My new(ish) Glenwood Base Heater #6

 
User avatar
joeq
Member
Posts: 5763
Joined: Sat. Feb. 11, 2012 11:53 am
Location: Northern CT
Hand Fed Coal Stove: G111, Southard Robertson

Post by joeq » Sat. Jan. 20, 2024 9:28 pm

oldpaddy wrote:
Sat. Jan. 06, 2024 10:09 am
Did I read somewhere that this stove can use stove coal? If it does, what would be the benefits of using it?
Not sure if anyone has answered this, but the size of the stove coal, (bigger) doesn't pack in the pot so tightly, allowing more air to flow thru, meaning a hotter fire. But will also burn out quicker. Good for restarting a fresh pot of fuel, or on extremely cold days, (and nights). Nut coal packs in tighter, will burn longer, and can be kept at a lower temp. longer. Good for shoulder months, or oats that don't require as much heat. My 111 will burn a bag of coal a day, whether it's warm or cold out, when my dampers are set the same. But in the late winter, as things begin to thaw, I can set my stove down low, (with nut coal) and it'll burn less coal longer. With stove size, it won't run as long, or low. At least that's how my stove operates. Love the way stove burns in mine, and is chugging away now.
Just caught your thread, and congrats on a perfect stove. Also congrats to Doug for another antique sale. :yes:
(Wonder if he still has that 270 Stewart Oak.... :annoyed: )


 
oldpaddy
Member
Posts: 83
Joined: Sat. Nov. 07, 2009 10:29 am
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Mohawk Industries Temp Coal II

Post by oldpaddy » Sat. Feb. 10, 2024 5:21 am

joeq wrote:
Sat. Jan. 20, 2024 9:28 pm
Not sure if anyone has answered this, but the size of the stove coal, (bigger) doesn't pack in the pot so tightly, allowing more air to flow thru, meaning a hotter fire. But will also burn out quicker. Good for restarting a fresh pot of fuel, or on extremely cold days, (and nights). Nut coal packs in tighter, will burn longer, and can be kept at a lower temp. longer. Good for shoulder months, or oats that don't require as much heat. My 111 will burn a bag of coal a day, whether it's warm or cold out, when my dampers are set the same. But in the late winter, as things begin to thaw, I can set my stove down low, (with nut coal) and it'll burn less coal longer. With stove size, it won't run as long, or low. At least that's how my stove operates. Love the way stove burns in mine, and is chugging away now.
Just caught your thread, and congrats on a perfect stove. Also congrats to Doug for another antique sale. :yes:
(Wonder if he still has that 270 Stewart Oak.... :annoyed: )
Thanks! That's some great info.

It's a great stove and a great shop. Considering what beat up old stoves look like, Doug does amazing work. The man is an artist. You'd never guess the stove is 90-120 years old.

 
User avatar
dlj
Member
Posts: 1277
Joined: Thu. Nov. 27, 2008 6:38 pm
Location: Warwick, NY
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Vermont Castings Resolute
Baseburners & Antiques: Glenwood Baseheater #6
Coal Size/Type: Stove coal
Other Heating: Oil Furnace, electric space heaters

Post by dlj » Thu. May. 16, 2024 1:55 pm

oldpaddy wrote:
Sat. Jan. 06, 2024 10:09 am
Did I read somewhere that this stove can use stove coal? If it does, what would be the benefits of using it?
I use exclusively stove coal in my #6. I find it burns better, allows achieving a greater range of temperatures more quickly and lasts a long time.

dj

 
User avatar
dlj
Member
Posts: 1277
Joined: Thu. Nov. 27, 2008 6:38 pm
Location: Warwick, NY
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Vermont Castings Resolute
Baseburners & Antiques: Glenwood Baseheater #6
Coal Size/Type: Stove coal
Other Heating: Oil Furnace, electric space heaters

Post by dlj » Thu. May. 16, 2024 2:05 pm

joeq wrote:
Sat. Jan. 20, 2024 9:28 pm
Not sure if anyone has answered this, but the size of the stove coal, (bigger) doesn't pack in the pot so tightly, allowing more air to flow thru, meaning a hotter fire. But will also burn out quicker. Good for restarting a fresh pot of fuel, or on extremely cold days, (and nights). Nut coal packs in tighter, will burn longer, and can be kept at a lower temp. longer. Good for shoulder months, or oats that don't require as much heat.
I quite disagree. I found using nut coal to be harder to control, harder to keep going well. I did not find that it burned longer.

