PJT wrote:Sunny Boy wrote:I've wondered that too, but so far, no one can answer why there aren't more Glenwood magazines surviving. And, also so far, it hasn't been established if magazines were standard issue, or just an optional piece.
I have seen a few other brands of parlor stoves with magazines.
Maybe it's a regional thing ? There are very few coal Glenwood ranges. The vast majority that I see have wood grates. If the same
Maybe those old New Englanders were just too fugal ?
More like tighter than the bark on a tree....tighter than the skin on a drum....so tight that when they walked, their underwear squeaked.....and I can say that since Im a 12th generation New Englander......
coalnewbie wrote:Tightness is a credible characteristic, frugality however has practical limits.
If, like me, you were stupid enough to buy a 7000 sq ft leakbox but have the opportunity to heat it with three super efficient base heaters with a super cheap fuel that is going down in price or at the very least is stable, what is that worth? Now a device comes along that will assist in allowing 24 hour tending in just about any weather then paying the entry ticket (within limits) is smart business. Perhaps not frugal but smart. Sometimes we have to pay for lifes stupid mistakes.
coalnewbie wrote:About 50-70% with 55* in the rest to ensure no freeze ups. If I wanted or needed 70* in every corner of every room then I would need to up my game. That would mean another stove in the upstairs appt........hmmmm..... nah., but it is a thought ... and there is another fireplace/chimney up there ....... troublemaker.
coalnewbie wrote:Hmm, I like your mottos. Is there one covering collecting more stoves than you can use. I think I have one
Stupid is as stupid does
Seems to fit me to a T
franco b wrote:I would think it is like shoveling a pile of dirt. The higher it gets the more it spreads out.
I can't see shortening the bottom since it is the heavier thicker part to withstand the heat and the top can't be changed. Also the size of coal makes a difference. You could also experiment with a small approximate scale model and some sand to observe effects of height versus diameter.
If Pancho comes up with stainless tube it might work very well at least to determine feeding height. To use as a pattern for cast it could be built up with fiberglass to get the thickness. Anneal the top and form the flare.
The Glenwood 114 has 7 inch clear opening by 19 inches to top of fire pot. Also has places for register tabs on magazine.
Sunny Boy wrote:I don't think sand would be a good replacement for how coal will mound up. It moves to easily and would run out at a much shallower angle. I shovel sand into small mounds quite a bit in my job when loading my sandblaster. It will not pile up as easily as coal.
Here's my #6 pot with 50 pounds of nut coal mounded up. This is about as steep an angle as it would go without pieces running down the mound angle.
At about where the mound would be near to the 7 inch plus diameter, looks to be about where the two inch shorter length of the magazine would wind up- that dlj mentions in his notes.
So yeah, change the height, or widths and it throws off the angle that the coal will stay mounded at. Too high, or too wide and you could wind up with burning coal over the top of the pot liner and up against the sheet metal barrel. So much for, "one size fits all."
McGiever wrote:Nice work fellows.
The few magazines that I have seen have the coal sizing cast on the lid..."Chestnut Coal Only"
I quess it should be obvious that "Stove Coal" won't work in a magazine w/o bridging, besides the "Angle of Repose" would require to shorten the magazines lenght greatly compared to that of Chestnut