My New Crawford!

scalabro · Post by **scalabro** » Sat. Jun. 28, 2014 2:59 pm

coalnewbie wrote:Wilson and William are two gods in this arena and they both agree baseburners are two steps above. I really am about to test that theory as I will use three BB stoves to attempt to heat a very large drafty house. So we will see that we see. It's what happens when the rubber hits the road that counts.

I will try to get the very best coal I can get and if this winter is a repeat, let them rip. I think 225,000 to 300,000 BTU at peak is needed and so I will test this idea and report. Gonna be interesting!

That Glenwood 8 is a monster. It's got to be at least 100,000 BTU stove on its own. You are going to have fun, I know I will....I love to shovel coal!

wsherrick · Post by **wsherrick** » Sun. Jun. 29, 2014 4:56 am

Here is a description of how my Crawford 40 operates. There is absolutely no trouble with long, long extended burn times with consistent heat out put throughout the entire period. The performance of a Crawford 2 is just as efficient. The only difference is that the No 2 is half the size of the No 40. That's it.

The Amazing, Economical Crawford 40 Base Heater

KingCoal · Post by **KingCoal** » Sun. Jun. 29, 2014 7:52 am

coalnewbie wrote:Wilson and William are two gods in this arena and they both agree baseburners are two steps above. I really am about to test that theory as I will use three BB stoves to attempt to heat a very large drafty house. So we will see that we see. It's what happens when the rubber hits the road that counts.

I will try to get the very best coal I can get and if this winter is a repeat, let them rip. I think 225,000 to 300,000 BTU at peak is needed and so I will test this idea and report. Gonna be interesting!

holy cats, are you serious about this estimate ? I can't imagine needing or even being able to throw that level of coal fired direct radiant heat into a closed structure for any extended period of time

i have a 80,000 BTU stove ( yes, we all know that manu. ratings are strongly optimistic. ) it ran all last season with the primary damper never open more than 1/8".

i'd love to see the floor plan and chimney locations.

Sunny Boy · Post by **Sunny Boy** » Mon. Jun. 30, 2014 7:45 am

KingCoal wrote:
coalnewbie wrote:Wilson and William are two gods in this arena and they both agree baseburners are two steps above. I really am about to test that theory as I will use three BB stoves to attempt to heat a very large drafty house. So we will see that we see. It's what happens when the rubber hits the road that counts.

I will try to get the very best coal I can get and if this winter is a repeat, let them rip. I think 225,000 to 300,000 BTU at peak is needed and so I will test this idea and report. Gonna be interesting!
holy cats, are you serious about this estimate ? I can't imagine needing or even being able to throw that level of coal fired direct radiant heat into a closed structure for any extended period of time

i have a 80,000 BTU stove ( yes, we all know that manu. ratings are strongly optimistic. ) it ran all last season with the primary damper never open more than 1/8".

i'd love to see the floor plan and chimney locations.

For what it's worth. 22 years ago, when I bought this leaky, uninsulated, 4000 sq ft Queen Ann Victorian, in the same climate as coalnewbie's, the old oil furnace was shot. The fuel oil company that also does sales and service did the heat loss work up calculations and a 250,000 BTU furnace, with a max size of 3 gph nozzle was the recommendation. Even at that, I only use a 1.5 gph nozzle and the fan at half speed. Jetted down and slowed down by half, it did fine during our record low of minus 34 degrees.

Depending on who's doing the heat loss (like the guy selling the fuel oil

), some calculations are way over done.

Paul

coalnewbie · Post by **coalnewbie** » Mon. Jun. 30, 2014 7:55 am

OK, OK, I should bulldoze this dump I live in. I do have a Cat 955H, who is coming over to do the job. 7000 sq ft, and the HO boiler is rated at about 250,000 BTU and I would have frozen my a$$ off last winter but for coal. Whilst your at it level the 5000 sq ft carriage house with 11' ceilings ..... and then there are the farm buildings..... where's that ladder I am going to jump off the roof.

I am moving, I have just picked out my new cozy little home....

**Broken Link(S) Removed**

Whatdoya think? 4 EFMs for about 1.5MM BTU output would be a good start yes, that is Richards guess. Hmmm, my cozy little home is looking better and better. Who is buying? Don't forget your coal buddy at the opening BBQ.

Sunny Boy · Post by **Sunny Boy** » Mon. Jun. 30, 2014 8:35 am

Not bad. But if you still like coal boilers, this one was set up for coal originally and could be converted back. That is, if you could find two coal steam boilers bigger than a econoline van- like was originally used to heat the place.

