The Russo #2 w/blower

franco b wrote: without adding some overfire air.

That why I really like this site! Your experts. Could you explain this overfire air? Yes Bit coal is what I have here 65 miles away. I'd have to drive to Chicago to get bagged Anthracite @ $7 - 40 lb.

The problem is just like burning wood. So much of the coals heat is gas. If you don't burn them
you get smoke just like wood. Your Lopi if not the very earliest has special channels built into the baffle to direct heated air over the fire to burn the smoke.

The antique stoves designed for bit included provision to add hot air just above the fire pot. Some had a pipe from the top of the stove extending down through the middle to feed hot air.

You will have to have some air over the fire. Perhaps you could rig something like the old stoves with 1 1/2 inch black pipe. See picture.

I'm rather new too this stove too me. Would it better to get the Chicago Coal? anthracite at $ 7 a bag or Bitty? at $ 80 A TON?

oppirs wrote:I'm rather new too this stove too me. Would it better to get the Chicago Coal? anthracite at $ 7 a bag or Bitty? at $ 80 A TON?

The price difference makes bit coal very attractive. Personally I would not want to put up with the smell and soot. Bit coal can vary quite a bit from different mines. Read what others have to say about burning bit on the bit coal forum on this site.
Using Bituminous Coal

If I were you I would get some bituminous coal and try it. You can overcome the lack of secondary air by pileing the coal up high on one side of the firebox and tapering it down to live coals on the other side. That way as the fire burns there is a small part of the grate that has little or nothing on it that will let air get in the firebox from under the grate.

The price difference makes bit coal very attractive. Personally I would not want to put up with the smell and soot. Bit coal can vary quite a bit from different mines. Read what others have to say about burning bit on the bit coal forum on this site.
Using Bituminous Coal

It would be from the Knighthawk mine. Murphysboro vein. I hope it's one of IL for low ash/sulpher for Bit.

Here's a Few Quotes.

Re: Where do you get your Bituminous coal and a going price?
By: europachris On: Mon Jan 24, 2011 1:01 pm

Knight Hawk Coal, LLC
(618) 426-3662 - ask for Jeannie
http://www.knighthawkcoal.com

Creek Paum mine:
Coal is recovered from the Murphysboro seam.
The coal burns at 11,800 BTUs and contains 1.3 percent sulfur and 5.5 percent ash.

Stoker $80/ton

Re: Where do you get your Bituminous coal and a going price?
By: europachris On: Wed Jan 26, 2011 8:46 pm

ron138 wrote:
I don't know about Knighthawk, but all the IL coal I've burned so far was so full of iron, you could see the rust in it and pyrite. It would clinker up really bad. My stove doesn't handle them very well. Something to keep in mind.


That was my experience with the Indiana coal we burned when I was a kid - full of pyrite and actually had yellow sulfur on it.

Conversely, this coal I'm burning now from Knight Hawk is beautiful. Not quite as shiny as anthracite pea or nut, but pure black, clean and not messy to handle, i.e. it doesn't turn everything that touches it black. However, this coal is the exception, not the norm. These low sulfur, low ash coals were formed in limited areas where the peat deposits were not overlain with marine sediments - i.e. a river through the swamp covered the peat with fresh water silts first before seawater covered the area. Most of these low sulfur deposits have long been mined-out.

My coal does tend to coke and "agglutinate" quite a bit, but seems to lessen as the coal weathers - it's worst in freshly mined coal. But it doesn't clinker very readily, so would likely work well in a hand fed stove (and your coal would work better in a stoker)

Chris

So it's a gamble, but a 65 mile trip for tonnage or a pallet (2400#) of Anthracite for $375 by Chicago? Yup makes me confused!!

oppirs wrote:So it's a gamble, but a 65 mile trip for tonnage or a pallet of Anthracite for $375 by Chicago? Yup makes me confused!!

So as has been suggested try a small amount. Larger lumps have also been recommended for bit.
You can also go to the Blaschak web site and I think they have a dealer locator function you can use to see if there is a closer supplier.

