Kuma Sequoia Initial Review and Catalyst Troubleshooting Tips

Status
Not open for further replies.

BigBadVoodooDaddy

New Member
Feb 19, 2016
28
Puyallup, WA
Hello fellow WoodHeads,

I recently installed the Kuma Sequoia as a wood burning insert into my fireplace and while the install itself had some issues, I have to say that I couldn't be more pleased with the product. I did a tremendous amount of research regarding the type of stove to get and every time I used my criteria the Sequoia always came to the top.

Here is the quick review of the requirements I used for selection:
I live in Western Washington and have only electric heat at my place so alternate source of heat is necessary in case of power outage which occurs in our area either during severe wind storms or in below freezing weather where trees snap from the cold and down power lines.

  1. EPA Certified Wood Burning Stove (County Requirement, $1,500 fine if caught burning in non-certified stove)
  2. Able to heat 3,000 SQ FT in below freezing weather without a blower fan
  3. Wood burning efficiency above 80%
  4. Minimum burn times of 10 hours or longer, 12+ hours preferred
  5. Full installation cost not to exceed $4,500 (This has changed a little bit but I will explain later)
  6. Made in USA, Preferably in PNW (I like to buy American but more importantly I like to help my local community)

In all honest, after applying just the top 4 criteria at once, Sequoia was the ONLY stove that satisfied them and it was just the cherry on top that it actually satisfied all 6. Pacific Energy was a close second, although their efficiency was considerably lower than Kuma, Fireplace Xtrodinair, Quadra Fire and Enviro all had great products as well. Once all of the criteria was compared though, Kuma was at the top every single time especially because of the convection heating design that creates a tremendous amount of airflow without a fan.
Here are the specs of Kuma as a quick overview:
  • 90,000BTU/HR (Second to Pacific Energy's 99,000BTU/HR),
  • Efficiency 84%/91% (Top in industry),
  • can heat 3,500 SQ FT (Top in industry),
  • 14 hour burn time (Top in Industry),
  • Particulate Emissions 2.2 gr/hr (Lowest of ANY stove I've found),
  • Cost (Fully Loaded with the blower and the Pewter Door, $2,600 through my local dealer plus the install cost, liner, permit and EPA fees... with some strong hand negotiating and haggling of course. The total cost was approximately $3,900 which is well within the budget but I ended up having to replace my hearth top which pushes the total install cost to about $5,000)

OK, enough about the stove. Bottom line, if you own one you're happy as a clam and warm as warm gets, if you don't own one and you're looking for a stove GET IT and never look back.

Now onto the actual install and overall initial experience.

The install was a bit of a hassle in all honesty. The 8" flue size is the biggest obstacle you will find. Even though my chimney is well over 9" in size, it was still a bit of an issue sliding the stainless steel liner down it. Yes, STAINLESS IS A MUST so this thing doesn't flex or move much. Overall, though, once the liner was sorted out, the install went smoothly and easily. The second issue that I had was the fact that while the fireplace was big enough, the hearth in the front caused clearance issues and I had to remove the hearth completely in order to install the unit. This really wasn't an issue for me because it was just a brick hearth so upgrade was in order anyways but I wish I didn't have to do this in the middle of the install. So bottom line, MAKE SURE YOU MEASURE THE OPENING and not just the fireplace.

After the install I was excited to get the first fire burning and I will say that starting a fire in that unit is a breeze, even if you have a cursory knowledge of fire-starting. Once the fire was started I loaded the unit and was rewarded by a quick rise in the room temperature. First impression was WOW, THIS THING PUTS OUT HEAT. The disappointing part was that after loading the unit at night, I woke up to a cold stove and no coals less than 8 hours after loading it full. I called Kuma and I have to say that I am pleasantly surprised by their customer service. EVERYONE THERE TAKES A CALL. If you call them, no matter if they are a sales rep, owner or the loading dock guy, they will answer the phone and answer your questions.

So, after a couple of calls I ended up talking to the guy that designed the Sequoia stove, and through the discussion I was able to hone in on the exact cause of my short burn time and the solution for my particular issue.

