# Fireplaces



## Fancis Casini (Jan 31, 2013)

JBM said:


> I found it amusing that you jumped up and down on the way I built that fireplace when the owner specifically didnt want it to make any heat. He may even put an insert in it. It was for show. Im certain I could have built a fireplace in that space that would have had them in their underpants, but thats not what thy wanted.
> 
> Then this hair brain idea of 16" inches gets a pat on the back and a "thats ok" from you.
> 
> Anyone really interested in heating with wood builds masonry heaters or uses a woodstove anyways....


LOL J .....no heat out of an expensive f.p...one made more expensive when he lights it thereby sucking the house cold? 
Dude I know about wood stoves since I have one next to my fp sitting idle the past two years. I've used it for 30 years until recent.Yes my fp is that good,going from a 20 year saga with a 1:15 ratio to my now 1 :30....the ambiance made comfortable throughout the house is to be witnessed especially during the holidays and nights!
Dont you understand radiant heat from convection, which is a non issue with a big hole throat. Those underwear best have fur backsides..lol

ot perhaps....I've been working on a high end condo complex in Yale Turf where many some Professors live.
These two elderly people were nice enough to let me use their electric so seeing they are both Geologists and the Mr. is also a geophysicist,both world renowned and authors of high end books,I gave them a present. It is a Indian Pestle I found in Shelton CT around 1970 while gathering loads of field stone to stockpile for the spring.

If you could see his face when I handed it to him....they offered to edit a book if I choose to ever write one. In helping different people I'm being told that I should.... especially as the Orton Book now in its many-eth edition is so non throat ratio minded.
Brian and Katherine Skinner enjoy the gift!

Funny thing is just today that engineer came to the conclusion that my damper is quite impressive. He loves the reversed hing and the way it appears open at such a small gap while situated at the head of the heat plume. This of course is bunk to the average feller.
Should a damper on a straight back close towards the rear? Of course the curved throat breast wall is sweeping that way ''into the plume''.
Why alter it's path when slowing flow and trying to boost velocity.
Once again I gave the damper out long ago....it's a nice clean ''Perfect Storm'' maker in any f.p unless placed behind intrusive L irons;too low or on top of a real leaner or all three.


----------



## Tinstaafl (Jan 6, 2008)

There is no flippin' way a fireplace will ever come close to the heating capacity of a decent wood stove. Great that you've come up with a fireplace you're happy with, but the laws of physics say you're less efficient heating a house that way.


----------



## Fancis Casini (Jan 31, 2013)

Tinstaafl said:


> There is no flippin' way a fireplace will ever come close to the heating capacity of a decent wood stove. Great that you've come up with a fireplace you're happy with, but the laws of physics say you're less efficient heating a house that way.



I never said more efficient. It uses more fuel of course however we dont care....the entire mass fireplace and chimney is inside and central...it burns 8 hrs a night and more..the dinning room wall and adjoining floor and ceiling gets warm. The hearth floor is 12' long and gets very warm heating much of the oak floor abutting and near the fireplace in fact it cracked years ago from expansion....ie it is also the ceiling over the furnace room.

there are no laws of physics to compare the btu output of a mass of masonry vrs a stove....it would of course have to take in account the mass heat loss up the chimney for both. I will say that it heats the 3200 sq ft easily down to 20 degrees as well or better than the stove.
Jim Buckley believes me,for what that's worth.

This is not easily digested however we opened the windows last Christmas Eve when it was 20 degrees. Again I never said it could be a heat source to compete with a stove due to fuel and labor consumption. 

There is absolutely no way anyone could judge this unless they witness it,and we dont burn big fires alot. 
Merely getting a fireplace into this debate is win already!


----------



## Nick520 (May 2, 2013)

I built two chimneys in the last week or so. Was going to post the fireplaces but figured the dialogue following would be too time consuming!


----------



## Fancis Casini (Jan 31, 2013)

Nick520 said:


> I built two chimneys in the last week or so. Was going to post the fireplaces but figured the dialogue following would be too time consuming!


oh so is that a dig?...I just spent a few hours on the phone with the engineer whom is having a mason construct 3 fp's. The mason chose to place his damper 8'' above the arch top and ignore the architects's 12''.
His 48'' which he will use the most[turns out he loves fireplace burning as does his wife] hasnt been started yet so in seeing my drawings etc etc he's now having my damper fabricated and is doing the 14'' over lintel deal.
He's sharp and even noticed the inner breast eddy rejection feature of the reversed damper.
I had to laugh because he mentioned it'd be nice to have a hand turned wheel extending out of one side ''like Bytor' did to adjust the blade.

