Hitzer questions
Hello Everyone,
I am a first time poster, and am planning on putting in my first coal stove this winter. I have a very large 3000 sq ft old Victorian, built in the 1800's, three stories, with high ceilings, in Upstate NY. I am planning on placing the stove on the ground floor in one of the rooms near the center of the house.
There is an old decrepit oil burning boiler in the basement that I don't like to use, and my house is not set up for a furnace, which is why I am leaning toward the radiant stove.
I have been looking at the Hitzer 82 Ul. I would like to know how long the burn time is in the dead of winter? Is care and maintenance every 12 hours realistic, or will it need attention more than twice a day? I know it has an advertised burn time of 20 hours, but I grew up with wood stoves so I know manufacturer burn times are total fiction.
I have also been looking at the Hitzer 50 93, which will require a lot less tending because of the hopper. Does the 50 93 crank out the same amount of BTUs as the 82Ul? Hitzer posts some contradictory information about the 50 93, in some places saying max BTU's are over 100,000, in other spots saying 90,000. If anyone has owned both, which puts out more heat? Also, does one model consume more coal than the other?
Thanks!
I am a first time poster, and am planning on putting in my first coal stove this winter. I have a very large 3000 sq ft old Victorian, built in the 1800's, three stories, with high ceilings, in Upstate NY. I am planning on placing the stove on the ground floor in one of the rooms near the center of the house.
There is an old decrepit oil burning boiler in the basement that I don't like to use, and my house is not set up for a furnace, which is why I am leaning toward the radiant stove.
I have been looking at the Hitzer 82 Ul. I would like to know how long the burn time is in the dead of winter? Is care and maintenance every 12 hours realistic, or will it need attention more than twice a day? I know it has an advertised burn time of 20 hours, but I grew up with wood stoves so I know manufacturer burn times are total fiction.
I have also been looking at the Hitzer 50 93, which will require a lot less tending because of the hopper. Does the 50 93 crank out the same amount of BTUs as the 82Ul? Hitzer posts some contradictory information about the 50 93, in some places saying max BTU's are over 100,000, in other spots saying 90,000. If anyone has owned both, which puts out more heat? Also, does one model consume more coal than the other?
Thanks!
- lsayre
- Member
- Posts: 21781
- Joined: Wed. Nov. 23, 2005 9:17 pm
- Location: Ohio
- Stoker Coal Boiler: AHS S130 Coal Gun
- Coal Size/Type: Lehigh Anthracite Pea
- Other Heating: Resistance Boiler (13.5 KW), ComfortMax 75
First, I must emphatically state that the BTUH figures for American hand fired stoves are just about twice what they can really deliver.
That said, the 82 should be a much larger stove than the 50-93.
You can pretty much ballpark the "American" BTUH "input" figures for Anthracite stoves by measuring the depth and width of the firebox in inches (excluding the height). The simple formula then becomes:
BTUH input = Depth" x Width" x 375
And for real world capability use:
BTUH input = Depth" x Width" x 185
For "nominal" output multiply input BTUH input by 0.70.
It's good that American stoves can deliver only roughly half of their fake ratings, because a 100,000 fake BTUH stove feasting upon 50,000 BTUH of anthracite coal per hour is gorging upon a tad more than 4 lbs. of such coal per hour. That comes to just about 100 lbs. per day if such input was to be sustained for 24 hours.
In seven years the most coal I ever burned in a single day was 105 lbs.
It also works out that since many older homes are heated with furnaces that are roughly twice as large as they need to be, if your present aged furnace has a rating of 100,000 BTUH input, a fake 100,000 BTUH input coal stove (properly situated, and capable of dispersing the heat properly) should be just what the doctor ordered.
That said, the 82 should be a much larger stove than the 50-93.
You can pretty much ballpark the "American" BTUH "input" figures for Anthracite stoves by measuring the depth and width of the firebox in inches (excluding the height). The simple formula then becomes:
BTUH input = Depth" x Width" x 375
And for real world capability use:
BTUH input = Depth" x Width" x 185
For "nominal" output multiply input BTUH input by 0.70.
It's good that American stoves can deliver only roughly half of their fake ratings, because a 100,000 fake BTUH stove feasting upon 50,000 BTUH of anthracite coal per hour is gorging upon a tad more than 4 lbs. of such coal per hour. That comes to just about 100 lbs. per day if such input was to be sustained for 24 hours.
