Hello,
We have a fireplace that we plan to tear down and rebuild so that it fits better with the house's year.
What are the possibilities for adapting it to become water-jacketed?
We have a fireplace that we plan to tear down and rebuild so that it fits better with the house's year.
What are the possibilities for adapting it to become water-jacketed?
What is the goal? An open fireplace is very inefficient when it comes to utilizing the energy from the wood. If you absolutely want an open fireplace, it's probably better to use it for cozy fires and then have a water-jacketed fireplace separately when you want to burn for heat. I don't think I've ever seen a water-jacketed open fireplace.
Want to avoid insert. Easy to run pipes to the accumulator tank.Jonatan79 said:
The goal is to use the ambience fire, which happens daily, for heating the house. If we're going to redo the fireplace and there is a practical solution, then why not.A Avemo said:
I've googled a lot but can't find anything about this type of solution. I want to avoid an insert but maybe that's reckless.
Measured by utilization per kilo of wood, they aren't great, but sometimes an open fireplace is quite efficient when it comes to wood. Large gnarly pieces, for instance, aren't worth splitting, but you can leave them to dry for an extra year and then get a slow-burning fire that heats for a long time. It's also possible to cut entire logs into suitable lengths for the fireplace, saving at least one* cut per meter and all the splitting. The lilac pieces with many shoots originating from the same point end up either on the compost or in the pile for the open fireplace.A Avemo said:
*For a while, I made firewood for relatives, one of whom needed 25 cm wood for their stove.
It's hardly possible to burn indoors without heating the house. What differentiates various fireplaces is how much of the energy from the wood benefits the room. You can absolutely heat a house with an open fireplace. And people have done so for hundreds of years. But it requires large amounts of wood. If you want better heat output from the wood, water mantling won't help much.F Fixarpappa said:
The advantage is partly that he can store the heat for later and partly that he might be able to distribute the heat better.A Avemo said:
I would have liked to have water mantling on our stove. We occasionally burn in a Contura Soapstone stove for a couple of hours, and it shows clearly on the electricity consumption, which easily drops by 20-30% that day.
That's true. But one should then ask why you want to distribute and store the heat. Is it getting too warm in the room when you burn wood? Is it for having a backup system in case of a power outage? Is it to reduce electricity consumption? When it comes to an open fireplace, the risk is that it becomes quite expensive heat compared to, for example, direct electric heating.K Kallebo said:
It's obviously not a problem to heat with wood. But wood isn't free. It costs either money or labor. Unlike you, TS has an open fireplace. And it uses much more wood for the same indoor heat. This holds true regardless of water mantle.K Kallebo said:
That's how I think I want to be able to utilize it. For us, it would probably result in some savings.K Kallebo said:
We live in a large house of about 250 sqm. If I make a fire, it will spread warmth in the nearby rooms while the rooms furthest away won't get any. Therefore, I think the water mantle is better and more useful.