Fireplace worth it?

ispinwool · Feb 1, 2011

Texas Fireframe said:
ispinwool said:

Texas Fireframe said:

ispinwool said:

Ya...your dad sounds like an amazing guy!

Click to expand...

Thank you!

Do you knit or weave, ispinwool? My aunt raised her own sheep and my Grandma would spin and weave it. (Sorry, off topic)

Click to expand...

I usually knit or crochet my homespun. Thankfully I have a friend that's a shepherd and she keeps me supplied with wool.

Actually, this discussion thread reminds me of one I read on another forum: Some of the knitters were 'hot under the
collar' about the crocheters getting involved.
I was amazed. It makes no difference if we knit with yarn or crochet--it's all yarn and it's all good.

On this forum, folks are divided over the woodstove/fireplace debate. But it's all wood and fire and warmth.
It's all good. Just different likes and dislikes. There's too much wonderful info here to split hairs.

Click to expand...

What?! They allow crocheters on here?? Have they no standards??

Thanks for the cute wood/wool analogy.

(and if it's any consolation, if my fireplace wasn't encased in the wall by the previous owner :long: , I'd buy
one of your grates---I love sitting in front of a fire and playing with wool. When we moved here 16 years ago,
I'd hoped we'd get the fireplace uncovered---hubby's a bit of a neat-nick and doesn't want the mess in the
livingroom. **sigh**

NH_Wood · Feb 1, 2011

Hogwildz said:
That fireplace is sucking the heat out of the house. You already answered that by describing the temp change while it is in use.
Maybe good for ambiance in the spring & fall, but in the winter, I myself would close that thing up.

+1 - I use my fireplace for ambiance in fall/spring, but not when I'm running the stove. Cheers!

VCBurner · Feb 1, 2011

BeGreen said:
VCBurner said:

I am a little disappointed at how one sided the forum has been on this subject. I hope we haven't just run someone out of town because of the color of his/her horse. I'm not familiar with all the rules and regulations of advertizing products on site, but I'm sure the grate that company sells would not ever be able to compete with any wood stove. Even my old antique cast iron camp stove from 1936. No offense to anyone.

Click to expand...

The forum is not represented by this one thread. I'm just stating my opinion that in my experience fireplaces may be romantic, but they are a poor source of heat given the alternatives. With a a modern ZC, high-efficiency fireplace or an insert one can have the best of both worlds

I don't want to shut off the dialog. You are equally entitled to your opinion, as are all, so I'll drop out now and let others have their say.

I value your opinion BeGreen and I feel the same way about fireplaces being poor souces of heat compared to others. I don't personally feel like I wasn't allowed to share my opinion. In fact different opinions are what make this forum a great source. I still consider myself lucky to have found this place and thankfull for the enrichment it brings.
Keep up the good work,

Chris

EJL923 · Feb 1, 2011

I realize an open fireplace is nice, but there are very nice alternatives. I would go with a flush face insert if looks and ambience are important. I have the jotul rockland, a huge glass door which allows the flickers to come through.

henkmeuzelaar · Feb 1, 2011

VCBurner said:
BeGreen said:

VCBurner said:

I am a little disappointed at how one sided the forum has been on this subject. I hope we haven't just run someone out of town because of the color of his/her horse. I'm not familiar with all the rules and regulations of advertizing products on site, but I'm sure the grate that company sells would not ever be able to compete with any wood stove. Even my old antique cast iron camp stove from 1936. No offense to anyone.

Click to expand...

The forum is not represented by this one thread. I'm just stating my opinion that in my experience fireplaces may be romantic, but they are a poor source of heat given the alternatives. With a a modern ZC, high-efficiency fireplace or an insert one can have the best of both worlds

I don't want to shut off the dialog. You are equally entitled to your opinion, as are all, so I'll drop out now and let others have their say.

Click to expand...

I value your opinion BeGreen and I feel the same way about fireplaces being poor souces of heat compared to others. I don't personally feel like I wasn't allowed to share my opinion. In fact different opinions are what make this forum a great source. I still consider myself lucky to have found this place and thankfull for the enrichment it brings.
Keep up the good work,

Chris

+1

In particular, I would love to get some input on the question: what really makes a fireplace a fireplace, as opposed to an insertable wood stove with a big view window?