Using stove coal I find the stove to be very responsive. If I want to heat the place up, easy, open the dampers. If I want to run it lower, close them up.

I can run it very low in temperature so can and have used it in the shoulder months easily. As far as burning out quicker, I have gotten 18 hour burn times in the dead of winter and still keep the fire going and house nice and warm. In shoulder months, I've gotten about 23 hours of burn time - without loosing the fire.

More commonly I fill after 12 to 14 hours of burn time as that way there is no fluctuation of temperature in the house. I've owned this stove for over 50 years. Fabulous heater!

dj

 
User avatar
tcalo
Member
Posts: 2078
Joined: Tue. Dec. 13, 2011 4:57 pm
Location: Long Island, New York
Baseburners & Antiques: Crawford 40
Coal Size/Type: Nut/stove anthracite

Post by tcalo » Sun. May. 19, 2024 8:30 am

I agree with Joe on this one. Although stove style and setup may contribute to burn temp and time. I used both stove and nut in my C40 with noticeable differences. I do like the stove coal, I found it very responsive. I couldn’t idle the stove down quite as low and burn times were a bit shorter. The burn times weren’t much of a factor for me since I never run the stove very hot, but the low burn was tough to deal with. Pushing the stove through the warm spells on stove coal kept the house a bit on the warm side. Sadly, I can no longer get stove coal in my area!!

 
User avatar
Sunny Boy
Member
Posts: 25995
Joined: Mon. Nov. 11, 2013 1:40 pm
Location: Central NY
Hand Fed Coal Boiler: Anthracite Industrial, domestic hot water heater
Baseburners & Antiques: Glenwood range 208, # 6 base heater, 2 Modern Oak 118.
Coal Size/Type: Nuts !
Other Heating: Oil &electric plenum furnace

Post by Sunny Boy » Sun. May. 19, 2024 9:51 am

Also agree Joe.

Ran 500 lbs of Blaschak and a ton of Lehigh bagged stove in both the Glenwood range and the GW #6 base heater and yes, it is more responsive to changes in damper settings, but burn times were shorter for the same running temps as when using just nut coal.

Stove was ok during the day in the range because we change the temps for cooking/baking, but at night and dampered-down it ran almost two hours less than when it was filled with nut coal. And that is almost exactly equal to the 10% less coal density by weight in the firebox than with nut coal.

In the GW #6 I could not use the magazine because the stove coal was prone to jamming in it. So that made tending take longer. Plus, loaded to the top of the firebricks/fire pot, the stove coal measures 10% less by weight than filled to the same point with nut coal, so it would not burn as long as nut at the same output temps.

Another problem was the triangular grates in both stoves are the same size and had a tougher time breaking up and passing stove sized clinkers.

Paul

 
Hoytman
Member
Posts: 6120
Joined: Wed. Jan. 18, 2017 11:30 pm
Location: swOH near a little town where the homes are mobile and the cars aren’t
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Hitzer 354
Coal Size/Type: nut coal
Other Heating: electric, wood, oil

Post by Hoytman » Sat. May. 25, 2024 5:48 pm

So by that logic, that explains why one certain Amish worker at Hitzer prefers pea coal over nut….although less responsive even longer burn times than with nut coal.

I guess 10 bags wasn’t enough to get the hang of burning pea coal and I can see that now. Looks like I need to spend an entire season burning pea to better learn how to use it in my stove & home application. Although I’d be willing to try it for a season in my 354 I am almost certain burning it in a 254 or 30-95 would prove better results for my application.


 
waytomany?s
Member
Posts: 4301
Joined: Fri. Aug. 16, 2019 3:02 pm
Location: Oneida, N.Y.
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Harmon Mark II
Hand Fed Coal Furnace: Looking
Baseburners & Antiques: Looking
Coal Size/Type: Nut
Other Heating: newmac wood/coal combo furnace

Post by waytomany?s » Sat. May. 25, 2024 5:51 pm

Hoytman wrote:
Sat. May. 25, 2024 5:48 pm
So by that logic, that explains why one certain Amish worker at Hitzer prefers pea coal over nut….although less responsive even longer burn times than with nut coal.

