Catalytic vs. Burn Tubes

[karri0n]

If woodstock made a 3.0cf or higher stove that had a front loading door, I'd buy it in a second.(as long as it had a cat)

 

[Highbeam]

I wouldn't be so hard on Tom. I was looking at pellet stoves a while back and I am again for a second stove. He is against pellet stoves too but he did sell them for many years before coming to the conclusion that they are no good. Perhaps he did try the cat stoves and found that they weren't a good deal.

 

[karri0n]

I hope my post wasn't misconstrued as an attack on Tom. I have much respect for him. I just feel this is another of the many occasions where anecdotal evidence and lab evidence don't really line up with each other.

 

[savageactor7]

Well like everyone else I went to the article too...my interpretation is that after getting/hearing a lot of complaints on cats Tom made the decision not to sell them. Hey no harm no foul as far as I'm concerned being a dealer he has a dog in that fight and every right to discriminate. But that was then and this is now, we know that technology makes leaps and bounds every 18months or so. So things must have improved with cats.

Years ago I decided a cat wasn't for us but after hearing wolfkillers report when it was 40 below...well now I'm willing to give them 2nd look and things are sounding promising.

 

[Easyellis8]

I wish there were other large cat options (hello Woodstock!), but it seems the BK is exactly what I'm looking for.[/quote]

Talked to a rep at woodstock last week and he let the cat out of the bag, a larger woodstock is in the works. He didn't tell me how big the fire box would be, efficiency etc, but he did say that one is in the works and they are toying with some sort of "hybrid". Not sure when it's hitting the streets or how long you are willing to wait.

 

[daleeper]

A cat stove isn't for everyone, they do require some specific burning constraints and a little additional maintenance. But their real strength is turning out to be steady heat output which is not often touted as their best feature. This, together with long clean burns at low settings is enough to keep me interested. But the BlazeKing would never make it passed my wife into our livingroom and I'm unlikely to own a VC stove anytime soon.

To start with I think that the argument between cat and non-cat sometimes leave out the fact some want to burn hot, some want long low burns. I do not think that a non-cat can possibly win in the long low burn department, if both types were set up for their most ideal burning conditions. Now, I have always believed the suggestion that the non-cat could possibly win in the high output side, yet there seem to be a real high number of Blaze King stove users represented here on the north side of the US/Canadian boarder. I don't care which one wins the high burn, because my stove room is too small to take advantage of a big stove running real hot. I want long slow burns. A person wanting real hot burns are going to be feeding either stove a lot of wood.

What I do see argued here is that the cat requires specific burning constraints, and leave out the fact that the non-cats have very similar constraints. I have read several of the new stove manual burn procedures for both style stoves. All require opening the primary air up to start a burn from cold for a period of time (till the wood is charring) and then shut down slowly to the desired burn/heat rate. The only difference is on a cat stove, the bypass damper needs shifted also. All precautions for using dry wood are the same. From viewing problems here on the forum, I can't see that the cat maintenance and repair is a whole lot different than non-cat either, though this will bring strong argument from the non-cat crowd. If both stoves are run properly, neither will take much in the way of maintenance. If burned improperly, either stove can be damaged beyond repair.

 

[begreen]

By constraints I meant watching what you burn carefully. Cats can be plugged and/or damaged by burning certain materials (ie: metallic inks) and wet wood can damage the cat. In a standard stove, metallic inks are a non-issue. And damp wood, while crappy for heat, won't hurt the stove, though it will plug up the stack with continued burning.

 

[southland]

I wish there were other large cat options (hello Woodstock!), but it seems the BK is exactly what I'm looking for.

Check out the Buck Model 91 stove. It's a catalytic stove and has a 4.4 cu ft firebox. My parents have been using the insert version for 8-9 yrs and it has been an outstanding stove.

(broken link removed to http://www.buckstove.com/wood/model91.html)

 

[Rockey]

I wish there were other large cat options (hello Woodstock!), but it seems the BK is exactly what I'm looking for.

