Larger See-Thru Woodburning Fireplace ?

[seanvan]

I am in the process of building a log home and want to have a bigger than normal fireplace in between my great room and kitchen (wanting a see-thru).
Does anyone have any ideas on manufacturers for larger (50"+ width) fireplace boxes? I am struggling to find them.

Any advice is appreaciated.
Thanks,
Sean

 

[begreen]

Sean, we get more queries for how to turn such designs into meaningful heating appliances, than the other way. (This sounds like Super-Hunky's design). The grand fireplace will be a large heat sucker from the house. Given the steadily increasing prices of fuel, it seem a shame to put one in when there are such wonderful options. I would put in a masonry stove in this situation with a wood oven on the kitchen side. It will get more use and you will love the heat.

 

[SlyFerret]

There was another thread a short while back where a member did a great writeup on his masonry heater installation.

You've got a golden opportunity if you're still in the process of building your home.

-SF

 

[seanvan]

Wow those are different – I probably would have the opportunity to utilize the foundation with the structure, but was hoping to stay with something like the following…just a bit bigger:
http://www.heatilator.com/products/fireplaces/woodFireplaceDetail.asp?f=ML42ST
I really wanted to avoid the cost of a mason and the real stone.

 

[seanvan]

One other item.
I was thinking of putting some sort of wood-burning device in the basement directly below this fireplace. It would might be a stove, fireplace, whatever is efficient and puts out the most heat. That fireplace would be used to heat the great room above. While the big fireplace on the main floor I would be happy to just not LOSE any heat, its primary reason is presentation.

Hope that helps...

I really appreciate the advice folks...

 

[builderbob]

One other item.
I was thinking of putting some sort of wood-burning device in the basement directly below this fireplace. It would might be a stove, fireplace, whatever is efficient and puts out the most heat. That fireplace would be used to heat the great room above. While the big fireplace on the main floor I would be happy to just not LOSE any heat, its primary reason is presentation.

Hope that helps...

I really appreciate the advice folks...

I think the trouble with the prefab fireplaces like you linked. or even just the one-sided "low efficiency" ones, is that you don't have airtight doors on the opening(s) like zc high efficiency firepalce units do. The glass doors used for these prefab types have gaps around the edges--there is not an airtight seal. Hence, when not in use, heated room air still gets sucked up the chimney to some extent. There is a reason they call these types (including the two-sided ones) "low-efficiency."

Additionally, the dampers, if they have one at all, are not heavy duty ones that seal down well just from sheer weight, and thereby keep the room air heat from going up the chimney. The dampers they have nowdays are very light-gauge metal, not at all like the heavy iron or steel dampers from yesteryear used in the old traditional masonry fireplaces. And likely these newer ones pivot in the pipe opening---doesn't seem like a real positive seal to me. Of course, any damper at all would cut heated room air loss to some extent.

With a two-sided unit and openings on both sides, you double your chances of serious heated room air loss.

I have seen for sale some "gadgets" that are basically air filled baloons that one can stick up inside the firebox in the chimney opening to act as a sealing damper. But just the idea of the mess when you do want to use the fireplace is ghastly. Imagine taking one of those balloons out, then putting it back in when done with a fire. I think this product more fills a need for people who have just decided to "abandon" use of fireplace and want to seal it off to keep from losing room heat up the chimney.

Hope these random factoids help.

 

[david Lee]

I agree, sometimes appearance wins out over heat. Warmer climates like Southern California, Phoenix, Vegas, etc. you don't need intense heat.

If you're looking for a non EPA See- through, then check out the Lennox Magna Fire (LS43-ST). It seems to have a much cleaner finishing appearance than most. Looks like you can cover up all the metal even with glass doors. The door opening looks to be 43" x 25" tall.
www.lennoxhearthproducts.com/ fireplaces/ wood burning.

 

[builderbob]

I agree, sometimes appearance wins out over heat. Warmer climates like Southern California, Phoenix, Vegas, etc. you don't need intense heat.

That's a good point. Where are you located? In a warm clime or a cooler clime?

In a warm clime, you may not even care or notice about room air going up the chimney when not using the fireplace---or when using the fireplace!.

 

[seanvan]

I am located in Omaha, Nebraska - so I need some efficiency. It is just about finding the right balance. I would like to have a good sized fireplace as this is the focal point of a 32 x 32 room basically. It is just difficult to find anything with a 50"+ x 25"+ opening.

I will checkout that Lennox one.

 

[jtp10181]

You don't need a huge fireplace for huge flames and fire.

http://www.quadrafire.com/Products/Wood_Burning/Wood_Model.asp?f=7100fp

That's not a dressed up picture for the brochure, it really can look like that when burning, and it puts off tons of heat.

BTB has good advise, I would also like to add that ST open wood fireplaces have a great tendency to smoke into the house. The larger the opening the larger the chance.

Also, you mentioned putting something in the basement for heating, like a stove, to heat the room above it? This typically does not work very well and there are numerous posts of people having trouble with this. There are even a few who relocated their stove upstairs after members suggesting it and they were very impressed by the increased heating ability. You want the fireplace IN the space you want to heat, right in the middle of it if possible.

 

[seanvan]

Interesting.
I used to own a house which had a wood burner in the basement. It was nothing fancy, in fact you could not even see the flame. it just had a blower to keep the logs going. it heated the basement, but also had special duct work running upstairs and helped up there as well. that is what i was going to try and mimic. but the wood burner was nothing that you would want in your main room.

i really appreciate the feedback guys.
i am just a little disappointed in the options, besides going to an expensive and inefficient mason type fireplace.

 

[jtp10181]

FYI the open heatilator you linked to isn't going to be any more efficient than an "expensive and inefficient mason type fireplace".

