restoring a real fire on my house - advise needed!

creditcard123

MummyOfTwo wrote: »

can anyone advise with regard to hearth tiles? i thought that i wont be able to just choose whatever i like best from the tile shop, but i wanted something square and black...

We have slate tiles on our hearth it looks great
This is our 3rd open fire we have put one in every home we have owned you cant beat having a blazing fire over the Christmas holidays it's lovely .
I know all the other posts are about effiency and cost but for me it is cosy romantic and homely:T

highrisklowreturn

Is another argument for the open fire that you won't need to replace it like a stove after a number of years, thereby saving costs on this?

YORKSHIRELASS

We have both - a stove in the dining room and an open fire in the lounge. I can only comment on what we find in our house and I agree that the the stove does give out more heat and stays warm for longer but I find it hard to believe that 90% of the heat from the open fire goes up the chimney.

I get frustrated when I hear people talk about stoves as if they are some kind of miracle money saving machine - they are not.

However, going back to the original post - if the idea is to have something aesthetically pleasing to supplement the central heating then I would choose an open fire.

Our stove is a multi-fuel stove and can burn pretty much anything by the way. It was definitely worth the extra cost to be able to burn coal as well as logs.

A._Badger

highrisklowreturn wrote: »

I would like a fire too and don't know whether or not I should have a fire put in or a stove. The internet, far from being a good source of info, has just confused the hell out of me. I know that to put the fire in I've been quoted around £1100, which is good and nice and simplistic - all I'm really worrying about is the colour of the surround -but stove prices vary up to maybe £2k from £800 (including installation).

I'm worried pricipally because I don't really know the difference between stoves and open fires. It seems to be broken down into the following fore me:

Fires: Cheaper, more simplistic installation, nicer to look at, easy to fuel, longer life than a stove; but on the downside allegedely reduced efficiency.
Stoves: More expensive, more complex installation, bewildering range of stoves available, poorer aesthetically compared to a fire, no knowledge of how "hot" different K stoves are; but supposedely more efficient.

Add to this that people on here like A B. say that fires can be just as good and stoves poor, and it's completly Japanese. Also would like a back boiler but I don't know again if this is a good idea as I'm clueless as to how much extra this is - for each option - and what K of stove I should go for if I want one. Also, can I have one that just does water, and not ch? And if it did CH, would the fuel use for 7 rads be ridiculous?

It's too bewildering and I'd say I've a 1/5 chance of making a good decision on this.

It is bewildering. I agree - and it isn't made any easier by the stove manufacturers and (more significantly in my experience) some of the installers), who will tell you almost anything to make a sale.

One thing, I didn't suggest, and I don't believe, that open fires can be more efficient than closed stoves. I believe stoves are inherently more efficient. I just don't believe some of the claims that make stoves seem phenomenally more efficient than fires and I know from experience that a well designed and well tended open fire can make a room very warm indeed.

grahamc2003

jonewer wrote: »

Oh, I dont deny that on average, stoves give better efficiency than open fires.

My grouse is with some of the dubious claims about how inefficient open fires are compared to how wonderfully efficient stoves are, as well as some other claims put out by manufacturers and installers. These include "you have to line your chimney or the tar will penetrate the bricks and you'll have to knock your whole house down etc." You can easily disprove this by looking at a very old house. Notice the chimneys. Fine arent they?

As to losing 90% of the heat up the chimney, if 90% of the heat my little coal fire produces goes up the chimney then by golly, we need to invoke E=MC^2 to explain where all that energy is coming from!

The thing about drawing in air is also a red herring. For x units of combustion, a fire will consume x units of air. It doesnt matter if the combustion occurs in a metal box or not.

Stoves are better because you get more complete combustion because its easier to manage combustion in a closed chamber than in the open, just as theres a big difference between a well designed fireplace with a choke and baffle system compared to just a plain chimney over a fire pit.

The question is one of cost of installation and initial purchase versus the amount of fuel saved by the greater efficiency of a stove. Seeing as how an installation would cost me £4.5k, that quite a few bags of coal I'd have to burn to make the numbers add up.

Quite a few points raised there. Before I comment, could I state that I just like scientific accurate statements are made on here - I really couldn't give a toss who owns a stove, an open fire, or lights sticks on their carpet to make heat. People have different prferences and decide on different heating solutions - I'm not pro or anti stoves or fireplaces, and I've had both.

Yes, stoves on average are more efficient than open fires on average, with a wide variation. But on average, a stove is seven times more efficient than an open fire, according to science. People may feel it in their bones that it's not that much, or that open fires are more efficient, but I trust the science. The reasons for this are detailed in my previous post. It's not my fault that those are the relative efficiencies, but I'm not going to say something different just not to upset those who think differently.

I agree about lining a chimney. I didn't have mine lined (much to the disgust of posters on here who told me I'd soon gas myself and family and if I didn't, a chimney fire was a certainty. But I'm pleased to say all my family are still alive and I haven't yet had a chimney fire. My stove works extremely well without a lining. I'm not saying they are a waste of space and sometimes may be useful (and they help prevent deposition of muck by ensuring a slightly higher exhaust temperature (but that is only helpful for those who don't know how to oiperate a stove correctly, i.e. ensuring stoichiometric combustion).

As to losing 90% of the heat up the chimney, if 90% of the heat my little coal fire produces goes up the chimney then by golly, we need to invoke E=MC^2 to explain where all that energy is coming from!

