Alaska Kodiak Vs Hitzer 50-93 Gravity Fed Stoves

I'm in the market for a new gravity fed coal stoker and i'm looking for input from you all.

Thanks in advance!

Stove, boiler or furnace?

a gravity fed stove.
i narrowed it down to an alaska kodiak or a hitzer 50-93

We purchased the Hitzer 50-93 gravity feed this past spring and cant wait to use it this upcoming season.

Its built like a tank and easy to work on it needed. I purchased mine used and redone everything inside. The company was great to purchase replacement parts for. I kinda went overboard on replacement parts but because I purchased at a good price, I didn't mind spending the extra money to update everything to like new condition.

I like the idea of of radiant heat without electricity plus gravity feed.

grouse45 wrote:I'm in the market for a new gravity fed coal stoker and i'm looking for input from you all.

Thanks in advance!

I have compared them I prefer the grate system of the Kodiak it is less likely to dump the fire and should give a more thorough burn. I was disappointed that both use firebrick to line the combustion area as opposed to Cast Iron but that is the way of modern stoves . The Kodiak needs the optional dress up package in my opinion .

I personally like the idea of firebrick. It is an easily replaced item and very inexpensive. The firebrick conduct heat well enough that the steel behind the brick is an effective radiator of heat yet the firebrick protects the steel or cast iron from overheating/cracking/burning away. The environment next to a coal fire is very tough on steel and iron.

The only problem with the rotating type shaker system in the Kodiak is that it may not be agressive enough if you have large pieces of ash. The interlocking fingers of the other type of grates tends to capture and crush large pieces of ash pretty well. With only a sliding motion of the grate, the powder in the ash will fall through, but the grates can get clogged with a build-up of larger harder ash.

But like you said the interlocking finger type grate can dump the whole fire. I had a sliding grate in my boiler when I hand-fed it, and I had lots of issues with large chunks of ash/clinker. I wish I could have dumped the fire, and started over again. Instead I had to let the fire go out, shovel out the ash and start over again. This was with both anthracite and bituminous coal.

Greg L

I use 1" X 1/2" bars of steel to hold the firebrick at the front and rear of the boiler, it won't last a week if I push the boiler hard.

coaledsweat wrote:I use 1" X 1/2" bars of steel to hold the firebrick at the front and rear of the boiler, it won't last a week if I push the boiler hard.

Makes you wonder about that steel. The A-A Anthratube and the AHS Coalgun have no firebrick at all. Yet they last several decades or more. What's the difference?

I'm guessing it is the location of the steel in the firebox. I just separated the boiler from the base of my Axeman-Anderson boiler. One side of the firebox lower lip has been replaced. A section about 12" long had been cut out and a new section pieced in. See the photo below.

I have no idea the age of this boiler, but there is bound to be deterioration of the steel or iron in any firebox if it gets hot enough and there is enough oxygen. After all that is how a cutting torch works.

Greg L

[/quote]Makes you wonder about that steel. The A-A Anthratube and the AHS Coalgun have no firebrick at all. Yet they last several decades or more. What's the difference?[/quote]

I think the difference is in the A-A and other stokers the steel is at the bottom and is cooled by the draft, the ash may help too. While the steel I speak of is at the top of the fire brick and exposed dirctly to the coal fire and several times the heat. My iron grates at the base are just a few hundred degrees and never are effected by the heat.

Maybe it's the grade of steel? Aren't high end stoves such as Harman & hitzler made with a boiler steel? Typical mild steel corrodes away to nothing in weeks.

I welded a brace inside of my Harman using 6012 rod. The arc was not like one I saw before proving to me the steel was a different carbon content. Who is our resident metalurgist?

I'll try and field this one. I think you will find the biggest difference in carbon steel is goind to be whether it was cold rolled or hot rolled steel. I know my Alaska stoker and my old Harman pellet stove are made from cold rolled steel. Cold rolled mild steel is quite a bit stronger and more resistant to corrosion mostly because it is more dense and less porous. It also works better in a stove or low pressure boiler because it wrarps less with applied heat. As for what carbon % grade of mild steel the "high end companies" use I'll have to reasearch that a little as my expertise is predominantley with stainless steel.

jpen1 wrote:I'll try and field this one. I think you will find the biggest difference in carbon steel is goind to be whether it was cold rolled or hot rolled steel. I know my Alaska stoker and my old Harman pellet stove are made from cold rolled steel. Cold rolled mild steel is quite a bit stronger and more resistant to corrosion mostly because it is more dense and less porous. It also works better in a stove or low pressure boiler because it wrarps less with applied heat. As for what carbon % grade of mild steel the "high end companies" use I'll have to reasearch that a little as my expertise is predominantley with stainless steel.

Other than cost - why don't stove makers use stainless for the firebox ?
Surely someone is willing to pay some extra $$ to know that their firebox is indestructible.

Doesn't stainless beat even the best cold rolled for taking direct flame ?
Since heat exchangers are SS it seems that a firebox would be a perfect application.

smokeyCityTeacher wrote:Other than cost - why don't stove makers use stainless for the firebox ?
Surely someone is willing to pay some extra $$ to know that their firebox is indestructible.

Doesn't stainless beat even the best cold rolled for taking direct flame ?
Since heat exchangers are SS it seems that a firebox would be a perfect application.

Through the years several manufacturers have tried stainless combustion chambers on oil burners. They are sheet steel.They do not last. Perhaps thicker would last.

If you duplicated a fire box from stainless how would you make it? Unless it could be cast, which I don't think could be done, then it would have to be formed by welding and machining which would probably rival the cost of the stove itself and may not be as warp resistant as cast iron. Cast iron, if not abused by over firing or neglecting ash removal, will last a long long time.