I think of this as not just semantics (in which I have limited interest) but rather as a roadmap for further evolution and development of fireplaces. I think the first question to answer is: what do people expect/hope TODAY when they decide to install a fireplace instead of a wood stove. Ambiance? The comfort of radiant heat? Connecting with old memories & traditions? Lower cost (stove installation & maintenance too expensive)? ________ (just fill in the blanks)? In my own mind, what sets fireplaces apart from stoves are ambiance, radiant heat and tradition.

Yes, I know that stoves have their own rich tradition and whenever I see an old fashioned German or Dutch tiled stove, or one of the ornate multi-ring kitchen stoves, memories stir (although I DO try to block out the memories of yak dung-fired stoves in the Himalayas) . This is definitely not meant as a tirade-of-sorts against wood stoves!

However, I have sat around campfires in different parts of the world, either because I was a kid camping with my parents or boyscout troupe, a parent or grandparent camping with my (grand)kids, a cruiser joining a beach potluck in the Pacific or a welcome guest in some far-off jungle village where people did not even have stoves. So, whenever I sit in front of a nice roaring fireplace I feel a different type of connectedness, much more adventurous and atavistic, than when I put my feet up in front of a stove.

So, as we move towards more efficient fireplaces, in order to be kind to our body, environment, purse, you name it, we need to be very, very careful not to throw the child away with the bathwater, so to say.

Again, I would love to hear other member's take on the different ways they experience fireplaces and stoves.

Henk

VCBurner · Feb 1, 2011

Well said PyMS, it souds like you've lived quite a life. Growing up in souther Brazil, I remember seeing people cook and bake in old style German wood cookstoves. I lived in this remote little town that was colonized by Germans. All the architecture and even food was greatly influenced by the great heritage of the people in this town. I'm only 34 but the memories of this are inprinted in my brain. There were very few fireplaces where I grew up. Later as a teen, I moved to the great US of A and fireplaces were very common. I remember burning wood for added comfort in some cold winters. Now as a grown up, a father I fell in love with the fire again. These things can get into your blood and have a way of sticking around. We go camping every other weekend, May through October, so fires are common even outside the heating season.
Take care,
Chris

FyreBug · Feb 2, 2011

To answer Henk above

Well, an insert is what you put in an already existing masonry fireplace. A fireplace is either made on the spot by a mason using refractory bricks, clay tile chimney etc... however this method of construction has almost disappeared in favour of what is called a "Zero-Clearance" fireplace (also known as builders box). These are factory built unit fully insulated and safety rated that can be placed almost immediately against the studs or other combustible (thereby the name zero-clearance). They come as decorative units (low-efficiency), Mid-efficiency(ASTM Low-Mass) and High-Efficiency (EPA certified). They are connected to a class A chimney and once installed they can be framed, bricked, stone worked etc.. to look exactly as an 'old time' fireplace if you want. On some of them you can install a forced air kit that directs the warm air from the fireplace to your furnace duct work for even more efficiency.

Why would one choose one over the other? First of all Fireplace are almost always done in new construction. Finding a good mason might be difficult and you are still left with a low-efficiency solution. You can have the best of both world by choosing a ZC especially if you go for a high-efficiency model. Some 'Clean Face' ZC give you the ambiance if you leave the glass off (the glass hides up behind the mantel on a guillotine mechanism). When the glass is down it gives you more efficiency.

Finally, as to why poeple want to buy their items it is much like cars... What they like, their budget, the house parameters etc...

On a side note about grates increasing the efficiency of the fire. If that were the case, would not all EPA certified wood burning appliance mfg provide one automatically with their units? This would make their life easier when running the EPA tests. However, it was found the reverse is true and no mfg that I know of recommend the use of a grate in their appliances.

henkmeuzelaar · Feb 2, 2011

FyreBug said:
To answer Henk above

Well, an insert is what you put in an already existing masonry fireplace. A fireplace is either made on the spot by a mason using refractory bricks, clay tile chimney etc... however this method of construction has almost disappeared in favour of what is called a "Zero-Clearance" fireplace (also known as builders box). These are factory built unit fully insulated and safety rated that can be placed almost immediately against the studs or other combustible (thereby the name zero-clearance). They come as decorative units (low-efficiency), Mid-efficiency(ASTM Low-Mass) and High-Efficiency (EPA certified). They are connected to a class A chimney and once installed they can be framed, bricked, stone worked etc.. to look exactly as an 'old time' fireplace if you want. On some of them you can install a forced air kit that directs the warm air from the fireplace to your furnace duct work for even more efficiency.

