Sunny Boy wrote:Few people understand how beneficial pre heating primary air to a high degree is in getting the most complete combustion out of just about any fuel.
With CC's sometimes examples of auto engines, what he leaves out is they have been designed to preheat intake air for well over 100 years to maximize efficiency.
His muscle car era examples may be powerful, but they couldn't get any farther past a gas station then the early Fords he scorns and they'll use a lot more fuel just getting the same distance.
Flawed examples never bolster a point of view.
agreed, LSfarm sayed most things pretty well previously... the burn is more efficient, the ash is more like fine powder (theirs a reason the ash is such a fine powder in a Glenwood Baseheater), the temps can be brought down farther for longer duration, the temps can brought up higher with less coal use... their are some draw backs no doubt though! I just have not heard CC speak of them to much
One major draw back as with any cemented/screwed/bolted stove you need to re assemble them every 10-40 years. obviously room size/hearth/firebox height could be a major drawback to running one of these pieces of engineered art. the fact is this main thread is simply a lot of un truth and im glad we have plenty of folks who recognize it and give their thoughts.... id prefer it just be locked or deleted because its just plain bad information as a worthwhile alternative to antique baseburner. the only similarities of a modern box coal stove and an antique base burner are they both burn coal... plenty of advantages and disadvantages of both as ive briefly touched on but if we were to rely on this title thread we might as well say that any and all coal burning stoves are "worthwhile" alternatives to antique base burners