In seven years the most coal I ever burned in a single day was 105 lbs.
It also works out that since many older homes are heated with furnaces that are roughly twice as large as they need to be, if your present aged furnace has a rating of 100,000 BTUH input, a fake 100,000 BTUH input coal stove (properly situated, and capable of dispersing the heat properly) should be just what the doctor ordered.
- McGiever
- Member
- Posts: 10130
- Joined: Sun. May. 02, 2010 11:26 pm
- Location: Junction of PA-OH-WV
- Stoker Coal Boiler: AXEMAN-ANDERSON 130 "1959"
- Hand Fed Coal Boiler: BUCKET A DAY water heater
- Hand Fed Coal Stove: Warm Morning 414A
- Coal Size/Type: PEA,NUT,STOVE /ANTHRACITE
- Other Heating: Ground Source Heat Pump and some Solar
Besides all the coal and ash handling there is the effective distribution of any heat produced to make the comfort level universally suitable within the cubic space occupied by 3 floors with high ceilings.JTM527 wrote: ↑Fri. Sep. 07, 2018 3:28 pmHello Everyone,
I am a first time poster, and am planning on putting in my first coal stove this winter. I have a very large 3000 sq ft old Victorian, built in the 1800's, three stories, with high ceilings, in Upstate NY. I am planning on placing the stove on the ground floor in one of the rooms near the center of the house.
There is an old decrepit oil burning boiler in the basement that I don't like to use, and my house is not set up for a furnace, which is why I am leaning toward the radiant stove.
A single centrally located stove such as discussed above would be hard pressed to rival the distribution of that decrepit boiler.
What size would that boiler be for comparison?
How many gallons of oil does it take to heat for one season?
Are the exterior walls and ceiling insulated?
On a side note: burning 105 pounds of coal is equal to burning 9 gallons of heating oil...
The boiler is not really an option, kept needing service my first winter in the house. I had put in a quadrafire pellet stove that I used as my primary heat source. The pellet stove puts out 45000 BTUs, and is enough to keep the house acceptably warm until the weather drops below 0. After the boiler started giving up the ghost, I bought two kerosene heaters to go along with the pellet stove, and that got me through winter. If I can get a 100000 btu stove, I think I should be good, I just need more info on burn time.
While the house has 3 stories, top story is attic, which I don't use. 2nd story is bedrooms, which I don't start to heat until after I go to bed, because I prefer sleeping in a colder environment, so the stove would really only have to heat the first floor (1500 sq ft) full time, and I'd heat both two stories overnight.
Walls and ceilings have been insulated. Again, if anyone has insight on burn time to answer my question, it would be greatly appreciated, and if anyone has owned both models, please chime in.
While the house has 3 stories, top story is attic, which I don't use. 2nd story is bedrooms, which I don't start to heat until after I go to bed, because I prefer sleeping in a colder environment, so the stove would really only have to heat the first floor (1500 sq ft) full time, and I'd heat both two stories overnight.
Walls and ceilings have been insulated. Again, if anyone has insight on burn time to answer my question, it would be greatly appreciated, and if anyone has owned both models, please chime in.
- oliver power
- Member
- Posts: 2970
- Joined: Sun. Apr. 16, 2006 9:28 am
- Location: Near Dansville, NY
- Stoker Coal Boiler: KEYSTOKER Kaa-2
- Hand Fed Coal Stove: Hitzer 50-93 & 30-95, Vigilant (pre-2310), D.S. 1600 Circulator, Hitzer 254
Why not pull the oil boiler, and install a coal fired boiler? As long as all your piping is good, I would think a simple coal fired boiler would be the answer. Especially if your house is cut up.
I had a 50-93 in the basement, heating the upstairs (3400 total square feet). It did a fine job for being a stove, at one end of a 65' basement. The other end of the basement (and house) were a little cooler, but not bad for a stove rated to heat 2500 square feet. I have very high regards for the HITZER 50-93. It's a Great stove.
I eventually installed the smallest keystoker boiler. Every inch of the house, from one end, to the other, is evenly heated, using a little less coal.
With the stove in the basement, the basement temp was about 10* hotter than the living quarters, and varied from one end, to the other. With the boiler, it's the other way around. The basement is about 8* cooler than the living quarters, and same temp throughout. The boiler uses the same chimney as the stove, at one end of the basement.