Why would one choose one over the other? First of all Fireplace are almost always done in new construction. Finding a good mason might be difficult and you are still left with a low-efficiency solution. You can have the best of both world by choosing a ZC especially if you go for a high-efficiency model. Some 'Clean Face' ZC give you the ambiance if you leave the glass off (the glass hides up behind the mantel on a guillotine mechanism). When the glass is down it gives you more efficiency.

Finally, as to why poeple want to buy their items it is much like cars... What they like, their budget, the house parameters etc...

On a side note about grates increasing the efficiency of the fire. If that were the case, would not all EPA certified wood burning appliance mfg provide one automatically with their units? This would make their life easier when running the EPA tests. However, it was found the reverse is true and no mfg that I know of recommend the use of a grate in their appliances.

Thanks for the informative input, Fyrebug. Do I understand you well if I hear you say that a manufacturer can take a fully functional, high-performance wood stove insert -- let's say my old Blaze King -- add some insulation on the outside to make it meet specs as a (near)zero clearance builders box and then market it as a fireplace?? In other words, the primary difference between a modern fireplace and a modern wood stove insert is the way they are insulated and mounted??

What about the newer, freestanding, multi-sided and multi-windowed fireplaces (usually with gas-burning fake logs, one sees in the lobbies of banks, etc., nowadays? Would it be better to call these freestanding stoves since there is no builders box and they do not need special insulation??

If you are right, it would seem there is no real functional difference left between modern fireplaces and stoves. This also means that a lot of the arguments of fireplaces versus stoves are misdirected and we should only talk about the efficiency, cost, esthetics, ambiance, etc. of residential wood combustors.

If that's really so we may already have thrown the child away with the bathwater for -- in my mind at least -- there is a pretty big difference between what I would consider a fireplace and what I would call a stove, as discussed in the previous post. Hope you're wrong, though, and some others will chime in with their attempts to define what makes a fireplace versus what makes a stove.

With regards to the question of radiation as a function of log orientation, I was only referring to open combustors (or at most closed off by large windows). How you stack your logs inside a mostly closed stove will indeed have relatively little influence on the stove's radiation output which is primarily function of the temperature and emissivity of its outer walls. When talking about a fireplace's radiation output, however, I mean the direct radiation from the glowing logs, embers and flames, which typically are much hotter than the walls of a properly operated stove (not counting some of the red-glowing stoves occasionally shown in this forum...). The amount of the radiation that directly reaches people sitting or standing in front is dramatically influenced by the orientation of the logs. One can easily simulate/model that by putting a small electric radiator inside an empty fireplace and either pointing it towards the front or tipping it on its back and letting it radiate towards the top of the fireplace.

Henk

FyreBug · Feb 2, 2011

PyMS said:
FyreBug said:

To answer Henk above

Well, an insert is what you put in an already existing masonry fireplace. A fireplace is either made on the spot by a mason using refractory bricks, clay tile chimney etc... however this method of construction has almost disappeared in favour of what is called a "Zero-Clearance" fireplace (also known as builders box). These are factory built unit fully insulated and safety rated that can be placed almost immediately against the studs or other combustible (thereby the name zero-clearance). They come as decorative units (low-efficiency), Mid-efficiency(ASTM Low-Mass) and High-Efficiency (EPA certified). They are connected to a class A chimney and once installed they can be framed, bricked, stone worked etc.. to look exactly as an 'old time' fireplace if you want. On some of them you can install a forced air kit that directs the warm air from the fireplace to your furnace duct work for even more efficiency.

Why would one choose one over the other? First of all Fireplace are almost always done in new construction. Finding a good mason might be difficult and you are still left with a low-efficiency solution. You can have the best of both world by choosing a ZC especially if you go for a high-efficiency model. Some 'Clean Face' ZC give you the ambiance if you leave the glass off (the glass hides up behind the mantel on a guillotine mechanism). When the glass is down it gives you more efficiency.

