Hybrid. Theory and discussion. Not comparison

I like the idea of a hybrid. The best of both worlds offering low and slow like a BK and hot and fast like a noncat, all with high efficiency and low emissions. I honestly would appreciate lower visible emissions from my BK during warm up and when the thing is cranked up to high.

What is available today is only the medium to top end, just the hot stuff with short burns. There is no excuse for any cat stove with 3cf of firebox volume to be returning burn times under 30 hours. Without the low end, all you have is a noncat that has an expensive and complicated catalytic converter system to clean and operate. This is not a hybrid, this is a failure.

Rather than abandon the hybrid concept I hope and believe that the current models will evolve to be more durable, larger, thermostatic, and with the ability to run on low.

Highbeam said:

I like the idea of a hybrid. The best of both worlds offering low and slow like a BK and hot and fast like a noncat, all with high efficiency and low emissions. I honestly would appreciate lower visible emissions from my BK during warm up and when the thing is cranked up to high.

What is available today is only the medium to top end, just the hot stuff with short burns. There is no excuse for any cat stove with 3cf of firebox volume to be returning burn times under 30 hours. Without the low end, all you have is a noncat that has an expensive and complicated catalytic converter system to clean and operate. This is not a hybrid, this is a failure.

Rather than abandon the hybrid concept I hope and believe that the current models will evolve to be more durable, larger, thermostatic, and with the ability to run on low.

Click to expand...

I don't get what you're saying... the IS hybrid has way better burn times than a non-cat, and burns really clean, how is it a failure ? And how is it not a hybrid ?

Highbeam said:

I like the idea of a hybrid. The best of both worlds offering low and slow like a BK and hot and fast like a noncat, all with high efficiency and low emissions. I honestly would appreciate lower visible emissions from my BK during warm up and when the thing is cranked up to high.

What is available today is only the medium to top end, just the hot stuff with short burns. There is no excuse for any cat stove with 3cf of firebox volume to be returning burn times under 30 hours. Without the low end, all you have is a noncat that has an expensive and complicated catalytic converter system to clean and operate. This is not a hybrid, this is a failure.

Rather than abandon the hybrid concept I hope and believe that the current models will evolve to be more durable, larger, thermostatic, and with the ability to run on low.

Click to expand...

Well said Highbeam and you have made me think about my prediction. I also hope they will evolve into the stove they are being marketed as today. I am skeptical however because of the cost and complexities involved. This not only raises the price per unit but also, expansion and contraction plays hell on all those pieces and parts inside the firebox. Is it possible to build a stove like you have described? I believe it is but will a company be willing to put it's resources into making this happen? Like I said, we will see.

pdxdave said:

I don't get what you're saying... the IS hybrid has way better burn times than a non-cat, and burns really clean, how is it a failure ? And how is it not a hybrid ?

Click to expand...

You do realize my parents' 1979 Earthstove (non-cat/auto thermostat) will put the IS to shame when it comes to burn time, right? Yes, it's a smoke dragon and yes it's bigger but you made the comment about non-cat burn times.

Idahonative said:

You do realize my parents' 1979 Earthstove (non-cat/auto thermostat) will put the IS to shame when it comes to burn time, right? Yes, it's a smoke dragon and yes it's bigger but you made the comment about non-cat burn times.

Click to expand...

No I didn't realize that, how am I supposed to know about your parents ancient smoke dragon ?
How long burns does it get ? I've gotten 18 hours on cottonwood and monkeytree with the IS, not aware of any similar sized non-cat that would do that.

pdxdave said:

No I didn't realize that, how am I supposed to know about your parents ancient smoke dragon ?
How long burns does it get ? I've gotten 18 hours on cottonwood and monkeytree with the IS, not aware of any similar sized non-cat that would do that.

Click to expand...

Depends on your definition of burn time. Several non-cats can be revived after 18 hours.

tarzan said:

Depends on your definition of burn time. Several non-cats can be revived after 18 hours.

Click to expand...

True, I just don't get why the IS is considered a failure ? I mean it burns clean and I know with good hardwood can even go 24... tire fires will burn for days too but we're not comparing them to a clean burning wood stove.

pdxdave said:

True, I just don't get why the IS is considered a failure ? I mean it burns clean and I know with good hardwood can even go 24... tire fires will burn for days too but we're not comparing them to a clean burning wood stove.

