# Measuring Chimney Draft



## Marshy (Nov 19, 2016)

My Blaze King manual called for 0.05" of water column for draft. Im familiar with using a monometer to measure the draft in HVAC but its generally a lot more than 0.05"! Anyone know the proper tool and way to measure chimney draft?

My new King is a little sluggish and I want to measure it and make sure that is the problem. So far I'm not impressed with the heat output unless I bypass the cat, open the door and get the fire roaring and close the door and engage the cat. It seems to slowly dwindle.


----------



## Del_ (Nov 19, 2016)

Sounds like not seasoned enough fuel.


----------



## stihly dan (Nov 19, 2016)

Same manometer, Its -.05 though. What ever you use to check gas pressure is what you would use to check draft.


----------



## stihly dan (Nov 19, 2016)

Or get one of these for permanent mount. Dwyer Mark II


----------



## MountainHigh (Nov 20, 2016)

Marshy said:


> My new King is a little sluggish and I want to measure it and make sure that is the problem. So far I'm not impressed with the heat output unless I bypass the cat, open the door and get the fire roaring and close the door and engage the cat. It seems to slowly dwindle.



I can't help with measuring the draft but the non scientific basics are:

Chimney is the motor for any stove. To get a good draft, especially in Big Cat stove that unlike conventional stoves, does *not* send up a lot of heat into the chimney but keeps more at the stove, you need the following basics:

~ 8"Flue mandatory for the King - oversize or under size can cause problems
~ Fewer kinks and bends in your chimney the better
~ Chimney (pipe) mounted inside home, rather than on a cold outside wall for best draft
~ Top of chimney ends well above roof peak and the longer the chimney once warmed up and sucking, the more drafting potential
~ dry wood


----------



## Marshy (Nov 20, 2016)

stihly dan said:


> Or get one of these for permanent mount. Dwyer Mark II


Do you have one installed? If so, can you show me more?


----------



## Marshy (Nov 20, 2016)

Wood is 2 years seasoned and the stuff I'm burning was in my basement for the last 9 months. I also have a heat pump hot water heater that keeps it dehumidied.

Draft is the suspect, I'd like to measure it to confirm or deny it's the problem. I'm not going into how my chimney is constructed. I talked with blaze King about it and they said it was the most ideal cinder chimney with clay liner you could get, it's also 8" square.


----------



## Streblerm (Nov 20, 2016)

I have an inexpensive digital unit from eBay. I bought it to set up my furnace ductwork. It seems ok but I don't have anything to compare it to.


----------



## Marshy (Nov 20, 2016)

Streblerm said:


> I have an inexpensive digital unit from eBay. I bought it to set up my furnace ductwork. It seems ok but I don't have anything to compare it to.


Got a make/model? 

It seems the most common manufacture that pops up in my search is Dwyer. I'm looking at a Magnehelic differential gage (0-1"wc) or the Mark II like Dan suggested. The Mark II is cheaper but it's not as accurate. 

I don't really want to drill a hole in this new double wall pipe I just installed. Any suggestions where I should put the tap to measure the draft? I assume it needs to be in a straight section of pipe with not bends 1-2 diameter lengths before of after the point I'm measuring.


----------



## Streblerm (Nov 20, 2016)

http://www.ebay.com/itm/HT-1890-LCD...379697?hash=item43f82b0cb1:g:ws8AAOSwXeJYFE94

This is what I have. The same/similar unit is available under the "Pyle" brand available from lots of sellers in the US at about double the price. I'm not positive, but I don't think it's really critical exactly where in the flue it is located as you are measuring pressure differential between the room and the flue, not air movement. I suppose you could permanently mount a nipple on the back side of the flue pipe and cap it with a silicone cap.


----------



## Marshy (Nov 20, 2016)

Streblerm said:


> http://www.ebay.com/itm/HT-1890-LCD...379697?hash=item43f82b0cb1:g:ws8AAOSwXeJYFE94
> 
> This is what I have. The same/similar unit is available under the "Pyle" brand available from lots of sellers in the US at about double the price. I'm not positive, but I don't think it's really critical exactly where in the flue it is located as you are measuring pressure differential between the room and the flue, not air movement. I suppose you could permanently mount a nipple on the back side of the flue pipe and cap it with a silicone cap.


Does that measure down to 0.00" wc? The link didn't say much for the readability.


----------



## Streblerm (Nov 20, 2016)




----------



## Streblerm (Nov 20, 2016)

Found it. Like I said, I've never checked it against another reliable meter so I can't vouch for the accuracy. It _is_ a 25$ made in China meter but it probably works as well as a 250$ made in China meter.


----------



## NSMaple1 (Nov 20, 2016)

I've got that Dwyer from above. Cheap, simple & accurate. Highly recommended. Mine is mounted full time but I haven't really used it much past the initial checks. (Boiler). Might be able to plug the hole later with a big screw or something? Make sure you get one that reads low enough, seems lots don't. (The Dwyer does).


----------



## Marshy (Nov 20, 2016)

I really like the looks of this Magnehelics 2000 by Dwyer. You can get it in 0-1" wc. It's more expensive than the manometer but it has more resolution also. 
http://www.dwyer-inst.com/Product/Pressure/DifferentialPressure/Gages/Series2000

I double checked my unused thimble that I have capped and it wasn't as air tight as I thought. Once I got that sealed up the stove seems to heat better. I still want to measure the draft though. I also put a fan behind the stove to move some heat off it. I opted not to get the fan kit when I ordered the stove, that might prove to be a poor decision. One thing I noticed is the thermostatic damper seems nearly closed with it on high. It's an assumption becaise I can't see it but I can hear a whistle like the damper is fully closed and it's drawing air through the air bleed holes on the damper (like min flow to keep the fire burning). This stove just doesn't radiate the heat like my old Shanendoah did. It might rely more on moving air through it.


----------



## stihly dan (Nov 20, 2016)

Marshy said:


> Do you have one installed? If so, can you show me more?


Here it is. see @brenndatomu he has some for sale cheap.


----------



## MountainHigh (Nov 21, 2016)

Marshy said:


> Wood is 2 years seasoned and the stuff I'm burning was in my basement for the last 9 months. I also have a heat pump hot water heater that keeps it dehumidied.
> 
> Draft is the suspect, I'd like to measure it to confirm or deny it's the problem. I'm not going into how my chimney is constructed. I talked with blaze King about it and they said it was the most ideal cinder chimney with clay liner you could get, it's also 8" square.



Chimney inside the house or out? 
Yes any leaks anywhere will weaken drafting as well.

I have neighbours with Blaze kings that tell me you can put your hand over an open flue when the cat is engaged and not much heat is coming out the top where it would go up the chimney. Sounds like your king may not be getting those clay tiles warm enough to start and stay sucking hard. Sealed metal pipe straight up and the Kings work great, but clay tile liner on an outside wall on cold nights and it may be staying too cool to keep a strong draft going. As you likely know, a good draft works best when outside ambient temp is colder than a well heated chimney. If chimney stays cold too, then you have stagnant air movement and weak draft.

I have clay tile liners in tall brick chimney in centre of my house and it still takes a good 30++ minutes to warm my chimney up reasonably well., and my non-cat stove running hot puts lots more heat up the chimney than your King will once you engage the cat.

My chimney is the main reason I decided against a Cat stove, cats would not hold my large thermal mass chimney up at necessary good drafting temps, they are just too efficient.


----------



## Marshy (Nov 21, 2016)

The chimney goes from my basement up through the center of my home. It's a ranch house on a full basement with a big attic space (7/12 pitch roof). And has its own chase way, except once it's in the attic it's exposed to the attic air. It's possible it's not maintaining enough thermal buoyancy because the mass of the chimney. That was all discussed with Blaze King before I ordered it. A couple of ideas I had before I bought the stove was to wrap the chimney with unfazed fiberglass to help maintain the heat that goes into it. Being a 8x8 it's too small to install a 8" round liner properly. However, the chimney drafts well so I'm not sure that is the problem until I measure the draft. 

Maybe my expectations for the stove are just too high. my basement is warm, just cannot get it as hot as my old Shenandoah. That thing would make it 85-90* in the basement and could keep the entire main floor above 70*. Yes it burnt a lot of wood but I was expecting the King to be able to match that kind of output.


----------



## ChoppyChoppy (Nov 21, 2016)

My Blaze King could make the house 100* if I wanted to, so I dunno.

The blower kit makes a HUGE difference in my house for just the living room/kitchen being warm or the whole house.


----------



## MountainHigh (Nov 21, 2016)

my chimney cleanout leaked some air and that slowed my non-cat stove down a bit, until I put plumber putty and foil tape around the cleanout perimeter.

Blaze King King is a great stove, but I suspect it's super efficient function just doesn't put enough heat up your chimney to crank and maintain that draft like your old fire breather used to. The fact your cat can't be kept up to temp is telling.

I'll be interested to hear your conclusions after you measure things more.


----------



## MountainHigh (Nov 21, 2016)

A video:
- guy puts hand through the stove pipe to show just how little heat goes up a cat stove's chimney.