Finally, as to why poeple want to buy their items it is much like cars... What they like, their budget, the house parameters etc...

On a side note about grates increasing the efficiency of the fire. If that were the case, would not all EPA certified wood burning appliance mfg provide one automatically with their units? This would make their life easier when running the EPA tests. However, it was found the reverse is true and no mfg that I know of recommend the use of a grate in their appliances.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the informative input, Fyrebug. Do I understand you well if I hear you say that a manufacturer can take a fully functional, high-performance wood stove insert -- let's say my old Blaze King -- add some insulation on the outside to make it meet specs as a (near)zero clearance builders box and then market it as a fireplace?? In other words, the primary difference between a modern fireplace and a modern wood stove insert is the way they are insulated and mounted??

Not at all. A solid fuel ZC combustion chamber is designed from the ground up with its own regulation by various construction/safety/emission governing bodies for that application. There is no commonality between a Fireplace and an insert and these terms are not interchangeable. An insert can be the same combustion chamber as a free standing wood stove with modifications to meet various regulations and is placed into an already existing masonry fireplace. You cannot take an insert add insulation and turn it into a ZC. Building and safety codes does not allow it and your building inspector/insurance would not allow it.

What about the newer, freestanding, multi-sided and multi-windowed fireplaces (usually with gas-burning fake logs, one sees in the lobbies of banks, etc., nowadays? Would it be better to call these freestanding stoves since there is no builders box and they do not need special insulation?? Not an expert on gas but i think the same applies. There are gas inserts and gas ZC and it follows similar legislative rules as above.

To recap: A wood stove is a combustion chamber designed as a free standing unit. An insert can be the same combustion chamber but modified and "certified" as an insert and "must" be installed inside and already existing fireplace. A ZC fireplace is a self contained certified unit with its own code & regulation.

Henk

henkmeuzelaar · Feb 2, 2011

FyreBug said:
PyMS said:

Thanks for the informative input, Fyrebug. Do I understand you well if I hear you say that a manufacturer can take a fully functional, high-performance wood stove insert -- let's say my old Blaze King -- add some insulation on the outside to make it meet specs as a (near)zero clearance builders box and then market it as a fireplace?? In other words, the primary difference between a modern fireplace and a modern wood stove insert is the way they are insulated and mounted??

Click to expand...

Not at all. A solid fuel ZC combustion chamber is designed from the ground up with its own regulation by various construction/safety/emission governing bodies for that application. There is no commonality between a Fireplace and an insert and these terms are not interchangeable. An insert can be the same combustion chamber as a free standing wood stove with modifications to meet various regulations and is placed into an already existing masonry fireplace. You cannot take an insert add insulation and turn it into a ZC. Building and safety codes does not allow it and your building inspector/insurance would not allow it.

OK, OK, I think I understand where you are coming from, Fyrebug.

For me, the terms "fireplace" and "stove" resonate with different places in my memory, my heart and my soul. For an expert on installation codes like you a "fireplace" and a "stove" have simply become legislative, code-based terms. They might have the same appearance (from the front, at least) and the same functionality, but only the code decides what they can/should be called.

That is what I meant by saying that it might already be too late because the child might already have been thrown out with the bathwater...

Very, very sad!! (yes, I know I'm an incurable romantic)

Henk

btuser · Feb 2, 2011

A fireplace is an open window. Better than an outdoor hearth, or a hole in the roof.

FyreBug · Feb 2, 2011

PyMS said:
FyreBug said:

PyMS said:

Thanks for the informative input, Fyrebug. Do I understand you well if I hear you say that a manufacturer can take a fully functional, high-performance wood stove insert -- let's say my old Blaze King -- add some insulation on the outside to make it meet specs as a (near)zero clearance builders box and then market it as a fireplace?? In other words, the primary difference between a modern fireplace and a modern wood stove insert is the way they are insulated and mounted??

Click to expand...

Not at all. A solid fuel ZC combustion chamber is designed from the ground up with its own regulation by various construction/safety/emission governing bodies for that application. There is no commonality between a Fireplace and an insert and these terms are not interchangeable. An insert can be the same combustion chamber as a free standing wood stove with modifications to meet various regulations and is placed into an already existing masonry fireplace. You cannot take an insert add insulation and turn it into a ZC. Building and safety codes does not allow it and your building inspector/insurance would not allow it.

