What size to cut wood to...Antique house

[sbh1980]

Hi we moved into a house from the 1700's with seven fireplaces some of which are 6 feet wide. Standard 18 over even 24 inch logs look lame in the fireplaces. We also had a large tree fall, and so it is time to cut! What are the pros and cons of cutting the wood to a larger size for these larger fireplaces? 3 feet? Any guidance is helpful.

 

[barnaclebob]

Pics of this amazingness are needed. I don't see any problems with cutting logs longer besides they will be heavier and harder to split.

 

[armanidog]

The larger logs will take longer to dry.
Have you had anyone check the chimneys? I would be very worried about missing pieces of mortar inside the chimneys which could lead to a fire.

 

[begreen]

Large logs can be hard to split. Unsplit logs can take a long time to dry. Those fireplaces are most likely sources of heat loss, so maybe just pick one for burning in and cut to a reasonable size. If the goal is to heat with wood then consider putting a freestanding stove or two in the fireplaces and cut wood to size for them.

 

[Kevin Weis]

Having a nice fire in those big cooking fireplaces is an amazing site! I've seen 36' stuff used in those but the flue needs to have sufficient draft for all that smoke. Please have a professional sweep inspect those that you are going to use to verify they are in good repair to be able to be used. If the draft is very good and dry wood is used creosote formation should be minimal. If you are going to use it often, would have it cleaned at lest every three months. Kevin

 

[begreen]

Yes have it very closely inspected. There are wood lintels in some of those old fireplaces.

 

[jetsam]

Having lived in those old houses, my advice is not to stockpile a ton of 36"+ wood. It looks cool to have a bonfire in a giant fireplace, but you'll eventually get tired of being cold all the time and block them off (either to install a stove in there or just to stop the bleeding so the furnace can catch up).

Look up the chimney sometime when there's no fire... that is how much warm house air is whooshing directly out of the house when the fire is burning, and the bigger the fire the faster the airflow. It's a losing proposition, heat-wise (but it is very pleasant to sit next to when it's burning).

 

[Ashful]

Six feet is fairly narrow for a cooking fireplace. Where are these houses located? Can you narrow down the year, a bit? I not, I might be able to help.

Those large fireplaces were NOT for large fires. In fact, you’ll likely damage the lintel or pot hangers, if you build a very large fire in there. Just as you have several burners on your modern kitchen range, it was normal to have several small fires in a cooking fireplace. This is why (at least where I’m from), they tended to be up to 12 feet wide, but usually relatively shallow. You would have a bed of coals for one purpose, a small fire for another, and maybe a third healthier fire preparing another bed of coals.

Pot hangers could be swinging off the side wall, back wall, or overhead thru the smoke chamber. Sometimes these pot hangers are metal rods, or as in the case of my primary kitchen, wooden timber.

To answer your original question, cutting to 18” length would be fine. They were not putting six foot logs into these fireplaces. Their purpose was not heating, but cooking.

 

[Alpine1]

Or sitting in... my grand-grand mom had a huge fireplace (IIRC around 10 ft wide and 3 ft deep) and I remember her sitting on a chair into the fireplace with a small fire in it. There was a shallow metal square (about 40 x40 cm x 5 cm high) in which the fire was. Instead of hangers for the pots, there were iron tripode
Wood was cut about 1 ft long.

 

[bholler]

Six feet is fairly narrow for a cooking fireplace. Where are these houses located? Can you narrow down the year, a bit? I not, I might be able to help.

Those large fireplaces were NOT for large fires. In fact, you’ll likely damage the lintel or pot hangers, if you build a very large fire in there. Just as you have several burners on your modern kitchen range, it was normal to have several small fires in a cooking fireplace. This is why (at least where I’m from), they tended to be up to 12 feet wide, but usually relatively shallow. You would have a bed of coals for one purpose, a small fire for another, and maybe a third healthier fire preparing another bed of coals.

Pot hangers could be swinging off the side wall, back wall, or overhead thru the smoke chamber. Sometimes these pot hangers are metal rods, or as in the case of my primary kitchen, wooden timber.

To answer your original question, cutting to 18” length would be fine. They were not putting six foot logs into these fireplaces. Their purpose was not heating, but cooking.

Six feet is on the large side for cooking fireplaces here. The largest i have seen around here was about 9'. But regardless of the size you are spot on never meant for large roaring fires at all.

