shouldn't use my fireplace? or get an insert?

[Adcurium]

We live in a home built back in the 30's. And as you could imagine, what was code 80 years ago would never fly today. We have a fireplace and have been using it for the past few years. I called a new chimney sweep company for my cleaning and when he came out, he did not clean the chimney and suggested it wasn't safe b/c the 'air clearance' between the chimney and wood wasn't sufficient and that hot-brick, in contact with wood, could start a fire.

He suggested we build a fire, burn for a few hours then feel the walls and brick along the chimney to see if it was hot. If it did not get hot, he thinks it would be ok to use and he will come back out to clean/sweep. But he did say the chimney was clean enough at this point for these 'test' fires as we check the brick.

My wife told him we were hoping to reduce heating costs by using the fireplace this winter and he said that it was unlikely to be that effeicient and we were better off getting a wood burning stove insert which would be efficent and safer. He does not sell them and couldn't even suggest a vendor, so I am satisfied he wasn't opting not to clean the chimney so he could instead get paid for an insert and labor.

Anyone hae similar experiences and/or equipment?

 

[1961MJS]

Hi

I have no clue about the air clearance. Regular fireplaces loose most of the heat up the chimney, so he's right on that count. My in-laws had an insert in their basement fireplace in the last house. The insert was somehow connected to the furnace ducting so the whole house got WARM. With a small fire, the whole house would be 80 degrees F in about an hour. I would do the test fire and see what happens. I suspect that it will be o.k. since the house was built in the 1930's and is still there. I would also check prices on an insert, you may want to consider waiting until spring to get a better deal.

Later

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Never trust wood framed houses for that very reason. Rare to find a wood framed house in the UK from before the 50s. In my place we have several original Victorian cast iron fireplace inserts, and one reproduction Late Victorian cast iron insert. The cast iron sucks up the heat and releases for a long time.

You could try stoves. Obviously this is a British store, but these Morso ones are very good stove (my Aunt and Uncle have one). Another maker is "Aga". They vent through a built in vent, not necessarily through your chimney, though I guess you could send the vent up the chimney. They should set you back $1500 or so, with installation.

http://www.stovesonline.co.uk/wood_burning_stoves/Morso-Squirrel-Stove.html

Secondly, I would advise burning coal instead of wood. It burns hotter, and far more efficiently than wood. If you have local smoke ordinances in place, you can get smokeless coal. Of course, if you're cutting down your own wood, the savings will outweigh the benefits of going for coal.

 

[Big Bertie]

I suspect your sweep is being unduly cautious. I live in an 1850s house and have never thought twice about using the fireplaces (we burn coal, not wood). I presume you have a source of free/cheap wood? I do not find open fires a particularly cheap way of heating the house, but cast-iron stoves are certainly much more efficient than open fires. In the winter the chimney breast eventually heats through all the way from the basement to the attic (5 storeys) - it becomes quite hot and I have never considered that anything other than benefircial. Sweep regularly, however, especially if burning wood as the resin can condense higher up in the flue, which creates the potential for a chimney fire.

 

[sheeplady]

You could look up Rhode Island codes and see what they say about fireplaces.

This is my personal opinion, but I believe codes are for safety; however, they are about *if I rebuilt it today, how can I make it safer?* rather than *omg, everything pre-newest set of codes is dangerous!* Now of course, there are some exceptions to this- some of the way things were done in the past really were actively dangerous and should be changed as soon as possible. Code really is the best way to do things if building new or remodeling.

So, the question really is "is your fireplace safe?" That's something you need to determine, and it would be worth asking around.

For the insert matter (once you have determined safety and only if it is safe), I think there are two questions you need to ask yourself: A. Is the chimney efficient enough for how you use it? and B. Is it a Rumford? The Rumford chimney/ firebox is the most efficient design out there for an open fireplace (our house has two rumfords, and that went in the positive column when we bought it. Now a Rumford fireplace is nowhere as efficient as a woodstove, however, it is tons more efficient than any other design. If it isn't a Rumford, I'd immediately start thinking about an insert if it was my home. If it's a Rumford, I'd seriously think about keeping it, depending upon how you are using it. If it's a primary source of heat, or something you operate everyday, go for the insert.

