woodstock soapstone franklin beta stove

i ordered my IS after investigating stoves for a neighbor. couldn't pass up the efficiency. as it happens he's going to wait another year to get a wood stove.
by that time the franklin stove will be available. reports are of low emissions. if the emissions are ultra low, would it follow that the stove would be more efficient and burn even less wood than an IS? i wonder about this and can see the issue both ways. it would be ultimately cool if they could reduce wood consumption even further. the thing is that the IS uses so little wood that there couldn't be any dramatic difference as there is between, for example, my outgoing jotul 500 and the incoming IS.
idle thoughts. the woodstock people have me on the edge of my seat with what they will do next. at the 1 gram per hour emissions of the IS, you wonder what the motivation is to severely cut back on emissions from there. that's a whole ounce of effluent per day. anyhow i told my neighbor to wait until next year to get some definitive reports on the franklin.

 

Dennis, you holding back on us?

Before I finalized my Fireview order, I tried three separate times to extract information from them about the new stove ... couldn't get a thing. At this point, my interest in the new stove is mostly curiosity; can't see swapping out the Fireview for some time. Of course, I do have until end of 2015 to exercise my 6 month return policy ...

 

this is like cars. something like a 2015 ford 150 2wd looks pretty good going on 30 mpg, makes you want to buy it for 5 minutes straight. then you think about it. a pickup is a 15 year property. if these are doing over 25 mpg, by 3 years that will start to look jaded, by 5 years- one third the life of the vehicle- they could be electric and need little to no gas. you don't win. right now you are better keeping clean running vehicles that you already own going for the next five ten years. you aren't going to win with stoves either although thankfully it was a 2k experience to jump into the IS and you could live through that. you still don't win. if they can make progress with the franklin there could be something after that. maybe the IS does it for me long term. maybe it's a 10 year game, give them some time for the dust to settle. they are scary how amped up they are about improving the hardware and they don't get their due for the outstanding work they have already done. WS can be appreciated in an oddball little venue like this forum where they should have wider recognition.
i was investigating stoves for months, pacific energy, lopi, new stuff from jotul, the other more widely read forum, and i was getting nowhere. then one day i came across the most cornball thing, the graph of complaints from the better business bureau on the wood stove companies. finally i could see the issue clearly. woodstock soapstone company, get this, did not have a single complaint all these years. right up at the top with them were blaze king and jotul and one or two more. worth paying money for good performance, woodstock and blaze king. i was immediately attracted to woodstock's direct marketing and their proximity to me. then i found this forum. i had seen stove reviews on the other forum but it took the BBB graph to put things into clear perspective. the same for reading this forum. not mainstream, you have to dig for the info. WS deserves better recognition and in time they will get it. likewise this forum. i was born in NYC but turned out an alternative lifestyle hillbilly. the forum can get by on the few odd types that wander in.

 

Low emissions absolutely do not require high efficiency. It's great when both happen but as a previous owner of a low emissions low efficiency stove I can tell you that you can have one without the other.

 

thanks for the input. right now the efficiency of the franklin is an open question. it's hard to put yourself in the company's shoes, but trying a little bit, they can see a future of tighter restrictions so they are getting way ahead of the curve with emissions. how much they wanted to improve efficiency, how much is possible to improve, that part is interesting. couple things about efficiency. first it's going to be murder to get things much better than they already have it. second they will find a way to do it. it's a question of percent and whether it really adds up to something.

 

Chucker, I did the same thing on research, only bonus was found FHC, while at it​

 

Well, that's your claim, but your posts often give me the sense that you could tell us more, were you at liberty to do so....always tellin' us to 'watch for' something....

 

Don't get too excited. It is using similar technology as the IS with two tertiary air setups. It is still a manually controlled stove like the IS. If you need extra burn times, or are heating a large area, you definitely want to pick the IS over the Franklin.

 

Another thing I have found with these hybrids, is there are so many moving and warpage potential parts that longevity is hard to picture. As long as the base frame stays true (Mine has), then it just might simply mean replacing some parts every few years. This last winter it was incredibly cold so I ran a lot of locust and oak through the stove. The hot locust coals warped the andirons repeatedly and my bypass sled warped. The cat radiator repeatedly glows red, scales metal, and warps. This all might be upgraded for new owners.

I'm just saying that too much design in a high heat application could lead to problems down the road. Keeping it simple and efficient is a good place to be IMO. I appreciate their investment in the future, but from owning an early Ideal Steel, I would rather wait a year or two for them to work the bugs out of this new one.

 

I for one appreciate your honesty and straight forward presentation! I waited and I have heard nothing bad against woodstock.. I got the IS, same proximity and being able to look at it and ask questions helped especially with uncle who has heated with same papa bear for 25 years I know of. he did have to rebuild it 5 years ago for cost of 700..