I wonder if Bytor ever did get to try my gem out.

I mentioned the dramatic increase in red brick firebox spalling and abutting / adjoining masonry since I decreased the throat flow and he acknowledged it as a key reason for the fantastic results I get via thermal mass. :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## Nick520 (May 2, 2013)

Nooo Francis not a dig at all I read all of your posts and find them to be very informative. I appreciate your desire to perfect a craft that you care about. The saying you can't teach an old dog new tricks would describe my father to a tee. He's been building his fireplaces the way he's been taught by his father for many many years.


----------



## JBM (Mar 31, 2011)

The fireplace has already been perfected @ rumford.com.


----------



## Fancis Casini (Jan 31, 2013)

JBM said:


> The fireplace has already been perfected @ rumford.com.


lol why then did you urge Jim Buckley to come see my fireplace...''Seeing is believing" is what you posted!?????

Buckley openly admits not bettering his 1:20 throat or it'll become temperamental... it was the topic of discussion which prompted the above response you made!??...

Dont get jealous of me dude I did my first fp at 13 in a underground fort. We wheeled a bag of portland on my bike up main street,.then came the old man in his truck waiving his hand at us.
PS IT WAS ALL FIELD STONE worked good but in the winter the mud walls melted


----------



## JBM (Mar 31, 2011)

A single fireplace or even a couple is not concrete evidence of a replicable system.


----------



## Fancis Casini (Jan 31, 2013)

JBM said:


> A single fireplace or even a couple is not concrete evidence of a replicable system.


only if you did it huh...
Buckleys words lol along with ''we do thousands''

Here's my take. I can take a exhaust fan and replicate the feet per second draft in any fireplace chimney. Reconstruct the ''throat chamber'' and certainly replicate the exact same results I enjoy .i.e. 1:30 throat ratio.

My ratio is enabled by design and it will change per various chimney draught and its expected. It's ok because the damper is merely opened more resulting in the exact same feet per minute or draught or volume of air exiting. 
I toyed with the idea of doing an exhaust fan to keep constant a certain draft volume negating wind change etc because I can do a 1:40 ratio for many hours but it then will slightly leak per atmospheric changes. 
ALL IN ALL once the fireplace is perfected it can be easily duplicated and the throat area altered via a good damper to compensate various draughts. Rumford suggested going past the 4'' for this reason ie some hall ans some lodge fps...however he said most worked with the 4'' and at 1:30 if calculated......why the heck Buckley is at 20 with his thousands is beyond me. The superior throat needs a decent damper but I still think it'd be leaky when fluctuations occur due to the convex chamber walls. I have yet to check this / this winter.....then again a fan can help them too however there are things like heat surge etc that 
will turn to chaos dilution then leak because of the throat's chamber conformity. This is simply because it was built only as a collector so to speak. This winter I'll do the straight by altering my 36.
But reproducing what I do in 60 degree fog or any night for 40 hrs straight is not a concern to me...because of the adjustable damper.


----------



## JBM (Mar 31, 2011)

Probably 50-65% of all the Rumfords built with a vestal damper with its flange cut off dont work. Increasing the height of the firebox isnt where the problem is I dont think. I believe its the width of the smoke chamber above. 6' chimneys, larger ones, some of the guys start the smoke chambers way out on the sides of the chimney. But I cant be sure thats the problem right? It could be the turbulence behind the face above the lintel. Adding more height would make more turbulence. 

So why would anyone pursue a Rumford with a vestal damper when its known to be a possible smoker?

A center chimney will heat up and provide heat. Any working fireplace after 20 hours of burning will have a warm mass of masonry heating the space. 

Your carpenter buddy built a chimney on the outside wall. He isnt serious about heating with wood. If he was it would be in the center of the house, or he would have a woodstove in the basement with the cold air return above it. 

The Buckly Rumford is so hot it cant be used with more then 1 log in it at a time *if the room is moderately sized. 

