I just pulled the trigger on a new stove.

So if I am following correctly here, Jotul is only going to replace the combustor one time and then it will be warrantied by Applied Ceramics. Applied Ceramics has a six year, pro- rated warranty on their combustors in general though of course I am not sure about this specific one.

Just my personal opinion but that is a lousy "20 year" warranty that is borderline fraudulent and at best misleading. More like a 4 to 6 year warranty in practical terms, and then it is unknown what Applied Ceramics may be charging for a combustor. Again, just my opinion but given the choice between two bad routes, one being a failed combustor being used for years, the other being 2 to 3 year replacements at significant costs, I think I would opt for a secondary combustion stove w/out a combustor instead. Or of course another brand of catalytic based stove.

Not being pessimistic here, and I am actually quite positive in my attitudes and views generally but as described, and again assuming that I understand the situation (always a possible failure point) but that stove sounds too expensive to own for any significant number of years.

Please do let us know what you end up finding out as I believe this is valuable information for other potential Jotul stove purchasers, at least of this specific model. As I said, I have spent a fair amount of time around a few Jotuls and the ones I am familiar with (I believe the older model 500 and one a bit smaller) were excellent wood stoves with particularly high quality castings that served very well. Secondary tube- burn stoves (no cat.) and the owner basically ran them both wide- open all the time, they burned extremely cleanly, kept the glass clean and seemed to be at least reasonably efficient at least when used that way. I was impressed with them actually and thought they would make great replacements for the classic cast iron wood stove of the old Vermont Castings type (not the current versions).

 

Thanks for the info.The thing I don't like is it says burn times up to 10 hours.What good is a combustor if all you might get is 10 hrs of heat.Thats nothing for a stove with a combustor.Even Hearthstone's new line boast up to thirty hours of heat.

 

Yes Hearthstone "boasts " up to 30hrs of heat (sounds fishy to me), Jotul isn't blowing smoke when they say 10hrs of heat from the Oslo. Which one sounds more realistic to you? BK has the 24-30 hr burns dialed in. I'm very skeptical of Hearthstone's claims

 

Vehicle cats also have rhodium.

 

I think Jotul has dialed the Oslo for air flow since they eliminated the bypass damper and the things I have read from the few who have posted so far it seems like they don't have nearly the tight controls on the air like the BK or Woodstock stoves do. So I think it sounds to me like the Oslo was dialed in to burn very much like a non-cat stove. I think that is probably what is being reflected in the up to 10 hrs burns. I may be wrong but I am not getting the impression that low and slow was the target with the Oslo.

 

My Mansfield gives me 8-9 hrs of heat and the One gives me 14 hrs of heat.So I would expect a stove with a combustor should give me longer heat than a stove without one.If I'm going to buy a stove with a combustor the Oslo wouldn't be the one.They got to do better that.

 

BK, Regency Pro series, and the Quad Adventure (no longer made) ...maybe one more I can’t think of at the moment ... had (past tense) the longest burn times. Besides those 3 to 4 I don’t recall any others burning for that long...30-40 hrs.

The point is, like with the new CAT Kuma stoves (or any other like WS), what is the point if they won’t burn even half as long (15-20 hrs) as those mentioned above, let alone match their burn times. Clearly BK is King ... pun intended. I believe the bi-metallic is key to their success, but I could be wrong. However, it does speak volumes for stoves burning 12-15 hours or more with no cat.

 

If the Jøtul is tuned for 10 hour max burn times then it’s really going to burn hot just like a typical noncat.

My guess is that nobody will notice when the cat stops working and they won’t care to replace them. I think it’s just an emissions test passing ploy.

I get 10-12k hours from a cat in my BK. Over and over. It’s obvious when they die as the degradation is not linear, it’s a death spiral. Even with a dead cat I can get 10 hours!

 

Thx Chris !
Rhodium...who knew ? It is still a coating meant to deteriorate over time.
Vehicle cats mix rhodium with paladium and/or platinum.
Rhodium = $760. per ounce ( just below gold ).
Law enforcement reports a serious jump of cat thefts from vehicles.

