Are all fire bricks the same

DAKSY

Patriot Guard Rider Moderator
Staff member
Go to a masonry supply & get the standard split brick & you will be fine.
You can quibble over the extra BTUs, hotter fires, & brick life, but in the
long run the less expensive, denser split bricks will do the job. No reason
to make this project any more difficult or more expensive.
 

jeffoc

Member
Oct 3, 2008
116
Blandinsville, IL
I think the manual is the same for both stoves. I doesn't differentiate much, but you may be able to tell by the shapes in the pictures.
If you have a dealer around they could probably hook you up with the off type and then the farm or box store for the rest.
 

Burd

Feeling the Heat
Feb 29, 2008
438
Bell bell Pa.
DAKSY said:
Go to a masonry supply & get the standard split brick & you will be fine.
You can quibble over the extra BTUs, hotter fires, & brick life, but in the
long run the less expensive, denser split bricks will do the job. No reason
to make this project any more difficult or more expensive.
Your the man. That's what I'll do. If by chance I get hot spots I'll purchase pumice
 

velvetfoot

Minister of Fire
Dec 5, 2005
9,973
Sand Lake, NY
I replaced the pumice bricks in two quads with standard ones because I was disgusted with how quick they deteriorated. There was a thread a while ago where someone quoted Quad as saying loss of material to half the original height was permissable. I haven't noticed any difference in burning with the standard firebrick. I might experiment with replacing the bricks with originals, but it'd probably be a costly experiment and I'd get pissed off again.

PS: I was even able to drill the required 1" hole for the startup air pipe.
 

begreen

Mooderator
Staff member
Nov 18, 2005
78,703
South Puget Sound, WA
How long did the first set last? Mine are on season 3 and so far look fine.
 

Burd

Feeling the Heat
Feb 29, 2008
438
Bell bell Pa.
Begreen did you replace your bricks our are they the same ones from the factory
 

Ubookz

Member
Jun 2, 2011
37
British Columbia
do you think filling in the gaps above the side bricks helped any?-by oldspark
Very little difference, but I have a tile saw and that leftover pumice brick from the initial install that I cut up :)
 

Hogwildz

Minister of Fire
You can turn the bricks back to front and they will be like new again.
I am on season 6 with mine, the original bricks that came with the insert.
 

begreen

Mooderator
Staff member
Nov 18, 2005
78,703
South Puget Sound, WA
velvetfoot said:
Both you guys have P.E.s. Quad might use different brick.
Maybe try replacing with PE pumice bricks then?
 

Martin Strand III

New Member
Nov 20, 2005
763
NW MI near nowhere
How will I ever sleep tonight
knowing my stove has the heavier
more dense fire brick rather
than the pumice fire brick?

Aye,
Marty
Grandma used to say,
"Believe me. Life is a struggle."
Grandpa said,
"I think it's a wiggle."
 
O

oldspark

Guest
Marty S said:
How will I ever sleep tonight
knowing my stove has the heavier
more dense fire brick rather
than the pumice fire brick?

Aye,
Marty
Grandma used to say,
"Believe me. Life is a struggle."
Grandpa said,
"I think it's a wiggle."
Hit your self in the head with one of them-sleep like a baby. :cheese:
 

precaud

Minister of Fire
Jan 20, 2006
2,307
Sunny New Mexico
Burd said:
I really thought that the brick would hold the heat in longer like a clay furnace. Has any one come across bricks that are better then others.
This is a common misunderstanding. Firebrick is not supposed to "hold" heat. Its purpose is to slow the transfer of heat in order to raise temperatures within the firebox in the flame part of the cycle. After that, there is no good reason to "hold" heat in a firebrick. Once the flame dies, you'd be better off having no firebrick at all to maximize heat transfer. So the optimum firebrick has high insulation factor and low weight.
 

Battenkiller

Minister of Fire
Nov 26, 2009
3,739
Just Outside the Blue Line
I'd stick with the original material.

Insulating fire brick (IFB) allows higher internal temps than regular hard brick. If the makers put that in the stove, I'm sure there was a design reason for doing so. IFB doesn't necessarily keep more total heat inside the stove. Insulation doesn't prevent heat from transferring, it just slows down the rate of transfer. But with higher internal temps the heat will transfer at a faster rate, so it may be the same amount of heat leaving the box to the room, just higher temps resulting in a more efficient and cleaner burn.

Please agree with me Jags, my ego needs a boost as much as yours does. %-P
 

Hogwildz

Minister of Fire
Marty S said:
How will I ever sleep tonight
knowing my stove has the heavier
more dense fire brick rather
than the pumice fire brick?