----------



## Marshy (Nov 21, 2016)

MountainHigh said:


> my chimney cleanout leaked some air and that slowed my non-cat stove down a bit, until I put plumber putty and foil tape around the cleanout perimeter.
> 
> Blaze King King is a great stove, but I suspect it's super efficient function just doesn't put enough heat up your chimney to crank and maintain that draft like your old fire breather used to. The fact your cat can't be kept up to temp is telling.
> 
> I'll be interested to hear your conclusions after you measure things more.


It stays active until the wood turns to charcoal, just acts like it could use more air. I can leave the bypass open and the door cracked and the thing gets piping hot (where I think it should be on high) but if it get too hot the thermostatic air damper goes closed so when I shut the door it slows back down. I'm use to the old stove where you can feel you face burn from 5 feet away and your eyeballs shrivel up into raisins if you stair at it. 

I'm going to add some plumber putty to the cleanout door like suggested to try and tighten up the chimney a little more.

Here is the troubleshoot guide in the manual. I can rule out everything except poor draft and thermostat not operating properly.



If the draft checks out to be fine then I wouldn't rule out the damper being improperly set. I can hear a whistle at times like the damper is nearly closed and sucking air through the min flow air holes in the damper door. I'd hate to void the warranty but it might need calibrating.


----------



## MountainHigh (Nov 21, 2016)

Marshy said:


> It stays active until the wood turns to charcoal, just acts like it could use more air. I can leave the bypass open and the door cracked and the thing gets piping hot (where I think it should be on high) but if it get too hot the thermostatic air damper goes closed so when I shut the door it slows back down. *I'm use to the old stove where you can feel you face burn from 5 feet away and your eyeballs shrivel up into raisins if you stair at it. *
> 
> I'm going to add some plumber putty to the clean out door like suggested to try and tighten up the chimney a little more.
> 
> If the draft checks out to be fine then I wouldn't rule out the* damper being improperly set*. I can hear a whistle at times like the damper is nearly closed and sucking air through the min flow air holes in the damper door. I'd hate to void the warranty but it might need calibrating.



>>> You might be onto something if the damper is not set right.

Looking at the King's specs, it says "51,582 BTU's/h constant output for 12 hours"
So *IF* that is considered running it near max thermostat temp, 51 thou BTU's/h sure won't will feel like your previous stove's power at all (no raisin eyes - lol). It's more about longer steadier burns on the King.


----------



## Marshy (Nov 22, 2016)

MountainHigh said:


> >>> You might be onto something if the damper is not set right.
> 
> Looking at the King's specs, it says "51,582 BTU's/h constant output for 12 hours"
> So *IF* that is considered running it near max thermostat temp, 51 thou BTU's/h sure won't will feel like your previous stove's power at all (no raisin eyes - lol). It's more about longer steadier burns on the King.


That is the max output but that's the LHV rating. The HHV rating is closer to real world performance and is actually 48 KBtu/hr on high (averaged over 12 hours). I can tell you after 7 hrs on high its not enough heat to maintain the house temp. It will have a very healthy bead of coals but IDK what it would be like if I waited a full 12 hrs...

I called Blaze King yesterday and had a lengthy talk about the stove, my chimney setup, wood moisture and troubleshooting. I'm starting to think I might expect too much from this stove but I have to wait to confirm draft before I make that conclusion.

Wood moisture; BK rep said a new study performed suggests hard woods don't reach <20% moisture for 3 years and that 2 years is typically not enough time even if its stored under a roof. IDK all the details of the study but I think size of the split wood might have a lot to do with how fast the wood will season. He suggested I stoke the stove full of 2x4 scraps to see how it performs. If there is a significant improvement then the moisture in the my wood is too high and is causing the performance issue.

Thermostatic Draft Control; BK rep said they are set by the factory to protect the stove and more specifically the cat from being over fired. If the cat gets too hot then the material on the cat will melt and fuse into a smooth layer visible under an electron microscope. He said they have only ever had to replace a hand full in many years (doesn't mean it could be mis-calibrated from the factor IMO). He thought that was least likely the cause of poor performance.

Chimney Draft; After discussing my chimney configuration he felt the chimney was insufficient. Being a masonry chimney approx 25 foot tall with no insulated liner was a large concern to him. He said it didn't matter if it was on an exterior wall or through the center of the house in a chase way (like mine) or not, it's just too much thermal mass for the low flue temperature of the stove (approx. 350F). He said "we have never had a customer with a king model, hooked to an uninsulated/unlined masonry chimney that has been satisfied with the performance". He said even if it drafts properly he believes I will have a significant creosote issue in the top 3' of the chimney because the flue gas will get too cold and condense.

I wish the BK rep I spoke with before I purchased this stove shared the same level of concern. I discussed the chimney dimensions with the BK rep before purchase and he did not seem the least bit concerned. In fact, at the time he said I "have the best configuration one could ask for given a masonry chimney hookup". Disappointed does not describe how I felt after hearing this...

Regardless, I have to press on and figure out a solution. I have access to a FLIR camera (infrared imaging) that I can take pictures of the stove with. My plan is to install the DP gauge and measure the draft while I let the stove burn on high with my "seasoned" wood, take IR images and share them with BK. Then I will load it up with 2x4 scraps and take images with the IR camera and measure draft for comparison. If the draft is at the required 0.05"wc and the IR images of the 2x4 scraps closely match my seasoned wood then my conclusion is this stove does not meet my level of expectation for performance. If all of that checks out ok I sill might have a creosote issue to deal with but time will tell.

I also spoke with a few local chimney sweeps and no one had the tools to measure draft surprisingly. One guy said he's never had a customer that has been happy with the output of the new EPA stoves. He did say the stove fans are necessary through (I mentioned to him that I don't have them). He said they don't radiate the heat like the old stoves and that you really need to move the are a great deal to get the heating out of them.


----------



## MountainHigh (Nov 22, 2016)

My 2 year seasoned maple comes in around 12% to 16%+/- moisture which works great for my 3 cu.ft non-cat stove. I heard cats want really dry wood but anything lower than 12% and you're talking kiln dried mill ends in my neck of the wet woods.

I doubt you'll have much trouble selling the stove if it comes to that. BKing should take the stove back if the original sales guy misled you .

FWIW, if you conclude like I did that cat stoves are not a good fit for your chimney, my Pacific Energy is a very forgiving EPA stove on my oversize chimney (28' tall - oversize 6"x10" clay flue liner inside 5' wide brick). I tried a couple of other stoves prior to settling on the PE. For a reasonably efficient 3 cu ft EPA stove it heats like a *BEAST*. I get about a gallon of creosote per year after thoroughly scrubbing my chimney - similar to your chimney, most of the creosote settles on the uppermost cool area where the chimney goes into the attic and out the roof. One year I burned a dump truck full of mill ends and had zero creosote in the chimney.

Downside is I only get about to 8 to 10 hours max on a dampered down load (maybe 12hrs if I had oak or other real hardwood). But, with this large thermal mass chimney I'm happy it puts ample heat up as the chimney then acts as a heat sink that radiates warmth for several hours after the stove dies down. It's how they build their homes in the northern Scandinavia - large thermal mass chimney in centre of home. 

Best of luck with your dilemma ...


----------



## olyman (Nov 22, 2016)

stihly dan said:


> Or get one of these for permanent mount. Dwyer Mark II


had me one of those long ago. first windy day, sucked the water right out of the tube!!!! chimney in center of house,,38 feet tall!! whitespidey has hell draft like I do,, and def need a dampener!!!


----------



## olyman (Nov 22, 2016)

Marshy said:


> Wood is 2 years seasoned and the stuff I'm burning was in my basement for the last 9 months. I also have a heat pump hot water heater that keeps it dehumidied.
> 
> Draft is the suspect, I'd like to measure it to confirm or deny it's the problem. I'm not going into how my chimney is constructed. I talked with blaze King about it and they said it was the most ideal cinder chimney with clay liner you could get, it's also 8" square.


EXCEPT!!! square chimney does not like to flow..seriously...


----------



## Marshy (Nov 22, 2016)

Unfortunately the thermal mass of my chimney doesn't provide my living space with any usable heat because its in its own chase way through the main floor and just opens into the attic. The attic get all the heat from the chimney. I could see if I can wrap the chimney in some sort of fire blanket insulation but I'm not sure that will help.

When I say maybe I expect too much from this stove, Im comparing it to the old one which could easily have 600-700F surface temps. I will take the FLIR home and see what this stove is generating. The BK rep said the new stove surfaces do not get that hot, none of them will. IDK how many BTU's/hr that stove put out but I'd bet its double the maximum capacity of the King. Learning curves always suck when its your money involved.

Because I got the bum info originally from the manufacture theres not much they can do to help me. He told me to talk with my dealer that I bought it from, maybe they can offer some suggestions. IDK how they could help me out, unless they have a stove that can produce 60-70Kbtu/hr it might not be enough heat. I'm trying the cheapest options first.