 

Gold has been near 2000$ per ounce for a long time.

 

Not really...
Gold Prices - 100 Year Historical Chart

 

Really, “long” time is subjective. It’s been a long time since I had a haircut. I don’t care about what gold cost 100 years ago. Context.

 

I don't pay for haircuts.
My MBA cuts mine.
P.S. I'd buy some rhodium if we has legacy bucks.

 

Me neither...that's why that page has a nifty feature where you can just look at the last 5-10 years, or whatever you want...it's only been 2k once this year, as far as recently...

 

Cats don't wear out! They become over plated after "x" amount of burning wood. That is why a distilled water vinegar bath can rejuvenate them. To be 100% clear, not like new!
Years ago a leading pellet stove mfg tested a coal stove with a cat as part of the design. The sulfur over plated the coatings and plugged. Then they burned wood...yup, dissolved the sulfur and cat started performing again.

In poorly designed units that don't protect the wash coat threshold temp of 1600F, all bets are off.

In ceramic substrates, that can lead to substrate failure. In metal monolith substrates, they too are subject to wash coat failure....but don't crumble apart.

There are no knew combustors on the market. There are a larger variety of cells per square inch options....but total surface area is what counts in emissions control for wood heat.

 

Once the major manufacturer, Corning, had a tech detailed spec sheet on combustors.
And while they don't "wear out", they do have "wash coat failure", and the plating does deteriorate with use. This even with vehicle combustors using rhodium.
I've done the vinegar bath too often with past cats. Smelly, buying only some little life.
It's why we use all non cats now. Only a little less efficient and EPA clean. YMMV.
If the stove combustors could last as long as the mixed rhodium vehicle combustors, but with low cost, that would change my opinion.
The reliability and performance of Sean's new V3 will be seen with his use.
Nice discussion Chris.

 

Dumf, you’re starting to sway me back to where I was originally.

Only thing I don’t like is they need to run so hot with little turn down.

 

I think the V2 spec stated up to 8hr burn time. So it looks like the addition of the cat extended burn time a couple of hours. Is it worth the 2 hours? Maybe they figured out if they keep it burning hot enough the life will be extended. I would have thought other manufacturers would have already discovered this.

 

Some turn down more than others...I would like to try one that has the secondary air adjustment on it...I know from past experimentation that if the secondary air is cut down, or off after the wood is done out gassing, the stove temp drops slower.

 

That has been my experience also- they fail in a pretty linear fashion and the vinegar soak is at best marginally effective.

As far as the term wearing out, I agree with what you describe in that the catalytic coating is driven off the substrate, which I think has to define wearing out for a combustor. It is the same with, say, tires- they do not have to outright fail and usually a worn out tire still holds air and basically still 'works' but it is clearly worn out when the tread is gone and must be replaced. And in a similar way, tires display their current state of failure in a fairly straightforward fashion, half- worn tires do function but perform poorly compared to new tires, especially under adverse conditions such as snow or rain on the road.

I personally still prefer cat. stoves but absolutely understand and even agree with the reasons to avoid them. I think it comes down to what a cat. stove's advantage is to the user and whether or not that advantage(s) is worth the various costs. Running long and very evenly was important to me and this is where cat. stoves shine but in the last two years or so I have been a little less concerned with that even heat output. Instead I tend to let the stove and then the house cool down somewhat before stoking a hotter running fire. I also use central heat to catch the house on the temp. falling so it is not unpleasant regarding temperature, no doubt because I have a new boiler (as of 2015) that pushes more than 20% of the heat produced into the house. This way of running a stove does make a non- cat. type fit my needs much better.

And I too am looking forward to learning about the new Jotul and what may be either a new technology, or a new way to use older technology. I really do hope it works and performs well even though I may sound skeptical, that is not the same as wishing it does not work. I think virtually all of us who care about wood stove performance would agree that while certainly not a perfect path forward, modern stoves are better and represent advancement over older types, basically pre EPA stoves.

Brian