Click to expand...

OK, OK, I think I understand where you are coming from, Fyrebug.

For me, the terms "fireplace" and "stove" resonate with different places in my memory, my heart and my soul. For an expert on installation codes like you a "fireplace" and a "stove" have simply become legislative, code-based terms. They might have the same appearance (from the front, at least) and the same functionality, but only the code decides what they can/should be called.

That is what I meant by saying that it might already be too late because the child might already have been thrown away with the bathwater...

Very, very sad!! (yes, I know I'm an incurable romantic)

Henk

Actually, I must be very bad at explaining myself. A stove, insert & fireplace are all different in regulations, looks & applications... A picture is worth a thousand word. Here is a pic of a stove, followed by the very same stove now as an insert into an already existing fireplace.

henkmeuzelaar · Feb 2, 2011

btuser said:
A fireplace is an open window. Better than an outdoor hearth, or a hole in the roof.

I like that. Would that be a quote or your personal musings?

Henk

PS: With a name like "btuser", who would have thought you were an incurable romantic too!!

FyreBug · Feb 2, 2011

Also Henck, if you want to see various samples of what low, medium & high-efficiency fireplace look like you can try this link http://www.valcourtinc.com/

btuser · Feb 2, 2011

I've had 3 different houses with fireplaces. Great air conditioners.

henkmeuzelaar · Feb 2, 2011

FyreBug said:
PyMS said:

FyreBug said:

PyMS said:

Thanks for the informative input, Fyrebug. Do I understand you well if I hear you say that a manufacturer can take a fully functional, high-performance wood stove insert -- let's say my old Blaze King -- add some insulation on the outside to make it meet specs as a (near)zero clearance builders box and then market it as a fireplace?? In other words, the primary difference between a modern fireplace and a modern wood stove insert is the way they are insulated and mounted??

Click to expand...

Not at all. A solid fuel ZC combustion chamber is designed from the ground up with its own regulation by various construction/safety/emission governing bodies for that application. There is no commonality between a Fireplace and an insert and these terms are not interchangeable. An insert can be the same combustion chamber as a free standing wood stove with modifications to meet various regulations and is placed into an already existing masonry fireplace. You cannot take an insert add insulation and turn it into a ZC. Building and safety codes does not allow it and your building inspector/insurance would not allow it.

Click to expand...

OK, OK, I think I understand where you are coming from, Fyrebug.

For me, the terms "fireplace" and "stove" resonate with different places in my memory, my heart and my soul. For an expert on installation codes like you a "fireplace" and a "stove" have simply become legislative, code-based terms. They might have the same appearance (from the front, at least) and the same functionality, but only the code decides what they can/should be called.

That is what I meant by saying that it might already be too late because the child might already have been thrown away with the bathwater...

Very, very sad!! (yes, I know I'm an incurable romantic)

Henk

Click to expand...

Actually, I must be very bad at explaining myself. A stove, insert & fireplace are all different in regulations, looks & applications... A picture is worth a thousand word. Here is a pic of a stove, followed by the very same stove now as an insert into an already existing fireplace.

Very nice pics! However, according to your figure captions these are both "stoves".

Now, couldn't the manufacturer take this stove insert, redesign the insulation and construction of the top, back and bottom sides to meet zero-clearance specs, get the new design approved by the various trade organizations and government agencies and then legitimately market it under the name "fireplace" without changing the front appearance nor the functionality?

You say the "looks" have to change as well. If so, in what way??

Henk

FyreBug · Feb 2, 2011

Sorry Henck, I didnt want to re-copy all the text. But the short answer to your question is 'no'. Both from a regulatory point and from an engineering point. An insert has to fit within a small space. The firebox typically goes from 1.2 cu. ft. to 3 for the larger ones (although i'm sure there are bigger ones out there but for the sake of argument we'll stay with what is common).

If you're an insert customer, you have an older home with an inefficient masonry fireplace. You still want to burn wood and can't afford to tear down the entire works to rebuild a proper ZC (cost well about $25G minimum). So for about $1,500 for the insert plus a liner you drop in the chimney you can do it yourself for about $2G.