First, here is the general basic design parameters for the Sequoia.
The unit is designed for best draft in 16 foot chimney, non-insulated pipe to the outside for ability to perform in subzero temperatures. Meaning that if you have a 23 foot brick and mortar chimney and live in area where it is usually 30-50 degrees during the winter, the draft will be SIGNIFICANTLY stronger to the point that it will overpower both the intake and the catalyst. While I was getting 600 degree temperatures in the catalyst the unit was not burning efficiently and the inflow of the fresh air was keeping the catalyst temperature down.

So, if you have short burn times, I would say your draft is the number one issue you should be looking at. Ultimately, the longer the chimney, the more draft you will have, especially if the pipe is insulated or the liner is installed in a brick and mortar chimney where the heat can be trapped and temperature drop in exhaust gasses between the bottom and the top is minimal. Also if the chimney is relatively straight, the airflow will be stronger. Ultimately, the hotter the air, the longer the passage and straighter the path the more acceleration the air will have ultimately causing a strong draft.

There are two ways to remedy this. First is being some kind of a butterfly valve installed at the top of the exhaust vent of the unit. If you have installed it as a stove, this might work as a good option but if you have installed this unit as an insert, only viable option is to place a starting collar on the 4" intake port and use some flex piping for HVAC to direct the air intake to the front of the stove where you can fine-tune the amount of air the unit is taking.

For me, due to the restrictions in clearance, I had to modify a 4" to 3" reducer as a starting collar, then connect 3" flex piping to the front of the unit so I can restrict airflow and have easy access to it if I need adjustments. According to the catalyst manufacturer, the catalyst performs best at temps between 700 and 1,300 degrees, with the low end being best for longer burn times. So, in order to reach optimal airflow that provides catalyst burn temperatures between 700 and 1,000 degrees at the most restricted handle position, I had to restrict the intake hole size to about a diameter of a US Quarter. The way you would find the optimal airflow is to reduce the size of your intake opening to the point that reducing the size of the hole would reduce the catalytic chamber temperature and opening it would increase it. Then finetune the opening until you can consistently reach 700 degrees in the catalytic chamber. At that point, go outside and look at your exhaust from the chimney and see what the "smoke" coming out looks like. The three byproducts of the chemical process of catalytic burn is #1 HEAT, the important part we want, second two are water and CO2. As CO2 is invisible, the only thing you should be seeing out of your chimney is steam, that's it. It should look as if the fire is barely going. With my stove at about 700-900 degrees in the catalytic chamber, the steam looks as if it is coming off a pot that is just about to start boiling. If you don't see steam but see just the heat rising (like off the asphalt in the middle of the summer), it means the catalytic chamber is too hot and the steam is superheated. If you actually see white/blue or black smoke, it means your catalyst is not doing the job and you need to troubleshoot some more. In some rare instances, you will have the stove dialed in just right without any steam or vapor showing, that's possible due to RH/temperature in the outside air. This is very rare but possible.

Anyways, once I as able to dial in the stove, currently I get about 10 hours of full on burn time plus another 2-3 hours of hot coals in the bottom but the catalyst not fully engaged as it is at around 400-500 degrees. If you have the steel-core catalyst, then you're still engaged but ceramic catalysts are not operating at this temp. The coals are still glowing red and I can use them to start another fire instantly by loading more wood, opening the bypass vent, opening the air intake vent and cracking the stove door a tiny bit. This will re-engage the catalyst within 15 minutes and the stove will start humming once again.

In all honesty, this fix and troubleshooting guide is not limited to the Kuma Sequoia but all catalytic burn stoves. I just had the Sequoia to work with.

I have attached a link to a short video that I shot showing the unit and the fix I have implemented. Please excuse not having the hearthstone in yet, the masonry guy is taking his sweet time installing it.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B60Z-DLSrYJiOWxUcUhJN0pUTE0/view?usp=sharing

I have also attached the pictures showing the unit with the catalyst fully engaged, my fix using flex pipe and 3M duct joint tape and the catalyst thermometer temperature showing full combustion.