----------



## MountainHigh (Nov 22, 2016)

Marshy ... IF it turns out the stove is not right for you, the advise you got from BK means they should speak with your dealer to make this right for you.

When I bitched to my dealer about poor performance on one stove I tried, he let me choose another at wholesale and I came out roses after selling my original - squeeky wheel gets the grease!
You may have some heavy lifting coming up swapping out stoves, but be willing to raise a little hell if they don't step up for you.

Sounds like you want a stove that can crank near 100,000 BTU.

Good luck!


----------



## Streblerm (Nov 22, 2016)

Makes me glad I have a low tech EPA stove. My stove pipe is loose but drafts fine. Sorry about your troubles. I knew those BKs couldn't all be magical


----------



## Marshy (Nov 22, 2016)

Poor draft has little to do with the stove and everything to do with my chimney. I wouldn't be too quick to condem the stove. It's possible for an idiot with a Lamborghini to lose a drag race to a Volkswagen.

I have a DP gauge on its way. Once I get it hooked up I will take IR images of the stove burning kiln dried 2x4's vs my seasoned wood and we'll compare the stove temps. If they are nearly the same and the draft is good then the next step is to buy the fan kit. I was told these stoves rely more on convection (air movement) vs purely radiant heat. According to some people the fans should be mandatory not optional. Where my old stove had a 6-700F surface temp this stove likely won't be above 400F. I'll share the images when I get there. Until then it's wait and see. I will say, it seems to be sippin the fuel for the amount of heat I am getting out of it. It might be too early to say but at this rate it will be easy to get 3 years ahead on the wood stash. More to follow.


----------



## Streblerm (Nov 23, 2016)

Considering how the BK works and if moisture content is a problem then don't discount some of the lesser woods. A agree that the BK rep's assessment that oak can take 3 yrs to fully dry. Maple and others (especially soft maple) dries much faster.

I can tell the difference in my stove between sort of seasoned and truly seasoned. I can chock the thing full of 25%+ wood and it lights and burns just fine but I struggle to keep the secondaries lit. I can throw two little pieces of really dry soft maple in all by themselves and the secondaries light off almost immediately. They stay lit with less primary draft and the stove burns much hotter. Right now I'm burning mostly pine.

It's funny. When a species like oak is really, really dry the weight difference between it and other wood isn't nearly as significant. It's taken me quite a few years to figure that out (and get 3+ years ahead on firewood)


----------



## Marshy (Nov 23, 2016)

At this point I'm convinced its a matter of getting the heat out of the stove. Moving enough air over the stove to get the necessary heating might be the key, it's not something I'm use to doing with the old stove because of the hotter stove temp and higher output. I'd be really interested in figuring out what the true output of my older stove was. I figure I could put twice the wood in the older one and it got twice as hot. Moot point I suppose. I'll let ya know what happens with the draft measurement and the IR gun and fuel test.

I talked with another chimney sweep and he said he believes my chimney is drafting just fine and everyone he's talked to that went from the old stoves to the new ones were disappointed with the heat output compared to the old stoves. Better efficiency and required less fuel but didn't radiate the same amount of heat.

I'll be going g up on the chimney to see if there is any creosote forming.


----------



## Henry Fuller (Nov 23, 2016)

Marshy said:


> At this point I'm convinced its a matter of getting the heat out of the stove. Moving enough air over the stove to get the necessary heating might be the key, it's not something I'm use to doing with the old stove because of the hotter stove temp and higher output. I'd be really interested in figuring out what the true output of my older stove was. I figure I could put twice the wood in the older one and it got twice as hot. Moot point I suppose. I'll let ya know what happens with the draft measurement and the IR gun and fuel test.
> 
> I talked with another chimney sweep and he said he believes my chimney is drafting just fine and everyone he's talked to that went from the old stoves to the new ones were disappointed with the heat output compared to the old stoves. Better efficiency and required less fuel but didn't radiate the same amount of heat.
> 
> I'll be going g up on the chimney to see if there is any creosote forming.




Marshy, Did you do any home improvement while installing your BK stove (windows or doors possible making your house too air tight)? Did you add a chimney cap also? Sorry I didn't read all of your post if you already rule this out in the mean time. Some time after thanksgiving day I had to work nearby your area (a customer live on Route 64). If you want to use my draft gauge and take temp. reading with IR gun to see what it reading. I could swing by your place if this BK stove hasn't been solve in the mean time. Henry


----------



## Marshy (Nov 23, 2016)

Henry Fuller said:


> Marshy, Did you do any home improvement while installing your BK stove (windows or doors possible making your house too air tight)? Did you add a chimney cap also? Sorry I didn't read all of your post if you already rule this out in the mean time. Some time after thanksgiving day I had to work nearby your area (a customer live on Route 64). If you want to use my draft gauge and take temp. reading with IR gun to see what it reading. I could swing by your place if this BK stove hasn't been solve in the mean time. Henry



I live on rt64!

The stove is new to me, only been burning it since last weekend. 

No changes to the house and the basement has a walkout basement with a drafty garage door. Chimney has a cap. One suggestion I got was to take it off and see if that helps. It would be nice to check my manometer I bought against another gauge though. I'll PM you Henry.


----------



## Motorsen (Nov 23, 2016)

Why don't you wrap the chimney in the attic with rockwool or glasswool for insulation. That might prove to be an easy and cheap fix. Another not so easy fix would be a draft vent mounted on top of the chimney. Expensive and looks crappy.

Motorsen


----------



## Marshy (Nov 23, 2016)

Motorsen said:


> Why don't you wrap the chimney in the attic with rockwool or glasswool for insulation. That might prove to be an easy and cheap fix. Another not so easy fix would be a draft vent mounted on top of the chimney. Expensive and looks crappy.
> 
> Motorsen


I have thought about insulating the block chimney on the outside, just want to make sure it's a draft related issue before I spend money on something like that. I am unfamiliar with the available products to do that also. Havent don't any research yet but will be sure to look into those materials you mentioned. I was thinking unfaced glass insulation would be the easiest thing to do. Thanks.


----------



## Hebner (Nov 23, 2016)

stihly dan said:


> Or get one of these for permanent mount. Dwyer Mark II


Is the reading in your picture -0.5 or +0.05? Do you read the end of the red mark on the right side?


----------



## Marshy (Nov 23, 2016)

Hebner said:


> Is the reading in your picture -0.5 or +0.05? Do you read the end of the red mark on the right side?


It's displaying +0.05" wc but I believe he has it hooked up to measure chimney draft or vacuum. Read it like a thermometer, where the red fluid ends.


----------



## MountainHigh (Nov 23, 2016)

Marshy said:


> I have thought about insulating the block chimney on the outside, just want to make sure it's a draft related issue before I spend money on something like that. I am unfamiliar with the available products to do that also. Havent don't any research yet but will be sure to look into those materials you mentioned. I was thinking unfaced glass insulation would be the easiest thing to do. Thanks.



Hope I'm not sounding like a broken record, but to clarify for others, the BKing *is* a great stove, *if* it is on the right chimney and not tucked away in a basement!
The King throws so little heat up the chimney that large brick/clay flue chimneys are not a good fit for the BK.
I doubt if you wrap the chimney up from top to bottom it would make much difference.

After some experimentation on my 28`brick-clay liner oversize chimney, I settled on the hottest burning EPA non-cat stove I could find and it can keep my 2 story 2500 sq ft home toasty warm with just wood heat. No way i could do that with a Blaze king on my chimney, even using stove fans and chimney wraps.

My bet is on your chimney having a decent draft already, but the King's even temperament is not forceful enough to crank the BTU's you need and want.

Bring on the Draft test


----------



## Marshy (Nov 23, 2016)

MountainHigh said:


> Hope I'm not sounding like a broken record, but to clarify for others, the BKing *is* a great stove, *if* it is on the right chimney and not tucked away in a basement!
> The King throws so little heat up the chimney that large brick/clay flue chimneys are not a good fit for the BK.
> I doubt if you wrap the chimney up from top to bottom it would make much difference.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the reply, it's nearly word for word what the BK rep told me last weekend about the stoves flue temp, thermal mass of the chimney and how wrapping it with insulation wouldn't make much difference. 

It sounds like you might of lived this headache before. I'm going to PM you, I want to know more about your stove without detailing this thread. Thanks.


----------



## stihly dan (Nov 27, 2016)

Hebner said:


> Is the reading in your picture -0.5 or +0.05? Do you read the end of the red mark on the right side?



The reading is saying +.05 but that really means -.05 because I have the lead swaped. As you can see the gage can only show down to -.05, so if you swap the lead it will read in the opposite direction giving a much wider scale.


----------



## stihly dan (Nov 27, 2016)

olyman said:


> had me one of those long ago. first windy day, sucked the water right out of the tube!!!! chimney in center of house,,38 feet tall!! whitespidey has hell draft like I do,, and def need a dampener!!!



Thats why a baro is good. Although for a stove a dampener is fine.


----------



## mijdirtyjeep (Nov 28, 2016)

Marshy said:


> I live on rt64! Chimney has a cap. One suggestion I got was to take it off and see if that helps..



