"Oak" Stoves Vs Modern "Box" Stoves

Sunny Boy, I think it's awesome you actually cook on your stove. I have some questions if you don't mind. Feel free to start a new topic.
1) With a modern stove you can preheat the oven say 350 deg. It it the same with the antique?
2) How do you regulate oven temperature.
3) Cooking times about the same as modern stoves?
4) Ease of operation?
5) Do you use it in the summer months too? Will it make the house/kitchen to hot?
Thanks for your insight. Matt

DePippo79 wrote:Sunny Boy, I think it's awesome you actually cook on your stove. I have some questions if you don't mind. Feel free to start a new topic.
1) With a modern stove you can preheat the oven say 350 deg. It it the same with the antique?
2) How do you regulate oven temperature.
3) Cooking times about the same as modern stoves?
4) Ease of operation?
5) Do you use it in the summer months too? Will it make the house/kitchen to hot?
Thanks for your insight. Matt

Matt, your welcome. That's a good idea, and done. See, "Cookin' with Coal" thread.

Paul

freetown fred wrote:For an open lay out, base burner would be unique & functional--in my particular house lay out--280 yr old, all broke up farm house, I wouldn't swap my 50-93

well let's peel this onion...

Oak stoves are not as efficient as baseburners, because basically a baseburner has a smoke shelf passage built into the bottom of the stove, whereas the Oak stove directs the gases straight out the side into the stovepipe, and relies on an mpd or baro damper to slow the exhaust down some, to retain more heat.

if you built and installed a baffle the top of an Oak stove, it would be just as efficient as a baseburner.

having said that , all the major top end box stoves made today, usually have baffles built into them. Before one can go comparing, take a look at a modern Harman, at the heat exchanger inside, and the fan. It will do anything an old Oak or baseburner can do, and then some.

reason- a new box stove with a heat exchanger, basically has what a baseburner has in the bottom, only the new stove w/exchanger is "always" in "baseburner" mode, the baffle passages are welded in place, and it's the only way the stove will fire

go to this manual, and scroll down to page 10, see the side view cutaway of a modern Harman stove.

http://hearthnhome.com/downloads/installManuals/M ... II_III.pdf

It has a ported passageway in the top, with one 90 degree turn where the smoke first comes into the exchanger, then a shallow angled downward turn so as to not create another full 90 degree turn, then another turn exiting the back of the stove. At the stovepipe adapter, it would turn another 90 degrees to go straight up.

that, gentlemen, is a form of the old baseburner design, only it's in the top of the stove- and better yet, this one has a fan in it

imagine your baseburner stove with a fan in the bottom, blowing the heat out through a passage

that's a Harman Magnafire I-II-III

so having said that, back to the OP question- which would heat better ? Oak or box stove ?

box stove like a modern Harman, wins, hands down. Because basically, it is a modern baseheater, with a fan- it's a "topheater"

Posted in the wrong place sorry.

Ya know cc, I always try & be a patient kinda guy & get along in the world, I think you could ask anybody on the FORUM here that my social skills are E pluribus unum. BUT, I gotta ask ya, do you ever get tired of floppin your gums together on some of the most uninformed passing on of data I've ever seen on here. Sure, you got your opinions, but I don't see any tried & true personal experience, except with your Mark I. I understand that you've become a legend in your own mind on ALL these stoves, but I just gotta tell you---you're wrong on 90% of it & they're not real good numbers in my book:( just sayin

He just doesn't get it Fred. I have a Harman stove too, but it does not compare to the heat output that a Base Burner is capable of. CC, have you ever seen a Base Burner in operation or used one yourself?

SuperBeetle wrote:He just doesn't get it Fred. I have a Harman stove too, but it does not compare to the heat output that a Base Burner is capable of. CC, have you ever seen a Base Burner in operation or used one yourself?

freetown fred wrote:Ya know cc, I always try & be a patient kinda guy & get along in the world, I think you could ask anybody on the FORUM here that my social skills are E pluribus unum. BUT, I gotta ask ya, do you ever get tired of floppin your gums together on some of the most uninformed passing on of data I've ever seen on here. Sure, you got your opinions, but I don't see any tried & true personal experience, except with your Mark I. I understand that you've become a legend in your own mind on ALL these stoves, but I just gotta tell you---you're wrong on 90% of it & they're not real good numbers in my book:( just sayin

I'm telling you. Every thread I open seems like a bad infomercial for the Harman stove co. I'm having a very hard time keeping myself from resorting to insults?
When is Richard going to give this guy a few days off?
I think he needs to join the band.

Yes, it does appear that he has earned a well deserved vacation.

Wow, your not even close trying to compare your Harman smoke shelf with a base burner.

First off, the base burner has far more flue travel than a single layer smoke shelf ever could. Heck, even my Oak 118 with a back pipe doesn't qualify as a base burner and it has about 6 feet of flue gas travel in just that three foot long back pipe to your Harmon's what, maybe a foot and a half smoke shelf ? And while it doesn't circulate flue gases under the base like a base burner it contributes more heat the base casting to raise pre-combustion air. That back pipe directs the flue gases down into a chamber bolted to the back of the ash drawer before they turn to come back up the back pipe.

And that's nothing unique to Glenwoods. A lot of Oaks have that option.

Second, by directing flue gasses down under the ash pan/primary air intake area, the base burner pre-heats the incoming air waayyyy more than the Harman in that drawing you are referring to ever could. That high level of heating pre-combustion air is one of the main things that drives up the burn efficiency of any combustion appliance.

Your really should do better research before attempting your "apples to oranges" comparisons.

Paul

Well CC, the problem with the whole fan thing is that it does cool down the stove. Anytime you have air blowing across a heated surface you are going to cool down the surface some and it could be significant. also, you are going to use electricity. A stove radiating will also dump a tremendous amount of hot air, similar to your posts, and a good ol' ceiling fan would circulate it for you. I've burned stoves with and without fans in the same room and it made no difference in heating. The stove radiated hotter air as the fan wasn't cooling down the stove and the ceiling fan kept the room air circulated. I have a huge room with 13' ceilings and a vaulted ceiling. I don't think it's possible for anyone to manufacture the longevity of the cast base plus barrel design. The cast fire pot produces the heat that the steel barrel instantly dissipates. To see stoves still running 110 years later just confirms my opinion based on real world observations of many site members' stoves.

CC, your posts are starting to become as obnoxious as a Billy Fuccillo commercial! I normally keep my mouth shut with posts like this but enough is enough! I found long ago, putting other people down does not lift you up. Putting someone else's stove down does not necessarily make yours better. We all choose our stoves for different reasons, house layout, architecture, price, taste, heat output, etc. If yours works for you GREAT! For me, I will stick to my 100+ year old baseburner as it works for me.
Randy

I am still of the opinion that he is tied in with Harman somehow. Every post sounds like a Harman infomercial. I'm almost to the point that he should be kicked to the manufacturer page only if he continues his Harman commercials.

Rev. Larry

Dear Mr. Cracker....I'm only a measly State Moderator on this Board. I'm the lowest form of moderation that you'll encounter here. I serve at the pleasure of the Mayor(Richard) and can be removed,deleted and/or archived at any time. All that being said,for Christ's Sake,wouldja tone it down a hair ? Posts are being taken off-topic due to some very calm and factual Folks patience having been all used up. Please,relax...relax a lot. Again,I'm not really much here,but my Friend,if you earn enough complaints,then I wouldn't doubt somebody with some juice is gonna bench you. No Bull,I mean all this in sincere terms...Thanx in advance and I now return all of you to less tense activities......