Wood burning stove/central heating

Man_Overboard_2

A._Badger wrote: »

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]unless you use both wood and mineral solid fuel[/FONT]

I think it was you who pointed out in an earlier post, that 'not all smokeless fuels are the same', and, surely, the same applies to logs!

It is quite labour-intensive to get optimum results from burning wood, and it is not always clearly understood about the different ways to set up a multifuel stove according to which fuel type you prefer to use.

A good compromise for a relatively reliable result with logs of unknown quality is to always start with a base of smokeless fuel, and then to burn your logs on top.

wrightk

we use welsh blend anthracite, which i believe has a very very high calorific value.

just on a sidenote...we had a heating engineer come round today. our stove has a secondary air intake in addition to the thermostatic dampner on the side of the stove. the engineer said that if you burn anthracite you must keep this secondary valve open, as opposed to other coals which you do not need to. why?

wrightk

Man_Overboard wrote: »

A good compromise for a relatively reliable result with logs of unknown quality is to always start with a base of smokeless fuel, and then to burn your logs on top.

if we do get any free wood, i do this to reduce the amount of coal we use. its a guaranteed flue pipe whistler

Greenfires

Nowt wrong with softwood at all Suki - the Scandinavians burn little else and they're way ahead of us in woodburning terms. Dry is the key, no matter what sort of wood you're chucking in there.

Greenfires

A._Badger wrote: »

Then, with respect. they are defying the laws of physics - or not making an accurate comparison.

"[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Wood fuel has typically less than half the calorific value of coal and smokeless fuel, so you must be prepared to use a greater volume of wood to heat your home or room, unless you use both wood and mineral solid fuel. "

Source: http://www.solidfuel.co.uk/main_pages/wood.htm


[/FONT]

It may be a psychological thing Badger - a wood fire is a lot more lively looking than smokeless in general - perhaps the dancing flame picture gives a feeling of perceived extra warmth? It's something that quite a number of people have said to me, so not just a one-off opinion.

A._Badger

Man_Overboard wrote: »

I think it was you who pointed out in an earlier post, that 'not all smokeless fuels are the same', and, surely, the same applies to logs!

I did and not all logs are alike, as you say. Indeed, you can research the different burn rates and calorific values of different kinds of woods quite easily.

None the less, coal has a considerably higher calorific value than wood of all kinds.. [/QUOTE]

Man_Overboard wrote: »

A good compromise for a relatively reliable result with logs of unknown quality is to always start with a base of smokeless fuel, and then to burn your logs on top.

A point if view which some dispute and one that has often been made on this forum.

I'm sceptical, personally, but you will often find advice such as the following:: "We do not recommend that you burn wood and coal at the same time: burning coal produces sulphuric acid and wood can contain a lot of moisture - this combination can coat your chimney in sulphuric acid solution which can quickly eat away at anything."

Source: http://www.stovesonline.co.uk/how-to-burn-coal.html

As I say, I am sceptical but, as I have also said, there is a paucity of proper research in this area and an awful lot of unsubstantiated opinion passed off as fact, which makes it a nightmare for customers.

A._Badger

Greenfires wrote: »

It may be a psychological thing Badger - a wood fire is a lot more lively looking than smokeless in general - perhaps the dancing flame picture gives a feeling of perceived extra warmth? It's something that quite a number of people have said to me, so not just a one-off opinion.

I agree and I've said it myself here, too: wood fires are psychologically more satisfying. But there is a reason steam locomotives ran on coal.

Man_Overboard_2

wrightk wrote: »

we use welsh blend anthracite, which i believe has a very very high calorific value.

just on a sidenote...we had a heating engineer come round today. our stove has a secondary air intake in addition to the thermostatic dampner on the side of the stove. the engineer said that if you burn anthracite you must keep this secondary valve open, as opposed to other coals which you do not need to. why?

This is a glorious example of the fun which can be had arguing about the pros and cons of the various aspects of solid fuel heating systems! If, like me, you don't follow football, then get a multi-fuel stove...

FWIW, here goes me...

Mineral fuels require a steady supply of air, fed from underneath through a grate. If your thermostatic thing closes completely, then your fire would go out unless there is a minimal supply of air coming through the secondary inlet. But why your engineer said that only applies to anthracite, is like trying to explain why Man U didn't win last Saturday.

Wood burning is different, it burns best without any underdraught, so, if it is a multi-fuel stove, the secondary inlet should be closed, and the grate removed.

Now, where's my tin hat?

Man_Overboard_2

A._Badger wrote: »

burning coal produces sulphuric acid and wood can contain a lot of moisture - this combination can coat your chimney in sulphuric acid solution which can quickly eat away at anything

My response to that would be that the inner surface of the flue would be protected from the corrosive effects of the sulphuric acid solution by a generous layer of soot and/or mineral dust

wrightk

Man_Overboard wrote: »

This is a glorious example of the fun which can be had arguing about the pros and cons of the various aspects of solid fuel heating systems! If, like me, you don't follow football, then get a multi-fuel stove...

FWIW, here goes me...

Mineral fuels require a steady supply of air, fed from underneath through a grate. If your thermostatic thing closes completely, then your fire would go out unless there is a minimal supply of air coming through the secondary inlet. But why your engineer said that only applies to anthracite, is like trying to explain why Man U didn't win last Saturday.

Wood burning is different, it burns best without any underdraught, so, if it is a multi-fuel stove, the secondary inlet should be closed, and the grate removed.

Now, where's my tin hat?

thanks, the thermostatic dampener valve supplies air underneath the grate which i have been using. i have had the secondary valve closed, for burning coal. tonight i am doing what the engineer said and its not going very well. there is way too much air intake. perhaps i should just ignore him?