# 24 hour burn in the new Woodstock Ideal Steel stove



## BrianK (Nov 30, 2013)

Hi folks,
I am running a Beta version of Woodstock's new Ideal Steel stove this winter. Photos of the stove can be seen in the second post on this thread.



I built a fire yesterday at 3:00pm with the 3.2cu ft soapstone lined firebox solidly packed with 3"x6" oak blocks that were on average 10"-12" in length, EW load, moisture content 10 to 14%. Cold stove, 2" bed of ashes.

I lit the firestarters at 3:00pm on full air, room temp at 68, outside temp 37. I let the flue temps on my Bacharach probe thermometer on the double wall stove pipe get up to about 600 degrees, then engaged the cat at about 15 minutes into the burn on 100% air. After an hour stove top temps were at 475 next to the collar on top, and room temps went up from 68 to 72. I turned the air down to about 10% at one hour for a long low burn.


Two hours into burn on 10% air, not much visible activity in firebox, stove top temps have leveled out around 350. There is a hot spot just above the middle of the door on the front of the stove just below the lift off top that is consistently running around 450 on the IR thermometer. Most of the heat from this stove comes off the door glass and the top front, not the top rear near the flue collar.

There's a little soot on the bottom left corner of the door glass, and the bimetallic coil for pre cat air is just a little open now. Outside temps now 35, room temps up to 74 from 68 at 3:00.


Five hours into burn, the two pieces on top front were a piece I split in half longways to load up to the top of the firebox in the front. One of them just started to coal and a piece broke off but the rest of the logs are still 95% intact.



Almost 8 hours into burn, house furnace had been off all day. Outside temp was 21 at this point, 71 in the stove room now and throughout the first floor. 68 on the second floor.

Stove top temp staying right at 300 on 10% air. Hot spot over door at 380. Double wall stove pipe probe thermometer sticking on 380.


At nine hours since I started this burn cycle, the air was still at 10% but stove top temps had creeped up to 325 , the hot spot on the front above the door is up to 400, and I'm seeing more of a glow but no flames in the stove. I wonder if the colder temps outside were increasing draft? Outdoor temp was down to 19 at this point and first floor temp had dropped to 69, second floor temp to 68.


At just shy of 10 hours into the burn, stove top temps settled down to 305, room temps holding at 69, outside temps were holding at 19 and the video above shows the firebox.






17 hours into this burn cycle this morning. I expected to come downstairs to a cold stove and a firebox full of ash. But stove top temp was 225 and the hot spot on the top front of the stove was 300 and I was still getting plenty of usable heat. The firebox looked like it was still a third to half full of wood. I wasn't sure if it was just coals ready to collapse into a heap of ash so I opened up the air to 100%. In the past when I've done that on a bed of coals the coals glowed and got hotter but I've never gotten flames. This time I got flames. I took photos before and after opening the air, as well as a quick video about 5 minutes after opening the air to 100%. To say I was surprised is an understatement.

I had the house furnace thermostat set on 65. With a low of 19 last night, it was too cold for a long low burn to keep inside temps where we like them, and the furnace kicked on sometime after 6:00am this morning. So current inside temps don't mean anything at this point. I cut back the thermostat to see how the stove carries the temps from this point forward.

At 10:30, 19 1/2 hours into the burn. Stove top temps are at 225, top front of stove is at 325 and this thing is definitely still throwing usable heat. This is a quick video of the firebox with the door open. It started sending up some small flames when I opened the door. Still usable fuel in there. I opened up the air to 100% at this point to see if it would heat up to any extent at this point in the burn. After 20 minutes on 100% air, at approx 20 hours into this burn, stove top temps climbed back up to 325, front of stove above door is at 350 and there are small flames in the firebox.

21 hours into the burn cycle. I opened up the air to 100% almost an hour prior (once I passed 20 hour mark in this test I figured I accomplished my goal) to burn it down and make some heat. Stove top temp was back up to 330, top front of stove above door is at 390, probe temp on the double wall stove pipe is 500, and its throwing off a lot of heat again, with some fire in the firebox now, not just coals. Room temp is back up to 71 with no assist from the natural gas furnace for the last couple hours, outside temp is 30.



22 hours into burn cycle, outside temp 33, first floor 74, second floor 70, stove on 100% air for just over 2 hours. Stove top temp 300, stove front above door 350, still pumping out more than enough heat. Coals are burning down slowly but steadily, no active flames in firebox now.

This stove took the house from 70 to 74 in two hours, from the *20 hour to 22 hour point in a burn cycle*. That is pretty impressive!


*23 hours* into this burn, stove top has dropped to 290, top front of stove is at 325, outside temp is at 34, and first floor of the house is still holding at 74. We don't need to reload just yet, there's still a lot of usable heat coming off this stove.




Ok, currently at the 24 hour mark on this burn, stove top temp is down to 265, top front of stove is 280, first floor temp is still holding at 74 so there's still enough heat coming off the stove at 24 hours to maintain an inside temp of 74 while outside temp is currently 34.


----------



## BrianK (Nov 30, 2013)

Projected price when this stove is introduced early next summer is around $2000.


----------



## blackdogon57 (Nov 30, 2013)

I think my stove would get 24 burn time if I were burning kiln dried oak lumber.


----------



## BrianK (Nov 30, 2013)

blackdogon57 said:


> I think my stove would get 24 burn time if I were burning kiln dried oak lumber.



This wood was not kiln dried (though I have purchased kiln dried ends from a hard wood products manufacturer north of here.) The pallet manufacturer where I bought this wood receives it in 6"x6" green lumber and cuts it down to the sizes they need for various products, then puts the cut offs in a pile outside. So it was fairly green when we got it 22 months ago but being relatively short it seasoned well. Its been in my basement for the last 5 months or so.


----------



## BrianK (Nov 30, 2013)

I just did a small reload since the coal bed was still hot. The wood caught fire while I was reloading. Amazing, after 24 hours, no need for kindling, blowing, firestarter, etc.


----------



## flotek (Nov 30, 2013)

That's pretty great my only concern is the idea of letting house get into the 60"s at that point I ( my wife especially ) would be dissatisfied and need to bump up the intake resulting in half that burn time but I could see it being really comfortable in the shoulder season .


----------



## Whitespider (Nov 30, 2013)

I'm lost on the point of it... seriously. (And I ain't tryin' to be an azz... I'm 100% serious, I'm lost on the point.)

What good is a 24 hour burn cycle if it can't maintain room/house temperature?? I guess, my thinkin' is... it don't mean cold squat.
I mean... seriously... my old 4x4 pickup will get 50 MPG if'n I drive 10 MPH.
In my mind it ain't about... never has been about the burn time... it's the heating time that keeps ya' warm.

The most important question is... how long can that stove keep your whole house at 70° or so, during a mid-winter night, before a reloading is required??
The second most important is... how many times did you have to mess around adjustin' the stove, and "stirrin" the fire to get that amount of time??
('cause I ain't about gettin' up 2, 3, 4 times a night so the appliance keeps heating "enough" to keep up)

The length of burn time I "*can*" get don't even make the list...


----------



## fuzz1500 (Nov 30, 2013)

I think its cool .But sometimes for me personally...I keep in mind what my auto shop teacher always said........ K.I.S.S.  For me...when things get too nit-picky and comlicated..Im out !! Maybe I just have a simple brain . I set in my mind that I want the house at 72 degrees all the time.....and thats what I strive to do . I just have a regular thermostat for the "other" furnace.....and thats my only gauge . So I have to get up and feed a log every now and then......no biggie for me !!


----------



## zogger (Nov 30, 2013)

Pretty slick heater, man! I guess nowadays two grand is like what, average for a new nice stove?

