Another IS question

[ambull01]

Not at all, they have large market share in cold places like Alaska where you really need the fire to stay going while you're away. Higher outputs mean lower burntimes but you need to understand that keeping a house warm is much different than heating it up. You're getting a pretty long burning cat stove so you will be able to experience this "keep it warm" shift in operation.

I have a non-cat in the shop and it is run at full output to warm up the shop when I plan to spend time out there. That is one reason for a non-cat in that building, there is no reason to idle the shop stove.

Oh I see now, I think. Was kind of confused because you mentioned a cat stove isn't as efficient at high heat output and I would think Alaska would be a prime location where that would be necessary. Wouldn't cold climates be better served with a secondary stove/hybrid?

 

[ambull01]

Just get a soapstone slab top made to cover the appearance you don't like. You'll have a darn pretty stove, and one that retains and slowly delivers a bit more heat. Win, win.

Very true. I have to educate myself on what soapstone looks like.

 

[Highbeam]

Oh I see now, I think. Was kind of confused because you mentioned a cat stove isn't as efficient at high heat output and I would think Alaska would be a prime location where that would be necessary. Wouldn't cold climates be better served with a secondary stove/hybrid?

The cat stoves are less efficient at high outputs compared to cat stoves at low output but almost always more efficient than non-cats. Really, efficiency is pretty worthless though. Cat stoves run high and low so if you need extra heat, you can have heat and not waste wood.

You're back to the catch up mentality. If you keep your Alaskan house warm with long burn times at medium output then you don't need to run high output to catch up.

Burn times are king when heating with wood. If you NEED the fire to stay going when you are gone for 12 hours then you need a cat stove.

 

[ambull01]

The cat stoves are less efficient at high outputs compared to cat stoves at low output but almost always more efficient than non-cats. Really, efficiency is pretty worthless though. Cat stoves run high and low so if you need extra heat, you can have heat and not waste wood.

You're back to the catch up mentality. If you keep your Alaskan house warm with long burn times at medium output then you don't need to run high output to catch up.

Burn times are king when heating with wood. If you NEED the fire to stay going when you are gone for 12 hours then you need a cat stove.

Okay, okay I got it now lol. I think. Sorry, I'm really stupid with this heating stuff.

 

[Highbeam]

Okay, okay I got it now lol. I think. Sorry, I'm really stupid with this heating stuff.

You're going to love that Woodstock. Keep it running to keep your house warm.

 

[ambull01]

You're going to love that Woodstock. Keep it running to keep your house warm.

Well anything will be better than my Century 2500. I have to say, it's nice to see a BK owner praising the IS. From what I've seen BK owners tend to be a bit uppity lol.

 

[begreen]

You'll love it and remember, everyone thinks their stove is the best.

 

[ambull01]

You'll love it and remember, everyone thinks their stove is the best.

Not true. I don't think my insert is the best.

You think I should do the transom/ceiling duct work thingy?

 

[Rearscreen]

I think the more stoves you have owned the more you realize their differences in a real life situations. However, if someone has only owned one stove so far, of course that would be the best as there is nothing else to compare it to. After my first season with the PH, I could honestly say, if I were forced back to any of my previous stoves, I wouldn't say that my stove was the best at that point. But, again as someone who has owned many stoves I also acknowledge that quite possibly there is an even better stove than the PH. I just haven't owned one yet.

 

[begreen]

Different stoves can be better or worse for different reasons. That doesn't make them a bad choice. If the stove does the job that you expect of it, then it is possibly the best stove for that given situation. Case in point: We had the Jotul Castine F400. In blue-black enamel it is arguably one of the best looking stoves on the market. My wife loved the way it looked in our living room and it heated well during our normal mild winter. However, the following winter was much colder and it could only keep up with heating the house if I fed it hardwood every 6 hrs.. Hardwood can be hard to come by in our area so that led me to start looking for a larger stove. We ended up with the T6 which is almost twice as large.

Does this mean the F400 wasn't the best stove, no. It simply wasn't the best stove for our circumstances. The F400 was a willing and well behaved heater. Once I learned the best way to start and run the stove it performed excellently. Is the Alderlea T6 the best stove? Maybe, maybe not. It doesn't come in blue-black enamel and is a little chubby looking, but in a nice way. I like to think of it as Rubenesque. What we love about it is that we no longer have temperature swings in the house, even after the fire has died down. We love the ability to have good long burns and to be able to keep up with cold weather. And we like the flexibility to load N/S or E/W. Would a PH, IS or Mansfield work in this circumstance with the same result? Yes, very likely. But, my wife doesn't like the dated styling of soapstone stoves, nor the steampunk look of the IS. So, end of story. They are not the best stoves for our circumstance. But they could be a perfect fit for hundreds of other installations.