Efficient Fireplace Without Blower?

  • 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.
Reading the first few posts (sorry if this has already been mentioned, I did not read all), I'd be looking to have the builder simply provide a stone hearth and chimney onto which I could install a free-standing wood stove. No power outage concerns, and you could get a nice pretty stove approved for open-door burning, such as a Vermont Castings Encore 2-in-1. It might mean more research for you upfront, if your builder is not familiar with the requirements, but likely worth the investment if this is some place you want to stay long-term. Another un-mentioned advantage of a free-standing stove is that you can swap them out if your needs change (or were initially mis-calculated).
 
Thanks so much for that info, DiscoInferno. So are you saying that the convection draft you get without the blower from your Ultima is adequate to keep you warm if you huddle around it during a winter blackout? Just looking for a rough comparison to its normal effectiveness and also to a normal non-efficient fireplace. Without the blower, does it warm up most of the room, as compared to normally when it would warm most of your entire home?

The way our house is laid out, all of the rooms off of the living room (with the fireplace) have headers, while the hallway to the stairs does not. This path acts like a natural convection channel, so we get a strong natural flow from the fireplace across the ceiling and up the stairs. Cold air returns down the stairs. Even without the blower the fireplace can heat most of the house OK if it's not too cold out; we're not relying on the blower to distribute the heat so much as to get more out of the fireplace in the first place. I'm not sure what the efficiency loss is without the blower, maybe 20%? It's certainly not 50% or more, the heat wants out of the air space around the firebox and the only way out is into the room. Think of it as a freestanding stove in an insulated metal alcove.

The fireplace room gets quite hot in any case, there would be no need to huddle. Some of the more remote rooms can be a little chilly with just the fireplace though. We built an addition on the other side of the house a few years ago and put a small freestanding stove in that so now it's pretty evenly heated. With vaulted ceilings and less favorable convection paths I can imagine having a hard time heating a whole house with an fireplace, but the room it's in will always be warm. You can also get gravity (passive) vents to run to upper rooms with many EPA fireplace models. I have a forced-air vent leading from mine into the basement that I can use if I ever finish it.

There is no comparison between a non-EPA fireplace (typical Majestic box) and an EPA fireplace. I've had both, and blower or no blower the EPA fireplace puts out an order of magnitude more heat. Not to mention the massive air loss from the non-EPA fireplace.
 
Thanks for the report DI.
 
This is a great community and you've all been extremely helpful. Thanks again.

I'm waiting to hear back from the builder as to how much extra money each of these options would cost me. Then I'll figure what I can afford and what I want to do.

I'm now leaning towards one of the smaller EPA fireplace units, in the interest of space. I would have liked not to put the TV over the fireplace, but given our floor plan, on top of the fireplace is really the only option. Anywhere else just wastes a huge amount of space, which we can't afford to waste. So, I want to keep the TV as low as possible so that we don't have to tilt our heads way back to watch it, which means the mantel has to be as low as possible. The smaller units enable you to put the mantel at 42". The larger units require 56". That means we can have the TV over a foot lower if we go with the smaller one. Hopefully with a smaller unit, the bottom of the TV can be at around 50", which isn't awful, and much better than 64".
 
My mantels are at 71" and 73". Makes for one heck of a TV viewing angle. :oops:
 
This is a great community and you've all been extremely helpful. Thanks again.

I'm waiting to hear back from the builder as to how much extra money each of these options would cost me. Then I'll figure what I can afford and what I want to do.

I'm now leaning towards one of the smaller EPA fireplace units, in the interest of space. I would have liked not to put the TV over the fireplace, but given our floor plan, on top of the fireplace is really the only option. Anywhere else just wastes a huge amount of space, which we can't afford to waste. So, I want to keep the TV as low as possible so that we don't have to tilt our heads way back to watch it, which means the mantel has to be as low as possible. The smaller units enable you to put the mantel at 42". The larger units require 56". That means we can have the TV over a foot lower if we go with the smaller one. Hopefully with a smaller unit, the bottom of the TV can be at around 50", which isn't awful, and much better than 64".
 
I realize that these posts are 2 years old, but I found them when researching the Lennox Villa Vista. Just curious to know what product Strat went with and how it has worked out. We are in NJ as well and our homes sound almost identical. We need to make a decision before the season is in full swing. Had a Quadra fire 7100 in our previous home and loved it, but the house was a lot larger at 3900 sq ft. Need to find something that works with 1,600 sq. ft and one level this time
 
I would start a new post. Strat left the room on Sept 21, 2012. We don't hear much about this fireplace. Searching the internet shows a mixed reviews for this fireplace. More popular in this size is the BIS Tradition CE also sold by Lennox. Also take a look at the RSF Topaz.
 
I got an email notification about Lars' reply. I'm happy to give an update.

We ended up going with the Lennox Montecito (55,000 BTU, 2 cubic feet). The house is 1550 square feet, and the ceiling in front of the fireplace is approximately 14 feet high. We have a reversible fan directly in front of the fireplace on a 2 foot downrod. We've been in the house for a little over a year, so we've only had 1 winter worth of fireplace use so far. Over the winter, we had fires an average of probably 2 or 3 nights a week, and some weekends.