Click to expand...

I don't concider them failures personally. I want efficiency and low emmision as a consumer. The IS offers low emissions but I personally don't see much more than average real world efficiency.

Would I run one? Yes, I'd throw it on my hearth for a test drive if I could but with the understanding that WS didn't exactly re-invent the wheel as the general consensus amongst WS and many IS owners seems to suggest.

pdxdave said:

I don't get what you're saying... the IS hybrid has way better burn times than a non-cat, and burns really clean, how is it a failure ? And how is it not a hybrid ?

Click to expand...

I didn't necessarily want to make this a Woodstock thing because Lopi and Regency also have this problem with their hybrids. The IS is rated by Woodstock at 10-14 hours max burn time for 3.2 CF. The 30 series BK is smaller at 2.85CF and is rated for 30+ hours, heck even the tiniest 20 series BK is rated at 20+. Whoa! The super common PE summit is a noncat at 3.0 CF rated at 10 hours burn time, that was the first one I checked, I personally could get 10 hours of the 2.3 CF hearthstone heritage I owned.

So the IS is a lot of things, but a long burner it is not. Maybe on the next go around. The Lopi does better as I recall.

pdxdave said:

True, I just don't get why the IS is considered a failure ? I mean it burns clean and I know with good hardwood can even go 24... tire fires will burn for days too but we're not comparing them to a clean burning wood stove.

Click to expand...

I'll let Highbeam speak for himself but I sense a bit of defensiveness from you. This is the same thing I got over at AS when trying to have a grown up discussion about stove performance. No one is here to bad mouth anyone's stove. It's about learning and providing information to help others who may be researching something they know very little about.

Saying things like, "I mean it burns clean and I know with good hardwood can even go 24" is a very misleading statement. The people who know your stove best just aren't backing you up with their data. Will it "burn" 24 hrs? Maybe, but will it heat your home (70+ f) for 24 hrs. when the temps are in the single digits? I think you know the answer to that. And that's what is great about these discussions. Everyone gets to input and with a little luck, a person doing research can sift through the info and form a reasonably intelligent opinion.

I think Highbeam was only addressing the medium to low end which pertains to burn time and I agree with him. The IS is being marketed as having it all but that is not the case as I see it. Maybe you see it differently and that's great. I'm not interested in having someone toot my horn about how good my stove is. I'm sure there's never been a perfect stove and that's not likely to change anytime soon. Whether you realize it or not, all of us on these forums are helping the industry. I can guarantee a lot of what is discussed here makes it's way back to the factories which in turn will help better products make their way to the market.

pdxdave said:

True, I just don't get why the IS is considered a failure ? I mean it burns clean and I know with good hardwood can even go 24... tire fires will burn for days too but we're not comparing them to a clean burning wood stove.

Click to expand...

You're making this a Woodstock thing. Yes, the IS one example of a hybrid that has failed to accomplish a low burn rate. 24 is good but that is not the 10-14 that WS rates this stove at. How can you have a hybrid "best of both worlds" when you castrate the low end burn rate of a stove to force it to run hot? Even the small fireview by Woodstock is rated by Woodstock to burn 10-12 hours out of the 2 CF firebox. Adding hybrid technology and 50% larger firebox created an IS with the same 10-14 hour burntime. You see now? the firebox is more than 50% larger but the same burn time.

Yes, low burn rates are critically important. Stop comparing the hybrid to a non-cat when looking at the low end, you need to be comparing to a cat stove to see the shortcoming.

I think the hybrids fill a niche market. The niche between the needs of low and slow and hot and fast. They are capable of a little of both, but tend to be better at burning on the hotter side when compared to a pure cat stove from all I have seen and read. I am perfectly content getting 14-18 hour burns(stovetop above 300f) with my PH, and 6-8ish hour hot burns. If i went by a lower stovetop temp that could be easily 20 something hours for a max burn time. This is all with what most would consider marginal or poor quality wood. Heck If I went by some manufacturers definitions of burn time the PH would be probably around 24 hours(stove still warm and enough coals for a restart) I have no first hand experience with BK, so I am not sure how accurate the burn times are, but from that I have heard they are accurate.

Sure a BK might get 30ish hour burns, but i need more heat than that. There is still the same amount of btus in the wood, and it works better for me to get them in a shorter amount of time based on my climate. Obviously you can up the air, but then you arn't going to be getting 30 hour burn times.