Not as fancy a test, but my record with a woodstove is friday night to sunday afternoon, burning one big fat gnarly twisted dense ugly chunk of..I forget the species now (this is back in 76 or so..), in an ashley oval top loader. biggest mambo chunk I could drop in. Can't say the house was warm when we got back, but it wasn't frozen out either and this was in maine in mid winter. And enough coals left to restart it quickly with some kindling.

The heater I have now is quite similar in construction, an oval top loader, but the ashley was much better quality and burned a lot better all the time, from my recollection.


----------



## brenndatomu (Nov 30, 2013)

Prolly woulda went longer if not for opening the door 14 times to check it n take pics!


----------



## BrianK (Nov 30, 2013)

Whitespider said:


> I'm lost on the point of it... seriously. (And I ain't tryin' to be an azz... I'm 100% serious, I'm lost on the point.)
> 
> What good is a 24 hour burn cycle if it can't maintain room/house temperature?? I guess, my thinkin' is... it don't mean cold squat.
> I mean... seriously... my old 4x4 pickup will get 50 MPG if'n I drive 10 MPH.
> ...



I prefer a hot fire on a 12 hour reload schedule which is what this stove excels at. I don't need 24 hour burns but quite a few folks interested in this stove asked me to run a long low burn cycle on good hard wood. So I obliged and recorded and reported my results. 

On a medium to a hot 12 hour overnight burn I don't anticipate any problems keeping my drafty old house up to temp. Neither will I be messing with it or adjusting it through that type of burn. 

I'm just reporting an experiment. For some folks in milder climates the results are applicable.


----------



## dave_dj1 (Nov 30, 2013)

I'm with spidey on a couple of points, what good is it if it can't keep the house at your desired temp and how many people would have the wood or take the time to pack a stove that tightly?
I think it's great that it can go that long, I'm sure most people would be happy with 10 hrs burn time. How big is your house, how are the windows and where are you? You should do another test when it actually gets cold out (it was 6 deg above zero at 6 this morning here in the northeast). 30 years ago I had a Hearthstone soapstone stove and I could easily get a 10 hr burn/heat time. Much after that depending on outside temps I needed to reload bad!
I think for the type of stove, size and technologically advance that 2k is a reasonable price if it lives up to your expectations. 
What is the overall size and weight? 
dave


----------



## BrianK (Nov 30, 2013)

brenndatomu said:


> Prolly woulda went longer if not for opening the door 14 times to check it n take pics!



Yep.


----------



## BrianK (Dec 1, 2013)

Whitespider said:


> The most important question is... how long can that stove keep your whole house at 70° or so, during a mid-winter night, before a reloading is required??


I'm figuring 12 hours on good hard wood based on what I've seen so far. Admittedly I've only been burning this stove for a week, but I burned a Woodstock Fireview for two years before that and I've spoken to numerous people burning the Woodstock Progress Hybrid which has a similar hybrid design but smaller firebox.




Whitespider said:


> The second most important is... how many times did you have to mess around adjustin' the stove, and "stirrin" the fire to get that amount of time??



I adjusted the air down to 10% at about one hour into the burn then never touched it again until 20 hours into the burn, at which time I opened it back up the whole way.

I never touched the wood or the coals in the firebox throughout the 24 hour burn and never added wood. I only opened the door to take some quick photos and videos.

That to me is not messin' or adjustin' or stirrin', that's very minimal user input during a very long burn with usable heat output.

In reality, in real world use, I would have opened up the air to about 20% when I went to bed and the house would never have cooled off enough to kick on the furnace. But that would have decreased the total burn time to 16 to 18 hours.

This burn was simply to demonstrate a long low burn for several people who requested I run one.

And for fun.


----------



## BrianK (Dec 1, 2013)

dave_dj1 said:


> I'm with spidey on a couple of points, what good is it if it can't keep the house at your desired temp and how many people would have the wood or take the time to pack a stove that tightly?
> I think it's great that it can go that long, I'm sure most people would be happy with 10 hrs burn time. How big is your house, how are the windows and where are you? You should do another test when it actually gets cold out (it was 6 deg above zero at 6 this morning here in the northeast). 30 years ago I had a Hearthstone soapstone stove and I could easily get a 10 hr burn/heat time. Much after that depending on outside temps I needed to reload bad!
> I think for the type of stove, size and technologically advance that 2k is a reasonable price if it lives up to your expectations.
> What is the overall size and weight?
> dave


As I said in my last post, this stove will more than adequately heat my old house on the coldest of winter days here, on medium to high burns on a 12 hour reload cycle. I just did this burn as an experiment to answer questions I had received about this stove. 

Stove weighs 650lbs. Stove top is 28" wide, 23 1/2" deep and on the highest leg setting is 35 1/2" tall. On this Beta unit there is about 4" of adjustment on the legs so minimum height would be ~31" on this particular unit. Firebox measures 22" wide, 18" deep, 11" tall at rear of secondary air plate, 15" tall at front of secondary air plate.

Our house is 80 years old, extremely drafty with only a little insulation in the attic, none in the walls, and old fashioned windows, about 1800 ft of living space, 2.5 stories with finished attic. We are in the mountains of west central PA.


----------



## dingeryote (Dec 1, 2013)

That is impressive really. Pretty much the sparky equivalent of hyper mileing.

No doubt the Cat is a big part of the ability to squeeze that much heat on such a low burn.
I wonder what the Maint. cycle and life of the Cat would be, with regular low burns like that.

I considered a Cat stove/fireplace when we were shopping for ours, but the flexibility to run greenish wood if needed, and reality of seasoned but wet wood always bieng present, put me off of the then new Cat stoves completely. 

Cleaning a Cat in mid Febuary is NOT my idea of fun. I hope those guys got a handle on thier design, and the thing works out really well.
Using less wood is always a darn good thing.


----------



## BrianK (Dec 1, 2013)

dingeryote said:


> Cleaning a Cat in mid Febuary is NOT my idea of fun. I hope those guys got a handle on thier design, and the thing works out really well.


Watch how easy it is to access and remove the cat on this stove, no tools required. Please disregard the background noise


----------



## blades (Dec 1, 2013)

Hey thanks for the wright up and pics/vid. Very impressive. Cat access well thought out not like some which is why I have a 30, ( that & I'm cheap). As I do not have audio what was that item you pointed out on the back side?


----------



## BrianK (Dec 1, 2013)

blades said:


> As I do not have audio what was that item you pointed out on the back side?


There is a bimetallic coil on the back of the stove that opens up a small damper during hot cat burns to let in air just before the cat but after the firebox. They call it pre cat air supply. It helps the cat run more efficiently and cleans up the emissions even more. See this Woodstock blog entry for an explanation:

Under the Hood 4: Catalyst Air: we apply an old idea in a new setting


----------



## blackdogon57 (Dec 1, 2013)

Starting to smell like spam on this thread.


----------



## brenndatomu (Dec 1, 2013)

Mmmm, fried spam n eggs


----------



## Big_Al (Dec 1, 2013)

Heck with the stove, I wanna know how to get 50mpg out of my old 4x4. When I go putting around the woods I'm lucky to get 12.


----------



## BrianK (Dec 1, 2013)

blackdogon57 said:


> Starting to smell like spam on this thread.


I use the same screen name on this forum and two others dedicated to heating with wood. I've lurked here for years, been a member for a year and a half, but have not posted much. I was a member of another forum on which I was very active but recently a bunch of us got banned under false pretenses. Those banned were pretty much fed up with the liberal extremist views of the forum admins. So I started posting here right when I was awaiting this new stove installation.

That being said, if posting a thread about a new stove with new burn technology is considered "spam" on a subforum dedicated to Firewood, Heating and Wood Burning Equipment then maybe I'm on the wrong website.

Again.

Frankly, I wasn't expecting to run into the kind of nonsense here that we tolerated on that other site.


