Glenwood No.6 Base Pan.

I've read comments about the Glenwood No.6 base pan being a weak link in the design.

Has anyone managed to have this part recast? Seems like with the stove's reputation for desirability someone would be making reproductions.

Any information, thoughts or sources would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks! Dennis Hansen, Spruce Head, Maine

dhansen wrote:I've read comments about the Glenwood No.6 base pan being a weak link in the design.

Has anyone managed to have this part recast? Seems like with the stove's reputation for desirability someone would be making reproductions.

Any information, thoughts or sources would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks! Dennis Hansen, Spruce Head, Maine

I believe you are referring to the bottom part of the stove used to make the bottom of the flue gas chamber as part of the baseburner. That would be quite a difficult piece to cast. It would not lend itself to using an older "good" part as a pattern. You'd have to make a pattern specifically for it. The size of that casting, it's shape etc. would mandate tight dimensional control on the mold. Secondly, the part is quite thin for it's size making casting it not as simple as it may at first appear. I don't know of anyone that has an original mold for that part and have not heard of anyone currently casting that part. Good luck with that one...

dj

I think you are correct dj. Assuming there is some shrinkage of the part in casting I doubt you'd ever get a good part from an original part used as a pattern. I am a woodworker though and given the proper guidelines I'd be more than willing to try making a pattern. I don't see any reason why the part couldn't be made heavier (thicker) or possibly in two pieces.

I think I need to go talk to the foundry people in Auburn Maine. I understand they do good work but can be difficult at times to reach?

The people you should talk to are those at Tomahawk Foundry in Wisconsin. They are the best and all the stove restorers use them. They are friendly, knowledgeable and do excellent work. They also get it done and returned to you.

I know your thoughts are correct about that pan being a "key" component, you have to remember if this pan is thicker it will not radiate heat the way it was intended (this stove is designed to be thin for a very important purpose).
either way... there would NEVER be anywhere near enough of these to make it even feasibly possible to make parts like that in hopes of any kind of profit. Their are stoves out their with 100,000 units across the nation and certain parts just aren't feasible for those (A Glenwood 6 you could probably count the total in hundreds across the country... a far cry from 100,000), of those "hundreds" lets say half might be in cobwebs still, of those never reconditioned in cobwebs maybe only 1/4 of those might need a basepan at some given point when they are found and dug up... so 25 of them will be needed over the next 50 years as they are found and IF more are found (it does not make economic sense no matter how much we wish it would)

Now... having this part cast because you need it to save the stove you found is a whole other ball game and well worth getting done!

No thoughts of putting these parts into production. Simply would like to keep from turning an otherwise nice stove into a pile of used parts.

I'll look into Tomahawk Foundry.

dhansen wrote:I think you are correct dj. Assuming there is some shrinkage of the part in casting I doubt you'd ever get a good part from an original part used as a pattern. I am a woodworker though and given the proper guidelines I'd be more than willing to try making a pattern. I don't see any reason why the part couldn't be made heavier (thicker) or possibly in two pieces.

I think I need to go talk to the foundry people in Auburn Maine. I understand they do good work but can be difficult at times to reach?

I can't see how you could make it in two pieces - there is no structure for that to be supported. If you're going to go through all the trouble of making a mold, why would you make it heavier? There some things you would need to do, in my opinion. The first would be to get hold of one of these to see the internal structure. You could use one that is broken to some degree, just have enough of it to be sure you know all the correct dimensions, especially of the internal structure. Then, I would want to do a metallurgical study for two things: one to get the actual chemistry of the original alloy used, and second to see the microstructure of this casting as that would indicate the fluidity of the original casting. These would also give you a good information on what the shrink would be.

You also could go with a known grey iron appropriate for this kind of part and not do the metallurgical study above, but you'd be missing some important information... In this case, you'd talk with the foundry and they would give you the shrink for the grey iron they are casting. It's likely about 1/8" to the foot. But the foundry can tell you better. The way the old timers measured for molds was through using a foundry rule. That was a ruler that had several scales on it based upon the shrink rate. They could use that ruler to directly measure all the dimensions for the mold being made. Made for much easier work... So lets say your side to side dimension is 2 feet. You'd get 1/4" shrink in that direction. If your front to back was 1 1/2 feet you'd get 3/16" in that direction. Now lets say you have a 6 inch rib sticking straight up from that, that rib would shrink 1/16" in the vertical direction. So as you get into 3 dimensional shapes, things get complicated pretty fast...

don't know if any of this made any sense...

dj

As for making the base pan in two pieces, I was thinking it might be easier to cast smaller parts. There is a "divider" that fits between the base pan and the bottom of the ash compartment that creates a "U" shaped path for the hot gases to follow as it travels from the back of the stove forward and then around the divider and back out the rear again. My thought was that you could make a flange along that same line effectively dividing the base pan into two halves and bolting them together before attaching the pan to the bottom of the stove. Having a flange running through the center of the pan (even of reduced depth forward to allow gases to go around the front of the pan) might strengthen the part. Of course, if the foundry says it will be easier to do the casting in one piece, then this is a moot point. We'll see what Tomahawk Foundry says about reproducing the pan.

