Another help me choose add on furnace

brenndatomu

Minister of Fire
Aug 21, 2013
4,123
NE Ohio
.....and are willing to deal with the idiosyncrasies of a cat stove. :p Some people prefer their appliance actually burn the wood completely and not smolder it; only to let the consumable cat deal with the fuel before it exits the flue. ==c :p Kinda like with women, some guys like temperamental/higher maintenance women and some, well, umm, don't. ;lol ;)

::-)
Blaze King used to make cat furnaces...used to...http://www.blazeking.com/EN/furnace-apex.html
Edit: looks like they are back in production...? https://www.hearth.com/talk/threads/blaze-king-apex-cbt-forced-air-wood-furnace.144440/#post-1948624
I could have swore they were out of production...and I don't recall seeing them on the 2020 EPA cert list
 
Last edited:

JRHAWK9

Minister of Fire
Jan 8, 2014
1,141
Wisconsin Dells, WI
I just looked at the most recent (June 2018) list of EPA certified warm air furnaces....they are not on it at all.

I remember looking at them when doing my research. I saw it was a cat furnace and said, nope.
 

Highbeam

Minister of Fire
Dec 28, 2006
16,217
Mt. Rainier Foothills, WA
It took a weird 7” flue too. No window.

I have had no idiosyncratic problems with my cat stove. It’s been a real peach. Only load once per day. There are good cat stoves and bad ones, just like good furnaces and bad ones.

I just need more output in the shop. Furnaces can really pump out the btu. I’m not afraid of a little kitty if the math works out. If somebody like kuuma can make a cat unnecessary then that’s even better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sloeffle and woodey

maple1

Minister of Fire
Sep 15, 2011
9,916
Nova Scotia
It took a weird 7” flue too. No window.

I have had no idiosyncratic problems with my cat stove. It’s been a real peach. Only load once per day. There are good cat stoves and bad ones, just like good furnaces and bad ones.

I just need more output in the shop. Furnaces can really pump out the btu. I’m not afraid of a little kitty if the math works out. If somebody like kuuma can make a cat unnecessary then that’s even better.
You callin' my flue weird?

:p
 

BKVP

Minister of Fire
It took a weird 7” flue too. No window.

I have had no idiosyncratic problems with my cat stove. It’s been a real peach. Only load once per day. There are good cat stoves and bad ones, just like good furnaces and bad ones.

I just need more output in the shop. Furnaces can really pump out the btu. I’m not afraid of a little kitty if the math works out. If somebody like kuuma can make a cat unnecessary then that’s even better.
Be Careful there Highbeam....7" is VERY common is land to the North. We have not made them for sale in the USA since the new NSPS was published in March of 2015. The 7" flue was very popular in Canada, but not the US market. We are not making the unit at this time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Highbeam

sloeffle

Minister of Fire
Mar 1, 2012
555
Central Ohio
Blaze King used to make cat furnaces...used to...http://www.blazeking.com/EN/furnace-apex.html
Edit: looks like they are back in production...? https://www.hearth.com/talk/threads/blaze-king-apex-cbt-forced-air-wood-furnace.144440/#post-1948624
I could have swore they were out of production...and I don't recall seeing them on the 2020 EPA cert list
Speaking of older certified EPA furnaces. I wonder what happened to the Energy King 385EK wood only furnace. It looks like the only furnaces they sell now are wood / coal furnaces.

Edit: It looks like it was never certified by the EPA.
 

JRHAWK9

Minister of Fire
Jan 8, 2014
1,141
Wisconsin Dells, WI

brenndatomu

Minister of Fire
Aug 21, 2013
4,123
NE Ohio
Speaking of older certified EPA furnaces. I wonder what happened to the Energy King 385EK wood only furnace. It looks like the only furnaces they sell now are wood / coal furnaces.

Edit: It looks like it was never certified by the EPA.
Yeah that was just some clever marketing on those...from my research on them, they didn't even have a great secondary air system...kinda reminded me of my Yukon in that respect.
 

JRHAWK9

Minister of Fire
Jan 8, 2014
1,141
Wisconsin Dells, WI
Speaking of older certified EPA furnaces. I wonder what happened to the Energy King 385EK wood only furnace. It looks like the only furnaces they sell now are wood / coal furnaces.

Edit: It looks like it was never certified by the EPA.

man, re-reading that thread you linked above years later and all the positive comments on the up and coming line from Hy-C made me ;lol ;lol ;lol ;lol
Gotta love the BS company spokesmen will spew.