For what its worth, and even if you don't believe the EPA numbers, they are facts regardless as the numbers are from real testing and arn't just pulled out of a hat.

Blaze King -Ashford 30 - 11,200-27,280btu/hr , actual measured efficiency 75% , emissions 0.97/gm hr

Travis Industries/Liberty- Cape Cod Hybrid- 10,749-39,413btu/hr, actual measured efficiency 80.1, emissions 0.45

Woodstock- Progress Hybrid- 12,538-73,171btu/hr, actual efficiency 81%, emissions 1.3gm/hr

All of the stoves above are around 3ct

So just going by the examples above, you can see that some of the hybrids have a much higher end burn rate, especially so for the PH and the IS. So i wouldnt exactly call that a failure. You can get a hot and high btu output fire if you want, or you can get a adequately low and slow burn. Is it as low and slow as a BK? No, not in every case, but where it makes up for it is with a higher end capability, and having the ability to do both. Sometimes I need that 70k+btu output, if i was only able to get 27kbtu out of my stove I would be having to run multiple stoves to heat my house.

I think BKs are great for milder areas, and I am sure there are plenty of them in the colder areas too, but i think where they really shine is those places where all you really need is that low and steady output without much need to go higher.

I personally like that my stove doesnt have a thermostat. One less thing to go wrong, I like simple. Some might not care, but that was a small selling point for me at least.

So i wouldn't call hybrids a failure simple because they do a little of both, and are a balance between the two technologies. I think there is something with designing a stove for a high heat output that cuts down on the ability to have a really low and slow controlled burn. Obviously, otherwise the IS, PH etc would be advertising BK burn times. Maybe if they ever put a thermostat on them it might improve. But as they are now, I think they serve their intended market--those who want the ability for a very high output burn, but also want to have a low and steady burn depending on the conditions

Idahonative said:

I'll let Highbeam speak for himself but I sense a bit of defensiveness from you. This is the same thing I got over at AS when trying to have a grown up discussion about stove performance. No one is here to bad mouth anyone's stove. It's about learning and providing information to help others who may be researching something they know very little about.

Saying things like, "I mean it burns clean and I know with good hardwood can even go 24" is a very misleading statement. The people who know your stove best just aren't backing you up with their data. Will it "burn" 24 hrs? Maybe, but will it heat your home (70+ f) for 24 hrs. when the temps are in the single digits? I think you know the answer to that. And that's what is great about these discussions. Everyone gets to input and with a little luck, a person doing research can sift through the info and form a reasonably intelligent opinion.

I think Highbeam was only addressing the medium to low end which pertains to burn time and I agree with him. The IS is being marketed as having it all but that is not the case as I see it. Maybe you see it differently and that's great. I'm not interested in having someone toot my horn about how good my stove is. I'm sure there's never been a perfect stove and that's not likely to change anytime soon. Whether you realize it or not, all of us on these forums are helping the industry. I can guarantee a lot of what is discussed here makes it's way back to the factories which in turn will help better products make their way to the market.

Click to expand...

You are mistaken, I can sense you are looking for an argument with your condescending statements but I'll leave you to think about that yourself.

You've said a couple things here that I cannot agree with and think you should re-consider here:

a) The stove is a failure - It's not based on all measures that I see, it gets better burn times than all similar sized non-cat EPAs that I'm aware of though not as good as the elite cat stoves, which is exactly where we might expect a hybrid to fall in that category, and it does so while burning very clean throughout the output range

b) The stove is marketed as having it all... yet the manufacturer only claims 10-14 hour burn times ? How is the stove being marketed as more than a very clean mid-burn time stove ? I really enjoy operating this stove, and like many others who have it have found that the manufacturer has taken a very conservative approach with this estimate. I've dealt with a stove in the past that claimed 12 hour burn times yet only got 1/4 of this ! So I'm well aware of what false marketing is and the new stove does not remotely fall under this category.

I'm curious about the implied relationship of time between reloads to efficiency. Twice the time between loads equals twice as much heat released into the house? This does not make intuitive sense to me.

BrotherBart said:

Somebody hit us with actual stove top temps after these 10-Infinity burn times with these magic stoves. Any brand. Not ad copy from manufacturers.

ETA: Oh, I forgot. They don't talk about stove temps at the end of those times.

Click to expand...