----------



## Vermonster (Dec 1, 2013)

Impressive stove,.. but of course I'm a little biased being a Vermonter and all.
It's not as pretty as my green enamel Jotul 602 CB, but it is much, much more efficient.


----------



## flotek (Dec 1, 2013)

The stove is impressive and the test results are impressive as mentioned most guys would be happy with 8-10 hours much less double that amount . I wholeheartedly agree on other forums liberal bias without naming any names . Don't let people's opinions upset you it is a valid experiment and a lot of people in the market for a stove are interested in your endeavors .i think as readers ( myself included ) we have to realistic and realize this wasn't a test to see how hot you get your house ...it was to test the stove and post the results


----------



## BrianK (Dec 1, 2013)

flotek said:


> The stove is impressive and the test results are impressive as mentioned most guys would be happy with 8-10 hours much less double that amount . I wholeheartedly agree on other forums liberal bias without naming any names . Don't let people's opinions upset you it is a valid experiment and a lot of people in the market for a stove are interested in your endeavors .i think as readers ( myself included ) we have to realistic and realize this wasn't a test to see how hot you get your house ...it was to test the stove and post the results



Thanks.

Later this week when it warms up into the 40s I'm going to pack it full of 3 year seasoned locust and run a similar test, close to zero air. That's the next test I was requested to run. I won't bother with all the details or open it up for photo and video documentation like I collected on this test but at least I'll know the longest possible burn on low for mild shoulder season weather.


----------



## sachsmo (Dec 1, 2013)

You got 24 out of it, but really not practical is it?


----------



## BrianK (Dec 1, 2013)

sachsmo said:


> You got 24 out of it, but really not practical is it?



Only in shoulder season or a milder climate. 

If it was in the 40s during the day and 30s at night this burn cycle would have been more than adequate. But when it's getting down to 19 at night in a medium size drafty old house that's a bit much to ask of a long low burn. If it had stayed in the mid to upper 20s overnight my furnace would not have kicked on and this burn cycle would have been quite practical.


----------



## sachsmo (Dec 1, 2013)

How did it look comin' out of the chimney?


----------



## BrianK (Dec 1, 2013)

sachsmo said:


> How did it look comin' out of the chimney?


After engaging the cat you couldn't tell there was even a fire in the stove. The smoke cleared even faster than it did when I was burning my Fireview. The hybrid combo of secondary air and cat really seems to clean up the exhaust.


----------



## Steve NW WI (Dec 1, 2013)

BrianK said:


> I use the same screen name on this forum and two others dedicated to heating with wood. I've lurked here for years, been a member for a year and a half, but have not posted much. I was a member of another forum on which I was very active but recently a bunch of us got banned under false pretenses. Those banned were pretty much fed up with the liberal extremist views of the forum admins. So I started posting here right when I was awaiting this new stove installation.
> 
> That being said, if posting a thread about a new stove with new burn technology is considered "spam" on a subforum dedicated to Firewood, Heating and Wood Burning Equipment then maybe I'm on the wrong website.
> 
> ...



I'm not concerned. Sure, it's a little like an infomercial for these stoves - that ain't even available yet, but more so, it's a guy showing off what his new toy can do. Tell me there ain't a ton of that going on all over this site every day.

Mostly, we as mods have some discretion in this area. If it's not outright selling, it gets a pass with me. Say for instance, you were posting this only with "Buy it here at xxx dot com", that makes it selling. If one of our sponsors feels it's a problem and reports it, we have to consider that as well. So far that hasn't happened, and I don't think it's likely to.

Yes, we have a duty to protect the people paying the bills around here, but if we hammered everyone who came here with a post about a non sponsor's product, it wouldn't be much of a site at all.

Keep us updated. Find anything you don't like yet, or would change on it? Sometimes that's more interesting than hearing the good side.


----------



## 046 (Dec 1, 2013)

impressive burn times .. why did you choose to use a cat vs secondary burn?

how does this new cat stove compare to a Buck 91 with cat, which has a 4.4 cubic fit firebox?


----------



## BrianK (Dec 1, 2013)

Steve NW WI said:


> I'm not concerned...
> 
> Keep us updated. Find anything you don't like yet, or would change on it? Sometimes that's more interesting than hearing the good side.


Thanks. 

I think the only downside I see so far is that this stove heats and cools more like a steel stove than a soapstone stove. I was hoping for soapstone heat retention at a steel stove price but that might not be the role of this stove. The hybrid technology permits this stove to put out usable heat longer than any of their soapstone models. 

And I do miss the looks of my Fireview.


----------



## Toddppm (Dec 1, 2013)

I'm impressed as hell and can't think of anything impractical about it!? From 19- 34 degrees and easily staying 70 + for 24 hrs. I don't know what more anybody could expect. From some of the replies you would think this is a common occurrence, ppppffffffffftt. Yeah, yeah, I know he stuffed the crap out of it and opened it a couple times, whatever. It kept burning and had fuel to burn for the whole time!
I'd be happy as hell if my Lopi insert would keep good heat going for 5+ hours!
At least you documented it well. If you listen to some of the amazing stories in here you'd think it's normal to get 2 days of heat from a matchstick in a modified barrel stove! 
I'm really surprised that the catalytic stayed engaged at such low temperatures?


----------



## blades (Dec 1, 2013)

no the sound board went south, didn't bother to replace it, not any real point for me. Its an old dell unit keep waiting for a capacitor to blow like the last one.


----------



## BrianK (Dec 1, 2013)

046 said:


> impressive burn times .. why did you choose to use a cat vs secondary burn?
> 
> how does this new cat stove compare to a Buck 91 with cat, which has a 4.4 cubic fit firebox?



This stove is a hybrid. It has both secondary air as well as a catalytic combuster. I think the Lopi Cape Cod hybrid does too. 

This stove has a 3.2 cu ft firebox so I don't think it can compare to the big Buck on heat output.


----------



## BrianK (Dec 1, 2013)

Toddppm said:


> I'm impressed as hell and can't think of anything impractical about it!? From 19- 34 degrees and easily staying 70 + for 24 hrs. I don't know what more anybody could expect...
> 
> At least you documented it well. If you listen to some of the amazing stories in here you'd think it's normal to get 2 days of heat from a matchstick in a modified barrel stove!
> I'm really surprised that the catalytic stayed engaged at such low temperatures?



LOL, thanks Todd. 

This stove has a hot spot on the front middle of the stove just above the door, right in front of the cat. It gets really hot just after I cut back the air so I'm pretty sure that hot spot corresponds to heat off the cat. It consistently registered as the hottest spot on the stove throughout the 24 hour burn. 

I figure as long as that hot spot is staying hotter than my stove top temp next to the flue collar then my cat must be functioning. But I wouldn't mind having a cat probe too.


----------



## zogger (Dec 1, 2013)

BrianK said:


> Thanks.
> 
> I think the only downside I see so far is that this stove heats and cools more like a steel stove than a soapstone stove. I was hoping for soapstone heat retention at a steel stove price but that might not be the role of this stove. The hybrid technology permits this stove to put out usable heat longer than any of their soapstone models.
> 
> And I do miss the looks of my Fireview.



Stack up bricks on top of it maybe..get them hot, they will radiate the heat then.


----------



## BrianK (Dec 5, 2013)

Really cool secondaries with this new stove. These were taken several days apart. Apologies for all the background noise :


----------



## BrianK (Dec 5, 2013)

Del_ said:


> Is the cat visible above the secondary tubes?


No, you can't see the cat glowing on this stove from any viewing position. It sits above the top front of the firebox but it rides in a sled. The whole sled assembly rides forward and backwards to engage and disengage the cat 

On these videos you can see the flames from the secondary air jets on the top rear of the firebox and the flames from the cat rolling across the front of the firebox.


