Woodstock's experimental dual-fuel stove

bholler said:

Yes per ton they are similar. But a ton of anthracite takes up allot less space than a ton of bituminous or sub bituminous. So your load of coal in you stove has allot more btus in it with anthracite than with the other two.

Click to expand...

This is interesting. As pointed out previously, the energy per unit weight between the two has a lot of overlap, with the anthracite being skewed only slightly higher. Likewise, the weight per volume overlaps to a large degree, both having almost the same upper limit, but some bituminous running much lower:

Anthracite: 50 - 58 lb/cu.ft.
Bituminous: 42 - 57 lb/cu.ft.

So, I guess it would be most correct to say that some bituminous has much lower energy than anthracite, but perhaps not all of it.

Slightly different question.. how deep is the design bench at Woodstock?

My understanding is the PH was designed by an outside consultant (can't remember the blog I read it in)

I would think, at minimum, any CFD work ,if any, would be contrcted out

georgepds said:

Slightly different question.. how deep is the design bench at Woodstock?

My understanding is the PH was designed by an outside consultant (can't remember the blog I read it in)

I would think, at minimum, any CFD work ,if any, would be contrcted out

Click to expand...

Why? CFD solvers are not so rare or expensive anymore. About $40k in software, and $6k for the hardware. You can even go full-GPU, if your software supports it, for under $60k.

Ahh.. but the experience to run CFD correctly is much harder to come by

georgepds said:

Ahh.. but the experience to run CFD correctly is much harder to come by

Click to expand...

It's all in the boundary conditions.