So to recap. People with center chimneys report the chimney keeping the house warm after long burns. People with chimneys on the outside cant be taken serious about heating with wood especially without a woodstove. Fireplaces cant hold a candle to a woodstove for heating the house throughout the winter. The straight back Rumford provides enormous amounts of heat like a kero salamander. Does it suck the heat from the rest of the house? I dunno, probably a positive gain if it were a center chimney. Outside wall? Perhaps, thats why there was a fireplace in every bedroom a couple hundred years ago. 

A 1;30 ratio fireplace on an outside wall isnt the solution for heating with wood no matter how you slice it. And you mention you max out @ 1:30, regularly, but what would the % be after 200 fireplaces? My guess is that there would be a high % that would need the damper clicked open a bit more then 1:30.


----------



## Fancis Casini (Jan 31, 2013)

JBM said:


> Probably 50-65% of all the Rumfords built with a vestal damper with its flange cut off dont work. Increasing the height of the firebox isnt where the problem is I dont think. I believe its the width of the smoke chamber above. 6' chimneys, larger ones, some of the guys start the smoke chambers way out on the sides of the chimney. But I cant be sure thats the problem right? It could be the turbulence behind the face above the lintel. Adding more height would make more turbulence.
> 
> So why would anyone pursue a Rumford with a vestal damper when its known to be a possible smoker?
> 
> ...


My fireplace certainly heats equal to the stove after it is burned for 4 to 8 hrs. And both floors! It falls way behind in fuel consumption but again we could care less these past two years.

As far as the difference between ratios I've said this already after opening the damper to full [3-3/4'' by 47''] at a 1:15 ratio in my 50'' our temp dropped 5 degrees in two hours on both floors. The wind was 60mph sustained 12 hrs late last winter at 17 degrees. The thermostat was shaded from the I R rays.

Having a straight with a 1:20 would be sacrificing much more house air.
taking the ratio differences is 5 to 3.33 on 100 ...add 1.66 to the 3.33 and it's a 50% increase in flow. Unless the homes envelope restricts the increased flow for whatever reasons it will result in much less thermal heat retained in the masonry/ wood consumption/ and far cooler surrounding rooms.

Rgarding exterior fp's its even still the same win with the smaller throat. There is a study saying that smaller throats result in less cool room air cooling down the chimney. It is human nature to keep smoke from escaping via whatever means needed ie by all means keep that damper open!

The turbulence in a slant's throat is ''throat chamber related''. This is magnified by too much rear wall lean ESPECIALLY if it leads to a throat 1]set too far back with insufficient inner breast wall height leading up to the throat. 
I ran my 50 for 18 years on full throttle with no smoke ....burr. Upon debating Jim I started to choke it.....the farthest I could get was around 2-3/4'' or so and it wold work and then leak a bit which would cause sore throats etc. This is what I've overcome and with bad weather and no air movement and no air vents ...I never hooked them up.
I used to burn both my fireplace and wood stove on holidays...not any more.....it's that good.
The nice thing is not much wood need be burning....this is key because flame causes increase in velocity and flow out of the throat. This is indicative that via low flow more thermal mass heat is retained then re emitted even with low fires...click that damper open during these very low /no flame times absent the i r rays and that mass cools very fast and so does the immediate room and forget mentioning the extremities.

I have strong suspicion why the superior throat is set at 1:20 coupled with the urging not to choke past. see Buckley's response to me a few months back at his blog. I've communicated with Jim over why however because he thought a proper damper [asked me to design him one] would be a fix all less reshaping the throat he opted not to go against his friends at Superior...understandable...proper?

I think a retro fit will suffice without reshaping but it has to be tried...soon.

The leaks on most fireplaces happen along the lintel's inner edge more times than not at one end or another....this is more so with the straight back when it's tee pee is faltering. Any time you bring a vent away from something it becomes less efficient and requires more flow. Choke this flow and you end up temperamental as Jim describes.....Rumford himself urged vigorous tee pee fires!

in a nut shell I just want others to enjoy a weekend fire without freezing the house like Ive done for nearly 30 years in two homes with two Ortons. 
I have a carpenter friend who plays cards over his neighbor's house weekly. Lat winter he told me how the guy started arguing with his wife because she asked him to lite the fireplace! He yelled at her saying he didnt want to freeze out the house!

