Worthwhile Alternative to Antique Baseburner Coal Stoves

There's a lot of talk and hype on the net about the vintage round baseburner type stoves, and about how they recirculate the gases to extract a high amount of heat from the stove. I see all kinds of claims about the smoke travelling 12 feet inside the stove, and one post said the smoke travelled 27 feet total. These are really great looking vintage stoves and I wouldn't mind having one, but I'd never pay a big premium for one, over a modern stove. Let me explain why.

A vintage baseburner is nothing more than a modern stove with a baffle smoke shelf installed in the top- only the baseburner has it installed in the bottom. There's no way the vintage stove recirculates the smoke for "17 feet". Think about it. The stove is 2 feet square at the base, and at best 4 feet tall. If the smoke travels up/down the back that's 8 feet total. And if it travels back/forth in the base that's another 4 feet. It's more like 12 feet total circulation inside the stove.

I'd like to suggest a logical alternative, one that has proven itself in my home for 20 years, and without doubt will work as well, or better, than any vintage baseburner.

A modern stove, with a 16 foot chimney, dura-vent double wall, installed inside the home.

The long run of pipe acts as a huge radiator and heats all the airspace in the home, in this case it's installed in a room w/vaulted ceiling, but could be run through multiple floors with proper safety boxes where it goes through ceiling and roof.

If the baseburner's claim to fame is circulating the exhaust gases through "17 feet" inside the stove (it's not that far by any count), then this type of installation has that in spades. You can also buy a modern stove with a baffle inside, put the long chimney on it, and not have to restore an old stove, or pay $8000 for a rare vintage antique stove to try to achieve this. Plugging the stove into an outside masonry chimney, is heating up the outside stonework, instead of the interior of the house. If one really wants to extract maximum effiency from a coal stove or wood stove, the chimney should be inside the house- and the stove should be in the living quarters, not in the basement or cellar. Why heat a room one floor down and 3 rooms away, from where you spend most of your time ? Heating from the basement requires using 2x the coal.

A modern stove also has a fan in it, something the old stoves don't have. If we're talking "efficiency" a stove without a fan, can't compete with a stove with a fan, period. To date this stove has heated my home on the coldest of winters never using more than 2.5 tons of coal, and the average is 2 tons per year. One mild winter we heated the house with only 1 ton of coal, our year heating bill was $210.

At any time I can rest my hand on the chimney pipe, from the back of the stove, all the way up- there is very little heat loss up this chimney, it is all radiated into the room, by the internal heat exchanger baffle, fan, and long run of pipe. The stove was $1250 about 10 years ago, installed new. The chimney was $1350 installed about 5 years ago. Before this particular setup, I ran an older stove, with a larger firebox, without a fan, and single wall pipe, in the same location, with the same results- this was an upgrade. Something like this is a turnkey operation and no need for a fpd or baro damper. The manual for the stove says specifically, not to use any damper. Rest assured this does not need it. With the door open this drafts like a freight train or blast furnace. When it's set to steady slow burn, it runs at 1/2 turn for most of the winter. On the coldest days, it only requires 3/4 turn open on the draft- barely any air intake to heat the entire house.

.

Only if you want the most efficient coal heating system. Otherwise keep it as it is.

The pipe doesn't have to go vertically through multiple floors either. If the stove it just moved back away from the wall, and an angled horizontal run of pipe made to the outlet in the exterior wall, that length of pipe will do everything a baseburner will do- it's the same principal.

Pipe is pipe. It doesn't matter if it's circulating under the base of the stove, or elsewhere in the room or house.

In this case, I lucked into this setup, as the original owner was a retired coal miner who had it built this way. He actually had a second stove in the basement, and fed the pipe up from there, and the first floor stove shared the same flue. After he died, his nephew inherited the house, built the brick hearth, and removed the basement stove, and blocked the floor hole off- and ran only one stove. I bought the house from him.

If I was installing a new stove in a house that had no stove, I'd install it near an INSIDE wall, with a hearth similar to this, and go up through the ceiling with a protective boxes as seen in the pictures, up through the 2nd floor and attic and roof.

All the heat being radiated from the chimney, would therefore be inside the house- not outside. It's common sense- and not as expensive as one would think.

It's a lot less than an $8,000 restored baseburner, and also this setup, is more efficient, it has a fan.

