Husband dissed "MY" stove.

  • Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.

    We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.

    We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil.
Status
Not open for further replies.

szmaine

New Member
Jul 13, 2009
371
Mid-Coast Maine
We have been burning the Oslo pretty hard, harder than usual due to the extreme cold and death of our ancient oil fired boiler. We have had excessive coal accumulation making it impossible to put in a full nightime load. He said you'd better get on "your" Hearth.com because something is wrong with "your" stove - so I did.

I told him that it was due to frequent loading to keep up with our heating needs which that past couple of days has been pretty intense and I explained all the ways I found to minimize the phenomena by raking the coals to the front, opening up the air as the burn cyles down, adding small splits to reduce them etc. Best of all, lets just get the cook stove going too and slack off on the Oslo a bit, thaw out the dish liquid...

Anyway, he insists that coals should produce more heat than the burning wood. I did point that you can see that this is not the case in any of our stoves, for instance to get the cook stove hot enough to ,oh, lets say cook a turkey you can't just have a box full of coals (which would be be pretty hard to accomplish anyway since it is so not air tight) you have to add wood.

I don't have the words to explain/prove why this is so. He just thinks it cannot be and cites charcoal and coal, as in anthracite, as his examples.

Can someone put into words for me what is happening in the burn cycle and the heating energy in wood vs. glowing coals???
 
Commercial charcoal is charcoal compressed very tightly into briquets.
Glowing log coals in a stove are not compressed so less energy when the 2 are compared.

Check the stove temps, if just coals & it's colder than with some splits & a fire burning.
Test done.
Logic prevails most of the time *** except when between spouses, ( Phenomena of this has no scientific explanation known to humans)
 
Oh, right- it has to do with density. Yeesh, I should have thought of that!
 
I doubt it's going to be more heat than the fire stage of burning, but still coals do contain a good amount of energy. I like to rake them forward and open up the air full blast when I get too many of them.
 
SpeakEasy said:
szmaine said:
Oh, right- it has to do with density. Yeesh, I should have thought of that!

Word to the wise, ... don't let him think you're calling HIM dense!

-Speak

LOL
Good advice ;)
 
szmaine said:
We have been burning the Oslo pretty hard, harder than usual due to the extreme cold and death of our ancient oil fired boiler. We have had excessive coal accumulation making it impossible to put in a full nightime load. He said you'd better get on "your" Hearth.com because something is wrong with "your" stove - so I did.

I told him that it was due to frequent loading to keep up with our heating needs which that past couple of days has been pretty intense and I explained all the ways I found to minimize the phenomena by raking the coals to the front, opening up the air as the burn cyles down, adding small splits to reduce them etc. Best of all, lets just get the cook stove going too and slack off on the Oslo a bit, thaw out the dish liquid...

Anyway, he insists that coals should produce more heat than the burning wood. I did point that you can see that this is not the case in any of our stoves, for instance to get the cook stove hot enough to ,oh, lets say cook a turkey you can't just have a box full of coals (which would be be pretty hard to accomplish anyway since it is so not air tight) you have to add wood.

I don't have the words to explain/prove why this is so. He just thinks it cannot be and cites charcoal and coal, as in anthracite, as his examples.

Can someone put into words for me what is happening in the burn cycle and the heating energy in wood vs. glowing coals???


Saddle up & ride, girlfriend :p


Don't forget the piece of pine, or milled wood to get that coal bed down ! Dazzle them with brilliance ;-)
 
Ok, I definitely will not approach him and blurt out ill-constructed sentences using the word dense. Good catch! ;-)

I suppose the idea has been fueled (har-de-har) by the fact that we are currently trying out anthacite coal for the first time in the old cook stove...
 
Doing The Dixie Eyed Hustle said:
Saddle up & ride, girlfriend :p


Don't forget the piece of pine, or milled wood to get that coal bed down ! Dazzle them with brilliance ;-)

Hiya, Eileen!

The brilliance is a given, the dazzled is not. ;-)

Gonna try that zipper method I read here - I guess putting the wood in directs the air wash down at the coals? Or is it just for boosting the temperature?
 