The wood I had last winter wasn't the best, so it was often a struggle just to get a good fire started at all. Because of this, I didn't really experiment much with turning the blower and ceiling fan off to simulate a power outage. After spending an hour or two to get a fire started after a long day of work, I wasn't in the mood to do experiments, and definitely wanted to get as much heat out of my effort as possible.

This coming winter should be better. I cut and split the wood much earlier in the year, so it should be much better seasoned than last winter. I have a lot more wood, it's all already split, and since it won't be green, the fires should be a lot easier to get started and maintain, so I intend to experiment with leaving the blower and ceiling fan off.

However, I can report on how it worked with the blower and ceiling fan on, using mostly green wood. Once the fire has had some time to really get going, the Lennox Montecito had no problem heating our entire house, even on very cold nights. The blower is on a dimmer switch (which also has an off setting). We'd usually run it on high in the beginning (right after the thermostat kicked it on) as it was heating up, and then we'd switch it down to medium. On a 30F night, with the regular oil heat thermostat set to 60F, within maybe 3 or 4 hours of starting the fire, the living room would usually be around 75F and the bedrooms would be around 67F, which is just about perfect. If we planned on spending more time in the living room and didn't want to be sweated out, the living room temperature could easily be lowered by lowering or disabling the blower, adjusting the air combustion control, or by keeping less wood in the firebox. The ceiling fan on reverse seemed very useful for distributing the heat around the house (thanks, begreen). The blower isn't too loud, but is definitely noticeable on high, and barely noticeable on medium. It takes a while for the fireplace to get hot enough for its thermostat to kick the blower on, and there's no way to force it on manually.

The fires required a lot of maintenance and would only burn unattended for about 4 hours. I'd fill the firebox with as much wood as I could fit at around midnight right before I went to bed, I'd set the air combustion control to medium, and the fire would be completely out by 7AM when I woke up. The fireplace would still be warm to the touch, but cool enough that the fireplace's thermostat turned the blower off (usually at around 4 or 5AM, I think). Because of this, I'd have to set the house's oil heat thermostat to around 65F before we went to bed, otherwise we'd wake up freezing. Occasionally there would be some visible embers glowing in the soot (sometimes even for days after). I'm not sure if those would be enough to start a new fire. I didn't try it because I'd be heading off to work, so there was no point in heating an empty house when I knew the fire would be out by the time I got home 9 or 10 hours later. I'm hoping that I can get better burn times this coming winter (they advertise up to 8 hours) by closing the air combustion control more. I didn't go much below medium last winter because I was using green wood, and I was nervous about creosote build-up. With better seasoned wood, that will be less of a concern, so I can try closing the air combustion control all the way before I go to bed to see if I can increase burn times.

I hope this was helpful. Let me know if you have any other questions and I'll be happy to try to answer them. Maybe if I remember, I'll try to post an update this coming winter after I experiment with how it works with the blower and ceiling fan off.
 
Last edited:
Welcome back. I'm glad you like the Montecito. That is the same as a BIS Tradition CE and a good unit. As you are finding out, EPA fireplaces and stoves really want fully seasoned wood. You will find a world of difference in operation with fully seasoned wood.

If it is ash, alder or doug fir, late winter stacked and split wood "may" be ready for burning by late fall depending on how thick the splits are and how and where it was stacked and summer weather conditions. But if it is a dense hardwood like oak or hickory it wont' be fully seasoned for a couple years. To determine how dry the wood really is, take a couple thick splits and re-split them, then use a moisture meter on the freshly exposed face of the wood. If it is not <20% the wood is not fully seasoned.
 
Thanks, begreen. I have around a cord split, all of which is unfortunately black (basically red) and white oak. Most of it was split between this past March and May. I know oak really needs more time than that, but I tried to compensate by making the splits very thin so they'd season faster. It's stacked neatly and every piece gets a lot of sun and wind, but it's not covered. Last winter, most of the wood I burned was split in the fall, and the splits were a lot bigger, so I should at least be a lot better off this year, even if it's still not ideal. I have a moisture meter, so before my first burn this fall I'll test a freshly re-split piece and see what it says. If I'm remembering correctly, I tested a few pieces that way back in June and the moisture content wasn't so bad. I think some of the smaller ones were below 20% already, assuming my meter was accurate. My moisture meter is the General Tools & Instruments MMD4E. Is that a fairly accurate meter? Do you find that making thinner splits can speed up the seasoning process significantly?
 
Yes, thinner splits will dry out faster. Be careful though, a fireplace full of them will burn very intensely if the wood is dry. That could lead to an over-firing situation. In that case it would be good to mix them with some thicker splits. Note that unless the thicker splits are fully seasoned you will not be seeing the full heating potential of the fireplace. You might consider buying a couple cords now for next year if you have room to stack them.

Several folks have bought that moisture meter and are happy with it.
 
I thought I would chime in here because I just checked some oak I split in November 2012 thinking it might be ready for this year and it was still at 24% and these weren't very big splits.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.