Check out the Buck Model 91 stove. It's a catalytic stove and has a 4.4 cu ft firebox. My parents have been using the insert version for 8-9 yrs and it has been an outstanding stove.

(broken link removed to http://www.buckstove.com/wood/model91.html)

Excellent point about the Buck 91. A huge firebox and catalytic, the only drawback looks like an 8" flue. Is this a stove or insert? They call it a stove but only show a picture of it as an insert.

 

[Rockey]

I am leaning towrads replacing the NC30 with a large catalytic that will hopefully be as easy to operate as my cat insert and give me a longer burn time.

Let me know if you decide to sell your Englander, I might be interested.
I doubt that I live very far from you.

I will probably list it on Craigslist after the season is over. If your interested email me [email protected]

 

[Todd]

The article is a bit dated. True, improvements in stove design have produced non-cat stoves that burn almost or as clean as a cat stove. However, the few remaining cat stove mfgs. have ironed out most of the bugs and newer catalysts seem to stand up longer.

Dated? He totally poo-poos the esteemed Woodstock Fireview, known world-wide (or at least within the domain of hearth.com) as the gold standard for catalytic wood stoves!

In any case, I love the part where "Todd", who owned both a Hearthstone Homestead and a Fireview, objectively states that the Fireview is a better stove and produces more heat with less wood. Then Tom goes on to state, "I'm not a big fan of some of the numbers manufacturer's toss around either, specifically heating area and burn time per load of fuel, which I feel are more than a trifle subjective and might get a bit exaggerated by overzealous marketing departments at times." After which he uses an entire page of numbers to refute Todd's claim that the Fireview is a better stove. Classic hypocrisy. I value the objective opinion of somebody who has burned both stoves over a bunch of calculated numbers as to why one is "better" than the other.

While I don't want to beat up Tom too much unless he's present, when I stumbled on that page quite some time ago I always thought it was very slanted towards what Tom sells (non-catalytic stoves), and I always wanted to get the opinions of others on it.

My esperience with my Oslo is that even though it is a really great heater, it reacts in exactly the way described in the original post. The heat output curve is very peaky, and I am fiddling with it alot. I still love it, but the catalytics actually seem like easier operation to me, it sounds like once you get the cat lit off you can do no wrong, whereas with a burn tube stove you could have the secondary burn stall if things aren't quite perfect, and then from there you got black glass and no heat.

I was very honored to be in Tom's Cat vs non cat debate. He is very stubborn in his non cat ways. The thing that got me was he compared the Hearthstones independent lab efficiencies to the Woodstocks EPA default efficiencies. Not a fair apples to apples comparison. Woodstock fireview has tested at 80% efficiency with independent lab tests, 72% EPA.

 

[jpl1nh]

A cat stove isn't for everyone, they do require some specific burning constraints and a little additional maintenance. But their real strength is turning out to be steady heat output which is not often touted as their best feature. This, together with long clean burns at low settings is enough to keep me interested. But the BlazeKing would never make it passed my wife into our livingroom and I'm unlikely to own a VC stove anytime soon.

To start with I think that the argument between cat and non-cat sometimes leave out the fact some want to burn hot, some want long low burns. I do not think that a non-cat can possibly win in the long low burn department, if both types were set up for their most ideal burning conditions. Now, I have always believed the suggestion that the non-cat could possibly win in the high output side, yet there seem to be a real high number of Blaze King stove users represented here on the north side of the US/Canadian boarder. I don't care which one wins the high burn, because my stove room is too small to take advantage of a big stove running real hot. I want long slow burns. A person wanting real hot burns are going to be feeding either stove a lot of wood.