One last tip... if you are using a stove with a catalytic burner, make sure that you have a good mix of wood you use for a fire. Obviously, seasoned wood is a must but other than that you need a good mix that will help you burn most efficiently. My stove HATES pure wood burn, meaning only hardwoods like Alder and Maple. For best results, when refueling, I put down a layer of good Cedar and Red Pine logs and then top them off with Alder and Maple. This gives me the immediate heat and flames needed to get the catalyst engaged again with a really good benefit of prolonged burn times of the hardwoods. Engaging that catalyst quickly is the number one priority and with hardwoods alone, it will take you a LONG time before you get it hot enough.

Anyways, if you've made it this far. Thanks for reading my post. Good luck in your adventures!

*Edited to fix grammar and formating
 

Attachments

Last edited:

Woody Stover

Minister of Fire
Dec 25, 2010
12,160
Southern IN
I guess that thermometer is the cat probe, running just over 800? At my MIL's with the Buck 91, if stove temp was low I would burn a few small splits in the front of the box to get the cat probe up over 700, then load the box. That way I didn't burn up a lot of the main load getting up to temp for a cat light-off, so I got a longer burn off the main load. Another way I stretched out the burn was to pull the coals to the center, front to back, then put a couple big splits on either side of the coals to slow the speed of the burn, fill in the rest of the sides and toss a couple smaller splits on top of the coals. Then get the cat probe up to 900+ and light off the cat. The cat probe will routinely go to around 1300+ and the load will burn 12 hrs still putting out decent heat, longer if I have primo woods like Hickory and BL in there. Since you have the surround off, I'd think you could put a pipe damper just above the flue collar. Not enough room, stove would be too hot to adjust it, or why didn't you end up doing that? I didn't put in a pipe damper since I had the surround on at first. Instead, I adjusted the primary air plates to close a bit tighter to get the burn rate I wanted. Have you looked at the air intake control yet? You might be able to adjust it so you could control the air there instead of with the tube. Here's a couple pics, first one shows (not real well) how the right air plate was hanging down a bit, allowing more air in. Second pic shows a shim I put in the bottom of the saddle for the slider rod, which raised the right air plate to cut off some of the excess air. I didn't want to cut too much air so that if someone else was running the stove, they couldn't starve the cat by closing the air too far.
I also needed to improve the gasket that sealed the ash pan; It was allowing excess air in through the ash dump, causing a higher burn rate.
001.JPG 003 (2).JPG
 

BigBadVoodooDaddy

New Member
Feb 19, 2016
28
Puyallup, WA
I guess that thermometer is the cat probe, running just over 800? At my MIL's with the Buck 91, if stove temp was low I would burn a few small splits in the front of the box to get the cat probe up over 700, then load the box. That way I didn't burn up a lot of the main load getting up to temp for a cat light-off, so I got a longer burn off the main load. Another way I stretched out the burn was to pull the coals to the center, front to back, then put a couple big splits on either side of the coals to slow the speed of the burn, fill in the rest of the sides and toss a couple smaller splits on top of the coals. Then get the cat probe up to 900+ and light off the cat. The cat probe will routinely go to around 1300+ and the load will burn 12 hrs still putting out decent heat, longer if I have primo woods like Hickory and BL in there.
1,300 degrees on the cat... WHOA! That sucker is burning hot. I got to about 1,100 on mine and the air coming out with the blower on full blast was so hot it would burn your hand. The house got to about 85 degrees downstairs and the upstairs was about 5 degrees warmer, if not more. I had to open the windows just to let the place cool down a bit. Because of the mild Washington weather as compared to the rest of the US, I don't need to run the stove all too hot all the time, unless it was in the 20's like we have 3-4 weeks a year during the night. According to the cat manufacturer, and the designer for the Sequoia, the best performance of the stove is right at 700-800 degrees as measured at the cat. Anything higher than that and there is significant heat loss out the chimney. It also seems that Buck 91 has about a full cubic foot more space than my Sequoia. The spec sheet for the Sequoia says 3.6 cubic feet but because of the cat location and the layout I'd say the Sequoia is effectively a 3 cubic foot stove, so buck has about 30%-45% more capacity, depending on which figures you go with. It's a beast, that is for sure. Around where I am there were no dealers that sell BUCK stoves whatsoever, otherwise it would have been on my list to consider.

