Buck catalytic input

[Pagey]

My dad is considering the purchase of a Buck catalytic stove this year or next. I wanted to know if anyone here (user/dealer/installer) had any experience with the Buck catalytic line of stoves. He's considering the Model 91 free standing, as he doesn't feel that the 2.6 cubic foot firebox on the Model 80 will keep the house as warm as they like in the really cold stretches we usually get in February, for example. He'll be heating around 1,900 sq. ft. on the Cumberland Plateua in Middle TN. Seasoned wood won't be an issue, as I'm sure many of you have seen the pics of the old hay barn we have loaded down with wood. The stove will run pretty much 24/7 during heating season.

Any experiences and insight you can offer about Buck's catalytic line will be most appreciated!

Thanks for the input!

 

[Pagey]

Going to bump this in one last attempt to get and advice/experience on Buck. After that, I'll assume we just don't have many Buck users here.

 

[Rob From Wisconsin]

I Don't personally own one, but I know people who are very satisfied with theirs.
Not a "pretty" stove, but hardened & effective.
You're making a good choice if you consider going w/ their largest cat model.
Very efficient & very long burn times.

The only reason why we don't have a Buck is because my better half doesn't like their look......

 

[branchburner]

Don't think they even have any dealers N of CT, but I've heard/read lots of good stuff on Buck

 

[Pagey]

Thanks for the comments!

 

[begreen]

How big a place is he heating? The Buck 91 is a monster stove. I would think in the somewhat milder climate of TN that a 2.6 cu ft Buck 80 would do well in a house under 2000 sq ft. Although I have not had my hands on one of these stoves, my impression is that they are a stout, simple stove.

 

[Pagey]

It's about 1,900 sq. ft. in a ranch layout. Several walls/rooms to get the heat into. It's not as open as some layouts.

 

[begreen]

Sometimes that can be cured with a well placed fan or two, placed low and blowing cool air from those areas towards the hot area (the wood stove room).

 

[Pagey]

I think his main concern is twofold: they rely on wood to be as much of a primary heat source in the winter as is humanly possible and, two, he's actually not been overly impressed with the ability of the 3' fire box on the Liberty he put in his mother's home last winter to hold an overnight fire the way his Fisher holds one. He's just concerned that 2.6 cubic feet, even with a cat, won't do the job the way he'd prefer. They do keep it pretty darned toasty in the winter, though.

 

[Highbeam]

The beauty of a big cat stove is that they can be turned down low for a long burn. Bigger doesn't mean hotter, it means longer in cat speak.

 

[Pagey]

The beauty of a big cat stove is that they can be turned down low for a long burn. Bigger doesn't mean hotter, it means longer in cat speak.

That's a good point, Highbeam. I wonder if anyone can riddle me this: how much longer, in theory, would a 2.6 cubic foot cat burn vs. a 2.6 cubic foot non-cat? Holding all other variables equal (chimney, wood, weather, draft, etc.) that is. Thoughts?

 

[Slow1]

The beauty of a big cat stove is that they can be turned down low for a long burn. Bigger doesn't mean hotter, it means longer in cat speak.

That's a good point, Highbeam. I wonder if anyone can riddle me this: how much longer, in theory, would a 2.6 cubic foot cat burn vs. a 2.6 cubic foot non-cat? Holding all other variables equal (chimney, wood, weather, draft, etc.) that is. Thoughts?

I can't wait to hear the answer(s) to this one

Here is my guess: It depends on how low you burn it and what you consider to be the definition of "burn time". About the only thing you can be certain of is that all other factors being equal you can generally know that if you are trying to go longer between loads, you can go longer with a cat than a non-cat of the same size with the same wood.

Keep in mind that a given volume of wood has a set amount of energy potential in it (all other things being equal) when you burn it you release that energy. So the question then becomes one of how fast to you burn and release it into the room. If you were able to burn it super amazingly slow it could burn for days - but would you consider that a real burn? I doubt I would since the heat produced and release to the room would likely be pointless. I recall a discussion about the burn time on the BKK - which I believe may well have the best reputation if not the record for longest burn time - where someone said that it can indeed be loaded up and burned for more than 48 hours, but that you would have to dial it down so low that it wouldn't do any good on a day cold enough to justify burning.

The secondary question is "which is going to ultimately release more heat energy into the room?" - which really speaks to functional efficiency. There are lots of efficiency numbers out there and they all seem to serve their purpose (mostly regulatory or tax incentive approval). I'm not sure that anyone agrees on any objective standard that really puts a number the practical installed functional efficiency though - sure would be nice if they did as it might really answer the question that many like myself would be interested in knowing. It may well be that there are too many variables to get at this with any meaning.

 

[Wet1]

Bigger means longer and more heat with a cat. The cat stove in your example Pagey would likely burn about 25% to 50% longer, but the heat output would be lower and more consistent throughout the burn cycle.