In the old days, the chimney went through the center of the house- for that specific reason.

http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/co ... se/1260626

New England Center Chimney House- The New England center chimney house evolved early in the 18th century. The massive center chimney created hearths for all the main rooms on both floors, and shaped the floor plan. From a small entryway the circulation rotated through living and parlor areas to the kitchen in the rear. These disappeared by the early 19th century as new heating and framing systems made it possible to create more flexible plans.

cc, nice looking set up. I'm wondering if you have any actual experience & have any suggestions on how I might improve my heating with my HITZER 50-93 in my 2800 sq, 250 yr old broke up farm house--such as heat distribution, coal usage or how to keep as much heat in the stove itself as possible. Remember now this is not a teeny house nor is this a small output stove--any hands on experiential help would be greatly appreciated.

here's more on central chimneys, the best chimney, is one INSIDE THE HOUSE

http://woodheat.org/fireplace-tight-house.html



Figure 2. Chimneys built on an outside wall, whether exposed or boxed with a chase, are prone to backdrafting (top).

One solution is to move the chase inside and to vent it to the interior so warm air can circulate (middle).

The best solution is to locate the system properly in the first place. The ideal location is in the center of the house (bottom), because the surrounding air will keep the chimney warm and the chimney will penetrate the roof at its highest point.

coalcracker wrote:or pay $8000 for a rare vintage antique stove to try to achieve this.

People don't spend that kind of money just becsue they are looking for efficiency, that's a side benefit. Do you collect anything or have any interests? You can buy a new car that is 400 HP or go buy a GTO with 400HP from the 60's for 10 times the cost. Why would you buy the GTO? Because it's a GTO.

come on cc, they got a better pix/diagram then that in Mother Earth News back in the 70's.

.

They knew about long flue pipes back in the era of the baseburners also.

Something like this is a turnkey operation and no need for a fpd or baro damper. The manual for the stove says specifically, not to use any damper.

I beg to differ.
The manual for this stove states the following: In my case the masonry chimney that my Mark I is connected to creates a very strong draft in the cold weather, way over the specified maximum draft for a hand-fed appliance. The barometric damper is essential, unless I want short burn times and all the heat going up the chimney. Please verify your information before posting.

coalcracker wrote:There's a lot of talk and hype on the net about the vintage round baseburner type stoves, and about how they recirculate the gases to extract a high amount of heat from the stove. I see all kinds of claims about the smoke travelling 12 feet inside the stove, and one post said the smoke travelled 27 feet total. These are really great looking vintage stoves and I wouldn't mind having one, but I'd never pay a big premium for one, over a modern stove. Let me explain why.

There is a lot of talk, but not a lot of hype. Most of us are interested in talking about real life experiences and sharing what we find. It's pretty irrelevant if the internal re-circulation is 2 feet or 20 feet. None of us care, we talk about the stoves we have and how they perform. What ends up sounding like hype is the fact that these stoves perform phenomenally well. Most of us who actually use them are infact surprised at how well they run so we share that with others for them to have information. Not hype, hands-on experience.

coalcracker wrote:I'd like to suggest a logical alternative, one that has proven itself in my home for 20 years, and without doubt will work as well, or better, than any vintage baseburner.
A modern stove, with a 16 foot chimney, dura-vent double wall, installed inside the home.

I've done this several ways in a couple different houses with several different stoves. I'm glad it works for you, it never really gave me a lot of bang for my buck. Let me explain - Running a base burner, there is not a lot of heat up that chimney to extract. So, not much heat is coming out up there. The second problem, is the heat that is coming out up in the chimney somewhere high, is not where I want the heat in my house. Heat naturally rises, I don't need more heat up high, I need more heat down low - exactly where it comes out of a baseburner.

coalcracker wrote:If the baseburner's claim to fame is circulating the exhaust gases through "17 feet" inside the stove (it's not that far by any count), then this type of installation has that in spades. You can also buy a modern stove with a baffle inside, put the long chimney on it, and not have to restore an old stove, or pay $8000 for a rare vintage antique stove to try to achieve this. Plugging the stove into an outside masonry chimney, is heating up the outside stonework, instead of the interior of the house. If one really wants to extract maximum effiency from a coal stove or wood stove, the chimney should be inside the house- and the stove should be in the living quarters, not in the basement or cellar. Why heat a room one floor down and 3 rooms away, from where you spend most of your time ? Heating from the basement requires using 2x the coal.

For me, it doesn't matter if I have an old baseburner, or a nice modern stove. I don't care. I want a warm house, happy family and low heating bills. I didn't pay a dime for my baseburner. I've also owned it for more than 40 years. I've also owned countless other stoves, both old and new. Still have another fairly new stove that I'm not using at this time. I completely agree that the chimney should be inside the house. Problem for me is I don't have one, and since my current set-up works a charm, I'm not going to have one... The theory and the practice don't always coincide. If I were building a house, I'd design it differently than the one I own. But I have to deal with the one I own...

coalcracker wrote:A modern stove also has a fan in it, something the old stoves don't have. If we're talking "efficiency" a stove without a fan, can't compete with a stove with a fan, period. To date this stove has heated my home on the coldest of winters never using more than 2.5 tons of coal, and the average is 2 tons per year. One mild winter we heated the house with only 1 ton of coal, our year heating bill was $210.