I Hear ya and know what you are talking about......too many coals is not a good thing.....In the deep freeze we have had, I have been loading up the stove more often, and have the same issue...lots of coals.....I would say once a day, just let it get to coals, open the air wide open and let them burn down....I know its not going to give a ton of heat, but it will still give off some heat, and then you can reload at the end of the cycle with not too many coals left.
 
Armchair quarterback! Tell him it's time for him to walk the talk. Sit back, put your feet up, and let him run the stove for a day. You cannot use logic to get out of an argument when logic got you into it in the first place.
 
LLigetfa said:
Armchair quarterback! Tell him it's time for him to walk the talk. Sit back, put your feet up, and let him run the stove for a day. You cannot use logic to get out of an argument when logic got you into it in the first place.
+10
Let him run the stove for a week....he'll be crawling back to you asking how to run it right
 
I run into the same thing and the coals definitely do not put out more heat than a load of wood - they put out less. With a load of wood you're getting both the primary burn (roughly equivalent to charcoal burning) plus the larger and hotter secondary burn of gases and particulates. I am using the terms primary and secondary loosely - the primary air supply to your stove causes some of the gases and particulates to burn, but I think you get my point - burning the solid wood material only vs burning both the wood and the wood gases at the same time.
 
szmaine said:
BrotherBart said:

Thanks, BB. That's a great link. I can't show him that though, one of the reasons it's always "MY" stove is because I vetoed a CAT.
I thought we'd be replacing $200 CATS every two years due to always having 1 yr seasoned wood. But, why doesn't a CAT stove have the same problem?

He does that all the time,
He comes up with the right solutions, the right answers & makes the rest of us look bad.
We're used to it.

He smartens us up allot :)

Another good one BB
 
Seeing it's YOUR stove, tell him to go find his own heat and stop enjoying YOUR heat.
 
Sometimes what I do when i have a huge bed of coals, and I'm going to be in the room with the stove for a bit is open the door of the stove all the way and keep the fan on low. This really pumps heat into the room and burns down the coals.

Is this not kosher? I've never heard of anyone else doing this, but it works really well. I'm really curious if this is bad for some reason I'm not aware of. CO2 in the room? What do you guys think of this method?
 
I have a different problem with my hubby and the stove. He has a theory that the fire heats up the stove more if it is further back in the stove and so has a longer path to go to the chimney opening, which is in toward the front. In other words, the heat will stay in the stove slightly longer and heat it up more (we have the hybrid cast iron/soapstone type). So, he is always loading the wood more towards the back of the stove, and this leaves unburned hunks of charcoal in the back, since the air comes mostly from the front as well. And when I rake it to the front to burn down, he complains about that, too, because he wants the fire in the back. Of course it burns best in the front, and his method leaves more crud to push around later.

Also, he was an Eagle Scout, and worked at Boy Scout camp and so on, yet I swear I build better fires than he does. He doesn't grasp the small wood under the big wood principle, and so that contributes to unburned wood because the big stuff doesn't have any air under it so it can't burn as well. So we have little wars in the stove, him pushing my wood backwards, my pulling his forward so it will actually burn. Sigh.
 
With both of you
"working over the hot bed of coals all day",
you must have good even heat. ;)
 
localLEE said:
Eye'd beech slap him!!!!

LOL that sounds really painful!

Ray
 
daveswoodhauler said:
LLigetfa said:
Armchair quarterback! Tell him it's time for him to walk the talk. Sit back, put your feet up, and let him run the stove for a day. You cannot use logic to get out of an argument when logic got you into it in the first place.
+10
Let him run the stove for a week....he'll be crawling back to you asking how to run it right

Thanks for the support guys - but to be fair he does run it all day long when I'm at work but due to our boiler problem things have changed, we need more heat, lots more - hence the huge accumulation of the coals. So the coal problem is really just part of the learning curve I guess - he's just overly fond of maligning the stove rather than seeking answers and changing technique to adapt to the new situation.

He'll learn it - quietly, that's how I know when he's starting to think I could actually be right - and by next winter he'll be "schooling" me on coal management.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.