Register plate fitment

A._Badger

Man_Overboard wrote: »

That's because the 'technology' has been understood since pre-historic times

There is no need to complicate things any further...

Clearly, that isn't the case. If it were, HETAS wouldn't be able to cite 'expert opinion' to back its diktats.

w50nky

Man_Overboard wrote: »

A twin skin liner includes it's own mica/vermiculite, a single skin liner is not suitable for any kind of solid fuel

You are quite correct if you use the twinWall system eg.


http://www.fluesupplies.com/product_info.php?cPath=24_59&products_id=307 this would be unlikely to be used in a chimney with bends however.

The usuall liner, which is what I presumed is being used in this install is for example.

http://www.ncc-flue.co.uk/flexible-flue-liners/for-wood-burning-stoves/155mm-6/flex-lengths/multifuel-flex-liner-904-904-155mm.html

is a twin skin liner used for solid fuel. This is the liner I usually use. I insulate either with preformed insulation or vermiculite.

Single skin is used for gas installations.

Man_Overboard_2

w50nky wrote: »

You are quite correct if you use the twinWall system eg.


http://www.fluesupplies.com/product_info.php?cPath=24_59&products_id=307 this would be unlikely to be used in a chimney with bends however.

The usuall liner, which is what I presumed is being used in this install is for example.

http://www.ncc-flue.co.uk/flexible-flue-liners/for-wood-burning-stoves/155mm-6/flex-lengths/multifuel-flex-liner-904-904-155mm.html

is a twin skin liner used for solid fuel. This is the liner I usually use. I insulate either with preformed insulation or vermiculite.

Single skin is used for gas installations.

Neither of the two links in your post make any obvious reference to any need for any additional insulation - they clearly imply that a twin skin construction is sufficient to deal with any kind of solid fuel installation

w50nky

Man_Overboard wrote: »

Neither of the two links in your post make any obvious reference to any need for any additional insulation - they clearly imply that a twin skin construction is sufficient to deal with any kind of solid fuel installation

Yes I agree, insulation is not a requirement on any install. It is as you say integral to the first type of twinwall flue system. However if you have an existing chimney with a large cross sectional area and use twin wall flexi liner it will be beneficial to insulate to improve the draw of the chimney. Not compulsory.

A._Badger

w50nky wrote: »

Yes I agree, insulation is not a requirement on any install. It is as you say integral to the first type of twinwall flue system. However if you have an existing chimney with a large cross sectional area and use twin wall flexi liner it will be beneficial to insulate to improve the draw of the chimney. Not compulsory.

This is just the sort of area where I believe some reliable research is needed.

The man who installed my stove (highly experienced and both NACS and HETAS registered, for what it's worth) opined that he doesn't like insulated liners due to 'damp issues'.

I didn't press him on the details, but he was adamant that it was a bad idea in his experience.

Small wonder that we mere customers suspect there's an awful lot of surmise and kidology in this market.

Man_Overboard_2

A._Badger wrote: »

This is just the sort of area where I believe some reliable research is needed.

The man who installed my stove (highly experienced and both NACS and HETAS registered, for what it's worth) opined that he doesn't like insulated liners due to 'damp issues'.

I didn't press him on the details, but he was adamant that it was a bad idea in his experience.

Small wonder that we mere customers suspect there's an awful lot of surmise and kidology in this market.

The people who market chimney linings prey upon the unfounded fears of their targeted customers!

A chimney which has worked well for anything between 50 years and 250 years is not broke, and does not need fixing!

However, if a homeowner/occupier has a 'problem' chimney, then it will not necessarily be cured by stuffing a liner up - the most common cause of a 'faulty' chimney is the limited air supply into modern 'draught-proofed' houses - a chimney can only expel as much air as the fireplace is able to provide

Greenfires

Man_Overboard wrote: »

A chimney which has worked well for anything between 50 years and 250 years is not broke, and does not need fixing!

That's something I hear a lot. However, the conditions in a chimney serving a stove, and one serving an open fire are COMPLETELY different. I've also had a number of customers with evidence of exactly the sort of problems I warn them about the possibility of happening if they stick a stove into an open unlined chimney. As I tell them, it doesn't always happen by any means, but it is a distinct possibility, and one of the reasons many stove installers will insist on using a liner. Because if the customer does have problems a year or two down the line - it's always the installers fault as far as they're concerned, and not because they didn't want to shell out for a proper job in the first place.

Man_Overboard_2

Greenfires wrote: »

However, the conditions in a chimney serving a stove, and one serving an open fire are COMPLETELY different

The biggest difference is the completely superfluous introduction of an airtight register plate!

Man_Overboard_2

Just to elaborate on my previous post....

What I meant to say was that, if you feel the need for a 'closed' flue system, then the way to go is to attach a twin skin flue liner directly to your stove - if you do it that way, then a sealed register plate is neither here nor there, and will make no difference to anything

If you just want to put a stove under your existing ceramic or brick-built flue, then the last thing you want is a sealed register plate, which is likely to create all sorts of problems. Just place the stove on the hearth, with a short length of stove pipe leading into the chimney, and continue as before - the fire in the stove will be no different from the fire you used to burn in the fireplace

Mister_G

Man_Overboard wrote: »

Just to elaborate on my previous post....

What I meant to say was that, if you feel the need for a 'closed' flue system, then the way to go is to attach a twin skin flue liner directly to your stove - if you do it that way, then a sealed register plate is neither here nor there, and will make no difference to anything

If you just want to put a stove under your existing ceramic or brick-built flue, then the last thing you want is a sealed register plate, which is likely to create all sorts of problems. Just place the stove on the hearth, with a short length of stove pipe leading into the chimney, and continue as before - the fire in the stove will be no different from the fire you used to burn in the fireplace

I have a sealed register plate and a liner on my stove (installed by a HETAS/NACS installer). I just feel happier that the only path for the nasty CO bearing flue gasses is to the outside world via the chimney pot!