This made a big difference in how my stove works. From the top of my liner to the bottom of the cap was less than 4". 

I have 4 notches on the rod for air control on my insert. With the cap on I could never push the arm in past the second notch or my stove would die right out. Once the cap was removed I can now close it all the way down and she will hum right along all night long without chocking out.

My insert has secondaries tubes and no cat, so maybe different results for yours.


----------



## Highbeam (Nov 29, 2016)

The BK only produces such low flue temps (250-350) on the very minimum output. If you crank it up to the highest setting then the flue temps will easily bump past 800. These are internal flue temps, not surface temps.

The surface temps of the BK king can easily be 800 as well just like modern non-cats. An 800 degree stove is an 800 degree stove whether it is modern EPA or old smoke dragon.

I think your draft will be fine on high burn and you might just want to run this BK on high all the time which is not a bad thing. The BKs really are magical on lower settings but they can also do hot better than most.

So get your driest wood. Get a bed of coals established. Fill the stove to the top with firewood, engage cat when it's ready, and leave the thermostat all the way on high for the entire burn.


----------



## Marshy (Nov 29, 2016)

Highbeam said:


> The BK only produces such low flue temps (250-350) on the very minimum output. If you crank it up to the highest setting then the flue temps will easily bump past 800. These are internal flue temps, not surface temps.
> 
> The surface temps of the BK king can easily be 800 as well just like modern non-cats. An 800 degree stove is an 800 degree stove whether it is modern EPA or old smoke dragon.
> 
> ...


I agree with all of this. In fact, that's exactly how I've been running the stove, on high all the time. The wood is plenty dry. I haven't checked it with moisture meter or done the 2x4 scrap test but the wood burns really well and is heating my house. It maintains a burn until it's reduced to coals, it doesn't smother out. 

I checked the draft with it on high and with a med/small size bed of coals, the stove havent been loaded in about 6 hours and it was drafting 0.02" wc. 
I put some wood in it and left the bypass open and on high for 15mins or so and measures the draft at 0.045"wc. The draft didn't change from the 0.045"wc with the bypass open or closed. The conclusion is the draft is fine. 

I was pulled into supporting an emergent issues at work and have been on a 12 hr night shift since Wednesday last week (sucks!). I haven't had a chance to use the IR gun to check stove temps yet but I will. The BK rep told me it will not have 700*F surface temps like my old stove. He said 350-400*F surface temps are common. The stove doesn't radiate heat like my old stove and that I need to more the air around the stove to get the heat out. When I get the IR gun I'll post pics. I have some pics of my old stove with the IR gun to compare.


----------



## Whitespider (Nov 29, 2016)

Streblerm said:


> *Makes me glad I have a low tech EPA stove. My stove pipe is loose but drafts fine. Sorry about your troubles. I knew those BKs couldn't all be magical*


There ain't no magic... never has been.
I hate to sound like a broken record... but... you flat cannot burn less fuel, over a longer time period, and get the same per-hour rate of heat generated... it ain't possible.
Marshy, I'm seriously sorry you're having troubles, but you're attempting to use what amounts to a space (room) heater to heat more space than it can... the more space you heat, the higher per-hour rate of heat output needed, something that cannot be accomplished in an appliance designed to both burn less fuel, and burn it over a longer time period.
Been there... tried that... failed.
*


----------



## Marine5068 (Dec 4, 2016)

Marshy said:


> That is the max output but that's the LHV rating. The HHV rating is closer to real world performance and is actually 48 KBtu/hr on high (averaged over 12 hours). I can tell you after 7 hrs on high its not enough heat to maintain the house temp. It will have a very healthy bead of coals but IDK what it would be like if I waited a full 12 hrs...
> 
> I called Blaze King yesterday and had a lengthy talk about the stove, my chimney setup, wood moisture and troubleshooting. I'm starting to think I might expect too much from this stove but I have to wait to confirm draft before I make that conclusion.
> 
> ...


Sounds like you may need a new insulated Superflu style chimney. Or sell the King and buy and new stove. Sorry for your troubles.


----------



## olyman (Dec 4, 2016)

Whitespider said:


> There ain't no magic... never has been.
> I hate to sound like a broken record... but... you flat cannot burn less fuel, over a longer time period, and get the same per-hour rate of heat generated... it ain't possible.
> Marshy, I'm seriously sorry you're having troubles, but you're attempting to use what amounts to a space (room) heater to heat more space than it can... the more space you heat, the higher per-hour rate of heat output needed, something that cannot be accomplished in an appliance designed to both burn less fuel, and burn it over a longer time period.
> Been there... tried that... failed.
> *


even with a few mods!!!!!


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 5, 2016)

olyman said:


> *even with a few mods!!!!!*


 More than a few.
*


----------



## Marshy (Dec 26, 2016)

Results are in. I climbed my chimney and had a look. Been practically burning it non stop on High the whole time. Here is what I saw.














As you can see, no creosote untill the top 12" of the pipe. Thats likely from the mixing of cooler outside air. Nothing but a light layer of ash throughout. I brushed the top 16" with hand and brush and called it good. The cap on the other hand was starting to clog up some. Nothing too bad but from now on I'm going to use that as an indicator that I need to go up and clean. 

As far as the stove goes, I haven't bought the fans yet. Been making g due with a small 12" high velocity fan over the top. It still doesn't keep the house as warm as the old stove but it's doing the job. The lack of creosote in the chimney is reassuring to me. That was definetly going to be the deal breaker if it was making a lot. I'll update more in the future.


----------



## olyman (Dec 26, 2016)

Marshy said:


> Results are in. I climbed my chimney and had a look. Been practically burning it non stop on High the whole time. Here is what I saw.
> 
> View attachment 546101
> 
> ...


suggestion looking down the chimbley.......looks like some hack layed in the tile liner.. why??? because there is grout sticking out as far down as your pics show......if you could, take a piece of 1/4 metal,, that would fit down the chimney,, the same shape,, and gently knock that excess loose.. just a wonderful place for creosote to attach to........they should have smoothed it all off......


----------



## GASPUMPCITY (Dec 26, 2016)

If you talked to bkvp then why are you not going with an 8inch Stainless steel liner? Same thing I did was told i have a slammer install


----------



## Marshy (Dec 26, 2016)

GASPUMPCITY said:


> If you talked to bkvp then why are you not going with an 8inch Stainless steel liner? Same thing I did was told i have a slammer install


The answer to your question is somewhere within the first two or three pages of the thread.


----------



## laynes69 (Dec 26, 2016)

GASPUMPCITY said:


> If you talked to bkvp then why are you not going with an 8inch Stainless steel liner? Same thing I did was told i have a slammer install


If the stove is attached to a thimble on the chimney, it's not a slammer installation. The chimney has a liner. Placing a short section of pipe up a large flue of a fireplace would be a slammer.


----------



## Marshy (Dec 26, 2016)

I've never heard of a slammer, maybe slang for something besides jail?
Anyways, you can't fit a 8" insulated pipe down a 7x7 hole. And yes, I have the stove hooked to the chimney through a thimble.


----------



## Del_ (Dec 26, 2016)

Marshy said:


> Results are in. I climbed my chimney and had a look. Been practically burning it non stop on High the whole time. Here is what I saw.



Looks really good!

Chimney caps do cut back on draft quite a bit. In my opinion mostly what a cap needs to do is to keep rain water out. The screening on the sides is mostly just causing draft reduction.


----------



## Marshy (Dec 26, 2016)

Del_ said:


> Looks really good!
> 
> Chimney caps do cut back on draft quite a bit. In my opinion mostly what a cap needs to do is to keep rain water out. The screening on the sides is mostly just causing draft reduction.


It's a lot better than I expected. It might be largely due to well seasoned wood. Either way, I'm happy as a pig in chit. I was fearing a lot of creosote. We've had a few cold snaps but still fairly a mild winter so far. 

I was considering leaving the cap off for the rest of the winter. Taking the wire off it might be something I try first. I had a chimney fire from a bird's nest one so come summer I could put something around it to prevent birds from getting in.


----------



## GASPUMPCITY (Dec 26, 2016)

You are saying you have a clay liner from the thimble to the roof? Most masonry from the smoke chamber open up then go to clay liner yours?


----------



## Del_ (Dec 26, 2016)

I run mine without a cap. My chimney is 125+ years old and made of stones. I installed six inch inside diameter Selkirk Metalbestos chimney inside with a tee about six feet off of the floor of the fireplace and came out through the stone wall of the chimney. Has worked great for the past 16 years. I packed old fiberglass insulation in around the Metalbestos to fill the gag and cut air loss. I am sure you'd be fine with no cap during the heating season and you'll be surprised how much cleaner your chimney and roof area becomes. A cap is a huge collection point.


----------



## olyman (Dec 26, 2016)

sorry for the brain deads responding to your thread, Marshy,,they abound


----------



## Marshy (Dec 26, 2016)

GASPUMPCITY said:


> You are saying you have a clay liner from the thimble to the roof? Most masonry from the smoke chamber open up then go to clay liner yours?


