Unfortunate Coal Switch... Not Happy!

Locked
 
User avatar
Pancho
Member
Posts: 906
Joined: Sat. Feb. 01, 2014 4:00 pm
Location: Michigan
Baseburners & Antiques: Glenwood No. 8
Coal Size/Type: Stove
Other Heating: Jotul Firelight

Post by Pancho » Sat. Jan. 03, 2015 10:00 am

lobsterman wrote:OK, got my Kimmel. Easy to load ar TS. Cant tell any difference yet except price. This pot is Blashak on the bottom and Kimmel on the top. The next pot will be all Kimmel. Somebody summed it up here: it ain't the breaker its the vain. I am a fan of what ever is cheap and I love bags. My hod next to the stove holds about 250 lbs.
I didn't see the hod in the pics.....I don't suppose you have a pic of the hod handy do you?.

 
User avatar
Smokeyja
Member
Posts: 1997
Joined: Mon. Nov. 21, 2011 6:57 pm
Location: Richmond, VA.
Baseburners & Antiques: Glenwood #6 baseheater, Richmond Advance Range, WarmMorning 414a x2
Coal Size/Type: Nut / Anthracite
Other Heating: none
Contact:

Post by Smokeyja » Sat. Jan. 03, 2015 10:00 am

lobsterman wrote:OK, got my Kimmel. Easy to load ar TS. Cant tell any difference yet except price. This pot is Blashak on the bottom and Kimmel on the top. The next pot will be all Kimmel. Somebody summed it up here: it ain't the breaker its the vain. I am a fan of what ever is cheap and I love bags. My hod next to the stove holds about 250 lbs.
photo.JPG
photo_K.JPG
After burning this week when it becomes all Kimmels can you please weigh in on the "too hot for comfort " thread ? I want to know how you Glenwood 6 will deal with it , what kinda draft , condition and how well the stove is sealed to you. Paul and I seem to experience the same hot burning issues in our antique stoves . Would love your input . When I first burned the Kimmels , switching over from Blashak I thought the same thing you did and in fact I really like how it burns to a finer ash than Blashak but it just burns to hot in my stove .

 
User avatar
Photog200
Member
Posts: 2063
Joined: Tue. Feb. 05, 2013 7:11 pm
Location: Fulton, NY
Baseburners & Antiques: Colonial Clarion cook stove, Kineo #15 base burner & 2 Geneva Oak Andes #517's
Coal Size/Type: Blaschak Chestnut
Other Heating: Electric Baseboard

Post by Photog200 » Sat. Jan. 03, 2015 11:08 am

Smokeyja wrote:
lobsterman wrote:OK, got my Kimmel. Easy to load ar TS. Cant tell any difference yet except price. This pot is Blashak on the bottom and Kimmel on the top. The next pot will be all Kimmel. Somebody summed it up here: it ain't the breaker its the vain. I am a fan of what ever is cheap and I love bags. My hod next to the stove holds about 250 lbs.
photo.JPG
photo_K.JPG
After burning this week when it becomes all Kimmels can you please weigh in on the "too hot for comfort " thread ? I want to know how you Glenwood 6 will deal with it , what kinda draft , condition and how well the stove is sealed to you. Paul and I seem to experience the same hot burning issues in our antique stoves . Would love your input . When I first burned the Kimmels , switching over from Blashak I thought the same thing you did and in fact I really like how it burns to a finer ash than Blashak but it just burns to hot in my stove .
I had the same issue with the Kimmel's in the kitchen range as Paul did. I use a 50/50 mix now if I want to cook something hot in the oven...like yesterday, I made homemade pizza and wanted a 450° oven. I am planning on burning some in the BB in the house on Tuesday as the long range forecast if for single digit temps. I want to see how the BB does on the Kimmel's and how well I can control it.
Edit: That forecast has been pushed to Wednesday and now is calling for -7°. Will try the Kimmel's then.

Randy


 
ddahlgren
Member
Posts: 1769
Joined: Tue. Feb. 19, 2013 3:30 pm
Location: Mystic CT
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Crane 404
Contact:

Post by ddahlgren » Sat. Jan. 03, 2015 2:18 pm

Personally I think all with very old stoves are kidding themselves as to how tight they really are there are just too many joints prone to leaking to be as tight as assumed. Equally ridiculous is efficiency claimed knocking on the door of over 90% with zero to document it Skin temp on a stack pipe is a useless number as mine says 125 with a 575 stove top but the probe in the center reads 450. You are not going to ever get me to believe you can have a 575 barrel and 115 stack for the mythical Jackolope 5 to 1 temp difference it makes no sense in any world that normal thermodynamic principles work. You can not get heat out that you did not put coal in the firebox and at the end of the day it is a glorified double barrel stove that is pretty to look at. If you burn 40 lbs of coal at 80% and that is iffy over 24 hours you get around 16,666 btu. / hr. about the same as the smallest burner on my cook stove used to melt chocolate. I think all the BB guys need a reality check to be candid. Jackolopes do come to mind.

