Dreaming of an roaring open fire

[masochists-r-us]

Having replaced out old 50's mirror tiled fireplace with a simple very old limestone one, got the recess lined with old reclaimed bricks and found my ideal hand forged fire basket and dogs, we were told our flue is too small for an open fire and that we might as well get ourselves a log burner. Not that we have anything against log burners, but we don't need one and only want the open fire for ambience and a bit of extra warmth on very cold nights. Not to be deterred, we lit a trial fire in there to see what would happen and whilst there was a reasonable draw, it was insufficient to stop smoke entering the room.Frankly, we're gutted so are looking for alternatives and wondered if anyone out there has tried a chimney fan. Apparently, they sit on the top of the chimney stack and act like a big extractor, but we were told they are noisy and expensive. If anyone has any experience, advice, other ideas as to how to realise my dream, it would be most welcome.

 

[middi]

If your chimney void is too small for an open fire then there is no point ( and dangerous !!) in lighting one unless you are willing to go to the expense of fitting smoke extraction aid ( fan). Or build a bigger chimney !!!
You say you don't need a log burner ( ?????... why not ?), this will give you good background heat on the occasions you need it, same as an open log fire would.

If you just like the romantic notion of staring at an open log fire on the few ocasions you need to you might as well go all the way and buy youself a fake log effect electric or gas fire ( God forbid !!), after all you already have a fake fireplace by lining the original "FAKE" stone with beatifull new "FAKE"bricks.

( sorry I could't resist the sarcasm. You have what you like in your home)

 

[MdB]

That must have been a disappointment. We have plans for an open fire in one of our fireplaces but the chimney is going to take quite a bit of work before we can get it going.

Out of interest, what diameter is too small for an open fire?

 

[middi]

As you say MdB, if you make sure that your chimney is smoke proof ( ie. no leaks ensured by properly reponted brickwork etc. and no other induced restrictions) the chances are that a pre-1950's built is quite suitable for open fires as the opening would be at least 9 inch ( 220mm) square or more .Anything below this figure it would not have enough up-draught for it to work ( unless it is windy) .

 

[MdB]

Hmmm.

We have an old chimney that is easily large enough. Unfortunately, it has been mucked about quite a lot. The old stone work is in no way usable by itself as various work on the wall has shown points all over the place where smoke has escaped in the past. A past owner had a sectioned ceramic pipe fitted which has an internal diameter of 140mm. It isn't smoke stained so this suggests it wasn't good enough for an open fire. Currently, inside the ceramic tube is a 130mm single skinned stainless steel liner which was used for an gas fire.

I know that the gas liner isn't suitable and needs to be removed but I was hoping that the ceramic liner would be OK if it was smoke tight. It looks like I'm not going to be that lucky. The chimney needs looking at anyway for various reasons so I guess installing a better liner can be done at the same time.

 

[DaveBrigg]

I have seen in one historic property (sorry, can't remember which) a glass screen across the top half of the fireplace. I think the idea was that by restricting the size of the opening, the air which was drawn through had a higher velocity and was targetted at the base of the fire. One of our fireplaces had a metal plate screwed across the top of the opening to reduce its height, which I assume was for the same reason. This fire also had a removable cast iron device shaped a little like a fire guard but solid rather than mesh, which sits on the top of the hob grate and guides the smoke back and upwards. I don't know if either solution works, because the hearth stone had been removed, so we can't use it.

If you have to have a wood burner, a Franklin Stove may be the answer. They are large, and have doors which can be folded back and left open when in use, so you can still see the flames.

If all else fails, give Joce a ring, and pop over there next time it's raining :wink:

 

[MdB]

According the regs (Approved Doc J Table 2). 200mm diameter is the smallest allowed for fireplaces with openings less than 500mm x 550mm. 140mm diameter is looking far too small.

 

[Flyfisher]

In our previous house we had an extension built with a new open fire and chimney. The flue was built with 9-inch square liner sections and a Baxi open fire was fitted in the fireplace. When first lit, smoke would spill out into the room. It turned out that the fireplace opening for the Baxi was 2 inches too high according to the Baxi specifications. When this relatively small error was rectified the fire/chimney worked fine, except on some occasions when lighting the fire under a cold chimney - the 'plug' of cold air can inhibit a good draw and I found that a couple of sheets of burning newspaper stuffed up the chimney will 'flush' out the cold air so that no smoke spills while the open fire gets going (though probably not to be recommended unless you have a well-swept flue!)

I just say this to illustrate how finicky open fires can be. A basic open basket-type fire with nothing to 'funnel' the smoke into a small flue is probably among the most difficult of arrangements and would be more suited to a large inglenook-type chimney - although not in terms of heating efficiency!

DaveBriggs' suggestion of some sort of 'restrictor plate' might be the answer (which is effectively what worked for our Baxi) but will require a bit of experimentation - preferably with the windows open to let the smoke out!

 

[Penners]

we were told our flue is too small for an open fire

Told by whom? What size is the flue?

 

[essexbearhunter]

after all you already have a fake fireplace by lining the original "FAKE" stone with beatifull new "FAKE"bricks.

At first I was incensed (on your behalf) by Middi's comments - for I am whole-heartedly in favour of your idea of importing history (and more than mildly jealous of your limestone fireplace). There are excellent historical precedents for the re-use of parts of old buildings outside their original context and that is far less "fake" than latterday Hollywood homes where an 18th century château can replace its equally authentic Gothic predecessor in two short years.

However, even fake...or should we say 'faux' ...seems to be very respectable. I was first aware of it at Knole - where the painting of the much-lauded main staircase when close up seemed crude to the point that a scenery painter might have been pulled up for it.

As you go round each 'architectural gem', you realise that much of the marble is fake (painted plaster or wood) - sometimes because it was accepted that even the most fabulously wealthy could afford to go to the extreme of lining the whole thing in marble (so paint and plaster were a very acceptable alternative) and otherwise for practical reasons ( real marble columns on the First Class deck of SS Great Britain would have been far too heavy).

Indeed "Faux" was so respectable that there was a school for teaching the various techniques of imitating marble, and various woods in Belgium around 1910.

Having seen so much badly painted fake marble and oak in our Stately Homes, may I commend to you the delight of the "faux marbre" of the engaged columns in the Garrick Theatre, London.