Yes however, there are two other lower thimbles not in use that go into the chimney below the beginning of the clay liner. Those two other thimbles are at chest and chin height and 90 degrees apart. The center of the thimble the stove uses is at about 6'4".


----------



## sirbuildalot (Dec 26, 2016)

If the cat stoves throw very little heat up the flue how does creosote not build up quickly? Is it because the secondaries burn the ash so fine?


----------



## Del_ (Dec 26, 2016)

sirbuildalot said:


> If the cat stoves throw very little heat up the flue how does creosote not build up quickly? Is it because the secondaries burn the ash so fine?



It's because the products that condense and form creosote are burnt in the stove and provide heat. There is little or nothing left to form creosote.


----------



## Marshy (Dec 26, 2016)

The moisture in the wood does not get consumed. It will always find its way up the chimney and will condense and form creosote if the flue gas gets cold enough. Moisture from the air takes the same ride and will add to the moisture in the flue. 

Keep in mind that the stove manufacture considers 20% moisture the maximum amount. Burning wood that dry and dryer helps to limit the creosote buildup. The fact that my chimney doesn't have any until the upper 1' section tells me I have enough thermal insulation to keep it from condensing lower in the chimney. Or rather, enough heat is going up the chimney to keep it from condensing. 

The cat and flame arrestor keeps ash and particulate from going up the chimney. My old stove drafted so hard it could probably suck up a golf ball. It didn't have a baffel in the firebox and sent a lot of heat up the chimney. I also had a lot more ash in the chimney when I cleaned it.


----------



## GASPUMPCITY (Dec 26, 2016)

There are two other lower thimbles not in use that go into the chimney below the beginning of the clay liner. Those two other thimbles are at chest and chin height and 90 degrees apart. The center of the thimble the stove uses is at about 6'4". The two lower thimbles not in use? are they capped off? So there is OPEN SPACE gets wider from the thimble to the clay liner. I see four metal screws at he top of chimney where the cap went on! Is there a cap full of cero? I had the same problem from my dealer (lack of knowledge) till I got educated 
(firewood forum) and straighten out. Highbeam has been a good help knows his stuff Chris at BK give him a call!


----------



## GASPUMPCITY (Dec 26, 2016)

***Blaze King recommends the use of a Stainless steel liner, preferably insulated, inside a masonry chimney. is to maintain proper dra and overall better operation of the unit. 
This is in the manual from BK


----------



## Marshy (Dec 26, 2016)

GASPUMPCITY said:


> There are two other lower thimbles not in use that go into the chimney below the beginning of the clay liner. Those two other thimbles are at chest and chin height and 90 degrees apart. The center of the thimble the stove uses is at about 6'4". The two lower thimbles not in use? are they capped off? So there is OPEN SPACE gets wider from the thimble to the clay liner. I see four metal screws at he top of chimney where the cap went on! Is there a cap full of cero? I had the same problem from my dealer (lack of knowledge) till I got educated
> (firewood forum) and straighten out. Highbeam has been a good help knows his stuff Chris at BK give him a call!


I spoke with Chris. He had concerns about creosote buildup. Please go back a page, or to the beginning and read about the specific issue I ran into. I don't want to rewrite everything. The cap did have some creosote but it wasn't bad. I will live with some on the cap and upper foot of chimney.


----------



## Marshy (Dec 26, 2016)

GASPUMPCITY said:


> ***Blaze King recommends the use of a Stainless steel liner, preferably insulated, inside a masonry chimney. is to maintain proper dra and overall better operation of the unit.
> This is in the manual from BK


It will all become clear to you why I dont have one if you would go read from the beginning. Either you haven't done that or your comprehension is poor. I don't mean to be insulting but you are not telling me anything I don't already know.


----------



## GASPUMPCITY (Dec 26, 2016)

Did the installer know that BK requires SS liner? This could be a deal breaker for you saying your were not informed and this is what I do not like about dealers selling stoves with no expertise on EPA stoves. Sorry I will go back and read ALL your posts


----------



## olyman (Dec 27, 2016)

GASPUMPCITY said:


> Did the installer know that BK requires SS liner? This could be a deal breaker for you saying your were not informed and this is what I do not like about dealers selling stoves with no expertise on EPA stoves. Sorry I will go back and read ALL your posts


are you del in disguise??


----------



## GASPUMPCITY (Dec 27, 2016)

I read all of your posts and looked at pictures of the chimney with the cap off shows what looks like two chimneys higher than center one.A backup picture showing more of the chimneys would help! If so not up to code but if you go to the big box store purchase a 3ft extension and slam a pipe into the center chimney see if this helps. Did you get IR readings? Del who Del taco? https://www.firesidechimneysupply.com/rectangle-to-round-adapter.html


----------



## olyman (Dec 27, 2016)

GASPUMPCITY said:


> I read all of your posts and looked at pictures of the chimney with the cap off shows what looks like two chimneys higher than center one.A backup picture showing more of the chimneys would help! If so not up to code but if you go to the big box store purchase a 3ft extension and slam a pipe into the center chimney see if this helps. Did you get IR readings? Del who Del taco? https://www.firesidechimneysupply.com/rectangle-to-round-adapter.html


read post 69.......


----------



## Marshy (Dec 27, 2016)

GASPUMPCITY said:


> I read all of your posts and looked at pictures of the chimney with the cap off shows what looks like two chimneys higher than center one.A backup picture showing more of the chimneys would help! If so not up to code but if you go to the big box store purchase a 3ft extension and slam a pipe into the center chimney see if this helps. Did you get IR readings? Del who Del taco? https://www.firesidechimneysupply.com/rectangle-to-round-adapter.html


I cant follow what you are saying. My chimney is up to code. It's a masonry block chimney with a 8x8 clay liner. At the roof where is exits there is a vent for a propane insert (on right in pic). Those two are completely separate. They both are about 3 ft higher than my highest peak of my roof.
I didn't get a chance to do the IR images. 
I don't understand your suggesting for adding a pipe. The clay lined chimney is dedicated to the woodstove...


----------



## quotedraven (Dec 27, 2016)

Whitespider said:


> There ain't no magic... never has been.
> I hate to sound like a broken record... but... you flat cannot burn less fuel, over a longer time period, and get the same per-hour rate of heat generated... it ain't possible.
> Marshy, I'm seriously sorry you're having troubles, but you're attempting to use what amounts to a space (room) heater to heat more space than it can... the more space you heat, the higher per-hour rate of heat output needed, something that cannot be accomplished in an appliance designed to both burn less fuel, and burn it over a longer time period.
> Been there... tried that... failed.
> *


Efficiency efficiency efficiency


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 28, 2016)

quotedraven said:


> *Efficiency efficiency efficiency*


A Ford Fiesta is fuel efficient... but you ain't gonna hook your loaded 16 ft trailer to it.
Efficiency is worthless if it cannot provide the power required to do the job.

You flat cannot burn less fuel, over a longer time period, and get the same per-hour rate of heat generated... it ain't possible.
There ain't no magic... never has been.
*


----------



## CaseyForrest (Dec 28, 2016)

Whitespider said:


> You flat cannot burn less fuel, over a longer time period, and get the same per-hour rate of heat generated... it ain't possible.
> There ain't no magic... never has been.
> *



Lord knows I could be wrong...

I believe the shtick with catalytic stoves isn't that they are burning less fuel, its that they are burning _all_ (or most of) the fuel.

You can see it even with a non catalytic stove that has secondaries over one that doesn't, or compared to an open fireplace. Less smoke out of the end of the chimney equals more fuel being burnt in the firebox.


----------



## Marshy (Dec 28, 2016)

I agree with Casey. Getting more heat out of the fuel that is being burnt meant more heat into the house per volume of wood consumed. The end result is you burn less fuel to heat the same space. The BK King has one of the largest fireboxes on the market for free standing stoves. Implying it is meant to burn less wood for loger periods of time I feel is inaccurate. It's meant to hold a lot of damn wood and provide a long burn time. It achieves that through a more even heat output because the thermostatic air damper and burns more of the available fuel because of the cat.

You could take two stoves, one is BK King and the other has the same size firebox a similar thermostatic air damper but has no baffel no secondary burn or cat, load it to the same amount as the BK King and get more heat into the living space and a loger burn from the BK stove. That is a fact.
If you looked at the heat transfer rates of each of the stoves I have no doubt the older stove will throw more BTU/hr into the living space in the first two or three hours. However, if you look at what happens after hour 3 in the burn cycle the BK will still be chugging along where the older stove is coasting.

I know this because where I would have to load my old stove with half a dozen or more large 6" wide splits ever 4 hours I can load only four medium 4" wide splits and get nearly the same heat.


----------



## Marshy (Dec 28, 2016)

Some or images.


