Exotic Beauties

Here is a picture of the grate of a French Godin stove. It is intended that the coal burn from front to back as the air is as free to enter the front grate as the bottom grate. It will not burn well unless coal is higher than the front grate as air can bypass the coal unless this is done.

The area outside the circular grate is tapered down to the circular grate but still it is necessary to get in there with a flat poker from time to time to help that ash to descend to the shaking part. It is not an easy stove to make burn well. The stove you are looking at will have worse problems. I would also like William's opinion.

Franco is 100% correct when talking about the bottom of the fire pot.
All horizontal places at the bottom of a fire pot is the best place to get ash build up and problems. I experienced that with my VigII. Even a 45* angle is a shelf for ant ash. Anthracite ash is very lazy and sits on all is not vertical.
Maybe the sides of that stove could have fire bricks glued to the actual wall around the fire pot so the base of it arrives flush to the grates' outer side.
But that would make the fire pot smaller like in my Brides' one. If you don't need high heat output, no problem but...this stove can certainly get a smaller fire pot volume.
Also not pleasant to do that in a so $$$$$$$$$$ stove!

franco b wrote:Here is a picture of the grate of a French Godin stove. It is intended that the coal burn from front to back as the air is as free to enter the front grate as the bottom grate. It will not burn well unless coal is higher than the front grate as air can bypass the coal unless this is done.

The area outside the circular grate is tapered down to the circular grate but still it is necessary to get in there with a flat poker from time to time to help that ash to descend to the shaking part. It is not an easy stove to make burn well. The stove you are looking at will have worse problems. I would also like William's opinion.

It appears that the fire pot does slope toward the grate, but; I don't understand why a fire pot design like that? It depends on how steep the slope of the firepot walls are I quess. (I am assuming that the dotted part of the drawing represents the fire pot walls.) I would think this would be a maintence pain to keep the ashes cleared and it would materially effect the combustion rate in a negative fashion. This design as franco said would be okay with wood. Unless they had a specialized tool to get the ashes out, cleaning the fire would be very difficult and inconvenient.

franco b wrote:It is intended that the coal burn from front to back as the air is as free to enter the front grate as the bottom grate. It will not burn well unless coal is higher than the front grate as air can bypass the coal unless this is done.

This is exactly how this stove works.... Look, I´ve found that old sketch... this is more or less the kind of fire box I am talking about. And if you take a close look at the second door you´ll see the horizontal grate I was talking about (it is labeled "d" in the sketch)
The space between the the upper end of the first door and the lower end of the third door would be filled with fuel when burning coal, so that you get air coming in from the front and from the bottom

nortcan wrote:that would make the fire pot smaller like in my Brides' one. If you don't need high heat output, no problem but...this stove can certainly get a smaller fire pot volume.

I suppose you´re right... less heat output would be ok as long as it makes the maintenance of the stove more convenient - I´m looking to heat an appartment, not an entire house. I am mainly looking to heat the living room / dining room area of approx 50m². PLUS: I´ve been re-calculating the cost for fuel ect... all this would only make sense as long as I´m not using more than 5kg of anthracite per 24hrs.
A cylinder shaped firebox (25x20cm) should hold something between 5-6.5 kg ~ 10-12lbs of coal. According to what I read about the Bride, the Crystal & the Herald burn times of 18 to 24hrs should not be a problem as long as the stove idles along, the air intake is correct ect....

But I´d have to ask the shop owner to make the alterations... it is technically illegal for me to make alterations other than changing wearing parts only a registered professional is allowed to make technically relevant changes in the set up of stoves - stoves are inspected once a year by an officially appointed chimney sweep and if he finds alterations that have not been documented he´s likely to fine me & to withdraw the permission
The only good thing about it: the stove would be delivered in pieces and would be re-assembled here (including the new lining in the fire box) -I´ll simply ask them to make the nescessary changes and build a decent fire box for the use of coal.... I´ll give them a ring & see what they´ve got to say

Keek us informed.
Merci beaucoup pour tous les renseignements. Tres intéressant et instructif pour nous tous.

10 pounds of coal at even 100 percent efficiency is only going to give you 130,000 BTU divided by 24 hours equals 5,416 BTU per hour. Only a little more than the typical portable electric room heater.

Coal burned with this air pattern tends to bridge, that is the coal ash instead of falling down to the shaking grate it tends to form a bridge of ash above the grate. It has to be given a poke from above to get it to fall. All you need is a thin maybe 6 mm poker to do this. A flat poker to slip under the front grate may also be helpful. The burning coal tends to burn up the front of the fire pot and then spread to the back. With a deep coal bed and ash insulating much of the sides a 24 hour or more burn should be no problem.

I don't think you will save much money unless you go to a cheaper coal which may have other problems. Having a work of art such as this stove is, in your living room is certainly worth something if every time you look at it, it gives you pleasure. People spend a lot more for other art objects that have no functional use.

The sketch does show a bypass damper for starting and for low draft conditions.

franco, would you be kind enough to elaborate on this European style of fire pot? I can see that they want the primary air to come in at the front/bottom of the fire bed and burn across, or up and across. What would be the supposed advantages of this set up? Is it just a Godin thing or I wonder if that design is very common over there?

wsherrick wrote:franco, would you be kind enough to elaborate on this European style of fire pot? I can see that they want the primary air to come in at the front/bottom of the fire bed and burn across, or up and across. What would be the supposed advantages of this set up? Is it just a Godin thing or I wonder if that design is very common over there?

