William, Are You Planning a Video of Your Crawford 40?

Photog200 · Post by **Photog200** » Mon. Oct. 21, 2013 3:04 pm

William told me how efficient this stove would be because of the suspended pot. However, I had no idea just how much more efficient it would be nor how well it burned everything to fine ash. No more clinkers! You really do have to experience it for yourself to really understand just how much better these designs are. Thank you William for leading me in the right direction!
Randy

Post by **dcrane** » Mon. Oct. 21, 2013 4:20 pm

Photog200 wrote:William told me how efficient this stove would be because of the suspended pot. However, I had no idea just how much more efficient it would be nor how well it burned everything to fine ash. No more clinkers! You really do have to experience it for yourself to really understand just how much better these designs are. Thank you William for leading me in the right direction!
Randy

the savings on coal alone pays for these units in 2 years

Photog200 · Post by **Photog200** » Mon. Oct. 21, 2013 4:41 pm

dcrane wrote:
Photog200 wrote:William told me how efficient this stove would be because of the suspended pot. However, I had no idea just how much more efficient it would be nor how well it burned everything to fine ash. No more clinkers! You really do have to experience it for yourself to really understand just how much better these designs are. Thank you William for leading me in the right direction!
Randy
the savings on coal alone pays for these units in 2 years

I have been burning now for two weeks and burning an average of 1/2 to 3/4 of a coal scuttle every 24 hours. That's with the windows usually open as well.

BPatrick · Post by **BPatrick** » Mon. Oct. 21, 2013 4:57 pm

Guys, is the fact that the Crawford 40 is a recirculator the reason it burns so well or is it the suspended fire pot. My Herald Oak No.18 does a great job burning but it does get clinkers. Also, what is the idea behind a suspended pot and why is it better than the other designs. I'm asking all these questions as I thought the base burner recirculator was the reason for the efficiency of the stove. I see the size of this stove and think the fire pot would be huge. It doesn't seem to be bigger than My Herald No. 18- I want to make sure that this fire pot is big enough to get extended burn times and serious heat output. I've read several replies referring to all coal burns to a fine ash. Again, is this because of the base burner or because of the suspended fire pot. Thank for the information guys.

Photog200 · Post by **Photog200** » Mon. Oct. 21, 2013 5:07 pm

BPatrick wrote:Guys, is the fact that the Crawford 40 is a recirculator the reason it burns so well or is it the suspended fire pot. My Herald Oak No.18 does a great job burning but it does get clinkers. Also, what is the idea behind a suspended pot and why is it better than the other designs. I'm asking all these questions as I thought the base burner recirculator was the reason for the efficiency of the stove. I see the size of this stove and think the fire pot would be huge. It doesn't seem to be bigger than My Herald No. 18- I want to make sure that this fire pot is big enough to get extended burn times and serious heat output. I've read several replies referring to all coal burns to a fine ash. Again, is this because of the base burner or because of the suspended fire pot. Thank for the information guys.

I am sure William will respond to this question and I am sure he will be able to answer it better than I. This is my understanding though. The Crawford 40 and my Kineo 15 have both suspended fire pots and are baseburners. The main reason these stoves burn so efficiently is because the exhaust is pulled down around the firepot then down around the base...thus keeping the firepot warm. This is also another reason you hear guys tell you to line your fire pot, not just to extend the life of the pot but also to insulate the coal better. The baseburner part of the stove does give you full efficiency by keeping the exhaust in the stove longer and heating larger surface area of the stove.
Randy

BPatrick · Post by **BPatrick** » Tue. Oct. 22, 2013 10:06 am

Thanks Randy, I cannot wait to run the two stoves and compare, first hand, how differently they behave. Direct draft vs. base burner. I'm very interested on hearing William's thoughts on this as well.

SteveZee · Post by **SteveZee** » Tue. Oct. 22, 2013 11:34 am

BPatrick wrote:Guys, is the fact that the Crawford 40 is a recirculator the reason it burns so well or is it the suspended fire pot. My Herald Oak No.18 does a great job burning but it does get clinkers. Also, what is the idea behind a suspended pot and why is it better than the other designs. I'm asking all these questions as I thought the base burner recirculator was the reason for the efficiency of the stove. I see the size of this stove and think the fire pot would be huge. It doesn't seem to be bigger than My Herald No. 18- I want to make sure that this fire pot is big enough to get extended burn times and serious heat output. I've read several replies referring to all coal burns to a fine ash. Again, is this because of the base burner or because of the suspended fire pot. Thank for the information guys.