I guess 10 bags wasn’t enough to get the hang of burning pea coal and I can see that now. Looks like I need to spend an entire season burning pea to better learn how to use it in my stove & home application. Although I’d be willing to try it for a season in my 354 I am almost certain burning it in a 254 or 30-95 would prove better results for my application.
I think you will have a harder time than you have had running pea. Have you tried stove at all?

 
Hoytman
Member
Posts: 6120
Joined: Wed. Jan. 18, 2017 11:30 pm
Location: swOH near a little town where the homes are mobile and the cars aren’t
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Hitzer 354
Coal Size/Type: nut coal
Other Heating: electric, wood, oil

Post by Hoytman » Sat. May. 25, 2024 6:11 pm

waytomany?s wrote:
Sat. May. 25, 2024 5:51 pm
I think you will have a harder time than you have had running pea. Have you tried stove at all?
Never seen any at Hitzer.

…and I don’t disagree. That’s why I said I’d have better luck, I think, in the smaller stoves. You agree?

 
User avatar
dlj
Member
Posts: 1277
Joined: Thu. Nov. 27, 2008 6:38 pm
Location: Warwick, NY
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Vermont Castings Resolute
Baseburners & Antiques: Glenwood Baseheater #6
Coal Size/Type: Stove coal
Other Heating: Oil Furnace, electric space heaters

Post by dlj » Sun. Jun. 02, 2024 7:44 pm

tcalo wrote:
Sun. May. 19, 2024 8:30 am
I agree with Joe on this one. Although stove style and setup may contribute to burn temp and time. I used both stove and nut in my C40 with noticeable differences. I do like the stove coal, I found it very responsive. I couldn’t idle the stove down quite as low and burn times were a bit shorter. The burn times weren’t much of a factor for me since I never run the stove very hot, but the low burn was tough to deal with. Pushing the stove through the warm spells on stove coal kept the house a bit on the warm side. Sadly, I can no longer get stove coal in my area!!
I wonder how tight your stove is. Mine is quite tight. I can almost put the fire out by turning all the dampers off. If you have a leaky stove, I can see how you could have that kind of outcome. When these stoves a well maintained and in good shape, the fire control is amazing.

I've run my stove in 50 degree temps outside and controlled the fire perfectly well.

dj

 
User avatar
Sunny Boy
Member
Posts: 25995
Joined: Mon. Nov. 11, 2013 1:40 pm
Location: Central NY
Hand Fed Coal Boiler: Anthracite Industrial, domestic hot water heater
Baseburners & Antiques: Glenwood range 208, # 6 base heater, 2 Modern Oak 118.
Coal Size/Type: Nuts !
Other Heating: Oil &electric plenum furnace

Post by Sunny Boy » Mon. Jun. 03, 2024 9:28 am

Hoytman wrote:
Sat. May. 25, 2024 5:48 pm
So by that logic, that explains why one certain Amish worker at Hitzer prefers pea coal over nut….although less responsive even longer burn times than with nut coal.

I guess 10 bags wasn’t enough to get the hang of burning pea coal and I can see that now. Looks like I need to spend an entire season burning pea to better learn how to use it in my stove & home application. Although I’d be willing to try it for a season in my 354 I am almost certain burning it in a 254 or 30-95 would prove better results for my application.
I haven't measured or used pea coal, but I have run a lot of stove and nut in both my kitchen range and my GW #6 base heater. I've measured the capacity of both fireboxes by weight multiple times with both Lehigh and Blaschak bagged. Also measuring using a bucket filled to the same level. Also kept track of how long before needing to refuel each. There is an almost exactly ten percent difference in weight between those two sizes, which equates to 10% difference in energy density in the firebox and burn times.

I used a few hundred pounds of the Blaschak bagged stove, and a ton of the Lehigh bagged stove to give both the range and the GW#6 a good long test.

