Oh yes it can. It can radiate heat while sucking the warmed air out of the house. Pretty typical of fireplaces actually. Some radiate better than others, but the basic problem is the same. That's why only the room with the fireplace seems warm.
Fireplace worth it?
- Thread starter phatfarmerbob
- Start date
-
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
Texas Fireframe said:
I encourage anyone to keep living the best way you can!! Fireplaces are not really used for a main source of heat anymore, but that doesn't mean they don't heat! They are said to be 20% efficient, not negative in efficiency. They are also beautiful and make a pretty good place to put a stove
ispinwool said:
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)
Hogwildz said:
no im sure its an OAK of sorts cause i can see the pipe where it goes throu the garage to the outside kinda hard to explain there is also an ash drop in the back of the fireplace ...the oak is directly below the fire grate...
i have been doing a better job keeping the fire in the fireplace hot and the room is warmer now ... but perhaps soon i will try closing it up for a week and see how much difference there is
VCBurner said:Texas Fireframe said:
I encourage anyone to keep living the best way you can!! Fireplaces are not really used for a main source of heat anymore, but that doesn't mean they don't heat! They are said to be 20% efficient, not negative in efficiency. They are also beautiful and make a pretty good place to put a stove
As the fireplace cools down and is no longer a radiant heat source it still is pulling a very large volume of air up the chimney. At that point, the 20% efficiency goes negative. Fireplaces are a net zero heating gain.
http://www.woodheat.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11&Itemid=32
BeGreen said:
Then how do you explain VCBurner's fireplace experience:
"One Winter, we used the fireplace for an entire February to heat the entire house. It got really cold at night after the fire died, but I could keep the fire going for a good 4-5 hours on a hugr amount of wood. The livingroom was really warm, the rest of the house was in mid 60’s. Most of the day. Some mornings low 60’s to high 50’s. Furnace was completely off. I would not recommend the fireplace being used for a regular heat source, especially in place of a wood stove. But, had there not been fires in my fireplace that month the house would have been too cold to live in. The pipes would have frozen too."
Continual operation reduced the negatives and the house was reasonably insulated? Bet he went through a lot of wood to do it.
My wife grew up in a log house with no central heat. We tried heating the house with just the fireplace and one cold night nearly burnt the place down as the supporting timbers under the hearth started smoldering. It can be done, but there is little efficiency involved.
My wife grew up in a log house with no central heat. We tried heating the house with just the fireplace and one cold night nearly burnt the place down as the supporting timbers under the hearth started smoldering. It can be done, but there is little efficiency involved.
BeGreen said:
Well according to the description, the fireplace was not continually operated. They let the fire go completely out every night. But while the fire was going, the room with the fireplace was warm, the other rooms were in the 60's and no pipes froze. The theory of the fireplace making a house colder doesn't hold up with this example and many others I am aware of. I'm not advocating using a fireplace as a sole source of heat in northern climates (that does not sound fun!) I'm simply saying claims that fireplaces make a house colder are not supported by many people's real life experiences - past and present.
About your wife's log house, there was a design flaw if a hearth fire caused timbers under the hearth to smolder. I hope that has been remedied for the safety of the current inhabitants. I've kept a fire going around the clock during a power outtage with no risk to my house.
Texas Fireframe said:
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.
VCBurner said:I encourage anyone to keep living the best way you can!! Fireplaces are not really used for a main source of heat anymore, but that doesn't mean they don't heat! They are said to be 20% efficient, not negative in efficiency. They are also beautiful and make a pretty good place to put a stove
Amen! Whatever keeps you warm, happy, safe and less dependent on fossil fuels is a good thing. I have a customer with a wood fuel furnace outside his house, and a fireplace fire inside. It's all good.