Since you have the surround off, I'd think you could put a pipe damper just above the flue collar. Not enough room, stove would be too hot to adjust it, or why didn't you end up doing that? I didn't put in a pipe damper since I had the surround on at first. Instead, I adjusted the primary air plates to close a bit tighter to get the burn rate I wanted. Have you looked at the air intake control yet? You might be able to adjust it so you could control the air there instead of with the tube. Here's a couple pics, first one shows (not real well) how the right air plate was hanging down a bit, allowing more air in. Second pic shows a shim I put in the bottom of the saddle for the slider rod, which raised the right air plate to cut off some of the excess air. I didn't want to cut too much air so that if someone else was running the stove, they couldn't starve the cat by closing the air too far.
I also needed to improve the gasket that sealed the ash pan; It was allowing excess air in through the ash dump, causing a higher burn rate.
I didn't do that for a couple of reasons, first one being is that the liner is a pain in the ... to deal with. I would have had to pull it down, shorten it by a few inches, put the damper in and then hopefully be able to put it all back on top of the stove. The top gets pretty darn hot as it is, so adjusting it would be difficult plus the clearance was incredibly tight. All of the factors really made me think that doing the pipe to the side would be easier. This way I was able to adjust the air intake on the fly and make sure that the draft was unrestricted through the chimney.

Another thought would have been to cut a 3" hole in the surround and mount the Daisy Wheel on it with the pipe connected to the back of it. That way I can have full control of the air flow from wide open throttle to choked down to a bare minimum. I have one on my Green Egg smoker, like the one in the pic below, so it would look good on the side and I could adjust the airflow from the front. I think that might be a project for a little bit later. Right now, I have to get the hearth stone installed first.
 

Attachments

begreen

Mooderator
Staff member
Nov 18, 2005
83,004
South Puget Sound, WA
Great review and good info. Note that PE lists the Summit efficiency at 80.5% but it's a non-cat. There are several stoves with lower emissions than 2.2gm/hr, but that certainly is not a deal breaker. You made a good choice and it's great to hear more about the Kuma. One think, I do have concern about the chimney height. Although the stove is tested at 16', what about 2 story homes? A 2 story chimney certainly should be within the stove design parameters. I would not expect the homeowner to have to add custom valving to make the stove perform optimally with at 23' liner. Is there a stop on the air control? If yes, can this be adjusted to admit a bit less air in the fully closed position?
 

BigBadVoodooDaddy

New Member
Feb 19, 2016
28
Puyallup, WA
Great review and good info. Note that PE lists the Summit efficiency at 80.5% but it's a non-cat. There are several stoves with lower emissions than 2.2gm/hr, but that certainly is not a deal breaker. You made a good choice and it's great to hear more about the Kuma. One think, I do have concern about the chimney height. Although the stove is tested at 16', what about 2 story homes? A 2 story chimney certainly should be within the stove design parameters. I would not expect the homeowner to have to add custom valving to make the stove perform optimally with at 23' liner. Is there a stop on the air control? If yes, can this be adjusted to admit a bit less air in the fully closed position?
Thanks for the kind words.

Yes, there are stoves that might have lower emissions than 2.2gm/hr. Unfortunately, at least based on my research, the big boys are a bit higher than smaller units. In all honesty, what I really love about the Sequoia is the minimal amount of ash I have. I've run 2 weeks straight before I considered taking the ashes out and according to the designer, it was meant for about 3 weeks of continuous use before you had to clean it.

As far as the chimney is concerned, here is what I was told. The particular county in Idaho that the Kuma is made has implemented a series of very restricting regulations, to the point that the old version of the Sequoia was illegal to install in the area. So they were forced to do a quick redesign.