What is the lifespan of a good woodstove?.. meaning cars with proper maintenance can get 15 years. what's a stove expected lifespan?

 

I agree with Jeff, the Franklin is a smaller version of the IS with some of the same hybrid technology. The firebox size is smaller and the amount of square footage to be heated will be impacted. As previously mentioned, steel stove parts in the IS has already been tested and the results from this nasty winter has been some flaking, warpage and a few cracked soapstone liners. We burned them really hot and hard this winter and if this was any it of a test of a 1st production year run for a stove I think it passed with minor problems.

 

+1 on simple and efficient

I'm not sold on the hybrid designs. I've never quite understood the benefit of adding the secondary burn plumbing to a cat stove. There is no emission gain going from Fireview (1.3 gm/hr) to PH (1.33 gm/hr), while there is a small gain going to IS (1.04 gm/hr). I am really curious to find out how they are going to get less than .5 gm/hr for the new design.

I would like to see them work on an improved Fireview model that addresses improved air supply to the catalyst via some kind of thermostatic control; even my 25 year old Hearthstone used a bimetallic strip to feed air to the catalyst independent of the primary air control; this seems pretty important as both IS and the new stove are doing the same.

 

There is a benefit. The burn cycle is very good for a morning wake up. It pumps a lot of heat into the house. Even my 11 hours away from work was very good. I understand why a cat only stove is great too, I just think during the dead of the winter the hybrid really pulls ahead.

 

well. like a car you can keep a stove an ungodly amount of time with the question 'to what end'.
i will take a guess that a 10 to 15 year period will yield superior hardware. they may not hit the ball out the park with the franklin but they are restless souls and will make progress over time. a 15% or better reduction in wood use will make the IS a bit dated.
neither here nor there but i don't think home heating is going to be an issue in 15 years, or gas for the car, or any of it. there are alternatives and the future is likely to be clean and abundant energy. it won't be enough to make us forsake the benefits and pleasure of radiant wood heat. it will make the activity optional. solar alone has made great strides in the last few years and it isn't remotely the best or most natural energy scheme. how many ways are there to do the same thing, many. let the oil companies have their fun while they still can.

 

I agree with Jeff on a couple of points. Going from a 12-15 hr burn in late fall to an 8 hr burn in the dead of winter has its benefits with the hybrid. The secondary burn plate, when the firebox gets to temp, will eat up a lot of the gases prior to the cat getting them. The IS heats up quick and the cat will engage in less than 15 mins, cruis control after that. The flue temps dip after the cat engages and the stove runs well with minimal attention.

This year alone I used 1/2 cord less than I did with my secondary burn only EPA stove. And considering the winter we just had I think it's great knowing I used less when the other stove may have gone into more wood than normal.

I'm curious how the Franklin beta will perform this year too. The emissions numbers may be incredible, fingers crossed the numbers in the field are what they are getting in the shop.

 

It would appear that you are both saying the real benefit of the hybrid design is pumping out more heat than if just a secondary stove or just a cat stove. Do I understand your point correctly?

Can someone explain how the hybrid design improves emissions and efficiency?

Here are some questions I have, perhaps if you can answer some of them, this may help me understand the benefit of the hybrid design.

1. Are there times in the burn cycle that the cat can't handle burning all the smoke or gas and becomes overwhelmed?
2. Efficiency seems to be more about heat transfer to the appliance instead of letting the heat go up the chimney; why can't this be handled in a cat only design?
3. When burned "low and slow", does the secondary burn plate ever do anything?

I understand how it seems logical that the hybrid design combines two burning technologies to get the "best of both", but I'm failing to understand how this happens.

While I admit to knowing practically nothing about this topic, my thoughts tell me that both improved emissions and efficiency can be achieved with a cat only stove using some kind of improved heat transfer radiator and a modified exhaust path so that there is more time for heat transfer and more complete combustion within the cat (or perhaps multiple cats).

If I am a complete idiot on this topic, please feel free to point it out. I have thick skin and it that is the truth, I can handle it.

Thanks.

 

There are a few IS wood burners on here that could absolutely answer your questions with certainty and detail, I am not one of them that understands the science enough to give you what your asking. I'm sorry. Some of the seasonal regulars have been quiet lately and I'm not sure if they will chime in anytime soon.

I will say a few things about my experience with the IS this past season. Upon a cold startup it is possible to engage the cat within about 15 minutes. Cutting back on the air next will give you the secondaries in about 20-25 minutes after a cold start. The secondaries will give an incredible light/flame show and burn the u burnt firebox gases before they