Comparison-Lined Vrs Unlined, Same Stove

In my garage I have a Herald Oak 14 that I refurbished and have run for over a year. During that time I never really got a whole lot of heat out of it, and couldn't seem to get it to run more than 3 days straight without "sudden ash death". It didn't matter how diligent I was about shaking the ash, it choked out. My thought has always been that the liner was the cause due to being rough and not allowing the ash to slide down (just a theory). I have another coal stove with no liner and never had that problem.
I recently got a great deal on a Wing's Best 116x and decided while I refurbish the Wings Best I'll remove the Herald Oaks liner and see how she runs.
It took about 10 minutes to knock it all out and I realized that the cast fire pot of the Herald Oak is very well built. The first and obvious difference when relighting is it now holds about 10 to 12 more pounds of coal. The heat now radiated more quickly and as time went by, it ran better longer. Prior to removing the liner, the longest it ran was about 5 days, after removing the liner it ran over 2 weeks. I kept a log of temperatures of the fire pot using an infrared thermometer and noticed that after a day or two, the ash began to insulate the liner. Shortly after lighting the stove the pot would be 800 deg f, the next day I could only find 600 deg and some areas would be 3 or 400 deg. When I was using my other coal stove (p&b big seven-unlined pot) prior to receiving the Herald Oak I did not have the infrared thermometer, so I turned the lights off and looked for glowing. Doing this I saw very little, and wasn't worried about overheating.
I also saw the heating ability improve, but this can only be anecdotal. How do you compare performance with the weather changing daily? To me, it felt better.
So, as far as I am concerned, the Herald Oak 14 with a poorly done refractory liner does not perform as well as a Herald Oak 14 with an undamaged cast fire pot without the liner. As far as an "insurance policy " that the refractory liner provides, yearly maintenance may provide the same benefit. Disassembling a coal stove that has been recently rebuilt so the mating surfaces can be cleaned and re cemented, gaskets changed, etc.,isn't too tough.( My modern wood stove... forget about it.)
So back to the Wing's Best. I redid the liner in that. I made it 1/2" thick and as smooth as possible (using a 4" PVC pipe to roll around it). The Herald Oak is off to the side and the Wing's Best has the garage at a comfortable and economical 62 deg inside, 5 deg and windy outside. I think I've found the one.

Yup, rough old firebrick linings not only make it difficult to clear ash, they insulate more cutting down on heat transfer. And as you've found out, that clinker scale buildup can reduce coal volume which reduces heat volume.

Carefully chipping away about a 1/2 to 3/4 inch thick of layer of scale made a big difference in how well my stove clears ash and puts out heat.

But, kinda unfair comparing a 14 inch oak to a 16 inch sized base heater.

Paul

The comparison between the two stoves was not intended, merely the comparison of the one stove with and without the liner. But the Herald doesn't hold a candle to the Wing's Best in this application. I have been running the Wing's Best for about 4 days and couldn't be happier. It even burned wood efficiently, and I was just using pine to cure everything, and burn off some new paint . The heat was quick but not overpowering and remained steady. I can't think of any appliance other than a radiant floor that would compare. I will admit that the Herald did well enough this winter, keeping us able to work comfortably all winter in a half insulated garage in Maine, burning 3/4 of a ton of coal, that I paid $260 for at Tractor Supply. And I got the stove free.
The intention of my post was to add to the discussion of lined vrs unlined. It's been said that " it would be nice if we could compare the same stove, with and without the liner." So, that's what I did. I will repeat that this was the result from this stove, which was completely taken down and rebuilt, and resealed last year. I have no intention of doing the same to the Wing's Best. Why mess with success?

I have a Herald (never used it) and a WB. My WB is in regular use and is lined and yes I love mine. A good middle of the road work horse that I have played with to get it to run very low..... with limited success. The illuminati around here tell us, line the stove and the firebox will last longer. Therefore, I advise going with conventional wisdom.