----------



## BrianK (Jan 7, 2014)

I just took a 16 hour time lapse video of a big load of 3 year seasoned honey locust. I set the TimeLapse app to record for 16 hours and create a 1 minute long time lapse video, so every 4 seconds of the video is equivalent to about an hour of the burn cycle. So at 30 seconds in the video, 8 hours have passed in the burn cycle. I put a magnetic stove top thermometer over the hot spot on the front of the stove right above the door. This is the single hottest spot on the entire stove and is usually about 100 degrees hotter than the stove top thermometer next to the flu collar. Most of the heat comes off the top front of this stove. You can watch the thermometer go up quickly at the start then slowly descend till the end. You can also see when the cat was engaged (top left lever) and follow the air settings change (bottom left lever).


----------



## zogger (Jan 7, 2014)

That's petty cool. How much usable heat out of it once the big chunks collapsed and the flame went way down?


----------



## Elim (Jan 7, 2014)

The Blaze King, King can give 40+hrs on a load. It looks like the King is what gave them this idea. I have a King that is just as great as they say it is.

http://www.blazeking.com/EN/wood-king.html


----------



## dave_376 (Jan 7, 2014)

well it looks like there is a new winner in the ugliest stove on the market. I hope its just for the beta testing and they plan to make it more attractive. When I first heard about this stove I was excited about the prospect but not with those looks. It does have some impressive burn times! How has it done heating with the recent cold temps?


----------



## BrianK (Jan 7, 2014)

zogger said:


> That's petty cool. How much usable heat out of it once the big chunks collapsed and the flame went way down?


About 12 hours of usable heat out of this cycle.


----------



## BrianK (Jan 7, 2014)

dave_376 said:


> well it looks like there is a new winner in the ugliest stove on the market. I hope its just for the beta testing and they plan to make it more attractive. When I first heard about this stove I was excited about the prospect but not with those looks. It does have some impressive burn times! How has it done heating with the recent cold temps?



It produces a tremendous amount of heat, more than we need for our drafty old poorly insulated medium size house. When I built the fire for this time lapse video last night at 6:00pm, my first floor was 68, outside temp was 4. After an hour on a 50% air setting, first floor temps were 79 degrees (they went up 11 degrees in one hour), outside temp 0 degrees, with high wind, and I cut the air back from 50% to 25%. At midnite I needed more heat so I opened air up to 40% at which point in the video the secondairies reappair after briefly stopping. That was six hours into the burn, outside temps were -12 degrees and first floor temps were 72 when I went to bed.

I'm not happy with the color scheme our family chose for this unit. There is another Beta unit in use up in New England that has a more appealing color scheme:


----------



## BrianK (Jan 7, 2014)

Elim said:


> The Blaze King, King can give 40+hrs on a load. It looks like the King is what gave them this idea. I have a King that is just as great as they say it is.
> 
> http://www.blazeking.com/EN/wood-king.html


No doubt that is an awesome stove.


----------



## BrianK (Feb 13, 2014)

Another time lapse, this one was with Lodgepole Pine, not very exciting as it was mostly a cat burn on a dark firebox over 15 hours. 

And a video of a combination of rolling cat secondary flames in the front left and secondary air secondary flames top left rear:


----------



## Elim (Feb 14, 2014)

Nice burn! I can almost feel the heat from here. Thanks for the vids.


----------



## BrianK (Jan 6, 2015)

After running the Beta Ideal Steel from Woodstock last winter, we went ahead and purchased a production model Ideal Steel this year. I built a new hearth for it and installed it over Christmas. A lot of people didn't like the looks of our Beta unit last year but this production model stove and hearth combo turned out pretty well I think:


----------



## flotek (Jan 6, 2015)

It's different ...but has a modernness that is unique and it's growing on me as I look at it .


----------



## Idahonative (Jan 6, 2015)

Elim said:


> The Blaze King, King can give 40+hrs on a load. It looks like the King is what gave them this idea. I have a King that is just as great as they say it is.
> 
> http://www.blazeking.com/EN/wood-king.html



I wasn't going to comment on this thread but I just can't take it anymore. After owning the Blaze King, I'm just not impressed with this thread.

We have done two REAL WORLD test runs of our Blaze King (King Ultra) and it easily heated our home for over 40 hours. And both of those runs had a small mix of lodge pole pine in them. And when I say real world I mean we waited until the weather turned cold to do the test. A home furnace? WTH? We don't even know we have a home furnace as it never gets turned on. Isn't that the point of heating with wood?

I would absolutely love to do a test like this one where we stack a load of square oak blocks. I can honestly say that (with cold weather, no furnace, & keep the house 70) we would easily get over 50 hours of real world heat.


----------



## BrianK (Jan 6, 2015)

Idahonative said:


> I wasn't going to comment on this thread but I just can't take it anymore. After owning the Blaze King, I'm just not impressed with this thread.
> 
> We have done two REAL WORLD test runs of our Blaze King (King Ultra) and it easily heated our home for over 40 hours. And both of those runs had a small mix of lodge pole pine in them. And when I say real world I mean we waited until the weather turned cold to do the test. A home furnace? WTH? We don't even know we have a home furnace as it never gets turned on. Isn't that the point of heating with wood?
> 
> I would absolutely love to do a test like this one where we stack a load of square oak blocks. I can honestly say that (with cold weather, no furnace, & keep the house 70) we would easily get over 50 hours of real world heat.



No doubt about it, the Blaze Kings are awesome stoves.

But the BK King has a 4.32 cu ft firebox while the Woodstock Ideal Steel has a 3.2 cu ft firebox, so it's not exactly an apples to apples comparison. Naturally you'd expect a longer burn time with the BBK.

The Ideal Steel base price is around $1900, with the fully decked out version at $2,200. What does a new BKK Ultra cost?

Given some early speculation about this new model last year I just wanted to show what this stove could do. I have the utmost respect for Blaze King's products. If I lived in a bigger house or a colder climate I'd be proud to own one. (Except I don't necessarily like the looks of the Blaze Kings, but that's just personal preference.)


----------



## caw (Jan 6, 2015)

My family has a 30 year old BK King model that leaks smoke. That said it still easily holds a fire for 12+ hrs and yesterday when the temperature changed from 20 deg F to 45 deg F we had to let it go out because our 4k sq ft house was too hot. They are expensive but I think you get your moneys worth.


----------



## Idahonative (Jan 6, 2015)

BrianK said:


> No doubt about it, the Blaze Kings are awesome stoves.
> 
> But the BK King has a 4.32 cu ft firebox while the Woodstock Ideal Steel has a 3.2 cu ft firebox, so it's not exactly an apples to apples comparison. Naturally you'd expect a longer burn time with the BBK.
> 
> ...



Well ok, if you want to compare the two based on firebox size, the BKK has a 35% larger firebox. Our last test heated our home for 45 hours:
http://www.arboristsite.com/communi...iest-firewood-blaze-king-distance-run.269274/

So just based on firebox size, 45 hours minus 35% is 29.3 hours. And even that is not fair to the Blaze King because we were burning "real" firewood (air spaced), not blocks of oak. I don't think this stove you are testing is even remotely capable of a 29 hour real world burn.

As far as price, we paid $3000 last year for our King. If you want to compare "apples to apples" then you have to realize a larger stove will cost more to manufacture. Comparing your beta stove priced at $2000 is not an apples to apples comparison with a $3000 King.

There are many stoves out there in the $2000 price range that will have similar performance as your stove. The title of your thread is "24 hour burn..." which gives the impression the stove will heat someones house for 24 hours. I guess my point is, spend $2000 on a good stove or spend $1000 more and get a fantastic stove.