Nothing to do with Einstein unless you have fission or fusion in your fireplace, which is doubtful. It's quite easy to lose 90% of the heat up your chimney, and even to lose 110%, as I explained before, so we'll just have to disagree on this point. But your gut feeling is at odds with scientific research, so I'll trust the latter.

The thing about drawing in air is also a red herring. For x units of combustion, a fire will consume x units of air. It doesnt matter if the combustion occurs in a metal box or not.

Sorry, but this is where you are totally incorrect, and probably explains why you can't accept the possible negative efficiency of an open fire.

For complete combustion, you need a certain amount of oxygen. If you supply precisely that amount of oxygen in the air and no more, then you have stoichiometric combustion, and that's what all stove owners should aim for. Open fire owners can't control the amount of air, so probably 10 or 15 or 20 times the amount of air is supplied to the fire, and goes up the chimney for no reason (that's what makes them inefficient - alot of your warm room air goes rushing up the chimney, being replaced by cold outside air). In a sealed metal box, you can precisely control the amount of air, and no more, to get complete combustion. Surely you can see how this is a major advantage of stoves over an open fire and therefore why stoves typically (i.e. not in every case, just almost all) are cheaper to run (about 1/7th the cost of an open fire imv for the same net heat, when both operated correctly).

I'm not saying stoves are better or worse than open fires since everyone has different preferences of what they like.

XYZ1000

Hi Mummyoftwo

Just been reading through your post. Wondered if you could tell me who you are now getting to do the work. You mentioned a roofer. I am abit stuck at the moment...........I am at a similair stage to you (with a hole in the wall)!! and not sure where to look next to do the work . I have had a chimney sweep round and it doesn't need sweeping . I need someone to go on the roof and someone to get a liner out. any ideas.
Thanks

MummyOfTwo

we currently have a big hole in the wall too!

still tinkering with getting the cast iron surround to fit flush to the wall, as its slightly inset (perhaps 2" at the most) but this requires more brick to be removed. We are having great difficulty finding the all-reassuring lintel before we proceed with taking more brick out - any thoughts anyone?

as for the work, we are doing it ourselves with the local sweep overseeing and advising. they really are a wealth of knowledge as they will also know the house builds/types in the area. we have a roofer as we are having the chimney pot put back on (gas cowl currently). we have a three storey victorian house so a couple of roofers werent brave enough to get up there

MummyOfTwo

panic over - lintel located well up the chimney breast. bloody old houses.

muckybutt

MummyOfTwo wrote: »

can anyone advise with regard to hearth tiles? i thought that i wont be able to just choose whatever i like best from the tile shop, but i wanted something square and black...

Go for 50mm slate, polished with linseed oil it looks great.

jonewer wrote: »

My grouse is with some of the dubious claims about how inefficient open fires are compared to how wonderfully efficient stoves are, as well as some other claims put out by manufacturers and installers. These include "you have to line your chimney or the tar will penetrate the bricks and you'll have to knock your whole house down etc." You can easily disprove this by looking at a very old house. Notice the chimneys. Fine arent they?

Look, heres some from Ightham Mote than must have been in use without a liner for about three centuries at least. and possible five or maybe more. Notice all that horrible tar penetration! Dreadful arent they!

I can say from several years of experience of being a sweep that some houses do get very bad staining from tar and creosote build up. Noticed more in infrequently used / damp chimney's.

I have to admit that I am a big fan of liners purely for the ease of maintenance and sweeping, I have a liner fitted to my stove for two very clear reasons, 1) ease of maintenance. 2) old leaky chimney

jonewer wrote: »

Yes, just get your chimney swept every now and again.

The main advantage of stoves from my point of view is that you can

1. Leave them unattended with confidence
2. They can be kept in overnight.

Every now and again :eek:
I recommend a normal chimney is swept minimum once a year ideally twice a year depending on use and what is burnt on it, on a stove installation every 12 - 18 months is adequate unless you notice it not burning correctly, certain chimney associations would say a normal chimney should be swept 4 - 6 times a year and a liner at least 3 times a year but in reality it just isnt worth doing and imho I would see it as I was ripping the customer off doing it that frequently.

The difference between a normal chimney sooting up more quickly than a lined chimney is that with a normal chimney the insides are rough and full of little nooks and crannies this effetively slows down the exhaust gasses ( smoke ) and gives the soot more to grab onto. A liner on the other hand is smooth on the inside which allows the gasses to escape quicker and gives soot a far less easier time to grip onto the smooth surface.

Like a lot of things in life though you pay for what you want out of it, if finances wont allow for a liner then providing the chimney is in good repair and is'nt leaking then fine to put a stove in without a liner.

A._Badger

I think one problem with liners is that their restricted diameter means they clog quicker. A traditional chimney has a much greater surface area.

They also seem to be less reliable than was originally claimed for them.

That said, like Muckybutt, I have had an old, unlined, chimney suffer from tar coming through the brickwork. On the other hand, the advocates of 'liners for all' (by some strange coincidence, the people who make money by selling and installing them) claim that open fires and stoves produce different conditions which means stoves need liners, while open fires don't.

The problem is that the arguments aren't very convincing and I doubt much genuine research has been done into the subject.

Finally, in response to grahamc2003's post I would simply point to the recent events at CERN and suggest that there is no such thing as fixed science. If the real world doesn't agree with the theories, then the theories may need adjusting.