What I do see argued here is that the cat requires specific burning constraints, and leave out the fact that the non-cats have very similar constraints. I have read several of the new stove manual burn procedures for both style stoves. All require opening the primary air up to start a burn from cold for a period of time (till the wood is charring) and then shut down slowly to the desired burn/heat rate. The only difference is on a cat stove, the bypass damper needs shifted also. All precautions for using dry wood are the same. From viewing problems here on the forum, I can't see that the cat maintenance and repair is a whole lot different than non-cat either, though this will bring strong argument from the non-cat crowd. If both stoves are run properly, neither will take much in the way of maintenance. If burned improperly, either stove can be damaged beyond repair.

As stated here, really the ONLY basic difference between cat start up and non-cat is daleeper says, you have to lift the bypass lever. And as Be Green says they can be polluted from burning stuff aside from reasonable dry untreated wood. I quickly learned how to wait until the stove temp was hot enough and then lift the bypass arm (and no muscle strains from that yet :cheese: ) and I really only tend to burn dry firewood anyway. My cat costs about $30 per year considering my stove runs non stop from mid Oct to early May and I replace it about once every four years and it takes about 15 minutes to replace. Because of the slow thorough burn the smaller firebox is not as much of an issue as it might be in a secondary stove. All said, it is a matter of preference but you will seldom read a post from a disgruntled cat owner on this forum and I've never read one from a Woodstock owner except for Tom.

 

[rickw]

I think the cat is actually much easier to run, as it requires much less frequent loading. Three times a day if its cold, twice a day if it isn't. No kindling, no lighting fires (well, once every 2 weeks to clean it out). Just throw wood in. The house temperature isn't spiking and plunging; its just comfortable. After 5 weeks of continuous burn I've gone thru 1/2 cord.

What I'm NOT doing, that I USED to do:
Fiddling with the stove constantly.
Bringing in a huge pile of wood every other day.
Smoking the neighborhood trying to get the secondaries going.
No kindling, fatwood, matches.
No burned hands from trying to cram the firebox completely full.
And best - NO getting up to feed the stove, not once!


Current record for load interval - 18 hours. No kindling.

Works for me..

 

[North of 60]

Im with ya RickW

 

[Diabel]

It is interesting how this comparison keeps resurfacing every year & in my opinion this is the first season where cat stoves get more positive comments!

 

[Dustin]

I'm in the market for a new stove...I need to heat a 1700 square feet, poorly insulated split level house...


I was just thinking about maybe a cat stove...I wonder if the blaze king would cook me out of here. We rarley get below 20 degrees in the winter. We usually hang out at around 35

 

[Highbeam]

Lots of BKs have been installed in the pacific NW. The beauty is the LOW and slow burning which will prevent you from being cooked out. A guy could seriously oversize a cat stove and be OK since you can actually turn it down. If you oversize a non-cat you will be cooked out since there is a minimum setting on these stoves that is hot.

The smaller princess BK would be fine and is a relatively decent looking stove. The woodstock is probably cheaper and is very attractive.

 

[North of 60]

I'm in the market for a new stove...I need to heat a 1700 square feet, poorly insulated split level house...


I was just thinking about maybe a cat stove...I wonder if the blaze king would cook me out of here. We rarley get below 20 degrees in the winter. We usually hang out at around 35

All you have to do is dial the stove stat to low and it will put out a constant+- 9000 btus for many hours. It will take an hour or so for the stove to settle down as it will create a bit of extra smoke in the stove on the initial turn down which is extra fuel for the Cat to consume. If you can get a good 14 to16 hr burn with a window open then so be it. :coolsmile:

 

[southland]

I wish there were other large cat options (hello Woodstock!), but it seems the BK is exactly what I'm looking for.

Check out the Buck Model 91 stove. It's a catalytic stove and has a 4.4 cu ft firebox. My parents have been using the insert version for 8-9 yrs and it has been an outstanding stove.

(broken link removed to http://www.buckstove.com/wood/model91.html)

Excellent point about the Buck 91. A huge firebox and catalytic, the only drawback looks like an 8" flue. Is this a stove or insert? They call it a stove but only show a picture of it as an insert.

Both. Many of the Buck stoves can be purchased as free standing or insert.

