franco b wrote:You also have to consider the fire pot size and depth. The Crawfords have a deep fire pot so stove might work better than nut because it will breath easier.
I wouldn't have thought that roughly twice the depth would make that much difference, but I guess it does.
With my range at 6 inch firebox depth, with my experiments using just pieces that are in the stove coal size-range, the stove acts like a race horse. Much quicker to respond to heat increase demand for cooking and baking. I now know why Glenwood recommends stove coal in it.
But, even in indirect mode, I have to close the primary air to a sliver, and the MPD to almost fully closed just to get the mano down to .04. And, it also eats up coal much faster than it does with just using the nut size. I doubt I could get it to last through the night the 10-11 hours that it can on just nut coal.
Very interesting the differences in how purpose-built stoves act, what they are designed to run on, and how well they do it.
Makes me wonder if they understood more about coal stoves then as now ?