 
buck24
Member
Posts: 379
Joined: Sun. Feb. 28, 2010 5:47 pm
Location: NEPA/Pittston Twp. PA
Hand Fed Coal Stove: New Buck Corp. / MODEL 24 COAL
Coal Size/Type: Pea, Nut / Anthracite

Post by buck24 » Sat. Jan. 03, 2015 3:44 pm

I am waiting for William to chime in............

 
scalabro
Member
Posts: 4197
Joined: Wed. Oct. 03, 2012 9:53 am
Location: Western Massachusetts
Baseburners & Antiques: Crawford 40, PP Stewart No. 14, Abendroth Bros "Record 40"
Coal Size/Type: Stove / Anthracite.
Other Heating: Oil fired, forced hot air.

Post by scalabro » Sat. Jan. 03, 2015 4:01 pm

ddahlgren wrote:Personally I think all with very old stoves are kidding themselves as to how tight they really are there are just too many joints prone to leaking to be as tight as assumed. Equally ridiculous is efficiency claimed knocking on the door of over 90% with zero to document it Skin temp on a stack pipe is a useless number as mine says 125 with a 575 stove top but the probe in the center reads 450. You are not going to ever get me to believe you can have a 575 barrel and 115 stack for the mythical Jackolope 5 to 1 temp difference it makes no sense in any world that normal thermodynamic principles work. You can not get heat out that you did not put coal in the firebox and at the end of the day it is a glorified double barrel stove that is pretty to look at. If you burn 40 lbs of coal at 80% and that is iffy over 24 hours you get around 16,666 btu. / hr. about the same as the smallest burner on my cook stove used to melt chocolate. I think all the BB guys need a reality check to be candid. Jackolopes do come to mind.
Too funny!

Did you skip your meds this morning?

Right now my Crawford 40 is 525 on the barrel 125 on the stack after the MPD. This is with lab calibrated instruments. I have the ability to measure gas path temps, and have done so, just look at the thread "My New Crawford". The ratio internally is the same. I've never gotten a 5 to 1 ratio because my setup vent directly into my fireplace damper. I have gotten close though. Those with vertical backpipe exhausts will achieve better ratios.

William has seen these temp ratios.

****Edit****
Here are some pics of surface temps, BTW you can see it within its yearly cal date ;)

Attachments

image.jpg
.JPG | 111.3KB | image.jpg
image.jpg
.JPG | 64.9KB | image.jpg
Last edited by scalabro on Sat. Jan. 03, 2015 4:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.


 
User avatar
Smokeyja
Member
Posts: 1997
Joined: Mon. Nov. 21, 2011 6:57 pm
Location: Richmond, VA.
Baseburners & Antiques: Glenwood #6 baseheater, Richmond Advance Range, WarmMorning 414a x2
Coal Size/Type: Nut / Anthracite
Other Heating: none
Contact:

Post by Smokeyja » Sat. Jan. 03, 2015 4:21 pm

ddahlgren wrote:Personally I think all with very old stoves are kidding themselves as to how tight they really are there are just too many joints prone to leaking to be as tight as assumed. Equally ridiculous is efficiency claimed knocking on the door of over 90% with zero to document it Skin temp on a stack pipe is a useless number as mine says 125 with a 575 stove top but the probe in the center reads 450. You are not going to ever get me to believe you can have a 575 barrel and 115 stack for the mythical Jackolope 5 to 1 temp difference it makes no sense in any world that normal thermodynamic principles work. You can not get heat out that you did not put coal in the firebox and at the end of the day it is a glorified double barrel stove that is pretty to look at. If you burn 40 lbs of coal at 80% and that is iffy over 24 hours you get around 16,666 btu. / hr. about the same as the smallest burner on my cook stove used to melt chocolate. I think all the BB guys need a reality check to be candid. Jackolopes do come to mind.
Well we will just see about all the coal is coal your base burner is junk talk. I just picked up 2400lbs of Blashak .

 
User avatar
Rob R.
Site Moderator
Posts: 17977
Joined: Fri. Dec. 28, 2007 4:26 pm
Location: Chazy, NY
Stoker Coal Boiler: EFM 520
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Chubby Jr

Post by Rob R. » Sat. Jan. 03, 2015 4:42 pm

This thread has gone way off topic. Locked.

Locked

Return to “Hand Fired Coal Stoves & Furnaces Using Anthracite”