Cat or No

firefighterjake said:

Will cats be a relict of the past? Will secondary burn tech be passed by by third burn tech? Will the robots rise up and crush humanity and we're all living in a dream world while the machines use our bodies as power sources? Who knows?

Click to expand...

I am pretty sure, might even be convinced, that firewood is one of the few sources of energy that the average man will have any control of during our lifetime.

OK, there's only one way to end this long ongoing debate on cat vs non-cat and that's for all you guys to chip in and buy me a PE T-5 so I can do a winter long comparison. I will switch out the T-5 and Fireview every 3 weeks this winter and log all firewood usage, outside/inside temps, burntimes and anything else you want. You can send the money to Summit and he can ship me the T-5, I'll pay the shipping. :lol:

Todd said:

OK, there's only one way to end this long ongoing debate on cat vs non-cat and that's for all you guys to chip in and buy me a PE T-5 so I can do a winter long comparison.

Click to expand...

I think Hiram beat you to that one...

SolarAndWood said:

53flyer said:

RobertPlamondon said:

Why wouldn’t it help you to be able to use less wood? You mentioned burning inefficiently with the draft left open most of the time (which burns up your wood faster).

Click to expand...

Why do you think that burning with the draft open in inefficient? Normally you get high combustion efficiencies with excess air, and high heat-transfer efficiencies with long residence times, and you get both when you burn a small fire with plenty of air. That's why pellet stoves are efficient, right?

Click to expand...

I'm not talking about environmental combustion efficiencies. Yes you should get a fairly "clean" burn.

The efficiency of heat transfer is an extremely complicated variable for anything but a guess because every stove will have a different ability for transferring heat from the firebox to the room.

Click to expand...

Once you start burning a cat stove with the bypass open for more than just the initial burn off after a reload, you are effectively giving up control of combustion and the possibility of any secondary combustion. I have ample evidence of the 2x(+) wood consumption that occurs with my last two stoves that had warped firebacks by the end of their second heating seasons that eliminated the bypass door. That said, I was still able to keep the house warm and there was no smoke coming from the chimney. It just took a lot more wood and fire tending to do it.

Click to expand...

Solar- Yes, that's exactly what I was saying. I'm not 100% sure who you were directing that post towards because that's exactly the point I was making as far as "efficient burning" from a "amount of wood required" view. Regardless, I completely agree.

BrotherBart said:

SolarAndWood said:

Todd said:

OK, there's only one way to end this long ongoing debate on cat vs non-cat and that's for all you guys to chip in and buy me a PE T-5 so I can do a winter long comparison.

Click to expand...

I think Hiram beat you to that one...

Click to expand...

I think Hiram needs to strap that horrible wood eating, no heating non-cat 30-NC to a skid and send it down here for proper burial. In my basement. :cheese:

Click to expand...

Strange how you will be reading along and then your name just pops up!LOL ;-P

BB,
Its getting a proper burial......BACK INTO THE FIREPLACE! :coolgrin: (if I ever get these 2 hearths done)

In all seriousness Backwoods Savage got me going on the CAT stove idea. I almost pulled the trigger on the Fireview.

Backwoods Savage uses half the wood I used with the 30 and he has the about the same size house and he lives only an hour North of me.

His wood is certainly going to be better than mine as it has been seasoning for almost 2/3 of a decade. (Nice job Dennis)

I am really interested to see the differences between the BK and Englander.

I think each systems have there place and pros/cons but I'm happy I can play with both and stay warm.......really really warn! :cheese:

summit said:

...toejam: you are a novice woodburner with a stove that is 2 weeks old... give it a little time b4 u start telling me I don't know what I'm talking about. your chimney and CAT should need a cleaning round XMAS, lemme know how it turns out (just don't burn any wrapping paper in that thing, it'll clog the cat).....

Click to expand...

Haven't most cat owners on this foum talked about having very little creosote? I remember one mentioning barely having a cup after at least one full season (or was it two seasons?).

summit said:

Maybe a little stove olympics is in order: we'll line up some Cats, and non cats, see which does better on a full weeks worth of use. we will agree not to use any VCs or Napoleons, and we'll see how it all stands up...

Click to expand...