The first image is of the old version Sequoia, there are two levers at the front that control the air intake from the front of the unit. The air is actually ambient air that was taken straight through the vents.

The second image is the new version of the Sequoia which has a single lever on the front which controls the air intake. The major change has been that the air is pulled through the back of the stove through a 4" hole. This was for one of the main requirements of having a cold air intake for outside air. This plus the EPA requirements for the amount of minimum airflow forced them to make changes and alteration

This, seemingly small change, actually caused them to redesign large part of the stove. Because of the cold air, they actually had to increase the draft capability of the stove so that they could maintain some of the temperature. In Idaho, they have temps of 20 or lower for long periods of time and that cold air cools down the entire stove unless they can manage the draft. Ultimately, the stove is designed to perform in the worst conditions with the chimney being exposed to the elements and very cold air coming in.

So, where does that leave us. People that have longer chimneys, like 2 story houses, will have to figure out a solution. So for now it leaves us with people either having short burn times because of the draft being too strong or working on creative solutions like I have put together. I am actually going to put a call into the designer one more time and talk to him about the solution I came up with as well as the issues that many people are having with the draft being considerably stronger than the air intake damper was designed for.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

begreen

Mooderator
Staff member
Nov 18, 2005
83,004
South Puget Sound, WA
It's good that you are in contact with them. They take pride in their work and are a good company. That said, with our mild temperatures draft is weaker. I'm surprised to hear that this is an issue. Makes me wonder what draft issues would be like in a 2 story home with zero degree temps.
 

BigBadVoodooDaddy

New Member
Feb 19, 2016
28
Puyallup, WA
It's good that you are in contact with them. They take pride in their work and are a good company. That said, with our mild temperatures draft is weaker. I'm surprised to hear that this is an issue. Makes me wonder what draft issues would be like in a 2 story home with zero degree temps.
I've been pleasantly surprised by their customer service.

In all honesty, everyone was a bit taken back that I have that strong of a draft but it is what it is. I had to figure out a solution and this definitely helped a bunch. It makes a big difference when you do 2-3 big loads a day versus 4-5.
 

begreen

Mooderator
Staff member
Nov 18, 2005
83,004
South Puget Sound, WA
Agreed. 2-3 loads a day is what we burn.
 

Woody Stover

Minister of Fire
Dec 25, 2010
12,160
Southern IN
1,300 degrees on the cat... WHOA! That sucker is burning hot. I got to about 1,100 on mine and the air coming out with the blower on full blast was so hot it would burn your hand. The house got to about 85 degrees downstairs and the upstairs was about 5 degrees warmer, if not more. I had to open the windows.....According to the cat manufacturer, and the designer for the Sequoia, the best performance of the stove is right at 700-800 degrees as measured at the cat. Anything higher than that and there is significant heat loss out the chimney. It also seems that Buck 91 has about a full cubic foot more space than my Sequoia. The spec sheet for the Sequoia says 3.6 cubic feet but because of the cat location and the layout I'd say the Sequoia is effectively a 3 cubic foot stove, so buck has about 30%-45% more capacity,...didn't do that for a couple of reasons, first one being is that the liner is a pain in the ---to deal with. I would have had to pull it down, shorten it by a few inches, put the damper in and then hopefully be able to put it all back on top of the stove. The top gets pretty darn hot as it is, so adjusting it would be difficult plus the clearance was incredibly tight.....if you have a 23 foot brick and mortar chimney and live in area where it is usually 30-50 degrees during the winter, the draft will be SIGNIFICANTLY stronger to the point that it will overpower both the intake and the catalyst...everyone was a bit taken back that I have that strong of a draft....Yes, there are stoves that might have lower emissions than 2.2gm/hr. Unfortunately, at least based on my research, the big boys are a bit higher than smaller units.
As long as you keep the cat under 1800, they say you are OK. Yes, the higher you run any stove, the more heat you're going to send up the flue. Sometimes you need a lot of output, though, like in our climate and with uninsulated walls and bad layout, like at my MIL's house.
So, what sq.ft. are you heating, and is it an open layout where heat can freely move out of the stove room to other areas? You can always put a small (8") fan on the floor outside the stove room, blowing in, to move the heat out. Maybe some curtains or something to keep the bedrooms cooler.
I measured the Buck at right around 3 cu.ft. usable firebox space, even though they claim 4+. Once I got control of the air entering the stove, it was burning 12 hrs. as I said, on a 21' chimney. Any pipe damper I've put in so far, I've been able to leave the stove in place, measure and drill the holes for the shaft, then hold the plate in place by reaching up the flue from inside the stove, then feed the rod through. It can be a pain since you can't see, and you might need two people to pull it off on a big stove. I would try it. Can you get a good pic of the pipe near the flue exit, so we can see what you have to work with? If you can get a pipe damper in there, you might be able to rig a rod so you can adjust from the front instead of reaching over the hot stove top. Also, can you get a pic of how the primary air control on the stove works? That would be the other way to get control of the burn rate, and handier than what you've got now.
The Buck 91 Bay is rated at 1.2 but then a "Bay 91" at 3.5, both catalytic. A bit confusing. I think the cat emissions are a crock, though. A new stove in the lab is one thing, but after you run it for a while and build up creosote in the box, that burns off every time you ramp the stove up on a fresh load, until you close the bypass again.
They take pride in their work and are a good company....That said, with our mild temperatures draft is weaker. I'm surprised to hear that this is an issue.
Yeah, that's the impression I got reading their website, probably good to deal with, and the OP's experience confirms that. And I agree about the draft; 23' isn't all that tall, and it sounds like the people he spoke to were surprised as well...
 