As far as the insert and safety- you want to get someone out to your place who can inspect your chimney to make sure that is safe as well. (Acutally, I'd do this anyways.) They have liners that can go into a chimney that basically make your chimney like new (essentially stove pipe). If you do go with an insert, I'd recommend hearthstone woodstoves, which makes soapstone stoves. I have never had a hearthstone fireplace insert, but my parents have one of their standalone woodstoves which they love. In our new home, we'll be installing two of them. I would not recommend a stove with a catalitic converter, or a vermont casting brand stove (the stove my parents had previously) as I had several bad experiences with a chimney fires and that stove growing up.

 

[gtdean48]

You won't reduce heating costs significantly using a 1930's designed fireplace (or 40s - 60s).
Ambiance is one thing but heating efficient is another. Sure, back then it was the primary source of warmth but they wore more clothes & layers of clothes & were used to different elements than we are.
Look into inserts that create a dead air space with ways to blow that heated air out into the living space. Heatilator is what I have.
HTH

 

[Atticus Finch]

I have owned several homes with fireplaces including the one I live in now. Three were built in the twenties or thirties. Two were more modern homes built in the eighties. It sounds to me like your chimney sweep is giving you good advice. Using your fireplace without a modern insert will probably raise your heating costs.

If I’m telling you something you already know, please stop me, but here’s what I’ve learned. When you light a fire in the fireplace, a column of hot air begins to flowing up the chimney. As the fireplace warms, the volume of air exiting the house through the chimney becomes huge and it must be replaced with air from outside the house. This cold, outside air is sucked into your living space through every crack and loose joint in the house. And it doesn’t stop when the fire goes out. As long as the fireplace and chimney are warm, the chimney will continue to suck warm air out…and cold air into…your home.

Installing an insert will allow you to control the air flow by allowing you to open and close the stove’s damper and air intake ports. Also, when your fire goes out, you can completely shut off the airflow by closing off the stove’s intake ports. Finally, most inserts have a circulating fan that provides convective heat from the stove in addition to the normal radiant heat.

AF

 

[ButteMT61]

AF is correct about losing heat. There is a way to fix this though - see link below.
http://www.woodlanddirect.com/Fireplace-Accessories/Fireplace-Heaters-Blowers
We don't use the heater unless its really cold, so the fireplace isn't costing us anything, per se. Our home was built in 1906, and the fireplace was purpose-built and is in the center of the house, so we lose less heat. I also just love the smells, sounds, and look, so even if it's a wash, heat-wise, I'm OK with it.

 

[m0nk]

I agree on all counts here, you would loose most of your heat through the fireplace as it draws the heat up and out. But I also have some info that gives credence to the dangers as well. We bought our current house in January, and it was originally built in 1961. The fireplace was designed similarly to the one you have described, and in 2000, the previous owners had a huge fire caused by the wood framing around the chimney which destroyed most of the house. Their insurance rebuilt the place and it is now better than ever, with updated fireplace and chimney to avoid the same issue. When it was done, though, they put in a gas insert and locked the flue. Doing this ensures that heat stays in, fire burning is safe, and heating costs are down. You could also go for a wood-burning insert as mentioned above, and would likely still make out, but the heat traveling up the chimney may still cause an issue if any wood is exposed (as was often in the old chimney designs). Having a gas insert, you lock the flue because there isn't the same harmful smoke/etc associated with gas, and and fumes still escape up the vents in the flue, but the heat stays in.

Now, all of this history kept a lot of potential buyers away, and the house was on the market for almost a year when we came along. After some research, and a more-than-thorough inspection, we knew that a fully updated house, with no lasting fire damage, was a great deal and we got the place for more than $100k less than his original listing price.

So, moral of the story: fire happened, people didn't want to buy, guy lost potential money on the house... but we made out.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

I would trust the chimney sweep. Try here: http://www.csia.org/

 

[1961MJS]

Hi again

My Mom's parents owned an old home in Western Kentucky, they had a coal stove and a coal fireplace. Coal burns a lot hotter than does wood, so the fireplace has to be built for that. Their fireplace had a thick case iron liner, and I like the smell of the burning coal as well as I do the wood. That's probably not a common opinion. The Baron mentioned smokeless coal. Is Anthracite coal smokeless? I know Bituminous coal isn't. I don't know the arrangement of your home, but given the option I'd love to have a wood or coal burning stove in the lower level of a house, so you could heat the whole place with it. I would guess that you can burn wood in a coal stove, but not necessarily burn coal in a wood stove. I'd also love to have a huge fireplace near the kitchen or outside so that I could cook a giant pot of soup (think witch's cauldron).