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 28, 2016)

CaseyForrest said:


> *Lord knows I could be wrong...
> I believe the shtick with catalytic stoves isn't that they are burning less fuel, its that they are burning all (or most of) the fuel.*


Let's take the Blaze King in question... with a efficiency rating of 88% LHV/82% HHV. Now let's say under real world conditions/operation the operator actually gets 85% (I believe I'm being generous). We load the stove with 50 pounds of wood and use the value of 7000 BTU's per pound (just picking numbers for comparison... it doesn't change the result).
7000 x 50 x .85 = 297,500 BTUs.
Blaze King says the stove will run for 12 hours on the _high_ _setting_. (Are you gonna' run it on high??)
297,500 / 12 = 24,791 BTUs per hour (averaged).
Now lets throttle it back so it runs 16 hours...
297,500 / 16 = 18,593 BTUs per hour (averaged).

Now let's take an older style stove and say we can get 60% efficiency from it.
7000 x 50 x .60 = 210,000 BTUs.
Most any older style stove will run 6 hours without any problem (my DAKA furnace will easily).
210,000 / 6 = 35,000 BTUs per hour (averaged)
And let's throttle it back to run 9 hours...
210,000 / 9 = 23,333 BTUs per hour (averaged).

Notice the older style stove produced 10,000 more BTUs _per_ _hour_ of run time... but ran a shorter time.
Another issue with the newer style is the heat output is not as consistent over the entire burn cycle... the output drops way off late in the cycle (however, I don't have experience with cat stoves in that respect).
It is not possible to do *both*... burn less wood, over a longer period, and get the same per-hour rate of heat generated.
Even at 50% efficiency the older stove makes more heat per hour.
7000 x 50 x .50 / 6 = 29,166 BTUs per hour.
7000 x 50 x .50 / 9 = 19,444 BTUs per hour.

And that's just figuring the burn cycle time... when you start saying your loading less wood _*and*_ burning it over a longer time... the numbers look a whole lot worse.

If the newer, higher efficiency stoves will produce the amount of heat _per_ _hour_ that _you require_... the efficiency is wonderful and great.
If they cannot produce the amount of heat _per_ _hour_ that _you require_... all the efficiency in the world is worthless.
Just as you'll get great fuel efficiency in a Ford Fiesta... but it won't pull your trailer.

There ain't no magic... never has been.
*


----------



## CaseyForrest (Dec 28, 2016)

Again, it's not about burning less wood. It's about burning ALL the fuel which is what cat stoves are designed to do. Burning less wood over THE SAME amount of time is the proper context. 

I'm not, nor do I believe anyone else, is going to dispute the math. Numbers aren't my thing. 

But you're arguing less wood over a longer period of time. That's not a valid rebuttal because that's not the argument. It's about burning the same amount of wood over a longer period. This is accomplished by using a catalyst which finishes the burning cycle of the byproducts of the main fuel load. 

No one, I would expect, is loading a catalytic stoves firebox half full and expecting it to burn longer than if it was loaded full. That's simply not possible. So technically the argument as you are framing it is technically correct. 

But no one is doing that. And if they are while expecting magical results, well.......

sent from a field


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 28, 2016)

Marshy said:


> *I agree with Casey. Getting more heat out of the fuel that is being burnt meant more heat into the house per volume of wood consumed. The end result is you burn less fuel to heat the same space.*


But if it isn't producing the amount of heat _per hour_ that _you require_... what good is the efficiency??
I heat my entire home with my wood furnace... that's a big space... that requires a lot more heat per hour than heating one or two rooms.

Let's go back to your original post in this thread...


Marshy said:


> My new King is a little sluggish and I want to measure it and make sure that is the problem. So far I'm not impressed with the heat output unless I bypass the cat, open the door and get the fire roaring and close the door and engage the cat. It seems to slowly dwindle.





CaseyForrest said:


> *But you're arguing less wood over a longer period of time. That's not a valid rebuttal because that's not the argument. It's about burning the same amount of wood over a longer period.*


That is exactly what my math showed... the *same amount of wood* over a longer period.
Both were loaded with 50 pounds of wood... the Blaze King running on the high setting (max output for the time period Blaze King says it will run).
I said it even gets worse when both less wood and longer time period is claimed... which is often the claim made.



CaseyForrest said:


> *No one, I would expect, is loading a catalytic stoves firebox half full and expecting it to burn longer than if it was loaded full. That's simply not possible. So technically the argument as you are framing it is technically correct.*


First of all, I didn't make that argument... however, the Blaze King box is smaller than my DAKA box, but the math assumed the same amount of wood loaded into them. If I pack my DAKA plumb full I can get anywhere from 12 to 20 hours depending on heat demand.
Second, at the *same stove setting* a firebox loaded half full will burn just as long a a fire box loaded full (at least, close enough for this argument)... it just produces less heat during that time. A stick of wood burns at a certain rate (controlled by the stove setting)... it don't matter if there's 5 more sticks in the box with it, or 15 more sticks in the box with it.
Typically a stove is loaded with more wood so the stove setting can be throttled back to achieve a slower burn rate, at the same heat rate from less wood at a higher burn rate. That doesn't change in any stove... old or new. Stove setting determines how long the fuel load burns... not the size of the fuel load itself.
*


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 28, 2016)

CaseyForrest said:


> *Again, it's not about burning less wood. It's about burning ALL the fuel which is what cat stoves are designed to do.*


You're completely missing my point...
I agree, that efficiency is wonderful and great if you're warm enough.
But if you're friggin' cold what good is the efficiency?? If you _*need*_ a *higher rate* of heat output, then you need a higher rate of heat output... period. At that point the most efficient fuel consumption _that will provide the required *rate* of heat output_ is the most efficient heater for your needs.

This ain't complicated... I'm talking about matching the per hour rate of heat output to your requirements... that is the first concern, after that you look for the most efficient that can provide _that rate of heat output_.
Just as shopping for a vehicle to pull your loaded 16 ft trailer... power on demand is the first concern, once you narrowed it down to those with the required power you can start looking at fuel efficiency _among those only_. A Ford Fiesta ain't gonna' cut it... neither is a sports car... you need a truck.
*


----------



## Marshy (Dec 28, 2016)

Whitespider said:


> Let's take the Blaze King in question... with a efficiency rating of 88% LHV/82% HHV. Now let's say under real world conditions/operation the operator actually gets 85% (I believe I'm being generous). We load the stove with 50 pounds of wood and use the value of 7000 BTU's per pound (just picking numbers for comparison... it doesn't change the result).
> 7000 x 50 x .85 = 297,500 BTUs.
> Blaze King says the stove will run for 12 hours on the _high_ _setting_. (Are you gonna' run it on high??)
> 297,500 / 12 = 24,791 BTUs per hour (averaged).
> ...


Your argument is flawed Spidy and here is why... 

Assume the newer high efficiency stove heat output per hour satisfies your highest heating demands. Anything more (BTU/hr) by the older stove is not needed and will go unused. 
Do you agree this is a real world assumption. People don't run their OWB WFO to heat 3000 sqft when it is sized to 4-5000 sqft, right? 

Okay, let's look at the math now. I like numbers. 



In my math I assumed the old stove is 50% efficient and I believe that might be generous. *Regardless of the exact efficiencies of the stoves, the higher efficiency stove will burn less wood in the same time frame at the same heat output. The difference is 50lb vs 85lbs. *


----------



## Marshy (Dec 28, 2016)

Whitespider said:


> *But if it isn't producing the amount of heat per hour that you require... what good is the efficiency??*
> ...
> Let's go back to your original post in this thread...
> *


You are exactly right, the appliance needs to meet the heating demand otherwise what good is it? I wouldn't keep the stove if it wasn't meeting my demand. With any new appliance there is a learning curve. I found the stove perfor.Ed better once I sealed up my cleanout door and a big leak at one of my spare thimbles. Having the proper draft helped the stoves combustion and was no longer get sluggish. I also found out that a fan on the stove is necessary to get the heat off the surfaces in order for it to heat the space. The stove doesn't radiate the heat like my old stove. Once I get the fan kit I believe I will be even more satisfied with the stove. 



Whitespider said:


> That is exactly what my math showed... the *same amount of wood* over a longer period.
> Both were loaded with 50 pounds of wood... the Blaze King running on the high setting (max output for the time period Blaze King says it will run).
> I said it even gets worse when both less wood and longer time period is claimed... which is often the claim made.*


We agree, I even said the older stoves have a higher BTU/hr than the newer stoves however, we have to assume the high efficiency stove is sized properly to the demand or none of this is worth discussing. In a sense, the math you did is pointless because if a person is willing to live with an undersized appliance then they are willing to live in the cold. I'm not. That is why my example is a valid real world scinero. 