I spoke with Hy-C about the new shelter furnace. It sounds like it could be a heating monster if the rep is right. I guess there's been a handful in use, and they reported a 30 to 45% reduction in wood usage. He said output temperatures in the plenum are higher, and burns between 10 and 14 hours. The firebox size is 4.8 which is very large for a clean burning unit. He said both primary and secondary air is superheated. They are working on a new site, and sometime within 2 weeks will have a manual and breakdown online
Yeah, from the sounds of it, they invested some serious money! I guess they have patented the system and are currently working on their 6th or 8th model. I took interest when he said plenum temps were up to 170 degrees! I guess they are using a forced draft for demand, but it closes down and burns clean when demand isn't needed. A 1200 to 1800 cfm blower and a large plenum opening, it sounds like it will heat well.
This is exactly how @Mrpelletburner 's 1000 and 1500 operated, right? ;lol
 

JRHAWK9

Minister of Fire
Jan 8, 2014
1,141
Wisconsin Dells, WI
Yes for the 1500. The 1000 shares primary and secondary air inlet.

oh, so you are getting 10 to 14 hour burn times, consuming 30-45% less wood and burning clean while doing it then. ;)

They also have patented that great system too. It's a good thing, as I'm sure anyone who is looking for a good wood furnace to reverse engineer would be looking at the Hy-C line. ;lol
 
Last edited:

Case1030

Member
Dec 12, 2017
185
Manitoba
man, re-reading that thread you linked above years later and all the positive comments on the up and coming line from Hy-C made me ;lol ;lol ;lol ;lol
Gotta love the BS company spokesmen will spew.

This is exactly how @Mrpelletburner 's 1000 and 1500 operated, right?
Not playing advocate for HY-c but hook a Tundra upto a 28 foot chimney with no baro or damper, or even a kumma for that matter. The stove will never operate to its specified potential.

With a 4.8 firebox loaded up there is no reason why you cant get 12 hours that's compleatly reasonable to expect, especially considering I'm getting that and above with a 3.6 CF firebox.

The main fault of HY-c is there customer support spewing BS about not having to control draft when its specified plain as day in there manual.
 

Case1030

Member
Dec 12, 2017
185
Manitoba
oh, so you are getting 10 to 14 hour burn times, consuming 30-45% less wood and burning clean while doing it then. ;)

They also have patented that great system too. It's a good thing, as I'm sure anyone who is looking for a good wood furnace to reverse engineer would be looking at the Hy-C line. ;lol

Also Drolet only claims their tundra can get 10 hour burns. But as Benu and many others have found out they are more capable of 12+ hours. Not all manufacturers overestimate and exaggerate burn time.
 

Case1030

Member
Dec 12, 2017
185
Manitoba
The 1500 is 4.1 firebox and you can only fill so much as the flap gets in the way and can’t close as it gets caught on the splits inside. PITMFA
Someone on this page said it was a 4.8 Cf firebox... Now that you say 4.1 that would make more sense.
 

JRHAWK9

Minister of Fire
Jan 8, 2014
1,141
Wisconsin Dells, WI
Not playing advocate for HY-c but hook a Tundra upto a 28 foot chimney with no baro or damper, or even a kumma for that matter. The stove will never operate to its specified potential.

With a 4.8 firebox loaded up there is no reason why you cant get 12 hours that's compleatly reasonable to expect, especially considering I'm getting that and above with a 3.6 CF firebox.

The main fault of HY-c is there customer support spewing BS about not having to control draft when its specified plain as day in there manual.

yeah the whole situation is crap. They, Hy-C, are talking out of both sides of their mouths it seems like.

I think since the standardized testing in the recent years the burn times and heat output of a lot of these furnaces have been made to become more realistic. A couple years ago I posted an example of SBI's Caddy line, showing present and past ratings of the same furnace.

Found it. Read from post #16 on down a few posts.
https://www.hearth.com/talk/threads/kuuma-vapor-fire-100-epa-testing-results.157075/#post-2112765
 
  • Like
Reactions: Case1030

Case1030

Member
Dec 12, 2017
185
Manitoba
yeah the whole situation is crap. They, Hy-C, are talking out of both sides of their mouths it seems like.

I think since the standardized testing in the recent years the burn times and heat output of a lot of these furnaces have been made to become more realistic. A couple years ago I posted an example of SBI's Caddy line, showing present and past ratings of the same furnace.

Found it. Read from post #16 on down a few posts.
https://www.hearth.com/talk/threads/kuuma-vapor-fire-100-epa-testing-results.157075/#post-2112765
Just finished reading the details of the post you dug up.

It could have been a variety of reasons why the output changed. For example it might be interpreted as deceiving (reason for change to reflect more accurate value), or it could be an honest design change which lowered the btu output (similar to the tundras primary air inlet made smaller, also the T2 damper door only opens 1" and the T1s look like about 2")
 

maple1

Minister of Fire
Sep 15, 2011
9,916
Nova Scotia
Not playing advocate for HY-c but hook a Tundra upto a 28 foot chimney with no baro or damper, or even a kumma for that matter. The stove will never operate to its specified potential.

With a 4.8 firebox loaded up there is no reason why you cant get 12 hours that's compleatly reasonable to expect, especially considering I'm getting that and above with a 3.6 CF firebox.