My Red Cross Garnet #48 (an 18" monster) is not lined and I have no plans to line it and this weekend it is being pushed very hard. Inspection of the steel reveals no damage so far. To my knowledge it has been used continually for 100 years like that. My theory is that mica stoves tend to dissipate heat better but I have no evidence.

I am on the fence on this issue and interested in your observations.

Simon

lbaker wrote:The comparison between the two stoves was not intended, merely the comparison of the one stove with and without the liner. But the Herald doesn't hold a candle to the Wing's Best in this application. I have been running the Wing's Best for about 4 days and couldn't be happier. It even burned wood efficiently, and I was just using pine to cure everything, and burn off some new paint . The heat was quick but not overpowering and remained steady. I can't think of any appliance other than a radiant floor that would compare. I will admit that the Herald did well enough this winter, keeping us able to work comfortably all winter in a half insulated garage in Maine, burning 3/4 of a ton of coal, that I paid $260 for at Tractor Supply. And I got the stove free.
The intention of my post was to add to the discussion of lined vrs unlined. It's been said that " it would be nice if we could compare the same stove, with and without the liner." So, that's what I did. I will repeat that this was the result from this stove, which was completely taken down and rebuilt, and resealed last year. I have no intention of doing the same to the Wing's Best. Why mess with success?

This topic of lined verse unlined has come up before. One I remember is DLJ said that he used his Glenwood #6, many years ago without a liner and more recently with it lined. The #6 is the near twin to your Wings Best, so it would be good to compare with. Dave mentioned that he wanted to remove the liner again to run the same test.

Protection of the fire pot ? As Coalnewbie pointed out there are many stoves without liner and they seem to hold up if not abused. For many years I used a couple of pot belly stoves that were unlined. One large, the other small. It was very common that the firepots were glowing red. In fact until I did a better job of sealing doors and dampers on cheaply built small one it was tough to not have it burning cherry red. Didn't seem to hurt either of them.

But protecting the pot is only part of what the liner does to help. The other part that is often mentioned is keeping the firebed hotter to get more complete combustion of coal and gases. Then extract that heat further downstream in the system by lengthening the flue pathway before the chimney. Either by design of base heater, base burner, oak back pipe, and/or, longer stove pipe.

If you look at a lot of old pictures with stoves they often moved the stoves out more into the spaces being heated and used longer lengths of stove pipe than we tend to do today. With a lined pot, using more stove pipe is a cheap, simple way to extract heat before the chimney.

I think the liner would also help the stove operate over a greater range of temperatures. By retaining more heat in the firebed, the stove should be able to run slower in without stalling in warmer weather.

If you look at common practice of wood/coal ranges of that same time period, many were designed to have easily removable liners to make better use when switching fuel types. The six firebricks of my Glenwood that line the firebox for coal are held in place by interlocking with each other as they slide down into position in sequence. They were designed to be removed simply by pulling two cotter pins, removing two cast iron retainers, then lifting them out the top in reverse sequence. Then, to use wood, interlocking cast iron plate liners were put in their place. That gave more room in the firebox for longer burn times. However, no matter wood or coal, it was recommended by the manufactures not to use the range without some type of liner to protect the stove's firebox walls.

Not sure if all did it, but Glenwood offered brick liners as an option with their base heaters and oaks. That was at a time when many of their stoves were being used in areas of the country where wood was the main fuel. I haven't seen anything in print, but I wonder if the optional brick liners were meant to be used if the owner that lived in an area where coal was the primary fuel ?