"If we're talking "efficiency" a stove without a fan, can't compete with a stove with a fan, period." - I believe you have your terms wrong here. This would be heat distribution, not efficiency that you are trying to talk about. This is a complex subject and there are no single "right" answers. In my particular case, my old stove moves air throughout my house very well. Earlier, I tried it with fans, but discovered that the fan driven air actually trapped the air in one region of my house and my back bedrooms stayed much too cold for my tastes. I dropped the fan, and the natural convection that the old stove creates heats the back bedrooms nicely. Perfectly to my tastes so in my case, it's clearly more efficient to not run a fan, I get better heat distribution throughout my house, don't have to listen to a fan or pay for the electric to run it. A completely win-win situation. However, I have a friend of mine nearby that has fan driven cold air returns in his set-ups and those work a charm. My set-up wouldn't work for him. So the use or not of fans depends upon the individual set-up. Like I said, this one's complicated and there is no "right" answer.

coalcracker wrote:At any time I can rest my hand on the chimney pipe, from the back of the stove, all the way up- there is very little heat loss up this chimney, it is all radiated into the room, by the internal heat exchanger baffle, fan, and long run of pipe. The stove was $1250 about 10 years ago, installed new. The chimney was $1350 installed about 5 years ago. Before this particular setup, I ran an older stove, with a larger firebox, without a fan, and single wall pipe, in the same location, with the same results- this was an upgrade. Something like this is a turnkey operation and no need for a fpd or baro damper. The manual for the stove says specifically, not to use any damper. Rest assured this does not need it. With the door open this drafts like a freight train or blast furnace. When it's set to steady slow burn, it runs at 1/2 turn for most of the winter. On the coldest days, it only requires 3/4 turn open on the draft- barely any air intake to heat the entire house.

Sounds like you have a great set-up and I'm very glad. You spent way more than double what I spent on my set-up. That makes me quite happy also.

dj

this could be another thread but here goes, the evil outside chimney:

EVIL OUTSIDE CHIMNEY

http://woodheat.org/outside-chimney.html

The Evil Outside Chimney
A fireside chat (rant) about chimneys for architects and builders
By John Gulland

If you design or build houses I need to have a serious talk with you about chimneys. I know that chimneys are hardly the most glamorous aspect of the building business and maybe your eyes glaze over when subject comes up, but I'm here to offer a different take on chimneys, one you probably haven't heard before. So respecting your busy schedule and your lack of interest in chimneys, here is the bottom line: chimneys belong inside houses.

titleist1 wrote:

coalcracker wrote:It's a lot less than an $8,000 restored baseburner, and also this setup, is more efficient, it has a fan.

In the old days, the chimney went through the center of the house- for that specific reason.

in the old days they didnt have insulation either, hmmm.....maybe I should take that out of my attic when I blow out roof to build the cathedral ceiling all for less than $8K?

we used to lose power here about once per month for 8 hrs a clip. could be way worse in winter storms too, up to a week. the spousal unit got tired of pedaling that bike to power the fan for the Mark III, maybe an antique baseburner that circulated the air sufficiently without a fan would have kept her in a better mood.

All good points from both sides. My money has been on the MODERN "base burner" thet requires no electricity (and therefore no noisy fan) because of the effective heat transfer qualities of cast iron: A VC Vigilant II Model 2310. Wood'coal can attest to the heat this unit puts out to heat ~3,00ft^2 on 3 - 4 ton a season. 16 ft from the top of the stove to the inside chimney's top. The point is, none of this information is new.It's been thought of long before this thread began. There are options available to fill every requirement be it new box stoves or a new or antique recirculating stove, in easy or or hard to heat house It's all good food for thought.

VigIIPeaBurner wrote: All good points from both sides. My money has been on the MODERN "base burner" thet requires no electricity (and therefore no noisy fan) because of the effective heat transfer qualities of cast iron: A VC Vigilant II Model 2310. Wood'coal can attest to the heat this unit puts out to heat ~3,00ft^2 on 3 - 4 ton a season. 16 ft from the top of the stove to the inside chimney's top.

The point is, none of this information is new.It's been thought of long before this thread began. There are options available to fill every requirement be it new box stoves or a new or antique recirculating stove, in easy or or hard to heat house It's all good food for thought.

VigII - That's a great stove you have there! I always wondered which VC I could have used here, the Vigilant or the Defiant. Obviously the Resolute is too small for my house. Maybe we should do a winter stove swap some winter. I could put your stove in my house for a winter and you could put my stove in your house for a winter. That might be really an interesting experiment. Now, of course, we are going to have to write a solid contact stating that my Glenwood is mine and has to be returned after that test winter..

Of course, you probably feel the same the other way ...

dj

So a hundred years ago, they knew how to make chimneys but didn't know how to make stoves. Interesting.