Talk:Fireplace

Possible article expansion

• Fireplace design
  • Count Rumford - [1]
• "Fire Art" fireplaces, the new category arguably started by Heat&Glo
  • The Cyclone fireplace
  • Alcohol fireplaces like the new ones from Ecosmart
• Fireplace efficiency (woodstoves more efficient)

I am having some serious issues with the only two links within Wikipedia are to carbon monoxide and Kyoto protocol. It seems that this article could be a little politically based, this is not acceptable. You also need to provide sources for air pollution and some testimony that current technology of gas and electric does not come close to duplication of a wood fireplace.

I have an existing fireplace and am making my garage a family room I would like to open the fireplace on the garage side so the I have access to the fireplace in both rooms

>> Discussion of switch mechanism to activate pilot ignition of natural gas fireplace may be useful. I believe it involves a thermocouple at near pilot flame, producing electrical current that completes a circuit when switch is closed thus opening flow for starting fireplace.

Commercial links gone

Removed commercial links. 68.96.173.125 1 July 2005 19:47 (UTC)

Hey; what's a definition of a commercial link?

New material on chimneys

Excellent, informative contribution, Chimney Jack. But doesn't most of it belong under chimney?--Dell Adams 06:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Back boiler

In the UK many fireplaces had a "back boiler" for heating the water from the fire, however it wasn't the main water heater in the house. Please include that in the main article.

Some chimneys have a gas back boiler that heats the water and powers the central heating, since the chimney itself is used as a flue.

I am new to this - I edited the article to include what I thought was interesting content on a book whick examies the oral storytelling tradition - I was thinking that it was relevant becuse of the history of sitting around a fire and storytelling.

Anyway - I don't think it was proper protocal. I am to only suggest additions or can I truly edit pages? I would really like to contribute. :)

Stacey from [www.fireplacesandwoodstoves.com]

HOW CAN I RESTART THE PILOT LIGHT ?

Fiction?

Just edit Stacey, but try to provide reliable sources. Also Fireplaces in fiction? This has to be the most useless info I have ever seen. How about some fireplace history, design, etc. You know, some useful information. A mcmurray 22:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No one replied last time but I have nuked that section. Unencyclopedic drivel, useless and nothing more than a collection of pointless trivia. Fireplaces in fiction? Come on. IvoShandor 16:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

How do modern electric fireplaces work?

Can how modern electric fireplaces work be added to the article? I have seen some that don't use the "flame-shaped paper streamers wave vertically in the air" mentioned in the article. These did produce a lot of heat, required no chimney, and simply plugged in. I also see them as prizes on The Price is Right. Will (Talk - contribs) 20:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

There is an article on Electric fireplace, that I updated to wikify and to remove commercial plugs. The OED simply defines them as a type of electric heater. That seems about correct: they are a "special effect" used in conjunction with an electric heater. The companys making them might like to dignify as having a particular purpose, but in practical effect, they aren't much different than a computer running a simulation of flames. Both look pretty and produce heat. Piano non troppo (talk) 05:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Ventless Firplaces

Do these not pose a significant risk of carbon-dioxide/carbon-monoxide gas poisoning in the tightly sealed modern house ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.220.5.220 (talk) 18:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Dates for Franklin and Rumford

The article says Franklin introduced some improvements in the 1600s, but he lived in the 1700s. Not suer about Rumford, but the article says he was later than Franklin. 203.189.134.3 (talk) 09:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Article rewrite needed

This article needs a complete rewrite. A glance at any book dedicated to fireplaces will suggest deficiencies:

1) Historical perspective: Fireplaces of various forms have been used for thousands of years. The previous historical material (uncited, essay, OR) -- I removed. It read like an introduction to a home improvement magazine article.

2) Historical and worldwide perspective: The cavemen, the Chinese, the Romans, the Vikings, the Midievals, the Victorians, and the Western moderns have hugely different types of fireplaces, sometimes with quite different uses. There were fireplaces aboard ship.

3) The relationship needs to be drawn between fireplaces, campfires, bonfires, and furnaces.

4) The existing article has rightly pointed to the social, even animal-hypnotic role of fireplaces. The article needs to quote references in social works, not indulge in original research about how "pets like fireplaces, too" and "fireplaces are family bonding places before bedtime". That all may be true, but references are necessary. (I.e., it wasn't necessarily "family bonding" as much as the only place out of bed where the family could be warm. Or, for that matter to get reading light. Or food.)

5) Construction. The sections on construction are still a haphazard list of features and accessories with little explanation of which were used together, and for what purpose. And again, they are heavily oriented toward just-passed Western history. The severe problems with fireplaces -- the fires started, the pollution caused outside and inside, the maintenance -- all need to be put in an historical context. Piano non troppo (talk) 06:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

This is an advertisement, not an article

This article is completely biased in favor of gas fireplaces. It seems to me it's been manipulated by people within the gas fireplace industry. It should be re-written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.18.214.254 (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Low efficiency 80% and High efficiency 80%? Can someone clean this up? From the article: Most older fireplaces have a relatively low efficiency rating. Standard, modern, wood-burning masonry fireplaces though have an efficiency rating of at least 80% (legal minimum requirement for example in Salzburg/Austria).[7] To improve efficiency, fireplaces can also be modified by inserting special heavy fireboxes designed to burn much cleaner and can reach efficiencies as high as 80% in heating the air. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.236.252 (talk) 18:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Terminology

Suggested changes to much of the terminology, based on some general research I have been doing.