Aye,
Marty
Grandma used to say,
"Believe me. Life is a struggle."
Grandpa said,
"I think it's a wiggle."
Run full speed head on into that expensive monolith you have, and that should do quite well.
Or just reread your posts and let the negativity that flows there bore you to sleep.
There is the top two choices offered from a distance anyways.
 

Martin Strand III

New Member
Nov 20, 2005
763
NW MI near nowhere
Hogwildz said:
Marty S said:
How will I ever sleep tonight
knowing my stove has the heavier
more dense fire brick rather
than the pumice fire brick?

Aye,
Marty
Grandma used to say,
"Believe me. Life is a struggle."
Grandpa said,
"I think it's a wiggle."
Run full speed head on into that expensive monolith you have, and that should do quite well.
Or just reread your posts and let the negativity that flows there bore you to sleep.
There is the top two choices offered from a distance anyways.
More than once I have been ridiculous
to point out the ridiculous.

Aye,
Marty
 

Jags

Moderate Moderator
Staff member
Aug 2, 2006
18,020
Northern IL
Battenkiller said:
I'd stick with the original material.

Insulating fire brick (IFB) allows higher internal temps than regular hard brick. If the makers put that in the stove, I'm sure there was a design reason for doing so. IFB doesn't necessarily keep more total heat inside the stove. Insulation doesn't prevent heat from transferring, it just slows down the rate of transfer. But with higher internal temps the heat will transfer at a faster rate, so it may be the same amount of heat leaving the box to the room, just higher temps resulting in a more efficient and cleaner burn.

Please agree with me Jags, my ego needs a boost as much as yours does. %-P
I'm picking up what your laying down, BK. +1000 :lol:

For the record - my firebrick are the originals and I see no need for a replacement at this time. Thats 8 yrs.
 
O

oldspark

Guest
Jags said:
Battenkiller said:
I'd stick with the original material.

Insulating fire brick (IFB) allows higher internal temps than regular hard brick. If the makers put that in the stove, I'm sure there was a design reason for doing so. IFB doesn't necessarily keep more total heat inside the stove. Insulation doesn't prevent heat from transferring, it just slows down the rate of transfer. But with higher internal temps the heat will transfer at a faster rate, so it may be the same amount of heat leaving the box to the room, just higher temps resulting in a more efficient and cleaner burn.

Please agree with me Jags, my ego needs a boost as much as yours does. %-P
I'm picking up what your laying down, BK. +1000 :lol:

For the record - my firebrick are the originals and I see no need for a replacement at this time. Thats 8 yrs.
Still have the original ones in the old Nashua 30 years old and so far the PE ones look fine-2 years in March.
 

Battenkiller

Minister of Fire
Nov 26, 2009
3,739
Just Outside the Blue Line
precaud said:
Firebrick is not supposed to "hold" heat. Its purpose is to slow the transfer of heat in order to raise temperatures within the firebox in the flame part of the cycle. After that, there is no good reason to "hold" heat in a firebrick. Once the flame dies, you'd be better off having no firebrick at all to maximize heat transfer. So the optimum firebrick has high insulation factor and low weight.
I respectfully disagree. The original purpose of using fireclay brick in stoves was to protect the innards of the stove, not to add insulation. At stove operating temps, ordinary fireclay brick has about the same thermal conductivity as concrete has. So, if 8" of concrete isn't considered to be an effective insulator in a basement, what possible insulating effect could 1" of fireclay brick have?

Insulating firebrick OTOH has a thermal conductivity about 10X that of fireclay brick, so it provides 10X the insulation per inch thickness. That is not a trivial difference. Both types of brick are used for different purposes in different designs. Again, I would trust my stove maker and the engineers behind the scene. Replacing fireclay brick with IFB because they are considered to be "optimum" might cause internal temps to elevate above the design parameters and cause premature failure to internal parts. Why risk that and accelerate the wear and tear on your stove, or possibly even void your warranty?

FWIW IFB is not all that expensive, just hard to find locally. Full-size bricks of K-23 (rated to 2300ºF) are about $4-5 from a kiln supplier. If you run your stove real hot and are rough with loading it, you can spend more and get a denser and more durable K-30 brick. It won't hurt the stove because these denser bricks actually have a slightly lower insulating value (but still several times higher than ordinary fireclay). IFB can be cut with a hacksaw, but if your stove requires split bricks I would find a source for them rather than wearing out your arm (and several hacksaw blades) cutting them in half.