BigBadVoodooDaddy

New Member
Feb 19, 2016
28
Puyallup, WA
As long as you keep the cat under 1800, they say you are OK. Yes, the higher you run any stove, the more heat you're going to send up the flue. Sometimes you need a lot of output, though, like in our climate and with uninsulated walls and bad layout, like at my MIL's house.
According to Condar website, the manufacturer of the cat in my stove "Catalytic reaction maxes out at about 1300 degrees Fahrenheit through any combustor. Exceeding this temperature is destructive to the combustor and to the components of your stove." My personal experience with ceramics and metals from work life has told me that at anything over 1,100 degrees the microfractures and warping is quite common, especially if there is a temperature differentiation between areas (in this case top and bottom of the cat) so I am making sure I only burn to about 80% of the max heat, which puts me at right around 1,000-1,100 degrees to start with. My preferred temp for the cat would be about 700-900 degrees but I am still trying to manage the steady performance out of it.

So, what sq.ft. are you heating, and is it an open layout where heat can freely move out of the stove room to other areas? You can always put a small (8") fan on the floor outside the stove room, blowing in, to move the heat out. Maybe some curtains or something to keep the bedrooms cooler.
I've got about 3,000 square feet of space on two floors but I also have two stairwells on each end of the house which creates a natural convection for the area. With the stove I can keep the downstairs at about 73-75 and upstairs at about 78-80 degrees. This is with the optional fan turned on and pushing more air out. That being said, I've found that the blower makes a HUGE issue in performance of the unit and I am actually considering doing some creative engineering. The stove itself has way too many variables to deal with on any given day. When they say burning wood is an artform, they aren't kidding. It's actually pure science, the "art" part is taking in all the variables to make it work. I am actually in the process of designing an automated air intake damper control module that would take in several factors into consideration. Air intake flow, cat temp, exhaust air temp (or outside air temp, not sure which is more beneficial yet) and then it would control the blower speed and the air intake damper accordingly. It should be a fairly simple unit to build. I've already ordered the digital cat probe, so that should be easy to integrate and the air flow sensor is a piece of cake. Main thing will be programing the functionality for the control of the air damper and the voltage control for the fan. I figure if I can dedicate a few hours a week on it, the prototype will be ready to test in a month or two. Because this is an insert, I am also going to insulate the space between the fireplace wall and the stove itself, that way I get the most possible heat retained within the stove itself instead of having it radiate into the brick of the fireplace.

