Todd Wohlbier

Glenn Herbert wrote:I believe the wood saving claims can be realistic over an older box stove operated in a common manner to burn overnight... but the most modern woodstoves are considerably more efficient, and I would not expect better than 2-4x improvement (1/2-1/4 the wood) when used per manufacturer's instructions.

Does your modern woodstove ever require chimney cleaning or creosote removal of any kind? Then it is less efficient than a RMH.

Ok I can get around that. The old smoke dragons were quite inefficient.

Yes I clean my chimney every year and get about a cup or two of fine powder. I burn + or - 3 cords of hardwood about 5 months per year to heat my 1000 sq ft log cabin in N Wis.

I don’t see what’s so hard about starting a fire in the morning? Yes it’s nice to have some live coals to help things along but it’s no big deal to just stack some splits in the firebox and use a firestarter.

And and as far as burning overnight any current modern EPA wood stove with at least a 2 cu ft firebox should be able to do it cleanly at a low air setting. These stoves were designed to be most efficient at the lower burn rates. If you read the manufacturer EPA testing report you will see the efficiency and emissions numbers. They are always the best at lower burn rates. Some of the efficiency numbers I have seen with these stove burning at lower rates are approaching 90%!

My Jotul F45 non cat stove goes an easy 12 hours between reloads with no smoke. I also added thermal mass around the stove to help even out the heat that works great.

The RMH’s are very interesting and I’m sure heat very well but I have yet to see any actual numbers from testing and it’s hard to believe some of the wood saving claims over a modern EPA stove.

What I don’t understand is there are only so many BTU’ per pound of wood and I see calculations out there to figure how many BTU’s you need to heat your home. When I see the claims that RMH is 1/10 the wood I don’t see how that is possible BTU wise? Maybe it has to do with what you call a conventional wood stove? I see many new EPA approved wood stove with HHV efficiency at 80% now a days, isn’t that close to the efficiency of RMH’s?

My wood stove is 75% efficient and I heat about 1000 sq ft in N Wis on 2-3 cords of wood. If I had a RMH your claiming I should be able to heat my cabin with less than a cord of wood? I did stack a good 1800 lbs of concrete pavers around the stove to help even out the heat spikes and I like how that’s working out. I usually only have to feed my stove every 12 hours with about a 30lb load of wood on a normal winters day.

Not sure I’d cover up the stove pipe. You may need to get at it in the future. I have a corner installed wood stove and I stacked a good 1800 lbs of concrete pavers behind around and underneath the stove. It really helps even out the heat spikes and are still warm in the morning.