 

[JimWalshin845]

You can try VC, their box is 52" x 33"
http://www.vermontcastings.com/content/products/productdetails.cfm?id=107

Edit/addit: But if you really want class... check out these Rumford designs and they are see through.

http://www.rumford.com/Murphy.html

 

[begreen]

Interesting.
I used to own a house which had a wood burner in the basement. It was nothing fancy, in fact you could not even see the flame. it just had a blower to keep the logs going. it heated the basement, but also had special duct work running upstairs and helped up there as well. that is what i was going to try and mimic. but the wood burner was nothing that you would want in your main room.

i really appreciate the feedback guys.
i am just a little disappointed in the options, besides going to an expensive and inefficient mason type fireplace.

First a masonry stove is wonderfully efficient, not inefficient. You burn it once or twice a day, wide open. It is designed with channels that transfer the heat in the smoke path to the masonry mass and then slowly radiates it back into the room throughout the day. Many are true works of art. Here's a some examples and a hearth poster's description:

https://www.hearth.com/econtent/index.php/forums/viewthread/12045/

from what you've described, this may be what you are looking for with a double-sided fireplace that is efficient:
http://www.homeportfolio.com/catalo...atId=10&manId=710&selected;_anId=&prodId=8819
and some more eye candy:
http://www.tulikivi.com/www/tltuoteU.nsf/EN2/GEMINI?OpenDocument&id=takkauunit_ta&id2=EN
http://www.homeportfolio.com/catalog/Listing.jhtml?superCatId=10&manId=710

That's a wood furnace that's being described. As you noted, a completely different animal. Putting a stove (not a furnace) in the basement is not usually a good idea if the intent is to heat the floor above it. A stove is primarily an area heater. Only when conditions are ideal a basement stove might heat upstairs adequately, but then it's often at the expense of having a really hot basement.

It sounds like you need to do a thorough analysis of the house's heating needs first. A big open fireplace will pull heat out to the house. A nicely sized ZC fireplace or stove will not. It will be a heater as well as provide a nice fire view. If the intent is to have an actively used basement (for family room, game roo, theatre, etc. then it should be totally insulated and area heated so that one can be comfortable in that area. Ideally the upstairs should have it's own heater. A nice ZC with a great fire view should work fine at accomplishing this.

 

[builderbob]

i really appreciate the feedback guys.
i am just a little disappointed in the options, besides going to an expensive and inefficient mason type fireplace.

You are right, for woodburning fireplaces with large viewing openings along with heating efficiency at the same time, the choices are limited.

"Higher efficiency" pretty much rules out even the old Rumsford traditional masonry fireplaces. This was what people thougt of (likely most still think of) when the word "fireplace" was used up to the 70's or maybe even 80's. But they never did much for actually heating a house.

That is why (in my unexpert opinion) a whole industry was born creating "inserts" to stick into those heat-sucking openings. People got tired of sending their house heat up the chimney wasting their dollars. So they "sealed off" the fireplace openings with inserts, and at the same time got a unit that would put back actual heat into the room.

But there are "some" choices where you can get high efficiency along with a decent view of the fire. Sometimes, limitation of choice is really just a disguised blessing-----it makes it easier to choose!

As to "double-sided" I don't think you have a choice of heating efficiency and large double-sided openings at the same time-----for this, it is a choice of either/or. That is, if you want double-sided, then forget heating efficiency.

The available double-sided fireplace options with large openings, "I guess", would be "slight" heat losers when not in use for a fire (I have not seen anywhere any actual studies of this for available units). The damper shut, along with closed glass doors, should cut down the heat loss very appreciably, but they would not be airtight. "I guess" when such units are not in use, the heat loss might not even be noticable in terms of comfort, and perhaps only slightly noticeable in terms of utility bill.

Think of your kitchen stove hood fan. There is a non-airtight opening there too. It is a heat-leaker too, but do you ever notice it or even consider it? It is basically a hole installed on purpose in your otherwise tighly sealed new house. One could think of a fireplace the same way. The chimney to a zc fireplace wouldn't be that much larger than the opening for a kitchen fan vent, I don't think.

Like a previous poster said, sometimes "looks and ambiance" trump high heating efficiency.

So, you have some decisions to nail down:
1) How important is "double-sided" viewing to you? (Single-sided view will open up many
more options).
2) Can you live with slight (perhaps not noticable) heat loss when fireplace not in use?
3) Do you want woodburning as opposed to gas? (Gas would open up more options,
including double-sided viewing).

If one of the companies can come to market with a zc woodburning fireplace with a "large" (33" x 52") viewing area together with high efficiency (net heat producder for house), I think the market is just waiting for them. If they can do this somehow with a double-sided unit, they might win the Nobel Prize.

All that said another zc woodburning option with large viewing area is Napoleon Z6000. But it is single sided, and note they are "tricky" about saying anything about efficiency or pollution levels. plus it is perhaps the most expensive of the zc options for sale. And it may not be approved for use in all jurisdictions.

****My comments above do NOT address or comment on the masonry/oven option just mentioned by another poster. The OP seemed to rule out the expense of this option.

 

[seanvan]

First a masonry stove is wonderfully efficient, not inefficient.

Sorry - I did not mean stove, I just meant a large stone fireplace. I had heard those can be heat suckers.

 

[begreen]

No problem, and I was wrong, there is a double sider that should be available in the US. You made me get off my butt and search a bit harder. That's when I found that Tulikivi makes a double-sider. I didn't know that. If you can afford it, the stove will give you pleasure even when it's not burning. They are really beautiful, but pricey. The British have a couple more conventional style stoves that are double-sided, but so far I haven't seen them for sale in the US.

 

[d.hebert]

Temp-Cast (the masonry heater in my post) also comes as a see thru.