I am really thinking out loud here and don't have really strong convictions about doing a two piece pan. Certainly won't hurt my feelings to argue the thought!

As I've said, the point is finding a way to reproduce a commonly broken part and save a few of these stoves.

These are the craigslist photos of the No.6 I recently picked up........... Before the base pan was broken when the previouse owner had it moved to his new home.





I should have my new camera later this week.

dhansen wrote:As for making the base pan in two pieces, I was thinking it might be easier to cast smaller parts. There is a "divider" that fits between the base pan and the bottom of the ash compartment that creates a "U" shaped path for the hot gases to follow as it travels from the back of the stove forward and then around the divider and back out the rear again. My thought was that you could make a flange along that same line effectively dividing the base pan into two halves and bolting them together before attaching the pan to the bottom of the stove. Having a flange running through the center of the pan (even of reduced depth forward to allow gases to go around the front of the pan) might strengthen the part. Of course, if the foundry says it will be easier to do the casting in one piece, then this is a moot point. We'll see what Tomahawk Foundry says about reproducing the pan.

I am really thinking out loud here and don't have really strong convictions about doing a two piece pan. Certainly won't hurt my feelings to argue the thought!

As I've said, the point is finding a way to reproduce a commonly broken part and save a few of these stoves.

I'd have to see both sides, the bottom pan and the part of the stove above it. I've never had that part off my stove. But looking into it from the trap door in the ash compartment, you need clear access to clean out that area of the stove. You wouldn't want to have to drop the base pan to clean it out in there. I just don't see how a two piece would work...

I guess you have a broken base pan - why not weld it back together? Cast iron isn't too easy to weld, but it can be done. I've welded it both hot and cold. I've also brazed it. Depends where it's broken and what you've got for welding equipment....

Take some photos of the broken part you've got and the other side. Draw up a sketch of how you'd make it two piece showing current construction and your two piece proposed modification... Easy enough to look at... I'll give you more of an opinion, which of course is worth all you've paid for it...

dj

I'll get some photos dj as soon as my new camera arrives. Spilled coffee on the old one last week and killed it. Should be here in another day or two. Hoping for a reply from Tomahawk Foundry but nothing yet.

The pan is REALLY broken and I think there is a piece missing. The four corners that are bolted to the stove are still on the stove. It is ugly!

I'll keep my fingers crossed for you. The base pan is the critical part of any stove. It is very hard to repair these. I just hope your stove is savable. If you can't fix it then I suggest a trade with Emery at Antique Stove Hospital. He is a fair trader and you will end up with a useable stove at a decent price.

This morning I placed the stove on its side to remove the corner pieces of the base pan still held to the stove with the mounting bolts. Looks like the next casting up, the floor of the ash section, is also badly cracked with a few small pieces missing. I'm starting to think this may be a parts stove as it is. With both the top half and the bottom half of the base section badly damaged, I'm not sure what can be done short of finding the parts or having them made. We'll see.

Looks like someone has tried burning kerosene in this stove at one time. There is a piece of copper tubing running into the base with fittings on the end! It is also obvious it has been burning wood. Creosote in evidence.

I'll have photos as soon as the camera arrives.

Dennis

OK, finally some photos of the two halves of the base pan that form the "base burner" pert of these base burner stoves.

First we have the upper half, which bolts to the skirt of the stove and forms the floor of the ash chamber. You can see it is badly cracked and warped. One corner has broken off. The near side is the back of the part where the exhaust gases go down into the base and return back up. The far side is the opening for the ash pan.



Here it is rotated 180 degrees. Easy to see the crack/break in the back wall



Here it is flipped over. Yuk, creosote!



Next we have the broken apart bottom half. Hard to make out in the photo but the divider that separates the incoming from the outgoing gases is there in the center.



The divider.



Both pieces sort of pieced together. A few small pieces missing here and there.



SO. I've talked with Tomahawk Foundry and they have never had call to make these parts. We had a long talk about making the patterns and I expect to have more discussion with them if I attempt to make them. It will be a huge project so we'll see what happens. I'll also send them these photos and see what they think of piecing these parts back together to use as patterns. There may be a way to deal with the shrinkage.

You can do a lot with epoxy and fiberglass to piece that back together and even add some judicious strengthening at critical spots. It just has to be strong enough to form a pattern they can use. Could be stronger than original.

Nice clear pictures.