The HITZER 82 reminds me of a utility stove. No experience with the 82. However, HITZER rates it the same as the 50-93. 50-93 has a top feed hopper, and blower.
Where do you live in upstate, NY?
I had a 50-93 in the basement, heating the upstairs (3400 total square feet). It did a fine job for being a stove, at one end of a 65' basement. The other end of the basement (and house) were a little cooler, but not bad for a stove rated to heat 2500 square feet. I have very high regards for the HITZER 50-93. It's a Great stove.
I eventually installed the smallest keystoker boiler. Every inch of the house, from one end, to the other, is evenly heated, using a little less coal.
With the stove in the basement, the basement temp was about 10* hotter than the living quarters, and varied from one end, to the other. With the boiler, it's the other way around. The basement is about 8* cooler than the living quarters, and same temp throughout. The boiler uses the same chimney as the stove, at one end of the basement.
The HITZER 82 reminds me of a utility stove. No experience with the 82. However, HITZER rates it the same as the 50-93. 50-93 has a top feed hopper, and blower.
Where do you live in upstate, NY?
- McGiever
- Member
- Posts: 10130
- Joined: Sun. May. 02, 2010 11:26 pm
- Location: Junction of PA-OH-WV
- Stoker Coal Boiler: AXEMAN-ANDERSON 130 "1959"
- Hand Fed Coal Boiler: BUCKET A DAY water heater
- Hand Fed Coal Stove: Warm Morning 414A
- Coal Size/Type: PEA,NUT,STOVE /ANTHRACITE
- Other Heating: Ground Source Heat Pump and some Solar
Burn times are as was already stated.
Hitzer 50-35 hold 50 lbs when loaded. Hitzer 82 hold 82 lbs.
Hitzer 50-35 hold 50 lbs when loaded. Hitzer 82 hold 82 lbs.
- lsayre
- Member
- Posts: 21781
- Joined: Wed. Nov. 23, 2005 9:17 pm
- Location: Ohio
- Stoker Coal Boiler: AHS S130 Coal Gun
- Coal Size/Type: Lehigh Anthracite Pea
- Other Heating: Resistance Boiler (13.5 KW), ComfortMax 75
To output an honest 45,000 BTUH a pellet stove would need to burn somewhere between 7 and 8 lbs. of pellets per hour. Call it 180 lbs. burned per day for sustained 45,000 BTUH output such as on the single coldest day of the year.
Were you really getting a sustained output of 45,000 BTUH on the very coldest day(s) of the year? This is the exact same question as asking, were you really burning 180 lbs. of pellets per day on the very coldest day(s) of the year?
Stoves by themselves do not deliver BTU's. Fuel burned within a stove over measured periods of time does that. All of the heat initially resides within the fuel. You can only get out what is put in times the efficiency of the stove (and efficiencies are overrated, just as are BTU claims). Evaluating this critically will help you decide how much stove you will actually need to heat your house.
As to efficiency, for both pellets and coal I would initially lop off about 10-15% from most manufacturer claims. For example, if they claim 90% efficiency (achieved over short periods of time under the absolutely most ideally perfect burning conditions imaginable), in the real world you will probably get 75-80% efficiency over the long haul. For conventional wood burning I would initially lop off 20-30% from manufacturer efficiency claims.
Were you really getting a sustained output of 45,000 BTUH on the very coldest day(s) of the year? This is the exact same question as asking, were you really burning 180 lbs. of pellets per day on the very coldest day(s) of the year?
Stoves by themselves do not deliver BTU's. Fuel burned within a stove over measured periods of time does that. All of the heat initially resides within the fuel. You can only get out what is put in times the efficiency of the stove (and efficiencies are overrated, just as are BTU claims). Evaluating this critically will help you decide how much stove you will actually need to heat your house.
As to efficiency, for both pellets and coal I would initially lop off about 10-15% from most manufacturer claims. For example, if they claim 90% efficiency (achieved over short periods of time under the absolutely most ideally perfect burning conditions imaginable), in the real world you will probably get 75-80% efficiency over the long haul. For conventional wood burning I would initially lop off 20-30% from manufacturer efficiency claims.