For 1900 sq ft, I'd suggest going with the Model 91 if the heat could be distributed w/o much of an issue, but I don't know all that much about your weather in TN. The location makes it a tougher call... I know with the big BK, the heat can really be dialed back, although I don't know if this is the case with the big Buck. If they really like to keep the place hot, the 91 might be the way to go.

 

[begreen]

I think his main concern is twofold: they rely on wood to be as much of a primary heat source in the winter as is humanly possible and, two, he's actually not been overly impressed with the ability of the 3' fire box on the Liberty he put in his mother's home last winter to hold an overnight fire the way his Fisher holds one. He's just concerned that 2.6 cubic feet, even with a cat, won't do the job the way he'd prefer. They do keep it pretty darned toasty in the winter, though.

Well, I do tend to think in terms of keeping the house about 72 degrees. If they're trying to heat it the place to 85 then perhaps brute force will be appreciated. I'll be curious to hear about how the big Buck works for him.

 

[Highbeam]

For so many people, the mere fact that the stove is still burning in the morning has great value. There are two reasons that the cat will be superior for long burns in a given size box.

1) Higher efficiency. At least when new, the cat stove will get more btu in the house per btu of wood burnt. That means that for a given heat output setting, the cat stove will burn longer.

2) The ability to lower the stove temp. The high efficiency from #1 continues for the low burn. You can set the draft of a cat stove at low low and get a longer burn at a reduced temp. With a non-cat the stove must run hot, it is beyond your control.

With the larger buck you can get the overnight low burn but also, if needed, you can get it hot and a big sheet of hot steel will heat the house.

 

[BrotherBart]

If in the magic land of cat stoves they will all burn low and slow, then why did Blaze King put a thermostat on theirs and nobody else did?

 

[begreen]

Cost? or EPA certification? It's one feature I really miss after owning an early VC stove.

 

[Pagey]

Does the thermostat regulate combustion air?

 

[BrotherBart]

Cost? or EPA certification? It's one feature I really miss after owning an early VC stove.

Yeah I know. Point was how can you expect the burn times to be any longer with a cat than a non-cat if primary air is dependent on the operator? Same amount of wood and a non-cat will cruise at 500 or under stove top. As the load burns down the cat may get more heat out of the wood but the load is gonna burn down at the same rate. It isn't smart enough to know what is sitting up top in the stove.

 

[begreen]

Does the thermostat regulate combustion air?

On the BlazeKing, yes, at least that is what the docs say. VC stoves used to regulate the primary air thermostatically, but I believe now the thermostatic damper controls the secondary air. Best to ask BlazeKing for specifics.

 

[Slow1]

Cost? or EPA certification? It's one feature I really miss after owning an early VC stove.

Yeah I know. Point was how can you expect the burn times to be any longer with a cat than a non-cat if primary air is dependent on the operator? Same amount of wood and a non-cat will cruise at 500 or under stove top. As the load burns down the cat may get more heat out of the wood but the load is gonna burn down at the same rate. It isn't smart enough to know what is sitting up top in the stove.

I think the argument is that in order to get a clean burn with a non-cat you have to burn at a particular minimum temp - thus there is a minimum rate of burn through that load. With a Cat, the min rate of burn (and still get a clean burn) is at a lower temp than you would have with a comparable sized non-cat. Thus if you are burning at the minimum rate for a clean burn, you get a longer burn with the Cat than you do with a non-cat stove.

As to where regulation of the burn comes in - I thing this may well have a lot to do with the overall stove design. If a stove can reach a "steady state" with a particular air setting and cruise at that state for remainder of a given load's burn then the need for a mechanical thermostat should be minimal. Granted, even in this scenario one would expect that heat would gradually decrease over time as the load burned down and an increase in air might help neutralize this by increasing burn rate of remaining fuel, but perhaps there are stove designs that somehow inherently minimize this burn-down effect. Perhaps some stove designs simply don't need as much mechanical regulation as others, or perhaps the mechanical regulation doesn't do nearly as much as folks think they do - i.e. placebo effect. I know my VC was supposed to have some sort of automatic regulator built into it and I couldn't ever objectively determine that it did a thing for me even when I was still in love with it.

 

[Pagey]

Don't some of the PE models use a similar method to regulate the secondary combustion air?

 

[BrotherBart]

Don't some of the PE models use a similar method to regulate the secondary combustion air?

.

The advertising leads you to believe that. BeGreen will be along shortly to elaborate.

 

[Pagey]

I see that the Buck 91 has just over a 50K BTU/hr rating and the Liberty has over 70K. Assuming those are in fact "correct," I wonder what the "cruising" stove top temp for a catalytic Buck would be. I think the Liberty would probably run in the same 650-700F range as my Endeavor.

 

[begreen]

Don't some of the PE models use a similar method to regulate the secondary combustion air?

.

The advertising leads you to believe that. BeGreen will be along shortly to elaborate.

Nope, not touching that one. My EBT is disabled. It is not the same at all.