If you're building a nice new home and you have some money to spare you typically want a nice big romantic fireplace. If you have the money you might as well enjoy it, right? That is why a small ZC fireplace box start at about 2.5 cu ft and they can go to 7 cu. ft. Because of the heat output they are tightly regulated for safety etc... and their design is absolutely different than a stove/insert.

So you see, different customer, different application, different regulation, different installation.

Hope this helps.

henkmeuzelaar · Feb 2, 2011

FyreBug said:
Sorry Henck, I didnt want to re-copy all the text. But the short answer to your question is 'no'. Both from a regulatory point and from an engineering point. An insert has to fit within a small space. The firebox typically goes from 1.2 cu. ft. to 2.3 for the larger ones (although i'm sure there are bigger ones out there but for the sake of argument we'll stay with what is common).

If you're an insert customer, you have an older home with an inefficient masonry fireplace. You still want to burn wood and can't afford to tear down the entire works to rebuild a proper ZC (cost well about $25G minimum). So for about $1,500 for the insert plus a liner you drop in the chimney you can do it yourself for about $2G.

If you're building a nice new home and you have some money to spare you typically want a nice big romantic fireplace. If you have the money you might as well enjoy it, right? That is why a small ZC fireplace box start at about 2.5 cu ft and they can go to 7 cu. ft. Because of the heat output they are tightly regulated for safety etc... and their design is absolutely different than a stove/insert.

So you see, different customer, different application, different regulation, different installation.

Hope this helps.

Thanks for all the feedback, Fyrebug. I am enjoying our discussion and learning a lot!

Although you classify your own answer as a "no", however, I am inclined to take your response as a "yes" (at the risk of making me look like a guy who can't take "no" for an answer

)

This is because I fully agree with your recap "different customer, different application, different regulation, different installation". but also note that you didn't say "different functionality and appearance", which are the issues I am primarily concerned with.

Henk

FyreBug · Feb 2, 2011

I'll let you have that one Henck

If you mean by functionality that it burns wood and appearance because they all have doors .... I guess so.

No to stretch the point too much but ZC extends the functionality by installing a forced air kit and dumping this in your furnace ducting the ZC has an advantage. And frankly if you look around, Fireplaces have have a much nicer look. They are not just a solution trying to fix a problem but an 'ambiance' product designed from the ground up to satisfy an exacting customer where ambiance & looks often trumps functionality (ie. high-efficiency).

Texas Fireframe · Feb 4, 2011

BeGreen said:
Texas Fireframe said:

BeGreen said:

Would you ever go back to straight fireplace use?

Click to expand...

Be Green,
You should rename this section "Wood Stoves vs. Fireplaces." That way fireplace users will know to stay away unless they want to do battle with wood stove owners - including the not exactly impartial moderator!

As for your question above, which seems to be in response to our exchange, I never said one is better than the other and I never would, because everyone has different needs, resources, physical abilities, desires, interests and climates.

People who post here are passionate about what they use, so it's unlikely they would say they would give it up. Your poll suffers from selection bias. ;-)

Click to expand...

No poll made or intended. I do have a bias against old style fireplaces for the same reason our ancestors migrated away from them as soon as superior heating methods were available. They suck a lot of wood up, are grossly inefficient and are very dirty burners. I like modern ZC fireplaces because they are getting ever better at clean burning with a fantastic fireview and they put out good heat.

But hey, I am just a lowly mod here and just stating one person's opinion. Quite frankly this is the first open fireplace discussion I have seen since the forum started, so fire away!

Be Green, I question your historical references. Ben Franklin invented the wood stove in 1742, and our ancestors certainly did not "migrate away" from the open fireplace after that. Millions more fireplaces were built and they continued to be the primary heat source in homes prior to central heating.

You say fireplaces "suck a lot of wood up," but I can use an unsplit, two-foot long, ten-inch diameter log as a back log and watch it burn for many hours, providing intense radiant heat. When speaking of energy efficiency, you need to consider human energy as well. Some humans are unwilling/unable to split logs and they want a way of burning them unsplit. My husband has an ax scar on his ankle from childhood camp that serves as a reminder to avoid that particular task.

You call fireplaces "dirty burners" even though there are far more bans on wood stove use than on firelace use. An improperly installed wood stove can leak poisonous gases into a home. I'm really not here to critize wood stoves, but to defend fireplaces against inaccurate statements.

