Easy mistake to make. I felt for you when I realised but appreciate your input.
I looked up Tulikivi and they're very interesting. So it's a conventional wood stove encased in soapstone to provide a heatsink. That controls the heat output to make it more stable and also to last longer when the fire goes out.
I can see another advantage. You would need to keep the fire hot initially to heat the large thermal mass but once that's been achieved you could let it run itself out of fuel without the usual slow burn and that is cleaner for emissions.
The negative is how much it costs on top?
The Lopi has been great. I did a lot of research and it's very solidly built but you pay more for that. It burns beautifully with no smoke once it's hot and the new wood has ignited. It has an air injection tube that you can see working as it fills the stove with flame from that air. It also keeps going for up to 18 hours after you slow it down for bed. That means you can often just rake it over and add wood to fire it up again for the evening, if you don't need it going during the day.
The only negative is the secondary burn chamber above the main fire is separated by fire bricks instead of a steel plate. That means when you clean out that area, especially at the bottom of the flu where a cone of flu ash builds over time, it's a pain removing the bricks and putting them back.
It could easily be replaced by a single steel sheet and I must get the dimensions and have one cut. That might be even more efficient in heating the exhaust for that secondary burn?
It's all convection so double skinned and safe except for one area on the top at the front. I use that to boil a kettle and toast frozen bread to go with poached eggs from my chooks.