Texas Fireframe said:VCBurner said:I encourage anyone to keep living the best way you can!! Fireplaces are not really used for a main source of heat anymore, but that doesn't mean they don't heat! They are said to be 20% efficient, not negative in efficiency. They are also beautiful and make a pretty good place to put a stove
Amen! Whatever keeps you warm, happy, safe and less dependent on fossil fuels is a good thing. I have a customer with a wood fuel furnace outside his house, and a fireplace fire inside. It's all good.
Now that I have heated with wood stoves, I would never like to go back to straight oil furnace use. That winter we had no money to put any oil in the tank. The price was around $4/gallon and we didn't have the $400 for a minimum of 100 gallons. I was laid off, as I often am in the Winters (being a union carpenter comes at a cost.) So I decided to buy 1/2 cord from a guy in the next town over. Then another 1/2 cord. We had enough wood to burn for a month in the fireplace and it got us through the month untill we could save up and get the oil.
I'm not going to say I'd recommend heating with the fireplace. Wood stoves are obviously a much better heat source. But there's still a place for them in our homes. I hope we continue to build them in new construction. As I said, they are a tradition, they're beautiful and make a pretty good place for wood stoves!! Plus they continue to raise a home's value.
BeGreen said:
I doubt that anyone would want to go back to "straight fireplace use" if they want to heat their house. What is fascinating to me, though is that newer fireplace models, such as our Majestic WarmMajic with its double-walled forced convection back and sides plus tempered glass doors, are clearly evolving towards wood stove inserts.
On the other hand some of the most popular new wood stoves appear to be getting larger and larger ceramic glass viewing windows.
I have a feeling it might not be long before we start seeing fireplace designs incorporating some type of reburning and/or afterburning technology.
In fact, after reading the rather sad story of the Texas Fireframe's inventor's court battles, 25 years or so ago, I realized that the attempt to maximize a fireplace's radiative heat output makes quite a bit of sense but needs to be accompanied by much more precise air flow control in order to produce a significant net benefit. The inventor and his disciples seemed to have understood this by trying to adjust their dampers whereas the consumer organization's testers failed to do so (in addition to failing to standardize the experimental fire set-ups well enough so that anyone -- including themselves -- could try to repeat the experiment).
Anyhow, I doubt that any grate-type fireplace insert could, in and by itself, make a radical enough difference to create a more efficient next-generation fireplace. What seems to be needed is a careful re-examination of all the mass and energy transport design issues involved while trying to avoid designing simply a wood stove insert with a larger viewing window.
Maybe this sounds like mission impossible.... However, I can see a possible niche for small, well-sealed wood fireplaces operating at high enough temperatures to produce a higher radiative output (and associated ambiance) compared to typical wood stoves while living on a much more controlled air budget than the current generation.
When all is said and done, I expect the near-future landscape of residential wood burning devices to offer a rather more continuous panorama without some of the current gaps that seem to invite less nuanced, black-and-white classifications and assessments.
Henk
Absolutely not, in fact I wouldn't recommend it. After using a good wood stove why would anyone do such a thing? That being said, I still hope we build fireplaces in new homes for the reasons I stated above. Not too many people intend to really heat their homes with their fireplaces, full time, right? They should have some sort of insulated removable block off plate to put in them while they are not in use. Then, when the person gets some sence and buys a wood stove, all they have to do is cut a whole in the middle, line the chimney and really heat up the house! :lol:BeGreen said:
BeGreen said:
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. ;-)
PyMS said:
Are you familiar with the FPX fireplace? It sounds like what you're imagining, and it has been in existence for quite some time. I'm sitting here right now, warmed by its catalytic "reburning" technology on a night when the outside temp is 11 F. It's heating my 2400 square foot home without help. And it is a fireplace.
You can find out more about it here: (broken link removed to http://fireplacex.com/product
uide/wood_fireplaces.aspx)-Speak
ispinwool said:Texas Fireframe said:
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.
What?! They allow crocheters on here?? Have they no standards??
Thanks for the cute wood/wool analogy.
Texas Fireframe said:
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!
