Box Stove to Base Heater Conversion Adventure

ddahlgren wrote:

Sunny Boy wrote:Steve,

The house was just as warm, ... plus about a 40% reduction in coal used to do it with. I'd say that's a fantastic improvement !!!!!!!

Paul

Did the 4-% less coal turn into 40% longer time between tending?

not really, with the converted stove I could tend anywhere from 12 to 24 hrs. it really didn't make much diff. the whole tending process took 3 mins. flat due primarily to the hopper feed, so while I was waiting for tea water to heat morning and evening.

KingCoal wrote:not really, with the converted stove I could tend anywhere from 12 to 24 hrs. it really didn't make much diff. the whole tending process took 3 mins. flat due primarily to the hopper feed, so while I was waiting for tea water to heat morning and evening.

The two facets of your alteration of the stove were increased heat exchange and higher fire box temperature owing to flue gas travel around it.

I know both contributed, but did you get any sense of one being more effective than the other? Another way of asking is if you could do only one of these things, which one would you choose. I know the answer would be subjective, but I trust your intuition. Lastly the contribution of the hopper.

[quote
Did the 40% less coal turn into 40% longer time between tending?

not really, with the converted stove I could tend anywhere from 12 to 24 hrs. it really didn't make much diff. the whole tending process took 3 mins. flat due primarily to the hopper feed, so while I was waiting for tea water to heat morning and evening.[/quote]

Oh what I would give for 12-24 hours all season. I am seriously thinking of a heat-a-later despite the opinions I heard last time I brought it up. If I remember almost a universal no if memory serves me correctly. What I need is more stove and a tighter house and no money for either other than some window film and weather stripping. I just run as hot as last year as have been warned by DCrane the firebox is not going to put up with it for very long. If it let's me run at 400 all the days I ran 500 and 500 when I ran 600 and up it is a win. I know at 400 I can go 12 hours and as I go up from there it starts becoming a case of diminishing returns above 500 for coal burned and tending time devoted to keep it going.

finally got around to cleaning out "FRANK" tonight.

had no more than average ash packed in the corners of the fire pot but that was not the real surprise. I opened up the clean out port and found that there was just 1 inch of fine dust covering the whole 18 x 24 bottom of the base chamber.

there was also about an inch in the bottom of the "T" that connects my wall thimble to the SS liner inside the masonry chimney.

that's pretty cool, cause it means pretty much all the ash was going out the grates successfully and not clogging up the works. not bad for pushing 7,000 + #'s of coal thru it with out a mid season shut down or cleaning.

franco b wrote:

KingCoal wrote:not really, with the converted stove I could tend anywhere from 12 to 24 hrs. it really didn't make much diff. the whole tending process took 3 mins. flat due primarily to the hopper feed, so while I was waiting for tea water to heat morning and evening.

The two facets of your alteration of the stove were increased heat exchange and higher fire box temperature owing to flue gas travel around it.

I know both contributed, but did you get any sense of one being more effective than the other? Another way of asking is if you could do only one of these things, which one would you choose. I know the answer would be subjective, but I trust your intuition. Lastly the contribution of the hopper.

this would be very subjective, since both where in play at the same time, pretty hard to be certain. BUT, if I could only supply one of either, a fire pot insulated with exhaust gas OR more radiant surface, I would go with the suspended fire pot.

i would also do what ever needed to have a ROUND fire pot.

hopper or mag. feed is the icing to my thinking. it simply can't be beat for fast, clean, no wait, no heat drop tending.

Interesting view point, Steve.

My having a range with so much "base heater" surface area to extract heat, I would have chosen that over a suspended firepot instead.

My thought is, efficient combustion is good, but without the surface area to extract it, is it that much better at heating a given space, verses a stove without suspended firepot, but one that has lots of flu gas pathway surface area to get as much heat out as possible before it reaches the chimney ?

I'm trying to imagine how well a 20 pound capacity, suspended firepot stove, with direct draft, would compare to my 20 pound capacity range. I know I'd burn a small percentage of coal more completely, but which would be warmer, ..... the room, or the chimney ?

Paul

excellent points, and they are mirrored in the GW # 6 and #8 among others.

my view is only diff. because I was thinking of a very combustion eff. fire pot as exposed as possible to the living space.

i probably need to be sure i'm not mixing design ideas with presently available stoves when giving answers to hypothetical questions.

steve

well..........you know, people who revive long dead threads are not well thought of but.............

having done the unthinkable followed by the improbable, with a foray into the unforeseen,

FRANK is back on the hearth waiting for a new back pipe arrangement and the completion of a double heater shield for this season.

this stove is SO easy to run, with average 3 minute tending twice a day, with the addition of a double burner feature it should be all i'm going to need now or ever.........

unless, i happen on that ONE totally awesome irresistable absolutely have to have it classic from the mists of time, and i AM watching like a hawk

steve

Nice Steve! I'm sorry, did I miss the pix I'm SURE you sent with this post? LOL

freetown fred wrote:Nice Steve! I'm sorry, did I miss the pix I'm SURE you sent with this post? LOL

DAMN, i love you bud

ill get on it,

steve

here ya go, this is the way he's been sittin here since late last season when i needed him to cover the house when i had to be away for over 48 hrs.

BTW, i reported low results back then and just recently realized i hadn't been sampling draft force from under the lowest damper and that i had choked the fire off because of it. DOH !!

i'm working out the new back pipe arrangement to coincide with the double heater shroud, but i ain't showin that yet

more to come, as if there isn't enough pages of this

steve

That's what we're talkin about!

Steve, what happened to Trioculous, or whatever that name was? Are you back to using the DS baseburner conversion stove?

lsayre wrote:Steve, what happened to Trioculous, or whatever that name was? Are you back to using the DS baseburner conversion stove?

thanks for asking, TriOculus Maximus is still a fine stove and exceptionally so for the round fire pot and double heater feature but, the draw center grate system is awkward and not having either an easily workable hopper nor thermostatic damper leaves some unfulfilled comforts and conveniences. if i spent the time and money i know i could adapt some GW #6 grates to it and forget about a hopper or therm damper.

but, FRANK is right here and doesn't really NEED the double heater but it will be an awesome addition to an already great stove.

steve

so its looking like the crawford 40 will sit this winter out?