You're got some really good ideas here. I suggest that you find out what the local laws are before you try anything. Many places restrict or even ban (Denver Colorado I think) fireplaces and / or stoves. If memory serves, Denver bans either in all new construction. Coal may also not be an option.

Later

 

[sheeplady]

You can (for the most part) burn wood in a coal stove but not the other way around. There are a lot of stoves made out there for both.

On a separate note (not to hijack this thread, but since we have stove enthusiasts here) : I am debating on getting a wood cookstove for our next home. Does anyone have any experiences with them? I'm looking for something with an oven that is small but most importantly small clearances. I've cooked on traditional wood stoves (which I love) but I'd love to also have a wood cook stove.

ETA: I like what I am reading about the Waterford Stanley and the AGA, but the AGA is a little bit expensive for my tastes (but much smaller clearances).

 

[TM]

We bought a home and the chimney inspection showed a lot of cracks, so the fireplace was unsafe to use. We looked at the two alternatives: sealing the inside of the chimney with some kind of concrete; or putting in a natural gas insert. We did the latter, which was a little bit cheeper. It worked great! Can be expensive running it though, depending on your cost of natural gas. But you just flip a switch and you have a nice visual flame, and you have really good heat. I don't think I'd go back to a regular fireplace.

Tony

 

[Auld Edwardian]

We have an 1895 Victorian, and the chimney was so scary we ending up having to take it down for structural reasons due to maintenance that was forgone in the past. The fireplace insert is a very good idea, they can be highly efficient if you get a good one. They even have a way of putting a new stovepipe inside an existing chimney for added safety and or code requirements. We did a lot of research and time and time again we came back to Yotul stoves and inserts. They are a Norwegian firm that has been around since 1853, and are the gold standard for these type of stoves.
There website is:http://www.jotul.com/en-US/wwwjotulus/
I have known several people that have owned them over the years, and none of them has ever regretted the investment. There products are not cheap, however you get what you pay for, and they are very efficient and safe if used properly. If we every decide on a stove or insert in the future, it will be a Jotul.

 

[Gregg Axley]

Blowers work nicely too, if you have that option.
We didn't get the cold last year, but this year if we do, I'm replacing my "grate" with one that has a blower attachment.
Much more efficient that way.

 

[Adcurium]

Thanks for all the info, friends!

 

[Auld Edwardian]

You can (for the most part) burn wood in a coal stove but not the other way around. There are a lot of stoves made out there for both.

On a separate note (not to hijack this thread, but since we have stove enthusiasts here) : I am debating on getting a wood cookstove for our next home. Does anyone have any experiences with them? I'm looking for something with an oven that is small but most importantly small clearances. I've cooked on traditional wood stoves (which I love) but I'd love to also have a wood cook stove.

ETA: I like what I am reading about the Waterford Stanley and the AGA, but the AGA is a little bit expensive for my tastes (but much smaller clearances).

Here is a source for you. The company's name is "Lehman's" and they specialize in old fashioned non-electric items, and do a great trade with the Amish. I am listing a link below so you can see their site, and you can also get a free catalogue. They sell a good line of wood cook stove, and a friend of mine had one in his home when he lived in western Pennsylvania and loved it. i hope this is of help.

http://www.lehmans.com

 

[Auld Edwardian]

Blowers work nicely too, if you have that option.
We didn't get the cold last year, but this year if we do, I'm replacing my "grate" with one that has a blower attachment.
Much more efficient that way.

You're quite right, a blower is an improvement over a traditional grate, but still nowhere near as efficient as a insert. Some of the advantages of a good insert is that if it is of an airtight design, such as a Jotel, you can damper it down for a slow burn that could very likely last through the night. And you do not have to be concerned about walking away and leaving it and have a stay spark hopping out and start a house fire. Also should it burn out, you do not have a wide open flue drawing a draught on the house sucking the heat out (We're loosing power Mr. Scot!). Lastly they use less wood to generate more heat because of being able to better control the burn, so you are very likely going to burn a few cords less during the winter, which is a boon unless you own several dozen acres of standing wood, a hydraulic log splitter, and a large wood shed!