I am running a PH, have been for about 3.5 weeks now so take that for what its worth. But i have been keeping a log of temps and burn times. Here is a random sampling of that information. All temps below are stovetop, though i have flue temps too.

Cold stove load- peaked at 575, down to 250 after 11 hours (my first fire after the break in fire)
Reload at 300, peak 575, down to 275 15 hours
Reload 350, peak 550, down to 350 after 16 hours
Reload 300, peak 475, down to 300 18 hours
Reload 300, peak 500, down to 300 14 hours
Reload 325, peak 525, down to 350 12 hours

Averaging around 14 hour low burns and i am still learning the stove. With a little more learning of the stove i think i can creep my average up to 16ish. Everytime i build or feed the fire i have been keeping logs , and have a fluke with temp sensors hooked to the stove top and flue. Will put up a graph after thr burn season is over.

pdxdave said:

You are mistaken, I can sense you are looking for an argument with your condescending statements but I'll leave you to think about that yourself.

You've said a couple things here that I cannot agree with and think you should re-consider here:

a) The stove is a failure - It's not based on all measures that I see, it gets better burn times than all similar sized non-cat EPAs that I'm aware of though not as good as the elite cat stoves, which is exactly where we might expect a hybrid to fall in that category, and it does so while burning very clean throughout the output range

b) The stove is marketed as having it all... yet the manufacturer only claims 10-14 hour burn times ? How is the stove being marketed as more than a very clean mid-burn time stove ? I really enjoy operating this stove, and like many others who have it have found that the manufacturer has taken a very conservative approach with this estimate. I've dealt with a stove in the past that claimed 12 hour burn times yet only got 1/4 of this ! So I'm well aware of what false marketing is and the new stove does not remotely fall under this category.

Click to expand...

Hey bud, I've been very clear what my intentions are on here and looking for an argument isn't one of them. And I'm sorry you think my statements are condescending. That really IS NOT my intention.

a) I don't believe I have ever said the stove was a failure...that would be another member on this forum. I do agree with him on the shortcomings though but please don't put words in my mouth. I can do that just fine myself. "It gets better burn times than all similar sized non-cat EPAs that I'm aware of." Are you seriously comparing your hybrid to a non-cat stove and feeling positive about it's performance? I think your expectations are a little low. The whole purpose of a hybrid is to perform well across all ranges, not just mid to upper. If not, then what would be the purpose of owning one when cat technology does a pretty darn good job already?

b) Well, I will have to give Woodstock credit. They state 10-14 hours and I believe that to be a pretty accurate, real world assessment of the Ideal Steel's heating performance. Unfortunately, many owners (not just this forum) are trying to make the IS something it is not. As I have already stated, my biggest problem is with the way Woodstock is using the word "efficiency" to market this stove. It is very efficient from a particulate standpoint. But a high tech stove with a 3.2 cf gas tank that heats a home for 10-14 hours is nothing to write home about. Don't take it personal.

begreen said:

IIRC shoulder season burn times for the IS are 20-24hrs.. 10-16 hrs is winter burning. Just like the BKs are reported to be doing now in the cold weather back east. BTUs are btus. When you need good heat most modern stove designs are not that far apart. What does differ sometimes is the cleanliness of their burn at that output rate.

Click to expand...

No, I just checked Woodstock's site. 10-14 hours for their largest stove. When you "need good heat" must be your way of saying "when you run at high output", and yes at that point all stoves are pretty similar. More evidence of the averageness of today's hybrid offerings.

Highbeam said:

You're making this a Woodstock thing. Yes, the IS one example of a hybrid that has failed to accomplish a low burn rate. 24 is good but that is not the 10-14 that WS rates this stove at. How can you have a hybrid "best of both worlds" when you castrate the low end burn rate of a stove to force it to run hot? Even the small fireview by Woodstock is rated by Woodstock to burn 10-12 hours out of the 2 CF firebox. Adding hybrid technology and 50% larger firebox created an IS with the same 10-14 hour burntime. You see now? the firebox is more than 50% larger but the same burn time.

Yes, low burn rates are critically important. Stop comparing the hybrid to a non-cat when looking at the low end, you need to be comparing to a cat stove to see the shortcoming.

Click to expand...

Again, nobody ever said the IS was a failure. The stove does a lot of things right but fails to do everything right.

I fail to eat fish, but that does not make me a failure.