----------



## Del_ (Jan 6, 2015)

Idahonative said:


> Well ok, if you want to compare the two based on firebox size, the BKK has a 35% larger firebox. Our last test heated our home for 45 hours:
> http://www.arboristsite.com/communi...iest-firewood-blaze-king-distance-run.269274/
> 
> So just based on firebox size, 45 hours minus 35% is 29.3 hours. And even that is not fair to the Blaze King because we were burning "real" firewood (air spaced), not blocks of oak. I don't think this stove you are testing is even remotely capable of a 29 hour real world burn.
> ...




How would you explain your Blaze King stove having a 45 hour burn time Vs. the Woodstock's 24 hour burn time when the firebox on the Blaze King is only 35% larger?

Taking apples to apples into consideration.


----------



## Idahonative (Jan 6, 2015)

Del_ said:


> How would you explain your Blaze King stove having a 45 hour burn time Vs. the Woodstock's 24 hour burn time when the firebox on the Blaze King is only 35% larger?
> 
> Taking apples to apples into consideration.



The Blaze King engineers have done their homework. Efficient, controlled burn is the goal and they have nailed it. When you read some of BrianK's posts, you see how the temp is dramatically fluctuating (house temp went up 11 degrees in an hour). That is a sign of poor air control. You will never have really long burn times unless you have even, consistent heat output. To have that, you must have a really good air control system on your stove. That is probably the single biggest thing that sets the Blaze King apart from the rest.

Our daily routine for the King is to load it with pine once per day (every 24 hrs.) right before we go to bed. Anyone who has burned pine knows just how difficult it is to heat a home for 24 hrs. with it. That is the real test for anyone wanting to show off their beta stove. Load it up full with "real" splits of pine and see how many hours of real world heat you get out of it. I'm going to go out on a limb and say, in the case of BrianK's beta stove, somewhere around 12 hours.


----------



## Pulp (Jan 6, 2015)

Hey, back off. This is all about what the unit does for you. It's not a "mine is longer than yours" BS, or posturing.
It's about info, and real time experience. Each of us then decides from what we learn.
BK products are fine, Woodstock is an excellent manufacturer with exceptional customer support direct.
Stihl vs Husky.....who cares as long as it does the job.

Tech details: both cat stoves have a simple bimetallic primary air control that controls the fire for long, clean burns. It was developed and engineered
decades ago (1970s) by the original Vermont Castings crew that improved on the creosote burners such as Ashley. Over many owners in the past, VC quality tanked .
Truth in Bias here: the BK stoves are ugly to me and the boss. At 5 F (temp here now in N.Maine) with no central furnace, if BK can HEAT a 1600 ft² home to a comfort level of
say 70 F (soft or hardwood ) for more than 12 hours, then there is a tooth fairy.


----------



## Idahonative (Jan 6, 2015)

_*At 5 F (temp here now in N.Maine) with no central furnace, if BK can HEAT a 1600 ft² home to a comfort level of
say 70 F (soft or hardwood ) for more than 12 hours, then there is a tooth fairy.[/QUOTE]*_

Only 12 hours? Why is the bar so low? The King will heat a 1600 sf home to 70 F (@5 F outside) with pine for 20-24 hrs. and 30-40 hrs. with hardwood. Sorry if that is hard to understand. I'm not interested in a pissing match here. Just giving you the facts from my real world experience with the King. Do you have some real world experience with the King that is contrary to what I'm saying? I guess there really is a tooth fairy


----------



## Pulp (Jan 6, 2015)

No pissing here Idaho. No, no experience with BK, only many years heating with many wood stoves 24/7, 100%.
Wood stoves only can do only so much real world magic.
Get down to basics: central heat in your place set at ~55-60 F ? Oil, gas, electric ?
Any backup heat on ?
How many cords do you use in a winter ? Species ?
What is the average 24 hour outdoor temps where you are ?
What's the BK stove top temp after 12 hours, 30 h, 40 h ?
Any good primary air control that shuts completely down can keep coals for that 40 hours ...but not heating.
What's the real world delta ( the difference between your outdoor temps--honestly @ 5 F, and desired indoor temp ) ?
Tooth Fairy....no pissing. I do use Stihl saws not Husky.


----------



## olyman (Jan 6, 2015)

Idahonative said:


> _*At 5 F (temp here now in N.Maine) with no central furnace, if BK can HEAT a 1600 ft² home to a comfort level of
> say 70 F (soft or hardwood ) for more than 12 hours, then there is a tooth fairy.*_


 
Only 12 hours? Why is the bar so low? The King will heat a 1600 sf home to 70 F (@5 F outside) with pine for 20-24 hrs. and 30-40 hrs. with hardwood. Sorry if that is hard to understand. I'm not interested in a pissing match here. Just giving you the facts from my real world experience with the King. Do you have some real world experience with the King that is contrary to what I'm saying? I guess there really is a tooth fairy[/QUOTE]
pulp, brush ape, overclock........


----------



## Pulp (Jan 6, 2015)

Prozac....maybe a good beer to chase it Oly.


olyman said:


> pulp, brush ape, overclock........


----------



## Idahonative (Jan 6, 2015)

Pulp:

These forums are about information. Because someone creates a thread (BrianK) and I'm not impressed with it doesn't mean I'm dissing on anyone. It means I'm giving others my opinion and perspective based on my experiences. There will be some who dismiss what I say and others that it helps.

Spidey made a good point:
_*"I'm lost on the point of it... seriously. (And I ain't tryin' to be an azz... I'm 100% serious, I'm lost on the point.)

What good is a 24 hour burn cycle if it can't maintain room/house temperature?? I guess, my thinkin' is... it don't mean cold squat.
I mean... seriously... my old 4x4 pickup will get 50 MPG if'n I drive 10 MPH.
In my mind it ain't about... never has been about the burn time... it's the heating time that keeps ya' warm.

The most important question is... how long can that stove keep your whole house at 70° or so, during a mid-winter night, before a reloading is required??"*_

To answer your questions about the technical details, they are all on here. You just have to be able to read. I will tell you this: You are really shortchanging yourself by just automatically writing off what I have to say. Hey, no sweat off my brow.

It's all in post #15:
http://www.arboristsite.com/communi...iest-firewood-blaze-king-distance-run.269274/

P.S: Just so you know, my mothers 36 year old Earthstove will easily heat her 1500 sf home with pine for 12 hours.


----------



## Thomud (Jan 6, 2015)

Now I know he's fibbin', no way is that old truck going to get 50mpg if you drive 10mph. I don't care what kind of truck it is


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BrianK (Jan 6, 2015)

I just wanted to show that this stove was capable of a real 24 hour burn that would be more than adequate to heat my drafty old house during shoulder season and milder winter weather. Woodstock advertises this stove as capable of 10-14 hour burns. They do not advertise it as a 24 hour burn stove. 

It was not my intent to stir up any particular stove company's fan base. If you like Blaze King, great! They are great stoves and the owners of Blaze King and Woodstock are friends and together are leaders in the R&D of wood stove technology and design. But Blaze Kings aren't for everybody. For those who do not prefer Blaze King, discussions of other stove models should be encouraged, not derailed.


----------



## woodguy105 (Jan 6, 2015)

I want to see a Blaze King post documented like this guy did. 
Not saying they wont burn for 40 hrs. but wtf give the guy a break plenty of info pics & vids -everything we want.


----------



## Idahonative (Jan 6, 2015)

woodguy105 said:


> I want to see a Blaze King post documented like this guy did.
> Not saying they wont burn for 40 hrs. but wtf give the guy a break plenty of info pics & vids -everything we want.



You _*"want to see a Blaze King post documented like this guy did..."*_

Should BK have to spend tens of thousands of their hard earned dollars to prove this to the public just because they make a piece of equipment that heats unusually well? The other manufacturers don't. You didn't ask the same of the Woodstock manufacturer because their performance was average and more believable right? BK should be punished for making their product too good? You see my point?