Even after presented with a real life example of how a fireplace warmed a New England home with no other heat source - - your opinion did not seem to have shifted. If that story from one of your members doesn't persuade you a fireplace can create warmth and not make a house colder, then it's doubtful anything I say will.

Well I'm surprised that this is the first discussion about open fireplaces here! I suppose because this is mostly a gathering place for wood stove users. But I'm interested in all points of view and in the various ways people burn wood for heat.

henkmeuzelaar · Feb 4, 2011

Texas Fireframe said:
>
You say fireplaces "suck a lot of wood up," but I can use an unsplit, two-foot long, ten-inch diameter log as a back log and watch it burn for many hours, providing intense radiant heat. When speaking of energy efficiency, you need to consider human energy as well. Some humans are unwilling/unable to split logs and they want a way of burning them unsplit. My husband has an ax scar on his ankle from childhood camp that serves as a reminder to avoid that particular task.
>

Allow me to focus on the one paragraph of your post that I am personally most interested in, namely burning large logs in a fireplace while maximizing radiant output.

I have two fireplaces and my own experience with burning 9-10 inch diameter logs is that it is a tough battle to keep the inner wood gasifying well enough to sustain real flames. Even if I am willing to settle for a glowing charcoal layer on the outside of the log instead I will need to sacrifice a continuous supply of smaller splits and kindling around the large log to keep the radiation going.

Could you perhaps show a few photographs of the various stages of such a burn (involving a large, radiant log) or point me to a YouTube video showing how it's done?

Henk

Edit: Texas Fireframe, please be assured this is a genuine question from someone who likes fireplaces and would love to learn more about how to maximize their radiant heat output, especially with large logs and even if it might require addition of a special grate/fireframe. In short, it is not some kind of trick question but is meant to help to start a more healthy discussion about the value of fireplaces.

FyreBug · Feb 4, 2011

Same here, I still burn an open fireplace (only when we have guests for the ambiance thing) and from my experience a large unsplit log just smoulders.

Todd · Feb 4, 2011

Some fireplaces do have positive efficiencies like the old heatform/heatalator and the Rumford and will heat pretty well but not anywhere near the efficiency of a new EPA wood stove. I question the traditional type of fireplace that has no heat vents or special built in angles to radiate heat out into the room. I guess a special grate or reflective fire back could help but I'd still not want to heat 24/7 that way.

I use to have a Superior Heatform fireplace and in it's original form with leaky glass doors it still heated the main floor of the house easily but it also went through twice the wood than my downstairs wood stove. After installing air tight doors and an outside air combustion source efficiency improved. I would of kept it that way if it wouldn't of rusted through and became a safety hazard. It was nice to throw those big uglies in there I couldn't split or fit in the stove.

fredarm · Feb 4, 2011

All I can add is to report my experience with a traditional brick and mortar fireplace before and after a Pacific Energy Vista Insert was installed. Pre-insert, whenever I had a fire in the fireplace, the living room where the fireplace is located would get warm and the rest of the house would get cold. I had to shut off the upstairs heating zone (we have forced hot water baseboards and a separate zone for each floor) otherwise the upstairs heat would run continuously. I'm no heating expert, but I have to assume this was because the heat was being sucked out by the fireplace (or maybe the cold air was being sucked in). With the insert, we have a fire and it heats the living room nicely and the rest of the first floor pretty well. Some heat finds its way upstairs, but the upstairs zone runs pretty normally, cycling on and off as needed, rather than running contiuously.

CarbonNeutral · Feb 4, 2011

Texas Fireframe said:
You call fireplaces "dirty burners" even though there are far more bans on wood stove use than on firelace use.

[Citation Needed]

Fireplace worth it?

Feeling the Heat

Minister of Fire

Minister of Fire

Minister of Fire

New Member

Minister of Fire

Minister of Fire

New Member

Minister of Fire

New Member

Minister of Fire

Minister of Fire

Attachments

New Member

Minister of Fire

Minister of Fire

New Member

Minister of Fire

New Member

Minister of Fire

New Member

New Member

Minister of Fire

Minister of Fire

Minister of Fire

Minister of Fire

Similar threads