Reviews of wood stoves: Franco Belge, Godin or Supra?

[the middle]

I would end by saying that we still have our money

Clarilau, you can explain this sentence, please.
Thank you

[clarilau]

you have to tell yourself that the stove is not an incinerator, so you will not find a stove to burn fir, even if you can burn it in all stoves, but its dirty, dirty, and I'm not talking to you no sweeping ...

otherwise your mini boiler seems to me well mounted at first glance. Now I couldn't tell you what I think of turbo deom, because it's a product that I don't know at all.

[clarilau]

I would end by saying that we still have our money

Clarilau, you can explain this sentence, please.
Thank you

no problem

many people think of saving money because the product is cheaper, but in the end it is more expensive.
When you see that a godin stove you lift it all alone scares you and I'm not talking about its combustion ...

Know that the state gives you a tax rebate of 50%, so you have to know how to take advantage

[Rabbit]

what kind of stove should you buy to burn fir?

A good big stove, a bread oven or a mass stove.
The cheapest is still the stove, the better is the stove
mass but it takes up more space.

In this sector of the net you should be able to average:
http://forums.futura-sciences.com/habit ... sse-6.html

[nightrow]

After being enormously informed on the subject, it seems that the most important is, for multiple reasons (pollution, clogging, consumption of wood), to make turn its stove "fully".
This is the absolute condition to have a performance that exceeds the 40%, all sellers looking to pass the stove 80% yield and continuous fire forget to say that the 80% are only reached when the stove is at bottom , the yield falls if not enormously.
The purpose of making it turn is to raise the temperature, to burn the polluting gases. One of the ways to do this is to reduce the size of the fireplace (lower inertia), that's why we now find many stoves with logs of 33cm because the combustion is better.
It is therefore important for this not to overdimension his stove, otherwise we will be tempted to run it in slow motion, with the problems mentioned.
The 2e factor to consider is how to restore heat. Indeed, with a bottom stove, the dephasing of the heat is a very important parameter: by classifying from the least good to the best:
- steel
- melting
- soapstone (vermiculite)
- brick
The further the material is in the list, the better its ability to absorb heat and restore it over time (the price follows unfortunately). Indeed, with a bottom stove, if it immediately restores the heat, it burst hot, and as it is, it is cold, which causes it to try to make it turn slowly to smooth in the time...
It is better to leave in the stove the care of smoothing this temperature over time, with materials adapted to the phase shift. The best example is the mass stove.

I am not very pedagogue (sorry) but I hope to have made you understand that many parameters are important and worth the blow to learn before choosing by taking the "first price because it is the same".

[clarilau]

so this is a very good thing you just said.
I would add that now we plan fireplaces for 25 cm logs.

Or I am a little less accor it is for mass stoves, which for me is not suitable for our climate except for the north or at altitude.
I explain why: During the day we can have a temp that changes very quickly, so if there begins to have a beautiful sun beating on the bay windows and the stove is hot it will make a double heat which will become painful, that the normal stove cools down faster.
Its operation also in the other direction, a mass stove takes much more time to restore the heat at startup.

So pay attention to that too !!!!

[nightrow]

completely agree, I also forgot to talk about another important parameter:
The thermal inertia of the house.
In a house with a low thermal inertia (very well insulated by the interior for example), it is necessary to be wary of the phase shift on the duration, because indeed with the sun or other, the temperature can quickly rise to an uncomfortable level. The mass stove (which would tempt me well you understood) is not necessarily the best idea in this case.
Houses designed to have mass stoves are often thus insulated from the outside, allowing the walls to act as accumulators and thus smooth out temperature variations.

[clarilau]

completely agree, I also forgot to talk about another important parameter:
The thermal inertia of the house.
In a house with a low thermal inertia (very well insulated by the interior for example), it is necessary to be wary of the phase shift on the duration, because indeed with the sun or other, the temperature can quickly rise to an uncomfortable level. The mass stove (which would tempt me well you understood) is not necessarily the best idea in this case.
Houses designed to have mass stoves are often thus insulated from the outside, allowing the walls to act as accumulators and thus smooth out temperature variations.

Ah finally someone who understands

My choice will be to heat my wooden house with a hase stove knowing that I am one of their installers.

[Rabbit]

The 2e factor to consider is how to restore heat. Indeed, with a bottom stove, the dephasing of the heat is a very important parameter: by classifying from the least good to the best:
- steel
- melting
- soapstone (vermiculite)
- brick
The further the material is from the list, the better its capacity to absorb heat and restore it over time (the price unfortunately follows).

Three small remarks:
- about this classification, there must have been an inversion
and confusion.
--The inversion :
Soapstone and brick.
The thermal capacity of soapstone: 0,98 kJ / kg ° K
The thermal capacity of the brick: 0,92 kJ / kg ° K
source: http://forums.futura-sciences.com/habit ... se-11.html
In addition: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaleur_massique

--The confusion
Soapstone is not vermiculite.
The soapstone or soapstone.
source: http://www.pierres-steatites.com/a%20pr ... savon.html
Vermiculite:
source: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermiculite (very interesting article which challenges).
Soapstone apart from its aesthetic aspects is used
for its resistance to heat and its capacity to store it
and return it.
Vermiculite is used for its fire resistance as well
than its insulating power.

--In terms of the best materials in terms of
mass heat is water. Inexpensive and can be
transports to distribute the heat.

Indeed, with a stove at the bottom, if it immediately returns the heat, it dies hot, and as soon as it is turned off, it is cold, which pushes to try to make it idle to smooth in the time...

This is very true for steel stoves, those made of cast iron
their heat for a few hours it depends on the thickness
of this one.

[nightrow]

I didn't want to go into too much detail, but since you asked:
- I have indeed confused vermiculite and steatite (mea culpa)
- water is indeed the best way to transport heat, we did not put water in the central heaters for nothing. It's not easy to build a stove with ...
- My classification was in order: do not confuse thermal capacity and phase shift: the thermal capacity is the quantity of "storable" heat, while the phase shift is linked to the time it takes for the heat to pass through the coating of the stove.

This is where we can compare steatite and brick:
- soapstone: average phase shift, large mass storage capacity (therefore average mass) due to the good heat transfer in the stone.
- brick: significant phase shift (the brick does not transmit heat well), hence the need for a larger surface / mass to keep a radiated and stored power correct.

I didn't invent anything, I just read the forum futura sciences cited above on the construction of a brick PDM, which I spent several weeks peeling (and again, I only read it partially).
I invite you to do so if you have time, it is instructive.