Woodburner...

[john87]

41 minutes ago, Billhook said:

I would think about putting a Rumford in one of your fireplaces, but find the right brickie!

 

Let me put it like this.. i will DEFINITELY be investigating them Rumford things. Where would i get a drawing?? They sound just perfect for what i want..

 

Brilliant idea you had, the pipes in the floor to let the air in too!!

 

One like in the photograph in your link i could easily build myself..

 

The victorians used to have cast iron firebacks, what if i made a rumford shaped one from stainless plate all TIG welded together [i am a properly qualified welder as it happens] and built it in to the existing fireplace That would reflect the heat back in big time..

 

Thanks for the brilliant idea!!!!

 

john..

[Big J]

It is not possible to have a controlled (ie, efficient) burn without air control. You cannot achieve this in any kind of open fire. It only occurs in a stove.

 

The least efficient stove is still twice as efficient as the most efficient open fire.

 

Why are you so resistant to installing a stove? There is no evidence whatsoever that any form of open fire is even remotely comparable. 

[john87]

1 minute ago, Big J said:

It is not possible to have a controlled (ie, efficient) burn without air control. You cannot achieve this in any kind of open fire. It only occurs in a stove.

 

The least efficient stove is still twice as efficient as the most efficient open fire.

 

Why are you so resistant to installing a stove? There is no evidence whatsoever that any form of open fire is even remotely comparable. 

I'm not, just finding out what can be done first. However, i have stood in front of both, and i know what was the warmest..

 

If open fires were so bad, why did they persist so long? Huge efforts were made towards the design of locomotive boilers, so they were not daft in them days. One thing they knew about was engineering, heat, and building.. Look at say Bristol templemeads compared to the modern corrugated tin sheet rubbish.. They were not daft.. If someone had come up with a stove in the 1900's that was so much better than an open fire, they would have sold hundreds of millions of them, but this never happened. Why might that be..

 

john..

[Big J]

4 minutes ago, john87 said:

I'm not, just finding out what can be done first. However, i have stood in front of both, and i know what was the warmest..

 

If open fires were so bad, why did they persist so long? Huge efforts were made towards the design of locomotive boilers, so they were not daft in them days. One thing they knew about was engineering, heat, and building.. Look at say Bristol templemeads compared to the modern corrugated tin sheet rubbish.. They were not daft.. If someone had come up with a stove in the 1900's that was so much better than an open fire, they would have sold hundreds of millions of them, but this never happened. Why might that be..

 

john..

You're overthinking it. 

 

There was absolutely no incentive to be environmentally friendly or efficient. Stoves are principally stemming from Scandinavian designs, which we have no history with as there isn't a tradition of burning wood in this country.

 

If you want to burn wood, buy a stove. There is no debate. There is no alternative (other than burning nothing). An open fire won't heat your house to 21st century standards, it will pollute the air and use a lot of fuel. Simples.

[john87]

25 minutes ago, Big J said:

You're overthinking it. 

 

There was absolutely no incentive to be environmentally friendly or efficient. Stoves are principally stemming from Scandinavian designs, which we have no history with as there isn't a tradition of burning wood in this country.

 

If you want to burn wood, buy a stove. There is no debate. There is no alternative (other than burning nothing). An open fire won't heat your house to 21st century standards, it will pollute the air and use a lot of fuel. Simples.

Yes... You are probably right...

 

john...

[Billhook]

8 hours ago, Big J said:

You're overthinking it. 

 

There was absolutely no incentive to be environmentally friendly or efficient. Stoves are principally stemming from Scandinavian designs, which we have no history with as there isn't a tradition of burning wood in this country.

 

If you want to burn wood, buy a stove. There is no debate. There is no alternative (other than burning nothing). An open fire won't heat your house to 21st century standards, it will pollute the air and use a lot of fuel. Simples.

Whilst you are correct for most situations, all I can say is that there is a world of difference between the old farmhouse, uncontrolled wide chimney system and the Rumford in my living room here.  

Basically the room is sealed, airtight with gas filled double glazing.  The chimney is in the middle of the house and the brickwork warms the first floor as well.  The air that feeds the fire comes in from the outside and has two grills either side that can be adjusted, the flue above the fire has an iron plate which can be completely shut.

The result is that the fire can be controlled and the large area of brick at the back of the fire which is shallow pushes the heat out into the room.  In this way my Rumford is acting more like a wood stove

The result is that when I put exactly the same amount of wood in the Rumford as I put in the Aarrow, I find that they need to be topped up at the same time  I admit that both have not got a secondary burn as in the very latest wood stoves, all am saying is that there is a world of difference between some open fires, just as there is between some wood stoves

Are you really saying that wood stoves do not pollute the air?

Vindico | Your Wood Burning Stove And Air Pollution

WWW.THINKAIR.CO.UK

---

How much does your fashionable wood burning stove contribute to air particle pollution? The result of that ‘homely...

 

[Big J]

25 minutes ago, Billhook said:

Whilst you are correct for most situations, all I can say is that there is a world of difference between the old farmhouse, uncontrolled wide chimney system and the Rumford in my living room here.  