Found this site: http://www.melluishanddavis.com/, particularly look at the terminology section. A small English firm doing Chimney-piece restoration, run by the author of this book- http://www.amazon.co.uk/Antique-Garden-Ornaments-John-Davies/dp/1851490981 Their website seems to me to be very intent on educating viewers about antique chimney-pieces.

So if not a full scale change, certainly an a new section regarding English Georgian chimney-pieces is necessary. Pat232323 (talk) 17:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think this one website can be the basis for making the wholesale decision that fireplaces will henceforth be called chimney-pieces. The website itself indicates that the term was used in the past, and not so much today. I'm open to adding a section about historical terminology. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Fire grate redirects here

I was sorting out a red-link for Register grate and arrived here. Ummm. Look at Bricks& Brass and Brooking collection of Architectural detail. Should Fire grate be floated? You see we have dog-grates, basket-grates, hob-grates, register-grates, fire-frames, mantle-registers, patent types and tiled register grates to consider too.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 10:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Safety is not an issue

In all new fueled heaters (to warm persons) a dual venting system is suggested, but not required. Many common HVAC systems use a two way up pipe (one for intake air, one for exhaust). Using internet one sees only "why fireplaces don't work or "how to vent horizontally" diagrams.

For new fireplaces the MODERN solution is simple yet still often neglected by builders: a fresh air intake pipe that runs up the chimney allows the fireplace front (doors) to be "sealed", meaning there is no heat loss inside the room from outside air and also no oxygen loss.

The issue of the modern household fireplace being unsafe or in-efficient is a myth, propagated mostly by the laziness of failing to install a vented system - a simple extra pipe (required and typical for furnaces) - when installing the fireplace.

(it's suggested all fueled heaters be dual pipe, exhaust and intake, though many ignore this simple to do advice) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.207.25 (talk) 14:58, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

efficiency

It's possible to have a force air pipe loop which radiates heat from inside the fireplace into the room - that with the fact wood is cheap is great efficiency for a room.

What isn't possible in many modern homes is to upgrade the fireplace to be has hot as a wood-burning-stove; these are made from thick iron and can take the heat, whereas a fireplace should not be made too hot; it should burn normal wood.

Obviously the only practical way to go for a whole house (because gas gen would be too many gallons for some days), assuming the house has some infinite supply for water heating during power outage, is the "old" high temp water heater systems (boilers + radiators). These sound attractive until one sees the complexity and price of installing them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.207.25 (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Old fireplace

This would be a useful addition to the article but it is very well illustrated already.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 10:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

A fireplace is not a stove. The Franklin stove is a stove. Fireplaces are not 80% efficient.

The Franklin Stove is a stove. That's one of the reasons it's called a Franklin Stove and not a Franklin Fireplace.

Specifically, a circulating stove. A free-standing, cast-iron, circulating stove. Early designs had the hot gasses go down below the floor, so maybe the fireplace needed to be modified for one, but not later designs.

It and other stoves like it are a stove that is inserted into a fireplace. It is not the fireplace.

Such stoves are typically called "stoves" or "inserts" or "fireplace inserts" but never "fireplaces." At least in modern times, though the term may have been interchangeable in the late 1700s and early 1800s. Nowadays, a "fireplace" is an open hearth built into a home.

Maybe there are some obscure exceptions. But I argue that calling a stove a "fireplace" does not seem helpful and only introduces confusion with 99.999% of readers.

Later this article claims fireplaces are required to be 80% efficient in Austria. This is wildly false information, and may even violate the laws of physics.

Fireplaces, i.e. open hearths, are around 5%-15% efficient. Some claim as high as 25% but I highly doubt it. 10% seems to be the median of claims. [Note: I don't think this counts all the heat lost from the house from previously warmed air being sucked out of the house and up the chimney, and replaced with cold air from outside. If you do count that, I've seen claims that a fireplace will heat the immediate room but actually make the rest of the house colder. So 0% or -10%?]

The most efficient wood-burning insert I have ever seen is 79% efficient -- the "Clydesdale." It has a catalytic converter, baffles for pre-combustion air and post combustion gasses, blowers, etc. to raise efficiency, things a fireplace does not have. And it only reached 79%.

That Austrian 80% "fireplace" link cited seems to discuss heating systems, not fireplaces, according to google translate. Or perhaps it's talking about fake fireplaces, like electric ones, or gas inserts? I can't read German.

Anyway, why are we citing a requirement in Austria written in another language? In America, the minimum efficiency to get tax credits is 75%, and that citation will be in English. Seems like a much better citation than 80% for ???????? in German. Skintigh (talk) 22:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)