CLAYTON FURNACE WITH DUAL READING STOKERS

Hi, Everyone. The "CLAYTON PROJECT" may not be for the masses, but it sure is for us AMATEUR ENGINEER's on this FORUM!

As for the shaker grates, I thought long and hard about removing them when I initailly designing this conversion, but I feel they add to the ease of operation. The CLAYTON's ash pan may be a little hard to empty if you let the ash pan get too full. With the grates in place, you can shake the ashes down a little at a time and not spill them all over the floor. It has been working very nicely that way.

Greg, That is the first time I saw the BIG BERTHA stoker conversion. That is really neat!!! When I first started on this COAL FORUM, you replied very quickly, made me feel welcome and were very helpful in deciding to attack this project. You made me do alot of home work on the design of coal stoves and don't even know it. I admire your vast knowledge and thank you for you unknowingly assistance with your posts I've read on this COAL FORUM. THANKS

Hi Everyone. Here is a few more pictures of the "CLAYTON PROJECT" that you may like to see. Thank you all for the wonderful responses. I'm willing to help anyone interested in making there own CLAYTON STOKER. This weekend I'm going to fab some hopper extentions to make it hold more coal, so it will even burn longer without attention. I'll post some pictueres when it is done.

I also had talked to NEIL at COAL TROL this week and I plan to modifiy the tri burners with full time combustion fans. I'm happy the way it is now, but the AMATEUR ENGINEER that I am, I still got to play around and see how that option compares. It may be a little while for the report, I have to get around to it and I'm having too much fun playing with it the way it is.

I'll be watching and willing to answer any questions and help all I can with your CLAYTON PROJECT. THANKS for all the posts. DOUG

Your creation looks great. We have tried a dual feeder system such as yours, but ran into problems when one hopper runs low or empty before the other. The empty hopper now becomes the exhaust system. I hope you cured that problem, but if not please be careful of gas.
Jerry

Thank you for your kind comments Doug.. I try to help wherever I can.

Have you compared the flue temperatures in the hand fired compared to the stoker fed furnace?? I'm currious if the big hand fed fire or the stoker fed fires transfers more heat into the hot air jacket.. ??

Greg L

.

Hi Jerry. I'm glad to here from you. It's not that I wouldn't have used your stokers, I couldn't get them. Besides I was going to be burning READING BUCKWHEAT COAL anyway. You do make an excellant product though and some day I'd like to see your product in person. There doesn't seem to be any dealers in Pittsburgh, Pa, that I'm aware of. Keep up the good work!

I did have one of my hoppers run dry while the other one was still firing. So far I have not experienced any exhaust through the other hopper. The coupling spacer I had fabricated is a full three inches and the flat ceramic gasket material I used added a little more distance to the stoker feed from the firebox. I also used ceramic gasket material to seal all air gaps attached from the stoker to the hoper. The lid also seals pretty tight on the hopper. The only air gap left open is the carpet space itself. Possibly that extra distance in conjunction with the firebox design from U.S.Stove may have been why I diddn't experience any gas. You gave me something to measure. THANKS FOR THE REPLY AND HOPE TO TALK TO YOU AGAIN.

Greg, I have not had to run the stoker set up at full tilt other than the initial calibration. It just gets too darn hot in the house to measure yet without the wife yelling "Shut that thing off." To keep peace I'll wait untill it gets colder to play at full tilt. The heat exchange from the firebox to the house seems to be the same with one difference. The front of the unit and the stack tempature is much cooler. I used Z liner stainless steel stove pipe, so my magnet themometers don't want to stick to the pipe at all. I"ll have to measure it with a differant kind af thermometer and get back to you. I think the CLAYTON's firebrick in the top of the firebox, which is also the secondary combustion chamber, in combination with the positioning placement of the stokers and the shape of the top firebox is why there is a greater heat exchange at a much, much lower firing rate. That all adds up to more heat for less coal. I'll be still playing with this thing for a while and try to come up with some solid numbers for you. THANKS FOR THE REPLY. DOUG

Leisure Line wrote:Your creation looks great. We have tried a dual feeder system such as yours, but ran into problems when one hopper runs low or empty before the other. The empty hopper now becomes the exhaust system. I hope you cured that problem, but if not please be careful of gas.
Jerry

Could you make a hinged plate that starts on top of the coal and at the bottom of the swing seals off the hopper opening to prevent exh. out the hopper?

efo141 wrote:

Leisure Line wrote:Your creation looks great. We have tried a dual feeder system such as yours, but ran into problems when one hopper runs low or empty before the other. The empty hopper now becomes the exhaust system. I hope you cured that problem, but if not please be careful of gas.
Jerry

Could you make a hinged plate that starts on top of the coal and at the bottom of the swing seals off the hopper opening to prevent exh. out the hopper?