The range will burn almost two hours longer filled with nut than with stove size. With the GW#6 I found it didn't matter which size because ash buildup that started to effect heat output was what determined when it was a need for tending not the lack of fuel. And since the stove coal jams when I installed the GW size magazine, I stopped buying stove coal.

With the kitchen range we vary the size of nut coal a lot during the day. I dig out a higher concentration of the bigger chunks of nut during the day to get quicker higher temps for cooking/baking, and mostly smaller chunks at night to get longer burn times.

Mayor Richard said he used to sell "range coal" - a mix of pea and nut - to some of his customers wanting longer burn times. Something to consider instead of straight nut or pea ? The mix with some larger chucks help hold the pea coal on grates meant more for nut coal size.

https://coalpail.com/coal-heating-encyclopedia/an ... coal-sizes

Paul

 
User avatar
dlj
Member
Posts: 1277
Joined: Thu. Nov. 27, 2008 6:38 pm
Location: Warwick, NY
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Vermont Castings Resolute
Baseburners & Antiques: Glenwood Baseheater #6
Coal Size/Type: Stove coal
Other Heating: Oil Furnace, electric space heaters

Post by dlj » Tue. Jun. 04, 2024 9:35 pm

Sunny Boy wrote:
Mon. Jun. 03, 2024 9:28 am
I haven't measured or used pea coal, but I have run a lot of stove and nut in both my kitchen range and my GW #6 base heater. I've measured the capacity of both fireboxes by weight multiple times with both Lehigh and Blaschak bagged. Also measuring using a bucket filled to the same level. Also kept track of how long before needing to refuel each. There is an almost exactly ten percent difference in weight between those two sizes, which equates to 10% difference in energy density in the firebox and burn times.

I used a few hundred pounds of the Blaschak bagged stove, and a ton of the Lehigh bagged stove to give both the range and the GW#6 a good long test.

The range will burn almost two hours longer filled with nut than with stove size. With the GW#6 I found it didn't matter which size because ash buildup that started to effect heat output was what determined when it was a need for tending not the lack of fuel. And since the stove coal jams when I installed the GW size magazine, I stopped buying stove coal.

With the kitchen range we vary the size of nut coal a lot during the day. I dig out a higher concentration of the bigger chunks of nut during the day to get quicker higher temps for cooking/baking, and mostly smaller chunks at night to get longer burn times.

Mayor Richard said he used to sell "range coal" - a mix of pea and nut - to some of his customers wanting longer burn times. Something to consider instead of straight nut or pea ? The mix with some larger chucks help hold the pea coal on grates meant more for nut coal size.

https://coalpail.com/coal-heating-encyclopedia/an ... coal-sizes

Paul
I've run nut, stove, and a mixture of the two in my GW#6. I found that nut ashed up more, was far less responsive and was generally more of a pain to run in this stove that stove coal. I've not had problems with stove in my magazine, usually. Sometimes it gets stuck but not enough to care much. I also don't really like running the magazine compared to having it removed. I find the only time it feels advantageous is when running very consistent 12 hour cycles. Meaning shaking and refilling every 12 hours.

I was actually quite disappointed with the performance of the magazine. If I want a really long burn time, then I can just as easily heap up the coal in the stove, well beyond what can be done with the magazine in place. It also makes it pretty close to impossible to burn wood in the stove. I do use both fuels.

The inflexibility running nut coal in this stove I found to be quite irritating. I was using the stove to heat my entire house. I needed a pretty high amount of heat output, especially on cold winter days. Nut coal couldn't produce the heat I needed. Perhaps if you don't need the heat output, and want very long burn times, perhaps nut coal will give you what you want. I did not find it sufficiently adequate for my usage. Stove coal was head and shoulders better to use in this stove. At one time I was working really long hours. I'd come home to tend the stove after being away 16 to 18 hours. In really cold weather, the house would have dropped a bit in temperature, but I could simply shake, fill, and get the stove back up to good temps. Nut coal would not have been able to produce the temps needed to keep the house comfortably warm. My kids would have revolted...