Whitespider said:


> First of all, I didn't make that argument... however, the Blaze King box is smaller than my DAKA box, but the math assumed the same amount of wood loaded into them. If I pack my DAKA plumb full I can get anywhere from 12 to 20 hours depending on heat demand.
> Second, at the *same stove setting* a firebox loaded half full will burn just as long a a fire box loaded full (at least, close enough for this argument)... it just produces less heat during that time. A stick of wood burns at a certain rate (controlled by the stove setting)... it don't matter if there's 5 more sticks in the box with it, or 15 more sticks in the box with it.
> Typically a stove is loaded with more wood so the stove setting can be throttled back to achieve a slower burn rate, at the same heat rate from less wood at a higher burn rate. That doesn't change in any stove... old or new. *Stove setting determines how long the fuel load burns... not the size of the fuel load itself.*
> *


There is some influence on the size of the splits and the burn time IMO. That seemed way more obvious to me with my old stove than my new stove. When you have a thermostatic crolled stove it tried to levelize the heat output by controlling the combustion air. I usually leave my stoves thermostat in one position and load the stove accordingly to the weather. If it's 34F out then 4 splits might last 8 hours. If it's 20F then ever 4 hrs. If your stove is not automatically controlling combustion air it's hard to compare they two. How many cuft is your stoves firebox? A furnace stove is generally larger than a free standing stove as they typically have a higher heat output also. Burn times and comparisons between the two become fuzzy at best but we can compare them on paper quite easily.


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 28, 2016)

Marshy said:


> *Your argument is flawed Spidy and here is why...*


No it is not... you are not arguing the same thing.



Marshy said:


> *Assume the newer high efficiency stove heat output per hour satisfies your highest heating demands. Anything more (BTU/hr) by the older stove is not needed and will go unused.
> Do you agree this is a real world assumption.
> ...the higher efficiency stove will burn less wood in the same time frame at the same heat output.*


No, I don't agree with any of that... because you're arguing something different than I am...

My argument assumes the newer high efficiency stove heat output per hour _*does not*_ satisfy your highest heating demands... that is the whole damn point. I've already stated that if the newer style stove does satisfy your highest heating demands, the efficiency is wonderful and great.
My argument assumes the potentially higher rate of heat output of the older stove is needed... that is the whole damn point. I've already stated that if the newer style stove does satisfy your highest heating demands, the efficiency is wonderful and great.
My argument ain't about the same rate of heat output, it is about a higher rate of heat output when required... that is the whole damn point. I've already stated that if the newer style stove does satisfy your highest heating demands, the efficiency is wonderful and great.



Marshy said:


> *We agree, I even said the older stoves have a higher BTU/hr than the newer stoves however, we have to assume the high efficiency stove is sized properly to the demand or none of this is worth discussing.*


But that was the whole damn point.
The Blaze King is one of the very best for heat rate output... is it not?? Well, you're the one that posted in the original post of this thread...


Marshy said:


> My new King is a little sluggish and I want to measure it and make sure that is the problem. So far *I'm not impressed with the heat output* unless I bypass the cat, open the door and get the fire roaring and close the door and engage the cat. *It seems to slowly dwindle*.


That's what I'm addressing...
I can flat tell you by the math that the Blaze King would not satisfy my heat output requirements when it's -15°, at night, with a 45 MPH wind blowing... it flat ain't gonna' keep my house (the entire house) at 70° over night, it don't have the required rate of heat output... the house would slowly cool and I'd wake up freezing. And the "_dwindling_" heat output would make things even worse... I need a continuous and constant rate of heat output when the conditions are like that. Can you point me to a newer style firebox that significantly outperforms the Blaze King, "King"?? When I need the heat... I need the heat... anything less than what I need is not what I call efficient. When I don't need maximum heat, I load the firebox with less wood... when I need more heat I load the firebox with more wood... and when I need maximum heat I load the box with even more wood... and my (so-called) smoke dragon makes a ton of friggin' heat when required (however, I don't believe I've ever ran it at "max" output except to bring the house up to temperature after being away for a couple days).
*


----------



## Del_ (Dec 28, 2016)

Whitespider said:


> My argument assumes the newer high efficiency stove heat output per hour _*does not*_ satisfy your highest heating demands... that is the whole damn point. I've already stated that if the newer style stove does satisfy your highest heating demands, the efficiency is wonderful and great.



An argument based on a wrong assumption is what we have here.


----------



## CaseyForrest (Dec 28, 2016)

Whitespider said:


> You're completely missing my point...
> I agree, that efficiency is wonderful and great if you're warm enough.
> But if you're friggin' cold what good is the efficiency?? If you _*need*_ a *higher rate* of heat output, then you need a higher rate of heat output... period. At that point the most efficient fuel consumption _that will provide the required *rate* of heat output_ is the most efficient heater for your needs.
> 
> ...


You're talking about something no one else is. 

sent from a field


----------



## CaseyForrest (Dec 28, 2016)

And what the hell does the efficiency or heat output of a blaze king stove have to do with draft?

Seems someone, or 2, found a soapbox to get on. 

sent from a field


----------



## Marshy (Dec 28, 2016)

Whitespider said:


> No it is not... you are not arguing the same thing.
> 
> No, I don't agree with any of that... because you're arguing something different than I am...
> 
> ...


Yes your argument is flawed, I just showed you in one case why. My previous example is how things really work when the appliance is properly sized and why efficiency allows you to get a longer burn time for the given amount of wood. The end result is more BTU's make it into the living area per load of fuel and if the appliances can perform at the same rate (btu/hr) then the higher efficiency stove will produce heat for a longer time per load of fuel. Those are thermodynamic laws.

I recognize we are arguing a different point but what I am trying to tell you is that I don't believe your argument is valid or applicable to my situation. You are assuming that the stove cannot meet my demand but what I am saying is that I believe it can meet my demand to keep me comfortably warm. I wasn't sure it could put out enough at first and created this thread to help me rule out potential issues like poor chimney draft. Like I previously said, I found some leaks in my chimney that hurt draft. I also don't believe the chimney mass was up to temperature which was hurting draft and it was warmer out (40's). I also wasn't using any fans to more the heat off the stoves surface and was expecting it to be able to radiate the heat like my old stove. They wont radiate like the old Shenandoah.



Whitespider said:


> But that was the whole damn point.
> The Blaze King is one of the very best for heat rate output... is it not?? Well, you're the one that posted in the original post of this thread...*



Who said it "is one of the very best for heat output"? I certainly did not say that and I did not buy it because it had the highest amount of BTU's in a given hour.

If you haven't looked at several stove companies specs and noticed yet, it becomes very hard to tell how the stoves really perform in the real world. BK stoves do not list a peak output in BTU/hr of the stove like all other manufacture do. They only list an average BTU/hr for a 12 hr burn time which is a lot less than the peak output claimed by everyone else (obviously). That alone makes it hard to understand peak performance but what does the peak performance mean and why is it useful in choosing a stove? I'm not sure it is. A stove wont operate at peak for much longer than one or two hours so whats the value in knowing that? Why don't the other manufactures list an average BTU/hr for a 12hr cycle (or 4, or 6!) so people can understand how they perform? Its only a guess for me why someone might think peak output is helpful in determine a stoves size. In an ideal world you could look at a performance graph of the stoves output at 100, 75, 50, 25, and 0% operating settings and see what the performance is. Knowing your houses heat loss would allow you to compare it to the stoves performance and shed more light on how often you can expect to refuel the stove. Here's what it might look like.



You can see by the graph that if your heating demand it 90K BTU/hr then the stove will only by able to meet of exceed your demand for a few hours. If your demand is 100K BTU/hr then this stove is undersized for your application. If its 52K then you have a lot of operating margin on the stove and it will have plenty of horsepower (like a duramax) to keep you warm.



Whitespider said:


> That's what I'm addressing...
> I can flat tell you by the math that the Blaze King would not satisfy my heat output requirements when it's -15°, at night, with a 45 MPH wind blowing... it flat ain't gonna' keep my house (the entire house) at 70° over night, it don't have the required rate of heat output... the house would slowly cool and I'd wake up freezing. And the "_dwindling_" heat output would make things even worse... I need a continuous and constant rate of heat output when the conditions are like that. Can you point me to a newer style firebox that significantly outperforms the Blaze King, "King"?? When I need the heat... I need the heat... anything less than what I need is not what I call efficient. When I don't need maximum heat, I load the firebox with less wood... when I need more heat I load the firebox with more wood... and when I need maximum heat I load the box with even more wood... and my (so-called) smoke dragon makes a ton of friggin' heat when required (however, I don't believe I've ever ran it at "max" output except to bring the house up to temperature after being away for a couple days).
> *


 We get it, it's not your cup of tea. Its undersized for your application and therefore you don't care about its efficiency. Thanks for your input.


----------



## Marshy (Dec 28, 2016)

CaseyForrest said:


> And what the hell does the efficiency or heat output of a blaze king stove have to do with draft?
> 
> Seems someone, or 2, found a soapbox to get on.
> 
> sent from a field


LOL actually, the only tie is too little of a draft will cause low performance of the appliance and too much draft will cause short burn cycles. That's it.


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 28, 2016)

CaseyForrest said:


> *You're talking about something no one else is.*


Good lord man...
I came back to this thread because quotedraven quoted my post (from page 3)... I addressed his post... and then you quoted that one.
If quotedraven wasn't addressing my argument... what the hell was he addressing??
This is how it went...