The boiler room is under the near tower in the picture here. http://thesandspointpreserve.com/castle-gould/

It would simplify your life because it housed over 100 staff, horses and carriages, plus an equestrian ball room, all in one building.

The "coal bins" were 20 foot square rooms across the hall from the boilers. They used to bring coal to the boilers using large wheel barrows. Then lift up steel plates in the hall floor in front of each boiler and dump the coal down to the lower level near the boiler's loading doors, where it could be shoveled in.

The boilers were converted to oil-fired by the Navy sometime after WWII and before I started working there in the mid 1970's. Then new boilers were put in, in the late 70's. Took a crew of four guys two weeks with cutting torches to cut up and get the oil coal boilers out.

Even with the new boilers (still huge), when the hot steam hit the 500 foot long 6 inch pipes that ran through our basement shops (the dungeons), it sounded like they were using sledgehammers to push it through with !

Glad I didn't have to shovel coal for those boilers !

Paul

windyhill4.2 · Post by **windyhill4.2** » Mon. Jun. 30, 2014 8:40 am

CN,if you buy that place you will have to build a few more chimneys

you will need a few more base burner stoves too !

coalnewbie · Post by **coalnewbie** » Mon. Jun. 30, 2014 9:36 am

Ya see whilst my back was turned Paul went in and snapped it up, c rap. Who said they can't imagine 250,000 BTU being dumped into a building????

KingCoal · Post by **KingCoal** » Mon. Jun. 30, 2014 10:02 am

well...............i did, but I was thinking more along the lines of "common" residential

Sunny Boy · Post by **Sunny Boy** » Mon. Jun. 30, 2014 10:24 am

coalnewbie wrote:Ya see whilst my back was turned Paul went in and snapped it up, c rap. Who said they can't imagine 250,000 BTU being dumped into a building????

As drafty as the place was in winter, I could easily imagine 250,000 BTU leaking out of the place !

Say Gekko, how big did you say that Crawford was ?

Paul

Sunny Boy · Post by **Sunny Boy** » Mon. Jun. 30, 2014 10:31 am

KingCoal wrote:well...............i did, but I was thinking more along the lines of "common" residential

North shore of Long Island in the early 1900's,.... that was a common residential place ! Heck, there's three mansions and two stables on that one property alone.

At it's prime, the "Gold Coast" is said to have over 700 estates, that were at least 1000 acres each.

Paul

scalabro · Post by **scalabro** » Mon. Jun. 30, 2014 10:34 am

Holy crap this thread had driiiifffffftttteeedddd!

From my experience in running the C2 right after the MKII, I would say the C2 is a 70k BTU stove.

Simply because it heated my house just like the MKII, but used a lot less coal.

Sunny Boy · Post by **Sunny Boy** » Mon. Jun. 30, 2014 10:53 am

Gekko wrote:Holy crap this thread had driiiifffffftttteeedddd!

From my experience in running the C2 right after the MKII, I would say the C2 is a 70k BTU stove.

Simply because it heated my house just like the MKII, but used a lot less coal.

Gekko,
Yup !

Now back to the Crawford.
For the sake of curiosity, I'd find it very interesting to know about comparing a base burner with modern design stoves by someone who has actually used both.

Since you think they are close in heat output, what would be your guess of the weight, or volume, difference in coal use between the two stoves ?

Paul

scalabro · Post by **scalabro** » Mon. Jun. 30, 2014 11:32 am

Well since the fire pot held a little more than half of the MKII, I would say its 25% more efficient at a minimum. However, I never got technical and measured each stoves capacity by weight. One thing is for shure, the C2 used no fan, obviously used less coal, yet it provided the same heat, ie it could raise the temps in the house on any given frigid day the same amount that the MKII could. Brandon said I could open the throttle up to 750* barrel temps without worry, but I chose to never go north of 650*. I know Emery routinely waits for his magnetic temp gauge falls off his stove in his shop @ 1000*. This is the temp the magnetic field gives up on his gauge. He can hear it hit the floor if he is not in that part of the building. This is his signal to ease back on the primary air

This is just a Gentleman's comparison and clearly not a lab head to head. It does show the efficiency advantage of old vs new stove tech.

I think because of the C40's larger surface area I should be able to run it at lower temps while providing the same BTU output as the C2, no?

It will be interesting to see if the Crawford 40 will burn more or less coal than the C2 to heat my house to the same heat levels, if this winter is like 2013/2014.

Sunny Boy · Post by **Sunny Boy** » Mon. Jun. 30, 2014 11:39 am

Thanks Gek,

Accurate to the pound, or not, that's still a substantial difference. And, as you say, no fan needed either !

My guess is the 40 will just last all that much longer before needing more coal.

I'd still be interested in hearing the details of the difference.

Paul