Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:45:21 -0400 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
I have no "expert" knowledge on this, but remember our wood burning
cookstove from childhood. I would think since coal burns a lot longer than
wood, woodburning cookstoves would be preferred. Coal in a fireplace or
parlor stove would give a longer burn time, but you wouldn't want this
longer burn time in a kitchen stove. You also can control the temperature
from wood a lot easier than you can from coal.
Barbara
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lyle E. Browning" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 10:41 AM
Subject: [VA-HIST] Richmond Coal: Heating and Cooking
> Richmond coal is "soft" and full of sulphur and other nasties that made
> it not useful for iron furnaces. It did, however, get shipped all up the
> east coast as heating fuel. The question rose this morning as to whether
> it was used in standard household cooking stoves in Richmond or whether
> there was one source for heating: coal and another for cooking: wood, as
> in the imparting of nasty elements from coal to the food would make wood
> the fuel of choice. Anyone seen anything on that?
>
> Lyle Browning
>
> ______________________________________
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions
> at
> http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|
|
|