Don't we already have that? Just off the top of my head I know of these (appologies to everyone I'm leaving out):
-->Currently have both a Both Cat & Non-Cat to compare and seem to prefer the cat: BrowningBar, N of 60, & Fattyfat
-->Just recently have both and will surely report his findings: Hiram (new BK I believe)
-->Had a non-cat but now have a cat: Backwoods & Todd

summit said:

In the end, though: hey you got a BK or a woodstock? great.. wonderfull... they are probably the better of the CAT designs out there (which I have mentioned here, and in the past). Glad you like it. I don't think they are bad stoves, I just think non Cats are better...I'll take my PE any day of the week... If I feel the need to cheap a 12 hour burn outta 2 lbs of wood (w/ a 50 deg stove top temp and black glass, but hey, she's runs 4ever on 2lbs!) like U guys do, I'll shut the old (and mostly unused) pipe damper down and get the same result.

Click to expand...

He must have meant 500 deg. I doubt a fully loaded non cat would ever get "the same result" if you made realistic comparables such as min surface temps per burn. I completely agree with the notion that having a side-by-side comparison test using the same wood (type, moisture content, and weight) would be very interesting to read about. We're all eagerly waiting for the results BrowningBar, N of 60, Fattyfat, Hiram, and anybody else who was missed.

summit said:

I knew this would make the Cat owners cry.... :lol:
fatty fat 1: I'm glad your cat works for you, great its wonderfull, you are the best ever.... I'm just working of the overwhelming majority of my experience burning wood personally and doing this on a professional level: Where I'm at non Cats are the way to go, thats what the call is for, and most people round here are looking for a non cat... every time I replace a Cat with a non cat people rave about its ease of use, cleaner glass, better burn, etc... quit crapping on me on how I do my job, though. come on down and see our shop, and listen to the people here (If you can afford the by the liter price 4 gas to drive outta Canada, that is..)
toejam: you are a novice woodburner with a stove that is 2 weeks old... give it a little time b4 u start telling me I don't know what I'm talking about. your chimney and CAT should need a cleaning round XMAS, lemme know how it turns out (just don't burn any wrapping paper in that thing, it'll clog the cat)....
Maybe a little stove olympics is in order: we'll line up some Cats, and non cats, see which does better on a full weeks worth of use. we will agree not to use any VCs or Napoleons, and we'll see how it all stands up....

In the end, though: hey you got a BK or a woodstock? great.. wonderfull... they are probably the better of the CAT designs out there (which I have mentioned here, and in the past). Glad you like it. I don't think they are bad stoves, I just think non Cats are better...I'll take my PE any day of the week... If I feel the need to cheap a 12 hour burn outta 2 lbs of wood (w/ a 50 deg stove top temp and black glass, but hey, she's runs 4ever on 2lbs!) like U guys do, I'll shut the old (and mostly unused) pipe damper down and get the same result.

Click to expand...

Apparently you know as little about internet forums as you do CAT stoves. "I knew this would make Cat owners cry" is an admission to "trolling" which is prohibited at all family friendly forums. I knew you were Trolling at first read, but shame on me for biting. the only one slinging crap around is you, and there is no need for a cat/non-cat line up because i already have both and can tell you from experience (more than you) that the cat stove is better.
cheers

I think many owners of cat stoves have problems due to poor wood and poor maintenance. The vast majority are folks not using this forum. I don't consider myself especially ignorant and lazy (just moderately ignorant and lazy) but if I owned a cat stove I could see myself screwing it up pretty easily without the online information and support I find here. Sure, I would browse the owner's manual, but then lose it and fill in the gaps from memory (and fantasy).

What we really need in order to settle this is to hear from all those stove owners who are never going to read this sentence. Hmmm...

Rather than a flawed technology for stoves, I now see catalytic combustion as perhaps the best current technology, just one that requires a slight amount of knowledge, patience and effort. My downdraft stove requires that as well. For good secondary combustion it also requires me to bring it to temperatures that degrade the very components allowing for secondary combustion. That's a flawed technology.

It's not that cats are really any harder to run if you know what you're doing, but they gotta be a lot easier to screw up if you don't know what you're doing. So Summit, I'm not at all surprised by what you see in the real world of the average homeowner. But remember, you're dealing here with a forum filled with crazy obsessive freaks. Present company excluded, of course.

