Glenwood No.6 Base Pan.

dhansen · Post by **dhansen** » Tue. Oct. 01, 2013 12:02 pm

franco b wrote:You can do a lot with epoxy and fiberglass to piece that back together and even add some judicious strengthening at critical spots. It just has to be strong enough to form a pattern they can use. Could be stronger than original.

Nice clear pictures.

I'm hoping that this might be an option. I've sent the photos to Tomahawk so we'll see what they think. I'm still a little concerned about shrinkage and how the new part would fit up to the stove. There is also the issue of warpage in the flat center section but I might be able to fair that out.

Post by **franco b** » Tue. Oct. 01, 2013 12:18 pm

Found It !! My 'Royal Bride' Restoration Thread

Look at this on making the pattern for a new fire pot. A lot harder than piecing your parts together.

dhansen · Post by **dhansen** » Tue. Oct. 01, 2013 9:17 pm

franco b wrote:Found It !! My 'Royal Bride' Restoration Thread

Look at this on making the pattern for a new fire pot. A lot harder than piecing your parts together.

Excellent work.

Post by **dcrane** » Wed. Oct. 02, 2013 4:31 am

yea... wanna bee impressed the hell of me with that thread (now you see why pattern makers make the big $$$), it requires the patients and attention to detail of a saint (but their are many examples here of folks who do exactly this!)

dhansen · Post by **dhansen** » Fri. Oct. 04, 2013 8:43 pm

The good folks at Tomahawk Foundry looked over my photos and thought the best way to go about replacing my parts will be to try reworking my stuff to use as patterns. Will need to consider that option. Biggest challenge will be making sure the upper half of the base burning chamber will still align with the existing stove after shrinkage from casting.

Still lots to learn here.

nortcan · Post by **nortcan** » Fri. Oct. 04, 2013 9:10 pm

And like Franco said before , if possible to have a model with reinforcement at the less strong places. Maybe more metal under the base and exterior so that wouldn't change the metal to metal fit.

dhansen · Post by **dhansen** » Sat. Oct. 05, 2013 9:35 am

nortcan wrote:And like Franco said before , if possible to have a model with reinforcement at the less strong places. Maybe more metal under the base and exterior so that wouldn't change the metal to metal fit.

Yes, the parts do need to be made stronger. The scary part is making sure the new top half of the bottom pan assembly will still mate with the bottom of the stove after shrinking. I've got to determine exactly how the two pieces fit together. That will have to wait until I fully disassemble the stove.

The bottom half and the top half should fit together without issue assuming they will both shrink close to the same amount.

Post by **franco b** » Sat. Oct. 05, 2013 10:01 am

I think the shrinkage is about 1/8 inch per foot. So you add that to the outside dimension and you can fine tune with a grinder later on. Probably on an inner channel. nothing there is a precision fit or has to be, even when new.

dhansen · Post by **dhansen** » Sun. Oct. 06, 2013 8:38 am

1/8" per foot seems to be the standard estimate. If both of the pieces I'm needing recast are internal to their mating surface, I think it will be easy. I've got a lot to do right now so I can't give the No.6 much time. I do need to finish taking it apart though to get it out of the way.

wilsons woodstoves · Post by **wilsons woodstoves** » Fri. Jan. 17, 2014 1:53 pm

I have delt with this many times, even recast a bottom pan once, long story . I now make a bottom pan out of steel, looks like orig am now ading small brackets on sides for added support. ash pit can be fixed.welded, spliced etc.lot of woork but in the end you fix the only flaw the GBH#6 has. nice pics. hows the rear oval flange, another minor problem. good luck on a worthwile project. wilson

Sunny Boy · Post by **Sunny Boy** » Fri. Jan. 17, 2014 2:26 pm

Depending on how the pan fits into the stove, something else that may work, after the broken part is glued back together . . . .

What I've seen some foundry's do to compensate for shrinkage, when using original parts as the pattern, is coat the part with a couple of spayed-on coats of thick epoxy paint. But that's for rough castings that are going to get finish work for plating, such as door handles being cast in brass.

If you want the part to be smooth, epoxy clogs sand paper very quickly. However, a high-build spray-on finish that is easy to sand is polyester sander/surface primer. It's available at any autobody supply house. It goes on thick and several coats should get the piece close to being over-sized enough. You can also build it up with more successive coats on edges to add to width of the pan if needed. Once it cures (within minutes), it can be easily sanded smooth without clogging sand paper like epoxies do.

That not only may allow for shrinkage across the piece, having several coats on both the top and bottom will also make it thicker to gain strength.

Paul

Sunny Boy · Post by **Sunny Boy** » Fri. Jan. 17, 2014 2:46 pm

I didn't see the pictures until after my last post. Looking at those base pan pictures, if it were mine, I'd clean and epoxy it back together.

Then I'd cut the pans near their center lines into quarters.

Then, based on the foundry's recommendation of how much to compensate, I'd widen the saw kerf gaps to the correct width to compensate for shrinkage and mask the underside of all the kerfs to that width.

Add a filler to the epoxy, such as find saw dust, talc, or flour to thicken it, and slightly over fill the saw-kerf with the thickened epoxy. Put another layer of masking tape over it to keep it from draining out of the side kerfs down into the flat areas. Then let it set up.

When it's well cured - after about a week - sand the tape and epoxy flush with the cast iron.

That should compensate for shrinkage in the flat plain and keep the corner bolt flanges close to original position when the new piece is cast.

You could then spray on several coats of the polyester primer/surfacer to build up the pan thickness for strength, then sand as smooth as you like.

Paul

wilsons woodstoves · Post by **wilsons woodstoves** » Fri. Jan. 17, 2014 8:11 pm

Dennis I have recast the bottom pan some time ago a lot of work just to get to use it. shrinks up to 1/4 a foot at times. I have been making them out of steel alittle work but bullitproof. I am about to restore a #6 and the pan is repairable ,will sell it as I do not use the original anymore. to me the ash pit pan can be the problem. stay warm, wilson

dhansen · Post by **dhansen** » Fri. Jan. 17, 2014 10:14 pm

Lots of No.6 talk lately. I've been thinking about getting going again on mine. Both of you, Paul and Mr. Wilson, are having the same thoughts as I have had. Both fabricating a replacement out of steel and reworking my pieces to create a pattern. I have metal fabrication experience and as a boat builder more than enough experience with epoxy. I have no doubt that I can turn my pieces into a pattern but I'm not sure how the parts would turn out. The thought did cross my mind that I could all but make new pieces from steel for the same amount of effort. I'd love to talk with you sometime Mr. Wilson to learn about your experiences.

I know some would argue that mixing steel components with cast iron parts is not a good thing due to different coefficients of expansion. Sounds like you've done just that Mr. Wilson. I think we need to talk! Maybe we can work a deal on the parts you have.

dlj · Post by **dlj** » Sat. Jan. 18, 2014 12:05 pm

dhansen wrote: I know some would argue that mixing steel components with cast iron parts is not a good thing due to different coefficients of expansion. Sounds like you've done just that Mr. Wilson. I think we need to talk! Maybe we can work a deal on the parts you have.

No real difference in coefficients of expansion... I wouldn't worry about that...

dj