DS Anthramax?

I have been looking at houses and I made a call to DS Machine. I had some questions about the DS 2100 Coalmaster. I was told to look at the new Anthramax stoves and that they are way more efficient. Does anyone have any information about these?

Had this a short time ago.
New DS Coal Stove

Waiting for KingCoal & William to opine on that stove. If the firebox still has corners they aint gonna be impressed

it still has corners in it ,they only did what they did to be epa compliant to my understanding thought they would have done more but by the info, I have been told and the pix. not a lot has changed !!

They made it sound like it was so much more efficient. Miracle of the modern age kinda stuff. It does have a hopper and I can have a DHW coil installed so that's cool. What is the efficiency compared to an old baseburner? I was really interested in the old stoves but due to popular demand they are getting very expensive and some examples are in pretty rough shape. As much as they are works of art I need heat and not a hobby.

Possible reason they stick to the same old-same old Is easy & cheap to manufacture & sell at a hefty price. I cant imagine what they would charge for a newly made round, REAL old tech base burner or even a double heater. Just a plain jane stove not fancy, without a speck of nickel plate. Likely a restored original would be a bargain by comparison. Then I wonder if the average buyer is of the mindset that they "must" have a square stove with a large viewing window so they can unknowingly see their coal dollars going up the stack without being fully used. 70 whatever percent efficiency vs. 95% is a pretty big jump. I largely have William to thank for enlightening me and of course a number of other contributors also. KingCoal is fighting the good fight and winning by all I read of his posts.
I was thrilled when my Hitzer 50-93 arrived but it will be put out to pasture when I finally get a real baseburner. Just hope I can sell the Hitzer for at least some of the money I will be losing due to my hasty and uneducated decision. Just the same the square stoves ARE popular and as the old saying goes, if the shoe fits, wear it

Sounds like the old ones DS Coalmaster etc claim in the area of 80+% So if the new one is more efficient with the reburn then 85-90%? I could live with that at half the price. Don't get me wrong the Baseburners are beautiful and functional.

ASea wrote:They made it sound like it was so much more efficient. Miracle of the modern age kinda stuff. It does have a hopper and I can have a DHW coil installed so that's cool. What is the efficiency compared to an old baseburner? I was really interested in the old stoves but due to popular demand they are getting very expensive and some examples are in pretty rough shape. As much as they are works of art I need heat and not a hobby.

figure at least 40% more fuel savings with a base burner over any of the DSM circulators.

i have already given a critique of the Anthramax in another thread I don't remember which one though, maybe someone else does.

if you want to see the diff. in construction and operation of a DSM circulator turned full base burner see my thread.

box stove to base burner conversion adventure.

I have a 1980's era DS Machine New Style Champion with a 16" square firebox, no circulator tubes just a good old radiant stove and it throws heat like there's no tomorrow. KingCoal gave me a useful tip for installing a sort of secondary baffle above the smoke shelf which in theory gives the exhaust gasses a little extra "hang time"within the stove.That baffle is already made & installed and will be in use this winter. I like that stove and will keep it, but I still want just one base burner. I agree the old stoves are to a great extent hobby items but none the less very efficient and useful.

i have some comments about this stove in this thread.

Open House Today at D.S.Stove in Gordonville,Pa.

pix and sales lit. can be seen here

http://www.messickstove.com/products/ds-machine-s ... index.html

good luck,
steve

95% efficiency is a tough one to believe. You can't run the chimney for next to nothing. I have yet to see real data with CO2 and net stack data and using magnetic thermometers is as close to a joke as you can get. I sure would love to see someone from the coal burning power plant biz chime in as there can not be anyone more motivated to get the most from the least at a corporate office. Stack skin temp is the most meaningless measurement I can think of and used often with both coal and wood. Consider these two unlikely things 95% thermal and 95% combustion is still 90% overall. If it gets to 90% on both you are down to 81%. Skin temps are affected by boundary layers where heat transfer is low and nothing to do with internal gas temps so all the magnetic thermometers and IR guns are as close to useless as you might go. A lot of these efficiency claims seem more like the size of the fish caught that keeps getting bigger every time retold.

while I am an advocate of your POV, you may be the only one here with the equipment and experience to provide the stats required.

it seem that the best that can be done is to report the HDD's, and "measured coal in" to achieve an agreed upon living space temp, over a specific period and rely on a track record based honor system of reporting.

by this you can tell if one or another stove design and or modifications performed better or worse in that ONE installation, but not much else.

personally, I feel if I use less coal to maintain the same comfort level thru "matched" conditions ( if there can be such a thing outside of a lab. ) i'm doing better.

KingCoal wrote:figure at least 40% more fuel savings with a base burner over any of the DSM circulators.

Are you authoritatively stating that the DSM Circulators are only about 50% efficient at best?

lsayre wrote:

KingCoal wrote:figure at least 40% more fuel savings with a base burner over any of the DSM circulators.

Are you authoritatively stating that the DSM Circulators are only about 50% efficient at best?

no, I said "fuel savings".

i refuse to entertain the whole "something % efficiency" platform because I have no idea how to establish it's validity ? there are simply too many variables even beyond the obvious thermal and combustion combinations.

how much fuel I use over a specific period of HDD's is the best i'm capable of.

i'm not an engineer nor do I have lab. level testing conditions nor abilities for that matter.

i'm a tinkerer and I build what I hope is and will be useful stuff of all kinds.

Surface measurements of the smoke pipe are good because just about everyone uses them and provided they are taken within a foot of the stove breech they provide a relative measure of what the stove is doing.

Measuring internally is of course more accurate, but without knowing flue gas volume it also falls short.

With a brisk fire probably many stoves reach well up into the nineties in terms of combustion efficiency, but of course this is when stack temps. are highest. At low output only the best will retain high combustion efficiency along with low stack temps.

A design such as king Coal is building will probably need only about half the air of other stoves to maintain combustion efficiency with a given amount of coal at moderate firing rates. That lessening of excess air translates to far greater efficiency in the radiating surfaces since there is less air carrying heat up the chimney and more time to absorb its heat.

95 percent efficiency is in the area of gas fired condensing heaters and not realistic.