Whitespider said:


> There ain't no magic... never has been.
> I hate to sound like a broken record... but... you flat cannot burn less fuel, over a longer time period, and get the same per-hour rate of heat generated... it ain't possible.
> Marshy, I'm seriously sorry you're having troubles, but you're attempting to use what amounts to a space (room) heater to heat more space than it can... the more space you heat, the higher per-hour rate of heat output needed, something that cannot be accomplished in an appliance designed to both burn less fuel, and burn it over a longer time period.
> Been there... tried that... failed.





quotedraven said:


> Efficiency efficiency efficiency





Whitespider said:


> A Ford Fiesta is fuel efficient... but you ain't gonna hook your loaded 16 ft trailer to it.
> Efficiency is worthless if it cannot provide the power required to do the job.
> You flat cannot burn less fuel, over a longer time period, and get the same per-hour rate of heat generated... it ain't possible.
> There ain't no magic... never has been.





CaseyForrest said:


> Lord knows I could be wrong...
> I believe the shtick with catalytic stoves isn't that they are burning less fuel, its that they are burning _all_ (or most of) the fuel.
> You can see it even with a non catalytic stove that has secondaries over one that doesn't, or compared to an open fireplace. Less smoke out of the end of the chimney equals more fuel being burnt in the firebox.


My argument has not changed since page 3... after which I dropped it... until quotedraven , you , and Marshy argued with my argument... by arguing something different than mine.

I ain't arguing the newer stoves extract more heat from a given quantity of fuel... I know they do... but they do it over a longer burn cycle which reduces the _*per hour rate of heat output*_... it-is-what-it-is.
So I'll say it again, and then I'll drop it again...
You flat cannot burn less fuel, over a longer time period, and get the same per-hour rate of heat generated... it ain't possible.
There ain't no magic... never has been.
*


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 28, 2016)

Marshy said:


> *You can see by the graph...*


Your graph is not the same thing I was arguing.
I was not arguing how much heat output there actually is... I was arguing which appliance _is *capable* of producing more heat *per hour* when *required*_ to do so. I can change the per hour rate in my calculations by simply changing the quantity of fuel... the exact output number ain't needed to make my point, only the comparison.

I used a specific amount of fuel (50 pounds) in each appliance to make a comparison... I even stated, "_just picking numbers for comparison... it doesn't change the result_" (the resulting being a higher rate of heat output _*per hour of run time*_ for a given quantity of fuel loaded in each). That's also why I used the "high" setting on the Blaze King (which is said to run 12 hours) verses the 6-8 hours for the smoke dragon running at a "high" setting. I'm not concerned with run time, I'm concerned with the rate of heat output while it's running (that was the comparison I was making). And in my furnace, output rate does not drop off during the cycle like your graph illustrates, it stays relatively constant and even between loadings... the air forced under the coal bed keeps it screamin' hot. I control the heat output of my furnace by the amount of fuel loaded, I make no changes to my furnace other than the quantity of fuel loaded. If I expect a higher heat demand I load a little more, if I expect less demand I load less... if the circulation blower cycles on-'n'-off 3-4 times an hour, and the draft blower kicks on every 1½-2 hours or so for a couple minutes... I've got it running just about perfect. Around 95% of the time I load it twice a day, morning and evening... and never look at between those loadings.

Tell me how many pounds of fuel is used to produce your graph, and I'll run the numbers against a (so-called) smoke dragon again. But if you don't know the quantity of fuel used, the graph cannot be used to make a like comparison... it's just arbitrary numbers.

And by-the-way, a smoke dragon run correctly is more than capable of 60% efficiency... if run incorrectly not so much.
If you load them up and choke them down, your efficiency goes to crap... that ain't how I run mine... and it don't make smoke, or creosote.

And one more by-the-way...
Your graph shows an average of 51,582 BTU's per hour, for 12 hours?? At 88% efficiency??
Do you realize that works out to something well over 100 pounds of air-dried firewood?? Well over 100 pounds.
Can you get something well over 100 pounds of cut and split firewood in your Blaze King?? (For reference, I could in my furnace fairly easily, but I never have.)
*


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 28, 2016)

You know what @Marshy ... if we figure 7000 BTU per pound of wood, at 88% efficiency, for 12 hours (highest setting) it works out almost exactly 100 pounds of wood to average your 51,582 BTUs per hour.

So let's run the numbers in my smoke dragon figuring 60% efficiency (hey, your graph is pretty optimistic at 88% for real world)...
100 pounds x 7000 x .60 / 6 hours (high setting) = 70,000 BTUs per hour... a greater rate of 18,418 more BTUs per hour at the cost of twice the wood over 12 hours (but that's at max output, where the cost is significantly the highest... throttle them both back and the BTU gain to cost ratio changes).
And don't forget... the heat stays pretty steady, constant, and even in the smoke dragon, it don't start out way above the average and ends up well below as the cycle completes. If it did, my house would not stay a constant 70°-71°, day in and day out, no matter what the heat demand is.

And even at 50% efficiency (but to be fair we'd need to drop the Blaze King down to a more real world 80% or a bit more, say 82%??)...
Blaze King - 100 x 7000 x .82 / 12 = 47,833 BTUs per hour
Smoke Dragon - 100 x 7000 x .50 / 6 = 58,333 BTUs per hour... still a greater rate of 10,500 more BTUs per hour at the cost of twice the wood over 12 hours (but that's at max output, where the cost is significantly the highest... throttle them both back and the BTU gain to cost ratio changes).


----------



## quotedraven (Dec 28, 2016)

The efficiency changes when you throttle down the smoke dragon hence the name. If all the wood just smoldered then most of your fuel would go wasted up the chimney as smoke.


----------



## Marshy (Dec 29, 2016)

FFS @Whitespider, let's start a new thread on stove efficiency so we can continue this. We both agree you are arguing a completely different set of assumptions and we both agree that the older stove out out more peak BTU/hr. Why are we continuing this conversation then?

The graph I made is to illustrate that the BK stove might actually put out the same peak BTU/hr as an older stove. *We just arnt sure because the manufacturer only gives us a spec for average BTU/hr in a 12 hr cycle, not peak output. The real operating profile of the BK stove could resemble the curve on the graph where is peaks to 125k BTU and tapers off over 12 hrs. The point I was making with the graph is once the operating output of the stove drops below the heat demand of your living space (orange, green or blue lines) then demand is greater than supply for your living environment and more fuel will be required shortly thereafter. *


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 29, 2016)

quotedraven said:


> *The efficiency changes when you throttle down the smoke dragon hence the name. If all the wood just smoldered then most of your fuel would go wasted up the chimney as smoke.*


Agreed... smoldering is a poor way to run any firebox, and that ain't how I've ever run any of mine.
The only thing I would disagree with (and it's splitting hairs) is that you can "_throttle down_" and increase efficiency, as long as you don't throttle down so much that you're choking them.
There's a "sweet spot" (or range) where they run the best; once you find it, the only adjustment you need to make is the quantity of wood you load into it... a larger load will create more heat per hour, a smaller load makes less heat per hour, but burn rate remains the same regardless of the load.

And if truth be told... the poor efficiency attributed to them ain't about the firebox itself, it's more about operator error.



Marshy said:


> *Why are we continuing this conversation then?*


LOL
We're not 
*


----------



## Marshy (Dec 29, 2016)

I think its an interesting topic and Im willing to continue it, just not in this thread.

Here, http://www.arboristsite.com/community/threads/woodstove-efficiency-debate.304587/


----------



## Motorsen (Dec 29, 2016)

So Marshy, have you measured your draft after bettering all issues and cleaning the screen on your chimney???


----------



## Marshy (Dec 29, 2016)

Motorsen said:


> So Marshy, have you measured your draft after bettering all issues and cleaning the screen on your chimney???


The draft was measured with a tight chimney and up to operating temperature and was found to be 0.045" wc. The cap was on but the screen was clean at the time because it had only ran for a couple weeks.

I haven't checked it since the first time but believe with the colder weather its draft is reaching the 0.05" wc. Im going to crawl in my attic and shoot the IR gun on the masonry chimney and see how much heat it is radiating. The chimney passes from the basement all the way through the attic. It has its own chaseway through the main floor that is open to the attic (ranch home on basement). Im interested to see how much of a thermal difference is between the bottom and top, and what the temp is at the very top before the cap (while remaining in the attic). I suppose I could climb on the roof, take the cap off and check the clay liner inside surface temp. I don't want to be that close to the chimney with the stove running full open though, I'd get a face full of smoke.


----------



## Whitespider (Dec 29, 2016)

Marshy said:


> *I'd get a face full of smoke.*


No... no... no.... there is no smoke from one of those highly efficient stoves 
(Don't respond... this was a full-blown trolling unworthy of response, and only self-gratifying to the poster.)
*


----------



## NSMaple1 (Dec 29, 2016)

So did the chimney draft get measured??


----------



## MountainHigh (Jan 9, 2017)

What chimney?


----------



## tla100 (Jan 13, 2017)

I light a lighter, if flame goes up stove to chimney, I light fire. If it does not, I put a torch in, light torch and come back in 5 minutes. usually it solves draft issue. This time of year, no worries as fire is going 24/7........


----------