I measured the Buck at right around 3 cu.ft. usable firebox space, even though they claim 4+. Once I got control of the air entering the stove, it was burning 12 hrs. as I said, on a 21' chimney. Any pipe damper I've put in so far, I've been able to leave the stove in place, measure and drill the holes for the shaft, then hold the plate in place by reaching up the flue from inside the stove, then feed the rod through. It can be a pain since you can't see, and you might need two people to pull it off on a big stove. I would try it. Can you get a good pic of the pipe near the flue exit, so we can see what you have to work with? If you can get a pipe damper in there, you might be able to rig a rod so you can adjust from the front instead of reaching over the hot stove top. Also, can you get a pic of how the primary air control on the stove works? That would be the other way to get control of the burn rate, and handier than what you've got now.
Unfortunately, I don't have the clearance to get the chimney damper in place. I'll take some pics a bit later but there is less than 1" clearance between the stove top and the lintel bar. Any modification to the stove, whether it is intake or exhaust, requires moving the stove which is an absolute pain. It was a calculated risk on my part in all honesty because this way I can fiddle with the intake and tune it in easily. Also, as I mentioned in my previous post, the ultimate goal is to have a daisy wheel at the front of the shroud of the stove to manage the air intake fully. That way I can leave the air damper on the stove wide open and utilize the daisy wheel to precisely control air. I actually might be able to automate that with a butterfly valve behind the shroud once I get the little gadget going for stove automation.

The Buck 91 Bay is rated at 1.2 but then a "Bay 91" at 3.5, both catalytic. A bit confusing. I think the cat emissions are a crock, though. A new stove in the lab is one thing, but after you run it for a while and build up creosote in the box, that burns off every time you ramp the stove up on a fresh load, until you close the bypass again.

Yeah, that's the impression I got reading their website, probably good to deal with, and the OP's experience confirms that. And I agree about the draft; 23' isn't all that tall, and it sounds like the people he spoke to were surprised as well...
They have been absolutely amazing, I can't say enough great things about them. Sadly, I wish I didn't have to call them in all honesty because the product should be done "just right" every time. Oh well, such is life.
 
Apr 6, 2016
38
pacific Northwest
That is a wonderful write-up on the Sequoia. Was the company able to figure something out on the draft issue. I also have a 2 story home and like the Kuma but the draft issue is a concern for me.
 

BigBadVoodooDaddy

New Member
Feb 19, 2016
28
Puyallup, WA
That is a wonderful write-up on the Sequoia. Was the company able to figure something out on the draft issue. I also have a 2 story home and like the Kuma but the draft issue is a concern for me.
Morning,

What I've learned is that every stove has it's own personality and charm. Figuring out the quirks is part of being a wood head.

That being said, I'd rather have too much draft than not enough. I can dampen it and decrease the flow of air easily. Just get the stove, you'll enjoy the heck out of it
 

heavy hammer

Minister of Fire
Jul 18, 2015
1,646
Kirtland Ohio
I'm looking into the sequoia seems like a very good stove, other than the draft issue are you happy with it. I've never had a catalytic stove, but they seem very popular.
 

BigBadVoodooDaddy

New Member
Feb 19, 2016
28
Puyallup, WA
I'm looking into the sequoia seems like a very good stove, other than the draft issue are you happy with it. I've never had a catalytic stove, but they seem very popular.
It's a great stove, I don't think anything comes close as far as efficiency. I run it for three straight weeks before I clean it, and that's with junk wood. If you dial it in right, you should get 12 hour burn time from a full load.

Are you going to use it as a stand alone or insert?
 

heavy hammer

Minister of Fire
Jul 18, 2015
1,646
Kirtland Ohio
For the basement I would use it as a stand alone. On the first floor I think an insert would be better than trying to put a free standing stove in the fireplace, just because of the way it's setup. But once in the house I will see what will work better. Regardless for the basement a large free standing stove is what I'm interested in.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.