Lightning wrote:KingCoal wrote:but, i'm concerned about coal in this unit. 1/3 of my burn season requires much less heat than that and I wouldn't want to have to burn so much more aggressively just to get heat out of the stove.
I don't follow.. Yer saying that because of all the flue gas paths and layers of "shell" between the fire and the outside of the burn chamber, you would need to burn it more aggressively to get heat out of it? My confusion is that I was under the impression all of that would make it more efficient. Isn't that the reason for the intricate design?
if you watch the vid and listen you might hear some statements that are meant to create their own validity. just because things are said doesn't mean that the inference is truth or even good.
the pics in the other link clearly show the way this stove is built, the exhaust path is being intentionally kept in the heart of the stove and away from the outer shell as long and as much as possible. this is boiler thinking. because in that case you WANT to retain as much of the heat created inside the stove for as long as possible to heat your water tubes.
it just doesn't work that way in a radiant heater and I can tell you this is not the case in the antique mica radiator, internal by pass base burners or back pipe base heaters. those stoves put the exhaust and heat thru channels that take it to the outer surfaces of the stove in the most direct path possible and keep it in contact with those surfaces for as long as possible. not the other way around.
in the fall and spring shoulder burning of coal in this stove you will need to burn a hotter fire ( more fuel used ) just to get enough heat out of it, than in other stove designs, some modern AND even other designs by the same maker.
on the other hand, if you only need it in the dead of winter, running at a constant high cruise burn rate it may well satisfy the needs for the area it's intended to serve. we do have a testimony to that here on the forum.
applications and user results may vary,
steve