=================ControlFreak said:The thing that bugs me the most about everburn and cat technology is that the main firebox serves as a smoke generator to feed the combustor or the cat. This means that if you have glass in your door, it's going to be grimy looking along with all other interior surfaces in there. The appearance of the fire is miserable, and you can't tell what's going on in the combustor/cat by looking at the stove like you can with a more common EPA stove with secondaries. I classify everburn and cat in the same category, because they're basically doing the same thing, just that one uses a catalyst. The everburn claims to be non-cat, but uses the same basic technology without the benefit of the catalytic reaction, so getting it to light off is much more difficult, and it goes out easier.
The nice thing about everburn/catalytic technology is that you can have a much more even heat output. A non-cat stove is going to have a 2-4 hour burst of heat output with a long tail of declining temperatures, while the cat can produce a constant heat for much more than 4 hours.
REF1 said:In the end, no stove can be left unattended with a new large load of wood in it. Not for safety. Not for a complete burn.
SolarAndWood said:REF1 said:In the end, no stove can be left unattended with a new large load of wood in it. Not for safety. Not for a complete burn.
After a 5-10 minute burn off, I close the bypass, set the tstat and leave 4 cu ft of wood to be dealt with by the stove. Safe, complete and predictable.
REF1 said:In the end, no stove can be left unattended with a new large load of wood in it. Not for safety. Not for a complete burn.
Slow1 said:SolarAndWood said:REF1 said:In the end, no stove can be left unattended with a new large load of wood in it. Not for safety. Not for a complete burn.
After a 5-10 minute burn off, I close the bypass, set the tstat and leave 4 cu ft of wood to be dealt with by the stove. Safe, complete and predictable.
Although perhaps I give it a bit longer sometimes (I go by flue temp hitting 500) and I don't have the tstat to set (bummer for me) so I just set the air somewhere between .5 and .75, it is about the same here. I consider it quite safe (packed load or partial fill) and I get a complete burn down to minor coals/ash if I don't reload.
Perhaps this is another advantage of well designed cat stoves over non-cat stoves? Less babysitting a full load? I don't treat full loads any different than partial loads in terms of how I operate the stove. I was under the impression that with burn tube non-cat stoves that you basically did the same thing (with the obvious exception of the cat engagement) am I wrong here?
Todd said:Your right, I also have found less baby sitting and air control tweaking with my cat stove on full loads. I'm thinking the non cat burn tube style stoves have that fixed secondary air hole that can cause the stove to be less controllable at times of high off gassing of the load. You would think a t-stat would be a good thing for a non cat for more control but maybe it's not possible for a clean EPA burn?
This has not been my experience with my first non-cat secondary tube stove. Toss in a bunch of wood on the coal bed and shut the door. Wait 5 minutes for good flame. Dial the air back. Forget it for 8-10 hours. Repeat. No extra fiddling with the air control at all. The stovetop rises to 500 quickly, then settles in at 550=600 for hours, then slowly drifts back down once the wood has fully outgassed and there's nothing but coals. Don't need to tweak anything to stay "in the zone".Todd said:Slow1 said:SolarAndWood said:REF1 said:In the end, no stove can be left unattended with a new large load of wood in it. Not for safety. Not for a complete burn.
After a 5-10 minute burn off, I close the bypass, set the tstat and leave 4 cu ft of wood to be dealt with by the stove. Safe, complete and predictable.
Although perhaps I give it a bit longer sometimes (I go by flue temp hitting 500) and I don't have the tstat to set (bummer for me) so I just set the air somewhere between .5 and .75, it is about the same here. I consider it quite safe (packed load or partial fill) and I get a complete burn down to minor coals/ash if I don't reload.
Perhaps this is another advantage of well designed cat stoves over non-cat stoves? Less babysitting a full load? I don't treat full loads any different than partial loads in terms of how I operate the stove. I was under the impression that with burn tube non-cat stoves that you basically did the same thing (with the obvious exception of the cat engagement) am I wrong here?
Your right, I also have found less baby sitting and air control tweaking with my cat stove on full loads. I'm thinking the non cat burn tube style stoves have that fixed secondary air hole that can cause the stove to be less controllable at times of high off gassing of the load. You would think a t-stat would be a good thing for a non cat for more control but maybe it's not possible for a clean EPA burn?
Slow1 said:SolarAndWood said:REF1 said:In the end, no stove can be left unattended with a new large load of wood in it. Not for safety. Not for a complete burn.
After a 5-10 minute burn off, I close the bypass, set the tstat and leave 4 cu ft of wood to be dealt with by the stove. Safe, complete and predictable.
Although perhaps I give it a bit longer sometimes (I go by flue temp hitting 500) and I don't have the tstat to set (bummer for me) so I just set the air somewhere between .5 and .75, it is about the same here. I consider it quite safe (packed load or partial fill) and I get a complete burn down to minor coals/ash if I don't reload.
Perhaps this is another advantage of well designed cat stoves over non-cat stoves? Less babysitting a full load? I don't treat full loads any different than partial loads in terms of how I operate the stove. I was under the impression that with burn tube non-cat stoves that you basically did the same thing (with the obvious exception of the cat engagement) am I wrong here?
Todd said:Well my prior non cats all had problems trying to find that sweet spot for low long burns. Sometimes the secondaries would peter out and other times they flamed too much. It seemed like I was always adjusting the air. I guess it could of been a draft problem but I have the same setup now that I did with my previous Hearthstone and now like Dennis says it's pretty much set and forget. Not trying to flame you non cat guys, this is just my experience.
summit said:have you all checked any of the upcoming epa mandates? Its got VC going pretty bad... they have found a way to install a slim CAT on top of the everburn system in the new defiants... Word on the street is that many cos will be integrating a CAT one way or the other (horrible move, IMHO) into their 2ndry burn systems, because the CAT is (and always was) a test lab wonder to pass thru the tougher new mandate.. but like any system can be misused and/or innefective in the field
REF1 said:So what is the difference between shutting down an air control to cruise on a non cat, versus shutting down your bypass and air when a cat hits 500?
I just fail to see the efficacy in any argument which says a cat is more difficult to run than a non-cat.
Highbeam said:REF1 said:So what is the difference between shutting down an air control to cruise on a non cat, versus shutting down your bypass and air when a cat hits 500?
I just fail to see the efficacy in any argument which says a cat is more difficult to run than a non-cat.
So there you go, one step for the non-cat and three steps for the cat stove with one of them being a variable depending on the user reading a thermometer. Three times as complicated to run a cat stove. Open your eyes man.
precaud said:summit, are there details on the new mandates anywhere?
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.