The design is very common.
My explanation goes like this: the stoves are multi fuel stoves and were meant to heat areas of the home that were not in permanent use. Places like the living room would have tiled masonry stoves to achieve steady heat with little fuel consumption. Rooms like a representative front room, bedroom or dining room would be fitted with a cast iron stove and would only be heated if needed. To my understanding the fire box is the best possible compromise for the use of various fuels... most common would be lignite briquettes, wood and bituminous coal. Anthracite was too expensive for the average household.

firebug wrote: To my understanding the fire box is the best possible compromise for the use of various fuels... most common would be lignite briquettes, wood and bituminous coal. Anthracite was too expensive for the average household.

I think that is as good an explanation as any.

It would also explain the lack of more aggressive shaking mechanisms. Wood and probably lignite briquets made from pressed dust or small pieces would be easy to shake down.

Bleeding off some primary air and conducting it up to the top also indicates it was intended for fuel with a high proportion of volatiles. It does not work well at all for anthracite.

Experimenting with the Godin and blocking off the air from going through the front grate by stuffing some fiberglass and a small piece of metal at the bottom of the front grate it then behaved like a normal anthracite stove where air only comes through the bottom grate. The so called secondary air which is only bled off the primary air and conducted to the top of the fire pot and is not true secondary air was not effective in burning anthracite volatiles. If the top cover was opened too soon after loading you get a poof. It might be more effective if the primary air was wide open.

There was still the problem of clearing the ash with a good proportion of the grate area outside of the shaking portion. More and more ash would build up along with a great deal of partially burned coal. I used a thin flat poker to slip under the front grate to help break this up. Some Godin owners resort to folding down the front grate and shoveling out the ash, a dangerous and messy operation. There was also the bridging of the coal.

Using a Buderus Juno stove with the same burn pattern was a lot easier to tend. The front grate was only about 2 inches in height and the shaking grate covered the whole bottom of the fire pot. Secondary air was separate at the top of the fore pot. There was still bridging of the coal and the grate still needed slicing to do a good job. This was a good little stove but desperately needed more heat exchange area. Stack temperatures were too high even burning at the rate of 20 pounds a day. When I put a Franco Belge stove back in its place the heat output was significantly higher using the same amount of coal.

My talk with the antiques shop was somewhat sobering.... his message was more or less what I´ve already put in the post above: the stove was never designed to burn 24/7. don´t try to turn it into something it is not or you´ll break it.
well, what can I say. feels a bit like like the expulsion from Paradise...

taking into consideration what francob said: the design of the stove is most likely NOT the best to burn anthracite PLUS the horrific price for anthracite (€680 per 1.000kg, if delivered).... so we´ll be feeding her lignite briquette in the evening, like the shop owner suggested.... according to his own experience one load of 3kg will last 3 hrs if I want high output of heat - or over night, if the intake of oxygen is cut down.... not the solution I favour, but well....
cutting on expense and finally getting a REALLY warm living room are the main goals I want to achieve, and if anthracite is not the solution to my problem - so be it!

None the less I´d like to share one -as I thought- ingenious detail I discovered in another stove...

reminds me of a sturdy peasant woman:
1920´s combined stove and kitchen range, cast iron with purple enamel and steel applications, stands about 1.60m high, circulates exhaust around the two chambers on top
note the screws on the handles of the ash pit door and the second door: they make it impossible to open the doors (like early child safety locks), plus they press the doors to the frame of the stove so that they would not move a bit once the screws are pulled tight

Why not consider a new or used stove specifically designed to burn lignite and probably wood as well. I suspect the requirements for a stove to burn both wood and lignite are pretty close. It should be a lot less money as well. Some are really very attractive as well. They don't have the majesty of the old stoves but do have a much better view of the fire.

To burn a fuel that is high in volatile gasses the trick is to add very hot secondary air at the right point. The stove has to burn hot to be smokeless.

The antique American stoves used a perforated ring just above the round fire pot to add hot secondary air. This was intended to burn soft coal but worked well with wood as well.

New American stoves use a brick fire pot and add air at the point of a baffle just above the fire.

Methods of directing primary air in front of the glass viewing door keep it pretty clean.

A brochure of an interesting design. The Yorkshire stove.

this is something completely different - but remarkable none the less...
if you´d like to spent 4minutes: I´ve found an interesting video on the xeos twin fire stove on youtube

Interesting stove but with some drawbacks.
It is wood only.

Thin steel, not cast iron.

Very small wood capacity.

I would keep looking, there are a lot of good looking designs out there. Look for ability to burn lignite. I don't know how much sulfur lignite contains but if it is like other coals it is corrosive and should have a cast iron stove.

franco b wrote:Interesting stove but with some drawbacks.
It is wood only.

Thin steel, not cast iron.

Very small wood capacity.

I would keep looking, there are a lot of good looking designs out there. Look for ability to burn lignite. I don't know how much sulfur lignite contains but if it is like other coals it is corrosive and should have a cast iron stove.

No,no,no... that was a misunderstanding
never intended to get that one just recognized some base heater features in it´s supposedly new and exclusive concept - like forcing the exhaust through the fire to burn off volatiles - that was about the only reason I brought up that particular stove

official standard for lignite briquettes: no more than 0.5% of sulfur per kg of fuel allowed, max. 3.5% ashes, max. 19% water

will under all circumstances get a stove made of cast iron - I´m 95% positive I want an antique... we´re still talking €2.000-3.000 to purchase a high quality modern stove that´ll burn both fuels... but then again: the antique may not allow for much sight of the fire and will be more expensive, but it looks good all year long. the modern stove on the other hand will leave me with a more or less plain black box for the warm half of the year

I think I´ve pretty much made up my mind. Thank you ever so much for your support so far!
I don´t take friendliness for granted - especially not on the internet...