- warminmn
- Member
- Posts: 8208
- Joined: Tue. Feb. 08, 2011 5:59 pm
- Location: Land of 11,842 lakes
- Hand Fed Coal Stove: Chubby Junior, Riteway 37
- Coal Size/Type: nut and stove anthracite, lignite
- Other Heating: Wood and wear a wool shirt
It sounds like either of the large Hitzers will suit your needs. Of the 2 I'd get the 50-93 if given the choice just because it will be easier to tend and it has a large window to see the coal burning.
-
- Member
- Posts: 33
- Joined: Thu. May. 07, 2015 12:51 pm
- Location: NY Columbia County
- Stoker Coal Boiler: 1982 efm df520
- Coal Size/Type: Cornwall rice
- Other Heating: VC winterwarm wood
When A prospective coal convert inquires about the merits of hand fed versus hopper, versus stoker, The do it once,
do it right chorus sings the praises of a dual fuel stoker boiler install. Tending once a day or less, endless domestic hot
water, and the oil backup makes the initial investment an easy choice. I will be the lead tenor of that choir, and sure the rest will join in soon! An existing hydronic system gives you big head start, Happy heater hunting.
do it right chorus sings the praises of a dual fuel stoker boiler install. Tending once a day or less, endless domestic hot
water, and the oil backup makes the initial investment an easy choice. I will be the lead tenor of that choir, and sure the rest will join in soon! An existing hydronic system gives you big head start, Happy heater hunting.
- lsayre
- Member
- Posts: 21781
- Joined: Wed. Nov. 23, 2005 9:17 pm
- Location: Ohio
- Stoker Coal Boiler: AHS S130 Coal Gun
- Coal Size/Type: Lehigh Anthracite Pea
- Other Heating: Resistance Boiler (13.5 KW), ComfortMax 75
Don't quote me on this, but for some reason it seems that I have read somewhere (on this forum perhaps) that the Hitzer 82 has a history of some rather nasty puff-backs associated with it if not tended properly. The 50-93 does not seem to have this issue.
- Rob R.
- Site Moderator
- Posts: 18009
- Joined: Fri. Dec. 28, 2007 4:26 pm
- Location: Chazy, NY
- Stoker Coal Boiler: EFM 520
- Hand Fed Coal Stove: Chubby Jr
We have both stoves in the family, and I can only see the 50-93 beating the 82 if the blower was being used. If just using each stove as a radiant stove with no electrical power, I think the 82 would put out more heat.
If was looking for a heating monster to put in the basement, it would be the Model 82.
If I had to pick a stove to put in the living room, it would be the 50-93. Unlike the 82, you can shake the grates with the ash door closed (less dust). The hopper design of the 50-93 also makes it less prone to puff backs.
If was looking for a heating monster to put in the basement, it would be the Model 82.
If I had to pick a stove to put in the living room, it would be the 50-93. Unlike the 82, you can shake the grates with the ash door closed (less dust). The hopper design of the 50-93 also makes it less prone to puff backs.
- freetown fred
- Member
- Posts: 30302
- Joined: Thu. Dec. 31, 2009 12:33 pm
- Location: Freetown,NY 13803
- Hand Fed Coal Stove: HITZER 50-93
- Coal Size/Type: BLASCHAK Nut
A big PLUS 1 on that!!!
- oliver power
- Member
- Posts: 2970
- Joined: Sun. Apr. 16, 2006 9:28 am
- Location: Near Dansville, NY
- Stoker Coal Boiler: KEYSTOKER Kaa-2
- Hand Fed Coal Stove: Hitzer 50-93 & 30-95, Vigilant (pre-2310), D.S. 1600 Circulator, Hitzer 254
Actually, I believe the 50-93 will take 80 pounds of coal to reach the bottom of the hopper. Then another good 40 (maybe 50) pounds to fill the hopper.
The 50-93, (Like most hand fired coal stoves) gets tended every 12 hours. It will reach out 18 hours if needed.
I too agree with Rob R.'s reply. The 50-93 fan would have to be on in order to really crank the heat. I always ran my 50-93 fan low as possible, as not to strain the fan motor. That's all that's needed. The smaller diameter, duel fan on the 50-93 is fairly quiet.
From what I've read, and been told, the 82 will crank the heat ok. However, it's too much stove for the shoulder months. The 50-93 covers a wide range. From fan on, cranking out the heat, to fan off, and simmering.
I know we have HITZER 82 members. Where are you?