Right Way to Burn Hardwood and Coal at Same Time?

I like the way the 30-95 burns wood even though its not optimized for it. Since I have a few cords of good stuff stocked up .. Is there any consensus on how to burn them both at the same time together in the stove ? The problem I'm having is wood needs more air and I end up burning the coal faster than Id like.

If I damp down for coal then the wood is burning so slow that its in the creosote range (at least according to my temp gauge). I can't see how to make them both burn optimally together but experienced burners must have figured it out - if it can be done at all.

Im not talking about using wood to get a glowing coals base to start your anthracite fire - but rather mixing for the duration of the fire.

Why would you want to put wood on a coal fire? The ash from the wood will kill the coal bed and you will be wasting coal. Burn wood or coal, not both at the same time.

You can easily burn both at the same time. Burn a wood fire in your fireplace, and burn a coal fire in your coal stove.

I have never had good results burning wood and coal together. I recommend that you leave the wood for starting the coal fire.

DVC500 at last wrote:You can easily burn both at the same time. Burn a wood fire in your fireplace, and burn a coal fire in your coal stove.

yep .. this old house has a firepalce that the prev owner bricked up
time to bust it out

good advice!

I use wood to START coal fires and to chase away stray cats.

Keep the Ins Premium paid. Many old time houses ended up as cellar holes full of charred beams and ash.
One fuel or the other, not together. ( Assuming you mean in the same appliance...)
It is absolutely amazing at the number of idiots that buy an old house, uncover 2 or 3 unused fireplaces, and want to use the damned things again. Just say NO! Things usually aren't as they appear, so don't loose out on logic...some old timers were quite bright, please respect that.

whistlenut wrote:Keep the Ins Premium paid. Many old time houses ended up as cellar holes full of charred beams and ash.
One fuel or the other, not together. ( Assuming you mean in the same appliance...)
It is absolutely amazing at the number of idiots that buy an old house, uncover 2 or 3 unused fireplaces, and want to use the damned things again. Just say NO! Things usually aren't as they appear, so don't loose out on logic...some old timers were quite bright, please respect that.

I've known the previous owner all my life and the reason he bricked it up. Had nothing to do with the fireplace being dangerous. The flu is in very good shape. His wife had other idea for the room and did not like fireplaces because she hates the smoke. He bricked over the face of it to stop the draft.
Opening it up will be pretty simple. Knock out about 50 bricks.

Too bad - it was all marble and really beautiful. A real waste.

Appreciate your warning - you are right , you can never be too careful.

I have had a few cords of wood in my old coal stove.

just build a nice wood fire, and toss a bit of coal on top. just a few chunks if using large pieces. or a small shovel full if using pea or similar. just be careful, as you stated. with the stove trimmed for wood the coal will burn fast and HOT.

I like to build a nice wood fire, throw about 5lbs of coal on top and shut it down. That way the coal is burning, and the wood is putting out heat too. the coal should be able to keep the temps high enough to prevent any creosote. I have done this quite a bit, and I have yet to have any stack problems.

murphyslaw wrote:I like to build a nice wood fire, throw about 5lbs of coal on top and shut it down. That way the coal is burning, and the wood is putting out heat too. the coal should be able to keep the temps high enough to prevent any creosote.

The two fuels have vastly different burning characteristics, the extra heat you speak of to eliminate creosote is actually coal heat wasted up the chimney becuase you are burning it with wood. Not a net loss but a waste none the less.

Probably a waste, but just about the only way to get the stove threw the night and be able to revive it in the morning. the firebox was to small and unless I wanted to get up at 2AM. the fire was dead by 5.

Leave that fireplace bricked up it will waste more heat than it can produce.

Maybe a nice small stoker in the fireplace flue.

BigBarney

I never had problem burning them both at the same time, I just discovered it's best to keep the wood on the outside of the burning area and not on top of the coal, the heat generated inside is more than enough to ignite the wood, and the oxygen absorbed by the coal will slow the burning of the wood, you will notice opposite to what you expect, that the wood logs will burn a lot slower.

I keep thinking about the idea of having a coal stoker with an area inside it to have any chunks of wood laying around thrown in. Someone actually thought of making one at one time, a prototype was built but it did not make it into production.

Murf, do you have 'bit' up in the Great Northwest? If I lived there, I suppose I would burn whatever I could to stay warm.

I burn wood an coal together. The wood is nice when you need to get the stove hot quick. It's also nice when you need to keep the fire going. I just get a little coal fire going then throw two huge logs on and I am good for 24hrs. I can get all the wood for free so I am not worried about the expense. I do love coal for the long burn and the smoke free chimney. Personally I think they complement each very nicely.