Basically the room is sealed, airtight with gas filled double glazing.  The chimney is in the middle of the house and the brickwork warms the first floor as well.  The air that feeds the fire comes in from the outside and has two grills either side that can be adjusted, the flue above the fire has an iron plate which can be completely shut.

The result is that the fire can be controlled and the large area of brick at the back of the fire which is shallow pushes the heat out into the room.  In this way my Rumford is acting more like a wood stove

The result is that when I put exactly the same amount of wood in the Rumford as I put in the Aarrow, I find that they need to be topped up at the same time  I admit that both have not got a secondary burn as in the very latest wood stoves, all am saying is that there is a world of difference between some open fires, just as there is between some wood stoves

Are you really saying that wood stoves do not pollute the air?

Vindico | Your Wood Burning Stove And Air Pollution

WWW.THINKAIR.CO.UK

---

How much does your fashionable wood burning stove contribute to air particle pollution? The result of that ‘homely...

 

 

The Rumford fire may be better, but it's still functionally pointless when stoves exist.

 

I know that a stove obviously creates pollution, but it's not on the same scale as an open fire. An 80% efficiency rating versus 20% is hard to argue with.

[difflock]

Bloody obvious that the venturi effect will draw extra, unneeded for combustion air from the room up the open flue, with 2 effects, 1 it cools the combustible gases before they all get burned, and 2 it draws in fresh cold replacment air in from somewhere else, generally below the door, causing a lovely draught. This will also happen with no fire lit, but to a lesser entent.

With a woodstove the combustion air can easily be throttled, plus in the more sosphicated stoves it is cunningly heated and directed into the optimium stovebox location for best combustion.

Simples.

[Puffingbilly413]

32 minutes ago, Billhook said:

Whilst you are correct for most situations, all I can say is that there is a world of difference between the old farmhouse, uncontrolled wide chimney system and the Rumford in my living room here.  

Basically the room is sealed, airtight with gas filled double glazing.  The chimney is in the middle of the house and the brickwork warms the first floor as well.  The air that feeds the fire comes in from the outside and has two grills either side that can be adjusted, the flue above the fire has an iron plate which can be completely shut.

The result is that the fire can be controlled and the large area of brick at the back of the fire which is shallow pushes the heat out into the room.  In this way my Rumford is acting more like a wood stove

The result is that when I put exactly the same amount of wood in the Rumford as I put in the Aarrow, I find that they need to be topped up at the same time  I admit that both have not got a secondary burn as in the very latest wood stoves, all am saying is that there is a world of difference between some open fires, just as there is between some wood stoves

Are you really saying that wood stoves do not pollute the air?

Vindico | Your Wood Burning Stove And Air Pollution

WWW.THINKAIR.CO.UK

---

How much does your fashionable wood burning stove contribute to air particle pollution? The result of that ‘homely...

 

Be careful reading these reports. Wood burning is referred to but it doesn’t make it clear that they separate open fires from stoves in their data sets. Or even coal - as ‘domestic combustion’ is the section description in the charts they use. 

Edited December 13, 2021 by Puffingbilly413

[Billhook]

13 minutes ago, Big J said:

 

The Rumford fire may be better, but it's still functionally pointless when stoves exist.

 

I know that a stove obviously creates pollution, but it's not on the same scale as an open fire. An 80% efficiency rating versus 20% is hard to argue with.

#i think the 20% figure would definitely be my parents old house and fireplace but I would put my Rumford much nearer a wood stove.

 

15 minutes ago, difflock said:

Bloody obvious that the venturi effect will draw extra, unneeded for combustion air from the room up the open flue, with 2 effects, 1 it cools the combustible gases before they all get burned, and 2 it draws in fresh cold replacment air in from somewhere else, generally below the door, causing a lovely draught. This will also happen with no fire lit, but to a lesser entent.

With a woodstove the combustion air can easily be throttled, plus in the more sosphicated stoves it is cunningly heated and directed into the optimium stovebox location for best combustion.

Simples.

You must know by now that I am simples!

The air is controlled in my living room by shutting down the two 4 inch pipes under the floor that bring in air from the outside.  The room is otherwise sealed with double glazing and draft proof door.  The flue can also be shut right down.

The room is like a giant wood burner and has the additional benefit of heating up the mass of brickwork in the centre of the house which creates a longer background heat.

A lot of wood stoves do not draw in air in this way and it has to be sucked in under doors and through inefficient windows creating draughts and thus more inefficiencies.

15 minutes ago, Puffingbilly413 said:

Be careful reading these reports. Wood burning is referred to but it doesn’t make it clear that they separate open fires from stoves in their data sets. Or even coal - as ‘domestic combustion’ is the section description in the charts they use. 

Fair comment, but is it not true that wood when burnt will create a certain amount of particulates no matter how it is burnt?

In an efficient fire you burn less wood so less particulates, but the particulates are still there.

My only comment about the health of people around wood fires is that my parents both had a huge open fire every day in the Winter in their draughty old house and both lived to a good age  87, and 91 and wood smoke was not put down as a cause of death.