I guess as a company, you know you hit a home run when people are skeptical about your products stellar performance. Not a bad thing at all. The facts are on this forum and they back up what Blaze King publishes. People will either believe them or they won't.


----------



## BrianK (Jan 7, 2015)

Idahonative said:


> You _*"want to see a Blaze King post documented like this guy did..."*_
> 
> Should BK have to spend tens of thousands of their hard earned dollars to prove this to the public just because they make a piece of equipment that heats unusually well? The other manufacturers don't. You didn't ask the same of the Woodstock manufacturer because their performance was average and more believable right? BK should be punished for making their product too good? You see my point?
> 
> I guess as a company, you know you hit a home run when people are skeptical about your products stellar performance. Not a bad thing at all. The facts are on this forum and they back up what Blaze King publishes. People will either believe them or they won't.


I don't want to speak for them, but I think the poster was _*NOT*_ asking for the Blaze King company to document anything at all. I think he just thought it would be good to see a thread _*here*_ documenting a Blaze King burn the way this thread documented a Woodstock Ideal Steel burn. I suspect its already been done here.


----------



## olyman (Jan 7, 2015)

Idahonative said:


> You _*"want to see a Blaze King post documented like this guy did..."*_
> 
> Should BK have to spend tens of thousands of their hard earned dollars to prove this to the public just because they make a piece of equipment that heats unusually well? The other manufacturers don't. You didn't ask the same of the Woodstock manufacturer because their performance was average and more believable right? BK should be punished for making their product too good? You see my point?
> 
> I guess as a company, you know you hit a home run when people are skeptical about your products stellar performance. Not a bad thing at all. The facts are on this forum and they back up what Blaze King publishes. People will either believe them or they won't.


----------



## Wood Doctor (Jan 7, 2015)

Just for the record I could probably get my Federal Airtight 288 to hold a fire 18 hours if I wanted to, but if I did that, the room would be cold half the time. White Spider has a point. If you throttle down any stove with air intakes and/or a damper, it will smolder forever, build up creosote, and produce little heat.

Wood only has so much heat content, and you can release it fast, slow, or something in between. If the load of wood only has 200,000 BTUs and your stove is 80% efficient, you will get a maximum of 160,000 BTUs. The rest goes up the chimney. So, if you ran the stove for four hours at 40,000 BTU/Hr, that's it--time to add another load. If you ran it for eight hours at 20,000 BTU/Hr, that's it also, but did you heat the house? I doubt it. The building's heat loss probably exceeded the stove's output.


----------



## Idahonative (Jan 7, 2015)

_*White Spider has a point. If you throttle down any stove with air intakes and/or a damper, it will smolder forever, build up creosote, and produce little heat.*_

Unless it has a cat in which case it will be purring like a kitten Our stove is designed to smolder. The more smoldering the better because that is food for the cat. The firebox runs "cool" and the cat runs hot. It took some time for that to sink in for me.


----------



## Wood Doctor (Jan 7, 2015)

Idahonative said:


> _*White Spider has a point. If you throttle down any stove with air intakes and/or a damper, it will smolder forever, build up creosote, and produce little heat.*_
> 
> Unless it has a cat in which case it will be purring like a kitten Our stove is designed to smolder. The more smoldering the better because that is food for the cat. The firebox runs "cool" and the cat runs hot. It took some time for that to sink in for me.


But, you may have missed my point. The house could easily be losing heat faster than the stove is creating it. As such, the building's ambient temperature is going to drop.

There is only so much heat available from a load of wood. When it's gone, it's gone. Throttling down the stove merely postpones the time that a new load has to be added because you are lowering the burn rate (BTU/Hr). The wood fuel sets the BTU limit. Your stove and how you run it sets the Hr.


----------



## olyman (Jan 7, 2015)

Wood Doctor said:


> Just for the record I could probably get my Federal Airtight 288 to hold a fire 18 hours if I wanted to, but if I did that, the room would be cold half the time. White Spider has a point. If you throttle down any stove with air intakes and/or a damper, it will smolder forever, build up creosote, and produce little heat.
> 
> Wood only has so much heat content, and you can release it fast, slow, or something in between. If the load of wood only has 200,000 BTUs and your stove is 80% efficient, you will get a maximum of 160,000 BTUs. The rest goes up the chimney. So, if you ran the stove for four hours at 40,000 BTU/Hr, that's it--time to add another load. If you ran it for eight hours at 20,000 BTU/Hr, that's it also, but did you heat the house? I doubt it. The building's heat loss probably exceeded the stove's output.


 not to hear the elitists on hear tell it!!!!


----------



## olyman (Jan 7, 2015)

Idahonative said:


> _*White Spider has a point. If you throttle down any stove with air intakes and/or a damper, it will smolder forever, build up creosote, and produce little heat.*_
> 
> Unless it has a cat in which case it will be purring like a kitten Our stove is designed to smolder. The more smoldering the better because that is food for the cat. The firebox runs "cool" and the cat runs hot. It took some time for that to sink in for me.


 that is good. just remember,,not everyone of this forum,,has the money to buy a expensive stove...nor may not want to...its called America,,freedom,,tho elitists want it differently......


----------



## Idahonative (Jan 7, 2015)

olyman said:


> that is good. just remember,,not everyone of this forum,,has the money to buy a expensive stove...nor may not want to...its called America,,freedom,,tho elitists want it differently......



I realize that Oly and believe me, I'm sensitive to that fact. We aren't from money either, that stove being a major purchase for us. I wasn't pushing the stove in this circumstance, just trying to explain how it works differently than a traditional stove. Thank you for bringing the point up as it is important to the conversation.


----------



## Pulp (Jan 7, 2015)

Idahonative said:


> I realize that Oly and believe me, I'm sensitive to that fact. We aren't from money either, that stove being a major purchase for us. I wasn't pushing the stove in this circumstance, just trying to explain how it works differently than a traditional stove. Thank you for bringing the point up as it is important to the conversation.



BK's stoves are exactly like the engineered VC cat stoves: cat, strong bimetallic air control, tight box. 
BK has a better build, better QC than the later VC owners who dropped the quality ball and made the stove too damn complex without a high end build like BK.
You made me look over BK stoves here. Made me, you hear. Nice, but ugly for us so very aesthetes preferring a romantic cast design for those cold nights here in Siberia. 
And not cheap.
I do Stihl.


----------



## Del_ (Jan 7, 2015)

Idahonative said:


> I realize that Oly and believe me, I'm sensitive to that fact. We aren't from money either, that stove being a major purchase for us. I wasn't pushing the stove in this circumstance, just trying to explain how it works differently than a traditional stove. Thank you for bringing the point up as it is important to the conversation.



Without investments that pay good returns it's hard to get ahead. 

A high efficiency wood stove is one example. 

A working wood shed is another.

I know people heating with the old smoke dragons than can never seem to get ahead on their wood supply, even to the point of burning wood that is not dry enough. I've got one next door to me and another about a half mile away. Both families are close friends of mine.

There are good reasons some folks can't afford a quality wood stove and they have little to do with the cost of the stove.


----------



## Idahonative (Jan 7, 2015)

Pulp said:


> BK's stoves are exactly like the engineered VC cat stoves: cat, strong bimetallic air control, tight box.
> BK has a better build, better QC than the later VC owners who dropped the quality ball and made the stove too damn complex without a high end build like BK.
> You made me look over BK stoves here. Made me, you hear. Nice, but ugly for us so very aesthetes preferring a romantic cast design for those cold nights here in Siberia.
> And not cheap.
> I do Stihl.



Trust me Pulp, the King would grow into a beautiful swan once you've used it


----------



## zogger (Jan 7, 2015)

Idahonative said:


> Trust me Pulp, the King would grow into a beautiful swan once you've used it



Maybe someone could make some coin, come up with magnetic stick on blaze king "dress up" bling panels.