I guess if you don't need a lot of heat output, nut coal could work. I didn't like it.

dj

 
User avatar
Sunny Boy
Member
Posts: 25995
Joined: Mon. Nov. 11, 2013 1:40 pm
Location: Central NY
Hand Fed Coal Boiler: Anthracite Industrial, domestic hot water heater
Baseburners & Antiques: Glenwood range 208, # 6 base heater, 2 Modern Oak 118.
Coal Size/Type: Nuts !
Other Heating: Oil &electric plenum furnace

Post by Sunny Boy » Tue. Jun. 04, 2024 11:37 pm

I have no problems with nut coal heating. I have a huge uninsulated 17 room Victorian with tall ceilings and 55 large windows. I use the GW to heat the front half of the first floor which is about 2000 sqf. The range handles the back half and my bedroom above the kitchen.

With stove coal the magazine would jam about every 3 fillings. A few of the jams would not work lose - even poking with a thin steel rod. I had to take out the coal from the magazine top to reach the jam which is always at the narrowest point near the bottom of the magazine's taper. It has never jammed using nut coal in the 6-1/2 seasons I've been using it with the magazine.

I much prefer the magazine because it cuts the 12 hour tending times down to less than ten minutes to shake ash, refill the magazine, empty the ash pan and reset the dampers. The tending times when I don't need to empty ash then it's only about five minutes to shake, refill and reset the dampers. Without the magazine it took more than twice as long to shovel in and refill by layers. No need to worry about puffbacks with the magazine because the coal feeding from it is well preheated and outgassed by the time it gets to the firebed.

I also found that when stove coal gets clinkers, because of the size of the Glenwood triangular grates they have a much tougher time breaking up those clinkers before they get too hard and restitch shaking ash as the accumulate on the grates. With nut coal any clinkers that form are a better size for those grates to crumble and dump.

Paul

 
Hoytman
Member
Posts: 6120
Joined: Wed. Jan. 18, 2017 11:30 pm
Location: swOH near a little town where the homes are mobile and the cars aren’t
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Hitzer 354
Coal Size/Type: nut coal
Other Heating: electric, wood, oil

Post by Hoytman » Thu. Jun. 06, 2024 4:12 pm

When bragging or complaining about nut coal I am of the opinion that one needs to consider from year to year factors can he different. That not only been my experience in 4 years burning nut it’s a factor that can be visually seen.

That is, over 4-6 tons in 4 years burning I have found bagged nut coal sizing to vary quite a bit from back to bag…not all over the map, rather on the small side or on the bigger side, whether Blashak or TSC. Of course, that’s not a lot of tonnage to make a “final” judgement from, but it has me wondering if the (basically 2) sizes of bagged nut coal I’ve been seeing will remain consistently varying over the course of the next several years. If it does, then the sizing and variance from bag-to-bag is quite odd to me. A bag is either consistently smaller, or consistently bigger, and very little pieces in-between in the bag. I’m finding it very hard to describe what I see bag-to-bag…pictures would help. Maybe I’ll do that sometime. Right now I have other things to do.

 
User avatar
joeq
Member
Posts: 5763
Joined: Sat. Feb. 11, 2012 11:53 am
Location: Northern CT
Hand Fed Coal Stove: G111, Southard Robertson

Post by joeq » Thu. Jun. 06, 2024 5:58 pm

"Bragging, or complaining, Bill?". LOL. (Funny guy)
I'm thinking we're just mentioning the performance from our own perspective. More factual, than anything else. We all know about different installations, and locations can vary results, from one to another, but coal "sizing"? A comment above was questioning the burn time characteristics, comparing nut, and stove. As for company's coal varying in size, within a certain coal, (pea, nut, stove, ect.), I'm not so sure how common that is. I've heard "complaints" about certain mines containing more fines, than others, and naturally, there will be differences amongst each individual piece of coal, but can't say I've noticed it to an extreme extent. I will say in my own experience, (which is minimal) Blaschack seems to be the cleanest, and consistent, (pea and nut is all I've been able to acquire), and TSC is W/O a doubt the worst I've ever had, and in this area, they refuse to cater to the customers, when it comes to coal supplying. But over the years, I'm sure they've had different mines where they purchase from. Not sure where it comes from now-a-days.


Post Reply

Return to “Antiques, Baseburners, Kitchen Stoves, Restorations & Modern Reproductions”