 

[Dustin]

Lots of BKs have been installed in the pacific NW. The beauty is the LOW and slow burning which will prevent you from being cooked out. A guy could seriously oversize a cat stove and be OK since you can actually turn it down. If you oversize a non-cat you will be cooked out since there is a minimum setting on these stoves that is hot.

The smaller princess BK would be fine and is a relatively decent looking stove. The woodstock is probably cheaper and is very attractive.

I like the look of the woodstock, but I am a little worried about the small firebox. Will I be able to turn it down like a blaze king?

 

[rickw]

The big advantage of the cat is to reduce (by about half) the temperature needed for combustion of volatiles (smoke, vapor, creosote). Its naturally great at a long slow burn. The Woodstock sort of digests wood over a long burn, flames are usually not visible once the cat's engaged and air set back (unless you want big heat, but thats not going to be a really long burn). I'd think a FV would work very well for you in the NW. How much better/longer would a tstat make it? Can't say.

One thing not mentioned much is the maintenance needed by non-cats. Burn tubes, baffles, insulation. They can need attention also, and some are a groan to work on as the very high operating temps degrade fasteners.

 

[bmwbj]

Wow, if stovepipe temps in some cat stoves are really that hot (and clean) it seems like some sort of heat exchanger right after the stove could really extract some more heat from the flue gases without causing other problems (creosote formation, poor drafting).

I would assume the 1500° temps seen are at the cat itself and not the gases further downstream (up the flue) after the cat. Regardless, much of this heat is transfered to the stove housing around the cat.

Wet1, Your assumptions are true, I have an electronic cat probe in my Intrepid II and I have seen
cat temps as high as 2000 and the stove pipe just about 18" above the stove measures 400.
With the right conditions the cats go crazy hot and the stove and pipes do not.

 

[mayhem]

FWIW I had a midsized Dutchwest Federal stove in my first house with a cat. After two winters with it I just couldn't get it integrated into my life...it either ran cold and smouldery or the CAT lit and it took off like a freight train. I found that particular stove to be very difficult to manage and it required constant fiddling on my part to even resemble a steady temperature. In short, I hated it...too much effort to keep it running properly. My current stove is a Morso 3660, whihc is non-CAT stove. Runs much more smoothly and even my wife has no problem stuffing it with wood and shutting the primary air intake once it gets up to secondary burn.

I cannot recall what my burn times were in the Dutchwest, but I cna get a solid 6-7 hours of high heat out of the Morso, upwards of 9 hours from a fully stuffed firebox down to just enough coals to ignite some dry wood in the morning.

 

[Wet1]

I wish there were other large cat options (hello Woodstock!), but it seems the BK is exactly what I'm looking for.

Check out the Buck Model 91 stove. It's a catalytic stove and has a 4.4 cu ft firebox. My parents have been using the insert version for 8-9 yrs and it has been an outstanding stove.

(broken link removed to http://www.buckstove.com/wood/model91.html)

Excellent point about the Buck 91. A huge firebox and catalytic, the only drawback looks like an 8" flue. Is this a stove or insert? They call it a stove but only show a picture of it as an insert.

Interesting, I've never heard of Buck. It appears the 91 is offered in both insert and stove, although I can't find a picture of the freestanding stove on their site (???).
I wonder how the pricing on this stove compares to the BKK? Honestly, the only real hesitation I'm having regarding the BKK is the high price for this steel stove. I noticed Buck rates their 91 as 72% efficient where as BK states up to 82.5% for theirs, yet the Buck is rated at 1.2 G/H emissions and BK states 1.76 G/H emissions for their BKK. The other big question in my mind is how much difference the "automatic thermostat" feature on the BKK makes, or is this just a marketing gimmick? Although, I would think the thermostatic damper would work better for those unsupervised long burns.

Anyone have any thoughts on how these two stoves stack up???

 

[Wet1]

I found at least one pic of the free-standing Buck 91...
https://www.hearth.com/talk/threads/14927/