Clinckers are more a product of the minerals in the coal and burning at high temps than they are due to stove design. Direct draft stoves generally burn hotter and are a bit less efficient. My Glenwood 116 has a divided backpipe which allows it a longer flame/exhaust path. Baseburners/baseheaters increase this even more so. Primarily the suspended firepot baseburners are the most effiecient of all designs due to that insulated effect of the suspended firepot. They also are a great design because they have less moving parts. Just a simple damper to close the direct mode and force the exhaust down/around/and out. Franco B can aprobably explain it better then I.

wsherrick · Post by **wsherrick** » Tue. Oct. 22, 2013 6:04 pm

SteveZee wrote:I haven't been around the forum for a bit but is the #40 finished Will? Post me a pix if you get a chance. Love to see what that beast does for you this winter!

Z

Here you are Steve.

wsherrick · Post by **wsherrick** » Tue. Oct. 22, 2013 6:06 pm

BPatrick wrote:Guys, is the fact that the Crawford 40 is a recirculator the reason it burns so well or is it the suspended fire pot. My Herald Oak No.18 does a great job burning but it does get clinkers. Also, what is the idea behind a suspended pot and why is it better than the other designs. I'm asking all these questions as I thought the base burner recirculator was the reason for the efficiency of the stove. I see the size of this stove and think the fire pot would be huge. It doesn't seem to be bigger than My Herald No. 18- I want to make sure that this fire pot is big enough to get extended burn times and serious heat output. I've read several replies referring to all coal burns to a fine ash. Again, is this because of the base burner or because of the suspended fire pot. Thank for the information guys.

Here read this.

Need Advise on New Stove

Post by **franco b** » Tue. Oct. 22, 2013 7:14 pm

The key part in Williams link:

The ideal situation is where the combustion and radiating processes are separate from each other. The purpose of all base burners is to accomplish this highly desirable goal.
This design of base heater solves this issue by insulating the fire pot from heat loss by having the hot gasses go around the fire pot and therefore maintaining a high, stable temperature of the fire bed. This allows for the coal to be burned a lot more completely. Now instead of having this heat lost up the chimney there are the long heat exchange passages that come AFTER the heat has left the combustion area to be radiated out into the room.

SteveZee · Post by **SteveZee** » Sat. Oct. 26, 2013 9:37 am

Thanks William.
It is really a magestic stove and I must say Bravo for rescuing that beauty from a half century of neglect and a certain scrap metal death. Well done and salute!

wsherrick · Post by **wsherrick** » Sun. Oct. 27, 2013 3:27 am

SteveZee wrote:Thanks William.
It is really a magestic stove and I must say Bravo for rescuing that beauty from a half century of neglect and a certain scrap metal death. Well done and salute!

Yes, it was out in a pasture rusting away. There must have been some oil residue on it because there is no pitting on the stove anywhere. The castings are perfect, crisp and sharp. I feel very fortunate to have obtained this stove. It hasn't been lighted yet, the Glenwood has been running in the basement on idle for a week or so.
It won't be long, I can't wait to see the Crawford awaken to a renewed life after its long, dreary slumber.

Post by **dcrane** » Sun. Oct. 27, 2013 7:14 am

wsherrick wrote:
SteveZee wrote:Thanks William.
It is really a magestic stove and I must say Bravo for rescuing that beauty from a half century of neglect and a certain scrap metal death. Well done and salute!
Yes, it was out in a pasture rusting away. There must have been some oil residue on it because there is no pitting on the stove anywhere. The castings are perfect, crisp and sharp. I feel very fortunate to have obtained this stove. It hasn't been lighted yet, the Glenwood has been running in the basement on idle for a week or so.
It won't be long, I can't wait to see the Crawford awaken to a renewed life after its long, dreary slumber.

awwww damb... I saw a William post and though Wooot Wooot time to relax with some old time Willy Charm Vids next to the Crawford

Halloween is coming.... Is the Crawford going in yet?

SteveZee · Post by **SteveZee** » Wed. Oct. 30, 2013 9:06 am

wsherrick wrote:
SteveZee wrote:Thanks William.
It is really a magestic stove and I must say Bravo for rescuing that beauty from a half century of neglect and a certain scrap metal death. Well done and salute!
Yes, it was out in a pasture rusting away. There must have been some oil residue on it because there is no pitting on the stove anywhere. The castings are perfect, crisp and sharp. I feel very fortunate to have obtained this stove. It hasn't been lighted yet, the Glenwood has been running in the basement on idle for a week or so.
It won't be long, I can't wait to see the Crawford awaken to a renewed life after its long, dreary slumber.

It that the same one from the Berkshires in western Mass or a Jimmy B find? That is the only stove (type) that would make me replace my MO 116 if I could find one with a 16" or better pot which I think are rare-ish? It was 21°this morning on the Maine coast and I've yet to light the cookstove. The 116 is doing it all right now.

wsherrick · Post by **wsherrick** » Thu. Oct. 31, 2013 3:49 pm

I bought this stove from Jimmy Belvin. He was nice enough to bring it up to me.

William, Are You Planning a Video of Your Crawford 40?

Attachments