increase in burn as I extract heat by the blower, as there is no decrease in burn when it is just radiating heat. Why argue such a point? BTUs either go up the flue, or heat the box dependent on what the total BTU rate is for the wood you have, the efficiency of the stove, and/or air setting. The only time I burn more wood is when I have the stove take in more air, and by consequence, more of the heat flies up the flue.

If anyone wants to save money by not having a blower because they think it will save them wood, then by all means don't get a blower! The rest of us will have to remain unenlightened, and continue to distribute even heat around our homes with our blowers.