Paul

Just my inexperienced opinion being thrown into this thread, but I would think that a piece of cast iron being run to the point of glowing red, then cooling (during something like tending with fresh coal), then heated to the point of glowing again, over time, is inviting failure somewhere.
I've seen some of these cylinder stove fire pots manufactured in multiple pieces, (2 or 3 segments, and clamped together with cast on tabs held with screws or bolts), and wonder about the stress imposed during the expansion process. I can see how more heat would radiate into the air W/O the the bricks, but the extra stress on the components would have to take its toll over time. For me, because these stoves are more of an antique investment, and are basically supplemental heat, I would rather have a bit of inefficiency, but reap the benefits of the added insulation, protecting the affected stove parts.

joeq wrote:Just my inexperienced opinion being thrown into this thread, but I would think that a piece of cast iron being run to the point of glowing red, then cooling (during something like tending with fresh coal), then heated to the point of glowing again, over time, is inviting failure somewhere.
I've seen some of these cylinder stove fire pots manufactured in multiple pieces, (2 or 3 segments, and clamped together with cast on tabs held with screws or bolts), and wonder about the stress imposed during the expansion process. I can see how more heat would radiate into the air W/O the the bricks, but the extra stress on the components would have to take its toll over time. For me, because these stoves are more of an antique investment, and are basically supplemental heat, I would rather have a bit of inefficiency, but reap the benefits of the added insulation, protecting the affected stove parts.

Joe,
As long as they aren't over tightened to begin with,.... remember that the steel bolts used with these stoves have close to the same thermal expansion rate as the cast iron. As the cast iron heats up and swells, so do the bolts. However, I've seen more than enough broken fastener tabs, like you mention. But I can't help but wonder,..... did they break because someone unknowingly made them too tight ?

I'm sure you've used a torque wrench enough to see that mild steel bolts can be over tightened and stretched. And that before the steel gets to the yield point, they can act somewhat like a tension spring. By the time over-tightened bolts lengthen due to heating, the tabs are likely under too much stress.

So it may not be a problem that some unlined firepots bolt together, but more a case of who bolted them together ????

Paul

I can see your point Paul, about the torque on the fasteners. When I had my 111 apart, I noticed those bolts were a little loose, and I had no want to tighten them up, because of that concern. Fortunately I didn't have a need to disassemble the pot, so I left well enuff alone.

I'll throw in

First and foremost...let's NOT compare pots on the Crawford, Glenwood, Stewart,Magee etc internally bypassed, suspended pot baseburner stoves. This style stove HAS to have refractory, it is integral to the stove design.

Glenwood, Herald, Crawford etc "Oak Style" stoves even with the base heater castings hung on the back, are outgrowths of the lowly pot belly stove. As such, linings are simply a matter of operator preference and fuel burned. Train stations, general stores etc, probably had their stoves at high firing rates constantly so a liner was not necessary.

If someone were having a problem with their stove such as I did, and it was a well made, well maintained stove, removing the liner may be an option as long as it does not require a liner. The Herald Oak 14 is a good stove, now better (IMO) without the poorly installed liner. I'd rather see a piece of history get used instead of neglected due to poor performance. With continued proper use and maintenance it may go on another 100 years.

lbaker wrote:If someone were having a problem with their stove such as I did, and it was a well made, well maintained stove, removing the liner may be an option as long as it does not require a liner. The Herald Oak 14 is a good stove, now better (IMO) without the poorly installed liner. I'd rather see a piece of history get used instead of neglected due to poor performance. With continued proper use and maintenance it may go on another 100 years.

Agreed, a very rough liner can be a head ache. Carefully chiseling about 100 years of clinker scale off the fire bricks made a big difference in how well I could clear ash.

And agree with using the stoves.

When we moved here I brought my small potbelly stove along and had it sitting in the dinning room, but not hooked up. My ex-wife decided she wanted to use it as a planter. I gave it to a friend for his small log cabin rather then see it turn to rust.

Paul

My ex-wife decided she wanted to use it as a planter.

well of course you needed to move on, now I understand.

coalnewbie wrote:

My ex-wife decided she wanted to use it as a planter.

well of course you needed to move on, now I understand.

If that Isn't that legal grounds for divorce,.... it should be.

Paul

We have a few rifles that are over 100 years old, going back to when the specific caliber was created, and they go hunting with us often. The coal stoves I have are either 100+ years old or close. It's quaint if it stopped working but brings back memories. But they are still going.
Now if my wife wanted to make a planter out of this computer when it gets replaced, I'd be fine with that.