Antique Vs. Modern Coal Burners

scalabro wrote:

franco b wrote:There is no reason for controversy on this subject. Both old and new have good points.

I have yet to see the stove, old or new I would consider perfect.

Maybe a good subject for a new thread. The Perfect Stove.

That's easy Franco....it's obviously the Crawford 40 Hahahahahahaha Hahahahahahaha!!!

While I do consider that the best combustion chamber and utilization of heat exchange combination, where is the fire view, or magazine or bi- metal thermostat? Can the ash pan hold 24 hours of ash at high burn? Is the shaker as good as prismatic grates? While among the best of stoves I still think it could be improved.

franco b wrote:
While I do consider that the best combustion chamber and utilization of heat exchange combination, where is the fire view, or magazine or bi- metal thermostat? Can the ash pan hold 24 hours of ash at high burn? Is the shaker as good as prismatic grates? While among the best of stoves I still think it could be improved.

Hahahahahahaha I gues you did not get the joke

But since this issue will always be a personal choice, I'll indulge you...

If I wanted a fire view I'd toss the stove and go back to burning wood in the fireplace, but the four 2x2 "windows" do the trick.

You have never seen a C40 ash pan, it's HUGE and holds three shakedowns.

The magazine is unnecessary as she will go 450 for 24 with a stacked pot.

Yes, I'll say it....with a pot designed like this the dump grate is far better then prismatics. Simply because they can't jam. You simply poke a bit and shake. I used to think different but since running my friends G8, I'm convinced in a suspended pot stove they would not work as well.

scalabro wrote:But since this issue will always be a personal choice,

Indeed it is, and that is why most people never reach full agreement on the subject. I think franco made some great points from an objective point of a view.

As for me, I have never used a high-end antique stove, but I can easily see the benefits of the design.

One thing I have always been curious about - people talk about how much more efficient these stoves are, but I have not seen anyone mention a before and after in terms of coal savings. I am not trying to be skeptical, just curious what impact I would expect on my bottom line if I made the switch.

e.g. I used to burn 4 tons per year in my Mark III, now I burn 2 tons per year in my Glenwood.

perhaps I have just missed it, if someone has an example feel free to point me to it.

My last comment was supposed to be funny, oh well.

Rob, earlier in this thread and on my Crawford thread I have posted what I found with real time experience running two on the same chimney. Although I did not weigh coal or track degree days, I did not feel it necessary after the first few days because it was so obvious to me.

The only improvement I could make to the stove design would be to insulate the "clinker door". Coal located on the inside of the door and finger grate cool off and go out. In my mind filling the door casting with refractory would help to solve this. Un burnt coal in this area can be annoying when servicing the stove, but this is a VERY minor issue.

Yes, I did recognize your humor and the good humor in your replies, which make them all the more valuable. Good to know the ash pan is big, and we do know the internal check damper aids in dust free tending.

In tending how long does it take? I invariably spend 15 to 20 minutes tending either the Vigilant or Glenwood or other batch loading stoves I have used, but only about a minute with the Franco Belge. Not counting time to get new coal or emptying ash pan. The Franco goes 24 hours with a big pan at high heat. Not so with the others.

In the search for the perfect stove we also have to consider your expertise in things mechanical. Could the average guy or woman lacking that expertise duplicate easily your results? Two dampers in the stove and a third on the smoke pipe, each playing their part.

The Hitzer 50-93 and 30-95 as well as Surdiac and Franco Belge can get along very well with no dampers and very quick tending owing to the hopper and automatic air adjustment. Very little concern for puff backs. Great fire view as well.

scalabro wrote: Rob, earlier in this thread and on my Crawford thread I have posted what I found with real time experience running two on the same chimney. Although I did not weigh coal or track degree days, I did not feel it necessary after the first few days because it was so obvious to me.

I have made great progress in reducing the heat load of my house, but the low hanging fruit is gone. If I thought I could burn significantly less coal by letting a base burner carry most of the load, I would consider it.

My EFM has a suspended fire pot, and a large heat exchange area. Do you think a high end antique stove would out perform it by enough margin to justify the cost of the stove and installation?

Rob R. wrote:My EFM has a suspended fire pot, and a large heat exchange area. Do you think a high end antique stove would out perform it by enough margin to justify the cost of the stove and installation?

