Is a catalyitic stove really more efficient since a cat looses its efficiency with age

[BKVP]

Interesting readings. Thank you!

I still believe the biggest influence on the performence, efficiency and emissions is to be found outside of the stove sitting on the recliner.

For us I see a difference when my wife operates the stove, not to speak about the start up period.

A mediocre stove operated by a skilled person might perform better than a great stove operated by someone who just only thinks he knows what he is doing. I can smell the difference walking our country side village in the evenings. Always the same houses stick out.

#1 is variability in moisture content.
#2 User interface.

 

[Fargo]

Thanks @BKVP . That chart is really interesting and informative. I think I've been trying to over simplify the whole thing.

I also totally get the point that @Nordicbynature made about the install and real life conditions being a major factor. Although I really do appreciate controlled testing. It may not necessarily reflect real life perfectly, but at least its a level ground to start on.

And who can argue with this:
#1 is variability is moisture content.
#2 User interface.

I was also thinking about how a non-cat stove could loose efficiency. The baffles and burn tubes seem like they would be a lot more durable than a cat, but then I came across information about gaskets going bad and other issues that can arise. So as pointed out, secondary burners are not immune to loss of efficiency either. A gasket is likely cheaper than a cat, but non-the-less, there would be maintenance and a loss of performance.

This has all been great feed back. Thanks guys.

 

[BKVP]

Thanks @BKVP . That chart is really interesting and informative. I think I've been trying to over simplify the whole thing.

I also totally get the point that @Nordicbynature made about the install and real life conditions being a major factor. Although I really do appreciate controlled testing. It may not necessarily reflect real life perfectly, but at least its a level ground to start on.

And who can argue with this:
#1 is variability is moisture content.
#2 User interface.

I was also thinking about how a non-cat stove could loose efficiency. The baffles and burn tubes seem like they would be a lot more durable than a cat, but then I came across information about gaskets going bad and other issues that can arise. So as pointed out, secondary burners are not immune to loss of efficiency either. A gasket is likely cheaper than a cat, but non-the-less, there would be maintenance and a loss of performance.

This has all been great feed back. Thanks guys.

As noted in my post, not all catalytic wood stoves are the same.....nor are all secondary combustion stoves.

BKVP

 

[Highbeam]

Pretty easy to see emissions and efficiency are not related. Just look at the epa list at each stove to compare emissions and efficiency too see no correlation.

It’s great if you can get low emissions and high efficiency like with the BK.

See for yourself, no marketing BS or trying to sell stoves with confusion. Lots of low efficiency low emissions stoves, it's all over the place. I personally switched from a low emissions low efficiency noncat to a high emissions (but barely legal) high efficiency cat stove. Since then, the current model princess has been able to attain excellent test scores for both. DO not make the mistake of equating emissions to efficiency, they are quite obviously different.

Woodstove Database | Burnwise | US EPA

In the end, emissions don't really matter so long as it's legal to install and efficiency of a few percent one way or the other is also really no big deal. What's awesome is the ability to burn low and slow or hot and fast depending on your needs. Only a good cat stove can offer such burn rate control.

Enjoy the list. Use it to filter out reality from marketing BS. Ignore degradation in these numbers over the years because it is insignificant. You'll be swapping cats every so often anyway.