Anything is possible. I don't know if it would do. It would have to be made as to not hinder the feeding of the coal though.

DOUG wrote:I used Z liner stainless steel stove pipe, so my magnet themometers don't want to stick to the pipe at all.

If they are the round type with a hole in the center attach them with a sheet metal screw.

Nice job. I wanted to covert a hand fired boiler. asked a couple of stove makers but they would not sell their stokers to me. Could i ask the BTU output of the stokers and what they cost each?

Doug
Thank you for all the information along with pictures. When can we expect the video to come out!
Our house is 3200 sf including most of the basment which is heated, North facing and remodeling.
We also have a gambrel barn of 3700 sf with one gable of all single pane custom sized glass. Partially heated.
So 2 are in order!
You wrote:Greg, That is the first time I saw the BIG BERTHA stoker conversion. That is really neat!!! When I first started on this COAL FORUM, you replied very quickly, made me feel welcome and were very helpful...
I too subscribe to that statement! Thank you Greg.
I will be interested in what your projected btu output is and when up to full speed what you feel you are realizing.
Correct me if needed, but you could still use it as a hand fire unit if needed, power outages etc.

North Candlewood, The READING Mid Stokers I used are listed at 170,000 BTU's, both firing together, for their SUSQUEHANNA model. I'm not sure how they rate that? Is it buy the firing rate, the estimated heat output, or the actual numbers the heat exchange is able to put out. All I know so far is the heat exchange efficency I'm experiencing is much greater than when I hand fired the unit. As for hand firing the unit after the conversion, I wouldn't do it! It's a coal stoker now and the modifications do not allow both applications. I feel hand firing the stoker converted unit may fall under your insurance companies stupidity clause. That is why you see in the posted pictures I have two. One for hand firing and one for automatic stoker firing.

To calculate the amount of heat output based on the number of pounds of fuel a hand fired unit will burn,

multiply the GRATE AREA(SQ.FT.) X EFFICIENCY OF COMBUSTION PERCENTAGE X POUNDS OF FUEL PER SQ.FT. OF GRATE PER HOUR X THE AVERAGE HEAT OUTPUT OF FUEL BTU PER POUND

WHAT DOES ALL THAT MEAN???

The efficiency of combustion percetage for anthracite nut coal stoves are around 65%.
The pounds of anthracite nut coal per SQ.FT. of grate per hour is 8.
The average heat output of fuel BTU per pound is 12,500.

CACULATION: 1.5 sq.ft. X .65 X 8lbs X 12,500 = 97,500 BTU's per hour.

FOR WOOD CACULATION: 1.5sq.ft X .50 X 20lbs X 6,500 = 97,500 BTU's per hour.

Hope this helps. DOUG

Hi, Everone. I just got done fabricating some extentions to the coal hoppers on the CLAYTON PROJECT. Here are some pictures. I still have to fill them up. I wanted to post the pictures first. North Candlewood, I hope I was some help and I'll be looking forward to talking to you about your project. THANKS EVERYONE FOR LOOKING AND ALL YOUR GREAT RESPONSES. YOUR COMPLIMENTS MADE IT ALL WORTH WILD!

North Candlewood, I made a typographical error on the web site I provided to you earlier of were I got my stokers. The correct web address is http://www.heetinc.com. I didn't know how to edit and correct the post after the fact. Maybe one of the site moniters can help me will that. I'm sorry. I got so caught up in the wonderful interest, I made a mistake. Thank you.

Doug:
I'm curious to know how much coal you are using per day. I'm in Pittsburgh also and I'm using the actual Susquehanna model furnace so I'm very curious to know how your retrofit compares. I'm only heating about 2200 SF and I'm using about 100+ per day. I'm concerned that I need to get some better efficiency, but I think my loss is in the actual ductwork. Just curious. Also, did you happen to get the Grainger part number for the combustion fans from Neil at Coal-Trol? I talked to him also and he gave a part number, but I misplaced it.