Two different types of stoves that heat different ways!

tcalo wrote:

Rob R. wrote:My EFM has a suspended fire pot, and a large heat exchange area. Do you think a high end antique stove would out perform it by enough margin to justify the cost of the stove and installation?

Two different types of stoves that heat different ways!

Yes sir, and that is the point. They are very different in design, but at the end of the day they extract heat from the coal and put it into the house. I was just looking for an opinion from the folks that have a lot of experience with stoves like Scott's; there is no right or wrong answer.

Rob R. wrote:

scalabro wrote: Rob, earlier in this thread and on my Crawford thread I have posted what I found with real time experience running two on the same chimney. Although I did not weigh coal or track degree days, I did not feel it necessary after the first few days because it was so obvious to me.

I have made great progress in reducing the heat load of my house, but the low hanging fruit is gone. If I thought I could burn significantly less coal by letting a base burner carry most of the load, I would consider it.

My EFM has a suspended fire pot, and a large heat exchange area. Do you think a high end antique stove would out perform it by enough margin to justify the cost of the stove and installation?

If you're asking if you were to replace your stoker boiler or furnace and replace it with a Crawford 40, I would say no, but the premise of your question is really quite silly. My stove was never designed to be the primary heater of a home. Maybe more than one but not just one.

Do I think a new home could be built and heated, (on its own) that in total costs less to aquire, install, maintain, and run than an EFM, then yes.

***edit****

Rob, are you asking that, if you install a Crawford in a spare or unused thimble, that coal savings would pay for the stove and lower overall coal consumption?

scalabro wrote: Rob, are you asking that, if you install a Crawford in a spare or unused thimble, that coal savings would pay for the stove and lower overall coal consumption?

Yes. Basically I am considering taking a "bite" out of my heating load with something hand-fired. Up until now I have dismissed the idea due to lack of ROI, and concerns over dust. You mentioned significant coal savings, and improved control over dust with the Crawford - so my ears perked up.

I have a 380 sq. ft addition on the west side of my home. It has a sliding glass door, 8 crank out windows, and an exposed beam ceiling. The heat load is quite high compared to the rest of the main floor. My existing system carries the load, but this room could be a candidate for a free standing coal stove. There is a chimney available, but it was built before the addition, and the thimble is on the wrong side - I would need to add a thimble and add a hearth pad. I think that if I installed a stove in that room, it could shoulder 30-40% of my entire heating load.

What I am not clear on is how this would impact my overall heating bill.

rob if you put in the free stander and a nice one I would think it will off set the total cost ,you may be surprised, and what about ceiling fans etc that may be your ticket !?

Is it possible/feasible to shut off this zone for 30 days to calculate the amount of coal the EFM uses to heat the zone?

380 sqft only requires a small stove if the area is insulated adequately. A well restored Crawford 20 would be perfect.

To give some type of info, my house is a 2450 sqft two story colonial with an open floor plan. It was built in 1995. It has a Bard (junk!) 130,000 BTU oil fired furnace. The Crawford 40 easily carries the house on its own completely until overnights in the lower teens when thermostats are setback @ 8PM to 60 and back on @ 530 AM to 68.

This year I have sumped no jet fuel and have only burned 100 gallons of oil for the Bock oil fired water heater and whatever the Bard furnace has used.

If the house had another chimney on the opposite end of the house I'd have my other C40 assembled, installed and idling.

Not to mention a beautiful antique stove for ambiance has a supplemental value too.

scalabro wrote:Is it possible/feasible to shut off this zone for 30 days to calculate the amount of coal the EFM uses to heat the zone?

380 sqft only requires a small stove if the area is insulated adequately. A well restored Crawford 20 would be perfect.

It is exposed on 3 walls and the ceiling.
When it is zero and windy, the heat load of this room is about 20,000 BTUs per hour...But much of that heat goes into the main house. I came up with the BTU figure based on the amount of radiation and cycle time.

Disabling the heat in this room is not really an option.

Well I can say with confidence that when I ran the Crawford 20 the most I could but through it, flat out, was 40 lbs a day (24hrs) .... and I mean pegged!

With the 40 I'm currently burning 50lbs a day. This stove probably has close to twice the surface area.