Even at these prices anthracite will still save you half over oil. It all boils down to what inconveniences you are willing to put up with in using bit and how serious saving money is.

I still would add some over fire air even if it meant drilling some holes in the front or sides of the stove. They can always be covered up if you want.

franco b wrote:I still would add some over fire air even if it meant drilling some holes in the front or sides of the stove. They can always be covered up if you want.

I don't want to mess w/ drilling. And like you said my Lopi has glass wash over air vents.

So Fanco b your saying i'm going to have major trouble with Bit. I have a trip up to Chicago planned for Oct. I can pay for few bags of Anthracite. Would I be better off trying the the bagged coal. Remember I have tons of wood too use even in this stove.

But I'm to upping my burn times to 12hrs.

oppirs wrote:

franco b wrote:I still would add some over fire air even if it meant drilling some holes in the front or sides of the stove. They can always be covered up if you want.

I don't want to mess w/ drilling. And like you said my Lopi has glass wash over air vents.

So Fanco b your saying i'm going to have major trouble with Bit. I have a trip up to Chicago planned for Oct. I can pay for few bags of Anthracite. Would I be better off trying the the bagged coal. Remember I have tons of wood too use even in this stove.

But I'm to upping my burn times to 12hrs.

Major trouble is what one considers major trouble. I consider clinkering , smell, and soot major trouble although there are lots who like the bit coal they are using and don't seem to mind the drawbacks. Probably stokers designed for bit work best.

By all means buy some anthracite, preferably Blaschak because it is pretty much a known good coal that will make a good baseline to judge. I would buy as much as convenient to carry as it will not go to waste whatever you decide. You will be shocked at the quantity of ash compared to wood, about 5 times as much and the ash pan on the Russo could be larger.
You will also be shocked at how much easier it is to tend than a wood stove. You might even consider selling wood to finance coal.

The Russo is not a good wood stove although it certainly will burn it. The chamber is too small so wood has to be cut up to smaller pieces and it will be smokier than a modern wood stove. I would look into why the grates only move 1/ 2 inch. Look for play or lost motion somewhere.

I thought it moved more. A 1/2 only

oppirs wrote:I thought it moved more. A 1/2 only

You are going to have to check to see if that is normal. Perhaps some Russo users could confirm. After a few days the ash can build up and choke the fire. If the shaking is not aggressive enough it could mean poking up through the ash pit to free the ash.

franco b wrote:You are going to have to check to see if that is normal. Perhaps some Russo users could confirm. After a few days the ash can build up and choke the fire. If the shaking is not aggressive enough it could mean poking up through the ash pit to free the ash.

That I get. I may have not a good cooker, that Russo looks made for coal. Thanks franco for this info before I burn.

I agree with Richard that your Russo will perform better on anthracite coal that it will on bit. It's certainly worth a try if the you can get some high quality bit (give it a test) but, every bit stove I've ever seen (that works well on it) has secondary air dampers/allowance above the pot. The same is true for burning wood too. If the Russo doesn't have that provision, then it is an (primarily) anthracite stove.

Congratulations! You have purchased a fantastic stove. I replaced my Russo this past winter and will be selling it on C-list very soon. I put on a large addition and wanted a bigger BTU output.

I used my Russo for close to 20 years to heat my 2000sf home. Always worked well and never gave me any problems. The shaker is great in that it does not move enough to allow one to dump the coal fire. Something that is possible with my Harmon. The very powerful shake arm could crush any lodged coal with no problem. I also loved the built in MPD at the back of the stove. The stove was my first one and it worked flawlessly from the start. Just started a wood fire , switched to coal and never had a problem. Learned it all on my own in a matter of days as it was just so easy to use.

Vin.

Vinmaker wrote:Congratulations! You have purchased a fantastic stove.Vin.

Thanks Vin for this my real coal stove. Since you had used this type of stove.

I find the right side hard to remove as to the brick. I see square welded studs. I can't remove some the fire brick. Left side is easy folds right in. ( I doing a full check-out before firing ) I see alot of wood ash when I remove bricks I can remove.

Is there any tune-up tips for a new coal owner???