SpeakEasy said:PyMS said:
Are you familiar with the FPX fireplace? It sounds like what you're imagining, and it has been in existence for quite some time. I'm sitting here right now, warmed by its catalytic "reburning" technology on a night when the outside temp is 11 F. It's heating my 2400 square foot home without help. And it is a fireplace.
You can find out more about it here: (broken link removed to http://fireplacex.com/product
-Speak
Thanks for posting this. I did not know about it, but that does not mean much as I am a relative newcomer. However, I am assuming this type of "fireplace" must have been discussed before on this forum? If not, i think a lot of others will be interested as well.
I am trying to figure out if this is essentially a "wood stove with a very big view window" (i.e. the design trap I saw looming ahead) or really a fireplace....... In the absence of clear definitions, I guess the designer of this intriguing wood combustor can call it whatever he or she wants. Should make for some interesting discussions here, I hope.
The fact that the manufacturer encourages people to burn wood with the doors open if they are more interested in ambiance than in efficiency would seem to be one way in which it sets itself apart from most wood stoves. To bring home the point: in a parallel thread one forum member is actually bemoaning the fact that a family member opened up his wood stove, thereby screwing up everything.
If I am missing anything here, it might be the fact that this wood combustor seems to generate most of its usable heat energy through convection rather than through radiation. However, I guess one could in principle always use some special grate, e.g. along the lines of the Texas Fireframe that ignited so much fiery rhetoric in this thread, if one wanted to increase the radiative output (with or without the doors open but undoubtedly while giving up efficiency for ambiance.
Meanwhile, I am very impressed, with the excellent design and apparent construction quality of this fireplace.
As far as my own feeble attempts to try and see ahead a bit, I think it was Mark Twain who said: "making predictions is hard; especially about the future"
Henk
Henk, there are several nice ZC fireplaces and many threads on them. Look for info on Kozy, FPX, Quadrafire 7100, BIS and RSF fireplaces. They are incorporating clean burning design with some good heat recovery. This makes for a much more efficient burning experience without compromising the view.
PyMS said:SpeakEasy said:PyMS said:
Are you familiar with the FPX fireplace? It sounds like what you're imagining, and it has been in existence for quite some time. I'm sitting here right now, warmed by its catalytic "reburning" technology on a night when the outside temp is 11 F. It's heating my 2400 square foot home without help. And it is a fireplace.
You can find out more about it here: (broken link removed to http://fireplacex.com/product
-Speak
Thanks for posting this. I did not know about it, but that does not mean much as I am a relative newcomer. However, I am assuming this type of "fireplace" must have been discussed before on this forum? If not, i think a lot of others will be interested as well.
I am trying to figure out if this is essentially a "wood stove with a very big view window" (i.e. the design trap I saw looming ahead) or really a fireplace....... In the absence of clear definitions, I guess the designer of this intriguing wood combustor can call it whatever he or she wants. Should make for some interesting discussions here, I hope.
The fact that the manufacturer encourages people to burn wood with the doors open if they are more interested in ambiance than in efficiency would seem to be one way in which it sets itself apart from most wood stoves. To bring home the point: in a parallel thread one forum member is actually bemoaning the fact that a family member opened up his wood stove, thereby screwing up everything.
If I am missing anything here, it might be the fact that this wood combustor seems to generate most of its usable heat energy through convection rather than through radiation. However, I guess one could in principle always use some special grate, e.g. along the lines of the Texas Fireframe that ignited so much fiery rhetoric in this thread, if one wanted to increase the radiative output (with or without the doors open but undoubtedly while giving up efficiency for ambiance.
Meanwhile, I am very impressed, with the excellent design and apparent construction quality of this fireplace.
As far as my own feeble attempts to try and see ahead a bit, I think it was Mark Twain who said: "making predictions is hard; especially about the future"
wow i didnt expect my inquary to ignite so much debate glad i asked... i bet mark twain didnt expect his book (huck fin ) to be censored either .. i bet hes laughing it up in his grave somewhere.
Henk
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.
VCBurner said:
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.
- Status
Similar threads