----------



## woodguy105 (Jan 7, 2015)

BrianK said:


> I don't want to speak for them, but I think the poster was _*NOT*_ asking for the Blaze King company to document anything at all. I think he just thought it would be good to see a thread _*here*_ documenting a Blaze King burn the way this thread documented a Woodstock Ideal Steel burn. I suspect its already been done here.



You are correct Brian, although truth be told there was a bit of sarcasm mixed in with the request. I don't really care one way or the other about documenting BK stoves performance.


----------



## Pulp (Jan 7, 2015)

Sorry guys, this one is an aesthetic bigot. 
BK stoves are butt ugly: no curves, no prettiness, no design to stare at when we're nude in front of our o-so-lovely cast iron heaters.
It is an opinion.
There is no central furnace to take over here after that 40 hour burn, so a good, pretty cast stove which becomes center stage is what we like.
I've never gotten more than maybe 8 hours of real heat when the delta is like now--9 F out and 71 F in--from any stand alone wood stove.
Maybe BK could put lipstick on a pig. Who knows.
Remember, it was the guys in Vermont in the 70's through early 90's who engineered recycled gases, with bimetallic thermostatic primary air, then 
advanced with cats. Again, it was a complex appliance, needing maintenance and care. And again, the later VC owners blew it. BK ran with quality in the build.
But Idaho, they are ugly. No swan.
We drive Ford, Subaru. Cut with Stihl.


----------



## Wood Doctor (Jan 7, 2015)

+1, Zogger, et al. The stove looks a bit plastic, assuming that it really is a wood stove. I think I am looking for cast iron or thick steel plate. Regardless, there is only so much heat that a load of wood can deliver. The operator of the stove is still the king of the burn time.


----------



## Idahonative (Jan 7, 2015)

Pulp said:


> Sorry guys, this one is an aesthetic bigot.
> BK stoves are butt ugly: no curves, no prettiness, no design to stare at when we're nude in front of our o-so-lovely cast iron heaters.
> It is an opinion.
> There is no central furnace to take over here after that 40 hour burn, so a good, pretty cast stove which becomes center stage is what we like.
> ...



Hahahaha. Well, enjoy your "8 hours of real heat..."


----------



## unclemoustache (Jan 7, 2015)

Interesting. Certainly not terribly pretty, but it seems to function quite well. I'm definitely intrigued, despite the fact that some here can only urinate out their mouths. Brian has been very patient, carefully explaining the limits of the stove and the purpose of his experiment. Pity he didn't get the same respectful treatment in return.


----------



## Idahonative (Jan 7, 2015)

unclemoustache said:


> Interesting. Certainly not terribly pretty, but it seems to function quite well. I'm definitely intrigued, despite the fact that some here can only urinate out their mouths. Brian has been very patient, carefully explaining the limits of the stove and the purpose of his experiment. Pity he didn't get the same respectful treatment in return.



Yes I agree (about Brian). I'm going to do something I don't normally do...make excuses for myself. The truth is, I've had that miserable flu bug that's going around and the splitting headaches have played havoc on my brain. It did come off as disrespectful and I want to apologize for that. That was not my intention and I am sincerely sorry. I genuinely wanted to add something constructive to the conversation and I sure could have worded it differently.

So, Brian, hopefully you read this and accept my apology. You spent a lot of time on that project and did a great job. Keep doing good work like that on this forum because that is why a lot of us keep coming back.


----------



## Jakers (Jan 7, 2015)

unclemoustache said:


> Interesting. Certainly not terribly pretty, but it seems to function quite well. I'm definitely intrigued, despite the fact that some here can only urinate out their mouths. Brian has been very patient, carefully explaining the limits of the stove and the purpose of his experiment. Pity he didn't get the same respectful treatment in return.


very well said. i hate all the arguing and opinions backed up by the "my way is the only way" attitude. @BrianK , you keep on posting your stove experiments and tests. i enjoy reading and learning silently. dont be discouraged by the "mine is bigger" people.

That is all, carry on


----------



## Pulp (Jan 8, 2015)

Well said. Each to his own.


----------



## BrianK (Jan 8, 2015)

Idahonative said:


> Yes I agree (about Brian). I'm going to do something I don't normally do...make excuses for myself. The truth is, I've had that miserable flu bug that's going around and the splitting headaches have played havoc on my brain. It did come off as disrespectful and I want to apologize for that. That was not my intention and I am sincerely sorry. I genuinely wanted to add something constructive to the conversation and I sure could have worded it differently.
> 
> So, Brian, hopefully you read this and accept my apology. You spend a lot of time on that project and did a great job. Keep doing good work like that on this forum because that is why a lot of us keep coming back.


Thanks, no problem Idahonative. (I used to spend a lot of time on conservative political forums so I don't get upset by healthy debate and discussion on Internet forums.)

I've talked to the owner of Woodstock stoves. He knows the owner of BK and they are friends. Woodstock even made a custom version of this Ideal Steel stove with wildlife scenes for BK's owner. They both get a chuckle out of their customer fan base in the way they defend and promote their respective products online.


----------



## BrianK (Jan 8, 2015)

Wood Doctor said:


> +1, Zogger, et al. The stove looks a bit plastic, assuming that it really is a wood stove. I think I am looking for cast iron or thick steel plate. Regardless, there is only so much heat that a load of wood can deliver. The operator of the stove is still the king of the burn time.


No plastic on this stove. It weighs 650lbs and the firebox and leg covers are lined with soapstone. It's a very well built stove.


----------



## Pulp (Jan 8, 2015)

Idahonative said:


> Hahahaha. Well, enjoy your "8 hours of real heat..."


 Hey, all I want from our stoves IS heat,,,,and romance. I gotta tell you Idaho, 8 hours of true warmth when the delta is like this morning @ 0530 ( - 8 F out to 70 F in )
is enough for these bodies. Wind BTW, 20-30 mph NW.
No intimate relations with them (yet)....but I do want them pretty since they hang around all year. 
The stupid saying these parts about northern Maine weather; " 11 months of snow, 1 month of poor sledding."
Anyone for some wood stove **** ?


----------



## Idahonative (Jan 8, 2015)

Pulp said:


> Hey, all I want from our stoves IS heat,,,,and romance. I gotta tell you Idaho, 8 hours of true warmth when the delta is like this morning @ 0530 ( - 8 F out to 70 F in )
> is enough for these bodies. Wind BTW, 20-30 mph NW.
> No intimate relations with them (yet)....but I do want them pretty since they hang around all year.
> The stupid saying these parts about northern Maine weather; " 11 months of snow, 1 month of poor sledding."
> Anyone for some wood stove **** ?



I agree with ya Pulp. Truth is, the wife and I aren't working right now so we have all the time in the world to keep a fire stoked and we could get by with just about any stove. The problem we have is, when we do work, we are at times gone from 7:30am-11pm. We have backup heat but refuse to use if for no other reason than stubbornness I guess. For years we just came home to a cold house and built the fire. Sometimes the house would be down to 55 degrees when we would get home. That has gotten old as we have gotten older and forced us to look for something more convenient.

Circumstances will be different for everyone but in our case, having a stove that was capable of long heat cycles was a necessity. I like looks just like the next guy but in our situation, it just couldn't be the deciding factor. Do I hate the looks of the BK? Not at all. Trust me, a piece of equipment can look beautiful or ugly depending on how it performs. If I had a dollar for every cuss word I said to our last stove I could probably afford to heat with electric. That stove looked very ugly to us because it made us work at keeping the house warm.

Like I've said before, a wood stove is only as good as the air control system it has on it. Yes, the build quality of the stove matters but just about every manufacturer is capable of good build quality these days. Lots of guys will get on here and say, hey, there's only so many btu's in a given amount of wood and that is true. But the way a wood stove extracts and delivers those btu's is the magic.