 

[maple1]

Hi we moved into a house from the 1700's with seven fireplaces some of which are 6 feet wide. Standard 18 over even 24 inch logs look lame in the fireplaces. We also had a large tree fall, and so it is time to cut! What are the pros and cons of cutting the wood to a larger size for these larger fireplaces? 3 feet? Any guidance is helpful.

I'm kind of hoping the house has another heat source? Can't imagine trying to keep a house warm by keeping 7 fireplaces going all winter.

 

[Ashful]

Six feet is on the large side for cooking fireplaces here. The largest i have seen around here was about 9'. But regardless of the size you are spot on never meant for large roaring fires at all.

Growing up in an area where they were mostly 8 feet wide, and having one even wider than that in our family, I used to think that was just the norm. It wasn’t until I moved an hour to the west that I realized that varies quite a bit, depending on the culture of the folks building them. Here, they’re mostly 5 feet wide, including the two in my house (rebuilt in 1770’s), and our church’s parsonage (ca.1780).

It seems the Scotts and English had one idea on how these things should work, and the Eastern Europeans another.

 

[Ashful]

Yes have it very closely inspected. There are wood lintels in some of those old fireplaces.

Correct, but understated, I think. I’ve never seen a cooking fireplace with a lintel made from anything else.

These lintels create fun clearance to combustible issues, when installing stoves in your fireplaces, but that’s usually the direction to go if you want heat from the fireplace. Cooking fireplaces are always a net heat loss, there’s just no overcoming an 1’-6” to 2’-0” diameter hole up to the sky, worse if you have multiples.

I did try heating a house with fireplaces once. We had four in that house, two open and two with glass doors. At least two of them (maybe three, 20+ year old memory) had outside air intakes, but I think they were not big enough. In any case, I’d go thru more than a cord per week. The second floor was still cold, since all of the fire places were on first floor and basement, and they’d suck massive outside make-up air thru all of those rooms not benefiting from their direct radiant heat.

 

[begreen]

Correct, but understated, I think. I’ve never seen a cooking fireplace with a lintel made from anything else.

These lintels create fun clearance to combustible issues, when installing stoves in your fireplaces, but that’s usually the direction to go if you want heat from the fireplace. Cooking fireplaces are always a net heat loss, there’s just no overcoming an 1’-6” to 2’-0” diameter hole up to the sky, worse if you have multiples.

With 7 fireplaces in the house, I could see a winter and a summer kitchen, but probably not 7 kitchens unless this was an early cooking school. Several of the fireplaces are probably just area heaters.

Construction back in the 1700's varied with the builder. It's not uncommon to find wood right up against an unlined chimney, take-offs at various locations that may or may not be sealed, crumbling mortar, etc. Before burning, each chimney should be checked.

 

[Ashful]

Yeah, wasn’t trying to imply they were all cookers. Typical 1750’s construction of sufficient size and quality remain today in our area would have one cooker and usually three heaters, with a second cooker in a detached summer kitchen. In my case, as many others, the summer kitchen was later connected to the house as an addition, when it was no longer used for cooking in the summer.

By the mid-18th century, the six-plate stoves were starting to replace fireplaces, and the ten-plate stoves in the late 18th century were even more successful. My 1770’s house has only two cooking fireplaces (one in the house, one in the summer kitchen), and a half dozen thimbles for stoves, no heating fireplaces.

 

[Alpine1]

But... where are the OP pictures??? We LOVE pictures!

 

[Squirrel1410]

But... where are the OP pictures??? We LOVE pictures!

I second. Show us!

Always wanted to live in a 1700’s house with one of those massive fireplaces.

 

[Simonkenton]

The Grove Park Inn in Asheville NC has two huge fireplaces in the lobby. They are about 10 feet wide. The huge stone lintels weigh tons.
They burn sticks about 5 to 6 feet long, that really looks cool to see those big logs burning in the huge fireplace.

 

[AlbergSteve]

Pictures, really wanna see some pictures!

 

[Simonkenton]

Grove Park Inn, Asheville NC. The fireplace is so huge that it dwarfs the huge opening which is at least 10 feet wide.
If you are ever in Asheville, go to the Grove Park Inn, it is worth the visit just to sip on some Jack Daniels and watch that enormous fireplace in action.