What About Rumfords??

[Rob From Wisconsin]

Not much talk about this type of fireplace.
In spite of the basic design being 200+ years old, several designs are EPA tested & approved,
even though they are masonry in nature.

We are looking into putting one in our forthcoming addition (wife likes the look of a "conventional fireplace").

It would be nice to start a "thread" on this topic......

 

[begreen]

EPA approved? I read about BOCA approval. As an open fireplace I would suspect the emissions to be significantly greater than those of an EPA stove or insert.

Edit, Rob are you referring to the Renaissance Fireplaces?

(broken link removed to http://www.renaissancefireplaces.com/en/Renaissance_Fireplaces_)

 

[Rob From Wisconsin]

EPA approved? I read about BOCA approval. As an open fireplace I would suspect the emissions to be significantly greater than those of an EPA stove or insert.

Edit, Rob are you referring to the Renaissance Fireplaces?

(broken link removed to http://www.renaissancefireplaces.com/en/Renaissance_Fireplaces_)

No, I'm referring to regular Rumfords.
Check the below link to test results.

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

The only key components that are pre-manufactured are the throat & smoke chamber by
Superior Clay Products. According to Mr. Buckley, many people have used this test result, along with
approved designs to meet their local emission standards.

Rob

 

[madrone]

Very cool. Seems like a great alternative for the more-than-occasional user who isn't looking for a heating appliance. Impressive EPA stats.

 

[Rob From Wisconsin]

Very cool. Seems like a great alternative for the more-than-occasional user who isn't looking for a heating appliance. Impressive EPA stats.

Actually, Count Rumford intended it for the "serious" user in his time.
Increased & efficient heat output (less up the chimney).
He was man who was ahead of his time (lots of Physics & Math).

Check-out some of the info on www.rumford.com

 

[gzecc]

In 1800 Rumford was the cutting edge. How far have we come in 200 yrs?

 

[webbie]

A long way. I'm sure a properly built Rumford is fine for it's intended purpose, but Ben Franklin came up with a better idea, that being a baffled metal stove.

If I was building something to look at and throw a little heat off, I might consider a Rumford. But I'd probably rather go with a true masonry heater-type.

 

[dvellone]

They are a great design. There's nothing like an open hearth in your home, especially when it's efficient.

 

[jebatty]

My wife and I always have loved our fireplace. Great ambiance in spring and fall, but rarely used in winter. If anyone knows for sure, please confirm, but it seems to me that meeting EPA emission standards has everything to do with burn efficiency and nothing to do with heating efficiency. Right? The Count was good at the math to get a good burn, as smokey (interior) fireplaces were the norm in his day. But for heat, good ol' Ben had Rumford beat all the way to the bank. Glad we've come a long way since the the Count and the $100 portrait.

 

[Rob From Wisconsin]

From what I read, they are efficient & do throw-off more heat than a wood stove.
It would stand to make sense that "open air" insulates radiant heat less than a layer of metal.

Remember, the Rumford looks & operates differently than your normal fireplace.

 

[jebatty]

Someone is confused, and it might be me. The Rumford fireplace basically is a set of specifications on fireplace design that was originated by Count Rumford to end the interior smoking, poor burning and therefore poor heating properties of then contemporary fireplaces. Width, height, and depth ratios, plus design of the throat and smoke chamber, are the essence of the Rumford design. Air control is by means of a damper.

That said, a Rumford fireplace will never produce the heat per pound of wood that a modern EPA woodstove produces. The Rumford will draw far more air from the heated space to assure good combustion and no smoking than will a wood stove, and all that air must be replaced from an outside air source -- thus, drawing in large quantities of cold outside air. The Rumford will have a net heat gain, but it will be far less than a wood stove, which has a much lower air draw.

I'm not being critical of anyone who wants a fireplace. But if the choice is for a Rumford fireplace for the primary purpose of heating, there are far better wood burning choices available than a Rumford fireplace.

Incidentally, many years ago I was involved in litigation over a fireplace which smoked into the living space. The homeowner won the case against the fireplace builder because the builder did not follow the Rumford design principles. I'm not aware that anyone has improved upon the design concepts of Count Rumford for a traditional wood burning fireplace.

 

[Rob From Wisconsin]

Someone is confused, and it might be me. The Rumford fireplace basically is a set of specifications on fireplace design that was originated by Count Rumford to end the interior smoking, poor burning and therefore poor heating properties of then contemporary fireplaces. Width, height, and depth ratios, plus design of the throat and smoke chamber, are the essence of the Rumford design. Air control is by means of a damper.

That said, a Rumford fireplace will never produce the heat per pound of wood that a modern EPA woodstove produces. The Rumford will draw far more air from the heated space to assure good combustion and no smoking than will a wood stove, and all that air must be replaced from an outside air source -- thus, drawing in large quantities of cold outside air. The Rumford will have a net heat gain, but it will be far less than a wood stove, which has a much lower air draw.

I'm not being critical of anyone who wants a fireplace. But if the choice is for a Rumford fireplace for the primary purpose of heating, there are far better wood burning choices available than a Rumford fireplace.

Incidentally, many years ago I was involved in litigation over a fireplace which smoked into the living space. The homeowner won the case against the fireplace builder because the builder did not follow the Rumford design principles. I'm not aware that anyone has improved upon the design concepts of Count Rumford for a traditional wood burning fireplace.

You are correct - the basic design hasn't changed all that much.
The big difference is that a lot of the critical componentry is now manufactured.

Also incidentally, I read a posting from a person who had recently installed a Rumford & was
concerned also about its performance, so he had a Morso woodstove in reserve if it failed to supply
his heating needs. Needless to say, he never used his stove.......

 

[begreen]

Back in CT we had friends with a Rumford. It did a good job of projecting radiant heat. Smoked slightly on warm up on milder days. But as it cooled down, it still sucked out the room heat, just like any other open fireplace.

 

[SteveKG]

I found out about Rumfords and bought a book on how to design one. Built one in our livingroom by cutting out templates from scrap plywood to get the angles all correct as I set the brick. I'd never done anything at all like that and it took me quite a while but got it done.

It works very well. We heat with wood stoves and use the fireplace for "fun" now and then. Yes, they really do throw out the heat. Sometimes we have to open an outside door, even in winter, a little as it warms up the room so much. Ours is medium-sized, the opening 36" wide and 36" tall in an arched shape. I built a heavy metal damper and put an air supply opening in the front bottom which brings in outside air thru a duct built into the base.

An insert would likely be more efficient, if it were being used for regular home heating. It isn't.

But the Rumsford design works as advertised and is a pleasure to use. I have heard that one can purchase a ready-made steel box in the Rumford dimensions and simply build around it, and those should work great, too.