----------



## olyman (Jan 8, 2015)

Idahonative said:


> Hahahaha. Well, enjoy your "8 hours of real heat..."


----------



## coog (Jan 8, 2015)

Been there, done that. As important as the right stove is, a well insulated house with good windows is the key. I realize it can't always be achieved in a older home, but burn times are meaningless in a house that produces it's own wind chill.


----------



## Pulp (Jan 9, 2015)

Apologies owed to all you BK fanatics.
Great build and engineering ( inconvenient truth: I LIKE cat stoves ).
Soooo------looked at their newer ASHFORD 30 CAST IRON stove. If I needed another beast, this is one we would seriously consider.
It has the looks and aesthetics that some of us older farts enjoy. Other than BK, Woodstock for cat stoves, Jotul for the non-cats would be
on the list. Not now. Tight with $$$.
So there you go Idaho, a mea culpa from the foot-in-mouth club.

Correction though, BK specs are clear about that mythical "40 hour burn" for the King. It's at the LOW BTU output; not enough to warm a witch's &^%$ in
this climate. More like a 10 hour HEATING output on "high". Damn you made me check it out online and dealer. Some humble pie.

And Idaho, never, ever refer to your partner as "THE WIFE".


----------



## X-S-FLA (Jan 9, 2015)

BrianK said:


> No plastic on this stove. It weighs 650lbs and the firebox and leg covers are lined with soapstone. It's a very well built stove.


Hmmmm, just read the entire thread and was compelled to join. Laugh as you might, I'm in South Florida (jealous? don't be) and will, at some point, be retiring to the Southern Appalachians. Having visited N. Ga each Christmas break for the last 25 years, and being a bit of a off-grid survival wannabe, I know I don't want gas or electric heat. Especially the way this country is headed. After reading all five pages of the thread, I can say I've learned quite a bit from Brian's trial run, the results thereof, and comments thereafter. I was actually considering (after some research), the progress hybrid and thought I'd look at the ideal steel. Shooting for N. Ga or E. Tn as a target, I'm thinking the ideal steel hybrid will do the trick (@$$uming a decently insulated home). It certainly doesn't get as cold there as it does where most of you guys live. So hey, thanks for the education! I've still got a ton of learning to do...
mike


----------



## Oldman47 (Feb 2, 2015)

Reality check. So many pounds of wood only contains so many potential BTU. Simple, right? Try another fact. If I maintain a 70º difference between inside and outside I use up so many BTU/hr. The number varies with insulation values, air leakage etc. If I decide to stretch my total BTU over more hours I cannot maintain that BTU/hr rate but something else also happens. The temperature difference must drop. When it does the BTU/hr required to maintain that difference also drops. Let's say I go from maintaining a 70º difference to maintaining a 65º difference. The change in time does not go up by a 70/65 ratio but by more than that. This effect taken to its extreme means it takes nothing to maintain a zero difference. Something I think we can all agree to. Let's say an ideal burning situation lets me get 10 hours from some stove at 85% efficiency with a 70 degrees difference. The best I can hope for is 100% efficiency in some fairy tale world. In the real world even 85% is pretty hard to reach. All else being equal, the best performance enhancement for even a 70% stove is an added 30% of hours at that same heating delta T. If someone tells you they can extend that by 30% what does that tell you? It tells me they are full of it.


----------



## olyman (Feb 2, 2015)

coog said:


> Been there, done that. As important as the right stove is, a well insulated house with good windows is the key. I realize it can't always be achieved in a older home, but burn times are meaningless in a house that produces it's own wind chill.


 it can....time and money.........mine is waaaaaaaay better than 30 yrs ago...........


----------



## Gypo Logger (Feb 2, 2015)

The long burn time is a huge plus regardless of the inside temp of the house as long as it stays above freezing.
The beauty of the long burn is that you can be away from the house for a whole day and come back to a bed of coals.
John


----------



## fred bergman (Feb 2, 2015)

nice


----------



## Gypo Logger (Feb 3, 2015)

Here's what my windows look like at 35 below.


----------



## Ambull01 (Feb 4, 2015)

Gypo Logger said:


> The long burn time is a huge plus regardless of the inside temp of the house as long as it stays above freezing.
> The beauty of the long burn is that you can be away from the house for a whole day and come back to a bed of coals.
> John



Amen! As someone with a tiny insert with a burn time I assume a lot of people on this site could achieve by burning Lincoln Logs I would love a long burn time. I've gone through 2-3 boxes of Fatwood, a basket of some homemade pine cone/candle/cupcake wrapper fire starters, and 3-4 boxes of those giant match like cheap starters. There's no way I can get an overnight burn.


----------



## Gypo Logger (Feb 4, 2015)

Ambull01 said:


> Amen! As someone with a tiny insert with a burn time I assume a lot of people on this site could achieve by burning Lincoln Logs I would love a long burn time. I've gone through 2-3 boxes of Fatwood, a basket of some homemade pine cone/candle/cupcake wrapper fire starters, and 3-4 boxes of those giant match like cheap starters. There's no way I can get an overnight burn.


How is your gasket?
Here's mine, now I get at least a 10 hr. burn. It's a 5/8" gasket, but may try a 3/4"


----------



## Ambull01 (Feb 4, 2015)

Gypo Logger said:


> How is your gasket?
> Here's mine, now I get at least a 10 hr. burn. It's a 5/8" gasket, but may try a 3/4"View attachment 400750



My gasket? It's black lol. My insert is less than 1 year old. Just got this thing in October I think. I HATES it. It was free though from the in-laws.


----------



## Idahonative (Feb 6, 2015)

Good information on another thread concerning BrianK's Beta:

http://www.arboristsite.com/communi...dary-burn-technology-advantages.272041/page-4


----------



## X-S-FLA (Feb 13, 2015)

Hey Brian! Any updates on performance? Average burn times, fuel used, temps, etc.?


----------



## Ambull01 (Feb 13, 2015)

X-S-FLA said:


> Hey Brian! Any updates on performance? Average burn times, fuel used, temps, etc.?



Did you see the hearth he built? Looks great. I need to build one once I get a free standing


----------



## BrianK (Feb 13, 2015)

X-S-FLA said:


> Hey Brian! Any updates on performance? Average burn times, fuel used, temps, etc.?



To be completely honest, I'm posting about my experiences with this stove at another firewood forum. There's just too much pathological behavior going on here to have a rational, reasonable discussion.


----------



## BrianK (Feb 13, 2015)

Ambull01 said:


> Did you see the hearth he built? Looks great. I need to build one once I get a free standing


Thanks, it was a fun build:


----------



## Ambull01 (Feb 13, 2015)

BrianK said:


> To be completely honest, I'm posting about my experiences with this stove at another firewood forum. There's just too much pathological behavior going on here to have a rational, reasonable discussion.



Just shake it off sir. From what I've seen it's just a select few that really need to be ignored on this site. Just click on ignore and drive on. 



BrianK said:


> Thanks, it was a fun build:
> View attachment 403276



Yep, there it is. I'm going to use that and the other pics as a blueprint. I'm thinking black stones with a all white IS. Should look awesome. Which reminds me I need to send in my deposit before the price goes up.


----------



## X-S-FLA (Feb 13, 2015)

Agreed; with all Ambull01 said (especially the shake it off). Guess I'll have to find the 'other site' as I'm interested in Brian's findings.
...on it like stink on feces...


----------



## BrianK (Feb 13, 2015)

Ambull01 said:


> Just shake it off sir. From what I've seen it's just a select few that really need to be ignored on this site. Just click on ignore and drive on.


Thanks, I forgot about that handy forum feature.


----------

