got some soapstone

[summit]

i have enough soapstone pieces from old hearthstone rebuilds to remove the original firebrick in my summit and replace with a layer of soapstone the same thickness. i don't want to replace the sides/ rear.. i like the quick convection effect from the regular brick there, and i'd rather have easy to obtain bricks to hit with logs over and over than hard to get soapstones. i am not displeased at all with the heat output the summit gives, or the burn times. but i can't help but think this would be cool.. saw the guy at the trade show selling soapstone firebricks.. any one tried it? i might give it a go...

 

[cmonSTART]

Sounds like a very interesting idea.

 

[KeepItNatural]

Its difficult to see the downside to this idea. The soapstone would add some thermal mass to your stove and therefore would combine fast heating which you already have, with a little more radiant heating to it.
I'm not positive if it will have much of a noticeable difference, but I think it is worth a try.

 

[BrotherBart]

I have wanted to try it in the 30-NC but just couldn't find the bricks.

 

[DAKSY]

It oughta work fine.
The new Hearthstone Clydesdale is COMPLETELY lined
with soapstone, polished soapstone, no less!
Let us know how it works...

 

[Slow1]

So - your idea is to replace the firebrick on the bottom of the stove with soapstone and leave the standard firebrick on the back and sides because you are concerned about wear on the soapstone from wacking with splits etc?

Ok - so I'm thinking about this and my new Fireview... inside my box, I have firebrick on the bottom only and the back and sides are all soapstone (the opposite of what you are proposing). Now, I have not heard a thing from anyone about problems with the back/sides of the stove being too beat up from use. They don't even have the stove designed in such a way as to make these parts easily replaced which implies to me that this really isn't a problem, thus I suspect soapstone is pretty tough, even when hot in a stove.

This gets me thinking ...

1) For your application, if you have the soapstone available to do the back and sides I bet you wouldn't have a problem with the stones degrading. There may be some other reason to not use them, but that shouldn't be the showstopper for you.

2) I wonder what it is about the materials that makes the firebrick better for the bottom of the fireview. One has to assume that Woodstock folks have a reason as they certainly don't have a shortage of soapstone and the cost difference most likely isn't the driving factor for that relatively small amount of material - whatever property differences there are might impact your application. I simply don't understand the differences enough to speculate what it may do.

 

[Wet1]

The bottom layer of bricks doesn't get as hot since it's usually insulated with a decent layer of ashes. I don't think you're going to gain much or notice much of a difference by just replacing the bottom layer of fire bricks with soapstone. If anything, the stove might take a hair longer to warm up and cool down, but we're talking a very small difference here. I also wouldn't be surprised if the soapstone cracked if there wasn't a layer of ashes over the bottom to protect it, but this is just a guess since soapstone stoves are prone to cracking when over-fired.

 

[Highbeam]

My heritage has a cast iron base that is covered with soapstone bricks which the fire is built on. The sides and back of the firebox are also soapstone, the same stones that make up the exterior of the stove. Single wall construction with no pieces of anything between the fire and the stove wall.

They make countertops out of soapstone, I propose that it is a more durable material than standard firebricks. I have no idea why woodstock puts them on the floor.

 

[minnow19]

Summit - you ever get around to putting the soapstone in your stove? Just wondering how the experiment is going