The main fault of HY-c is there customer support spewing BS about not having to control draft when its specified plain as day in there manual.
I think there are more faults simmering that would be bigger than the customer support issue - or more like, the customer support issue is a by-product of bigger fault(s). Such as - the darned things simply aren't designed to burn properly to start with. Everything else is chasing stuff or circle talk, trying to improve on fundamentally flawed situations. Or deflect from them.
 

brenndatomu

Minister of Fire
Aug 21, 2013
4,123
NE Ohio
I think there are more faults simmering that would be bigger than the customer support issue - or more like, the customer support issue is a by-product of bigger fault(s). Such as - the darned things simply aren't designed to burn properly to start with. Everything else is chasing stuff or circle talk, trying to improve on fundamentally flawed situations. Or deflect from them.
Nailed it
 

JRHAWK9

Minister of Fire
Jan 8, 2014
1,141
Wisconsin Dells, WI
Just finished reading the details of the post you dug up.

It could have been a variety of reasons why the output changed. For example it might be interpreted as deceiving (reason for change to reflect more accurate value), or it could be an honest design change which lowered the btu output (similar to the tundras primary air inlet made smaller, also the T2 damper door only opens 1" and the T1s look like about 2")

could be, but that's quite a big drop in performance on the same furnace without any known large scale changes! After all we are talking mostly about average and max BTU ratings which were pretty much cut in half. ;lol That kind of performance decrease would have not gone unnoticed. I'll put my money on fuzzy/deceiving marketing and once they tested to a standard it was "corrected".

It wasn't just SBI, seems it was pretty much everybody except Kuuma. What started me digging around was back when I was researching furnaces for myself and noticed how much lower the advertised BTU output was for the Kuuma compared to pretty much everybody else. It was about half the rated output of other furnaces. The VF100 was originally tested for some tax credit thing back in 2012 (?). I saw and read the results of that test, this is where I saw the actual heat output. That's when I started to question what I was seeing from everybody else as I could not find any certified testing data, just marketing data, which I did not believe or trust.

Believe nothing, question everything.
 

BKVP

Minister of Fire

Case1030

Member
Dec 12, 2017
185
Manitoba
could be, but that's quite a big drop in performance on the same furnace without any known large scale changes! After all we are talking mostly about average and max BTU ratings which were pretty much cut in half. ;lol That kind of performance decrease would have not gone unnoticed. I'll put my money on fuzzy/deceiving marketing and once they tested to a standard it was "corrected".

It wasn't just SBI, seems it was pretty much everybody except Kuuma. What started me digging around was back when I was researching furnaces for myself and noticed how much lower the advertised BTU output was for the Kuuma compared to pretty much everybody else. It was about half the rated output of other furnaces. The VF100 was originally tested for some tax credit thing back in 2012 (?). I saw and read the results of that test, this is where I saw the actual heat output. That's when I started to question what I was seeing from everybody else as I could not find any certified testing data, just marketing data, which I did not believe or trust.

Believe nothing, question everything.
could be, but that's quite a big drop in performance on the same furnace without any known large scale changes! After all we are talking mostly about average and max BTU ratings which were pretty much cut in half. ;lol That kind of performance decrease would have not gone unnoticed. I'll put my money on fuzzy/deceiving marketing and once they tested to a standard it was "corrected".

It wasn't just SBI, seems it was pretty much everybody except Kuuma. What started me digging around was back when I was researching furnaces for myself and noticed how much lower the advertised BTU output was for the Kuuma compared to pretty much everybody else. It was about half the rated output of other furnaces. The VF100 was originally tested for some tax credit thing back in 2012 (?). I saw and read the results of that test, this is where I saw the actual heat output. That's when I started to question what I was seeing from everybody else as I could not find any certified testing data, just marketing data, which I did not believe or trust.

Believe nothing, question everything.

Yep no such thing as magic btu. Like all of us already know the wood you load with is a big part of output, can't make heat out of nothing (water).

If you aren't making smoke (although there are invisible particulates which accumulate to a negligible amount of btus) only place to loose heat is up your flue. That being said if your flue temp is low, and the chimney is clean your getting close to as much heat possible and no exaggerated numbers can tell you any different.

Also these manufacturers telling us average output of what? The main 3 hours of burn time, or WOT chew through the wood and coals in 4 hour average throwing half the btu up the chimney? Too much room for interpretation, that's why customers have to do there research and not rely on pointless claimed numbers.

I'd be more interested in efficiency, knowing what I'm getting for each pound of wood I load.
 

JRHAWK9

Minister of Fire
Jan 8, 2014
1,141
Wisconsin Dells, WI
Also these manufacturers telling us average output of what? The main 3 hours of burn time, or WOT chew through the wood and coals in 4 hour average throwing half the btu up the chimney? Too much room for interpretation, that's why customers have to do there research and not rely on pointless claimed numbers.
that's why they have the standardized test, so everybody is now required to test the same way :)


I'd be more interested in efficiency, knowing what I'm getting for each pound of wood I load.
I agree, there are also a handful of different efficiency ratings too.....combustion, LHV, HHV, stack and delivered are the ones I'm aware of. There are probably more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Case1030