Heres how I see it. Both non-cat stoves and cat stoves are effecient if the user knows what they are doing. Every stove has its quirks and there is a learning curve. I believe that Cat stoves have benefits for people who burn 24/7 and know how to season and burn wood. Non-cats are perhaps more user friendly, I do stress the "perhaps". On mine, I don't have to fidget with it. I put wood in, light it, 20 minutes later the temps are up around 500, I close the bypass, close the air and reload 8-10 hours later, repeat process. Thats it, nothing more. People say Cat stoves need more maintenance. I don't agree. I burnt some questionable wood end of season last year and when I went to clean my chimney this spring there was nothing there to clean. The chimney was spotless, just some light dust which was easily sweeped ad vacced. I clean the Cat once a year by soaking it in white vinegar/water solution for 15 minutes and air drying. Thats it. Non cats can also burn very clean but more than likely not as clean as a Cat. Yes Cat stoves are more expensive and require a 150.00 Cat every 5-6 years of use. I have heard of people getting 10 years but I'm not sure if that is recomended. I think 150.00 is not unreasonable for 5 or more years of use. I wish I could get that dependablitity of my oil burner. I think you get what you pay for. There are less expensive stoves both Cat and non-Cat that don't function perfectly. I can say that my jotul f600 has been a joy to use, although it is an expensive stove. This will be my third season burning in it. I will probably buy another CAt when the time comes.

One other thing that I think can be overlooked is the individual set up of a stove. I installed my setup, form crawl space to cap I made sure everything was proper. there are no obstacles near the house to obstruct draft and my wood is properly seasoned. Not all homeowners or professionals do installs properly, this can effect how a stove works. A half ass setup may work with a non cat stove but not work with a Cat stove. These are all things you have to take into account. I think the only way to realistically compare is do what everyone else has said. Two different stoves burned with identical wood on identical chimneys and then we could critically compare. Anything else is opinion. Burn em if you have em and be thankful your not paying the man for oil or gas.

Having read this (and so many other) thread and the "issues" reported with Cat stoves vs Non-Cat stoves I was pondering the following thought last night. (I know, sad that I lay awake thinking about these things eh?). Perhaps non-cat stoves may in general (very wide generalization) be more forgiving of poor burning practices. I really am not all that familiar with other cat stove designs having only worked with one, but in general I imagine that with the cat bypassed the stove would burn much like an old "smoke dragon" type of stove and if you kept the bypass open (i.e. the cat disengaged) and shut the air way back the result would be much like those stoves - a smoky fire that would fill the pipes with creosote and blacken the glass. Hmm.. Seems that would fit the descriptions that some have given for what they have seen "in the field." Now, take it a step further and imagine running the stove very hot w/o the cat in operation and perhaps it would indeed damage the parts holding the cat, and depending on the design, flames could be hitting the cat and otherwise mess it up (in smoke dragon smolder mode it could really foul up the cat too!). Again, these results may well be consistent with some of the descriptions in this thread of what has been seen.

Now take the non-cat EPA stoves. If you ignore instructions what is the worst that happens? You can't turn the air down nearly as much since they have the primary air forced open. Thus, the EPA rules have protected folks from themselves and perhaps these guidelines have done some good for that subset of users eh? Sure you won't get as efficient a burn or the pretty light show, but you won't be quite as bad a burn (all other factors being equal here).

Once the stove has been burned in this "just doing it" mode for a while, think of the state of the stoves - the non-cat likely is easier to recover from. If either cat or non-cat has been seriously over-fired they are likely to be in trouble (same issues perhaps - cracks, metal stresses etc, just different places maybe?), but if they have been burned in smolder mode the non-cat won't be nearly as dirty and it will be obvious and a hot fire will clean it out. The Cat on the other hand may need a new cat to recover and may have serious chimney issues to clean up as it may have gotten much worse.

So what does this say in the argument? Perhaps if I were running a shop I would have to assess my customers and figure out if they were going to be willing to learn their stove operations or not. If they were the type who are just going to want the stove installed and ignore the manual and all advice on how to burn, I would give them the more idiot proof non-cat. If they are the types who are willing to either read the manual or listen to instructions and follow through (i.e. they ask questions and hear the answers etc) then I would introduce them to cat stoves explaining the advantages and differences in operations. I don't think that cat stoves are a good match for a shop that views itself as a 'box in- box out' business model - rather if one is into building relationships with their customers then I would expect them to work out better.

I don't believe they are for everybody - some folks don't care about the marginal benefits. Face it, even in a non-cat stove I bet a large number of owners out there never achieve good secondary burns either, probably too concerned about getting too hot. Just think about how many folks come here thinking that 400 is near over-fire on their steel stoves and are surprised when they really get a good light show from the secondary burn that it really is ok and in fact desirable to see the "mouth of hell" inside their stove during a burn.