That is not the case anymore and I'll always love my stove even when it's idle. ps I dont even bother shutting the damper anymore unless I happen to wake up....the flow is so slow less flame it's radiant masonry makes up for it.


----------



## Fancis Casini (Jan 31, 2013)

JBM said:


> Probably 50-65% of all the Rumfords built with a vestal damper with its flange cut off dont work. Increasing the height of the firebox isnt where the problem is I dont think. I believe its the width of the smoke chamber above. 6' chimneys, larger ones, some of the guys start the smoke chambers way out on the sides of the chimney. But I cant be sure thats the problem right? It could be the turbulence behind the face above the lintel. Adding more height would make more turbulence.
> 
> So why would anyone pursue a Rumford with a vestal damper when its known to be a possible smoker?
> 
> ...


Rumfords with cut vestals dont smoke unless choked. If they do then the throat chamber;lintel to damper or throat:rear wall slant is wrong.
I have solved this despite what you believe. The need for a more open damper less any smoke for weaker chimneys is not bad....it's the same as a 1:30 in a stronger one.

no matter where the fp is located a larger throat is counter productive to the house retaining heat and results in a cooler fireplace and flues and draft. 

a straight back at 1:20 is like a 50% increased throat which unless choked by the home's envelope tightness will cool the thermal mass 50% faster and take that much more time heating. Ive seen a 5 degree drop in 2 hrs on a 17 degree night with 60 mph winds when I opened my damper.....the masonry also cooled rapidly..it's common sense.

I love my stove...but in that wood isnt an issue and we can now keep the house warm at 68 during temps to 20 or so it sits idle.
I dont propose to change anyone's heating method however I will say weekend fires can be 100% more comfortable throughout the house. I dont even shut my damper any more....the thermal mass emits for days.and the draft reduces to nil less a flame!

Jay do yourself a favor....keep still, if I dont get the patent I'll put this out for free and either become a hero or a fool. Meanwhile I have a ticket here for you this winter....I'll make you a nice porchetta and we can do peroni's....bring shorts!:laughing: 
I have no doubt you'll become an advocate.

oh and those too wide smoke chambers are bad to do esp. on exterior chimneys...they are hard to heat up and why bother trying.


----------



## Fancis Casini (Jan 31, 2013)

Nick520 said:


> Nooo Francis not a dig at all I read all of your posts and find them to be very informative. I appreciate your desire to perfect a craft that you care about. The saying you can't teach an old dog new tricks would describe my father to a tee. He's been building his fireplaces the way he's been taught by his father for many many years.


lol NICK cant blame them guys heck I was just asking my son what I did with the installation directions that were wired to a big as damper that ny dad had laying under the barn stairs since I could remember. I think it was a Bennett Ireland from N.J. 
It said explicitly to install it at lintel height....it had a 3-1/2'' flange on it to carry the brick.
They as well as all the damper co.'s regarded the 6'' high front angled part of the housing as the throat chamber!

This is now changed ..in fact I wrote to the B.I.A. a few years back when they had their damper /throats a mere 8'' above the throat. They now show 12 like I said should be minimum :thumbup:

I may have posted this already but in my long phone conversation with that engineer I'm helping I had a similar discussion. He said to me his mason placed the damper at 8'' above the lintel..heck he said our dampers here in Georgia are 6'' high in front which when added to 8'' above the lintel totals 14 ....just like you request!:whistling

He directed his mason to follow directions and is fabricating my lintel damper....he said the more he looks at it the more he thinks it is the cat's meow!

So far Ive dealt with skeptics saying I cant avoid turbulence with a slanted fp for a myriad of reasons.....turbulence is the most common along with having twice the area throat therefore wasting heat;being un doable without a rounded throat like Rumford prescribed.
AND as of late right here, my damper is too high which will crack my face; cant be easily duplicated with the same results;only advantageous if it's an interior fireplace of which a straight back can also do with just a stick now and then; and being no replacement for a stove!
This is coupled with the thinking that a rear shelf is a fix-all for down drafts which is completely ignorant of the most nagging and hard to repel ''inner breast eddys''. 

Many times I mentioned the Rosin Study which tested fp's with water flow and dyed salt fireplaces of various designs being inverted so the water flows thru the throat etc.
They show this inner eddy. The design they end up choosing is the Rosin Fireplace design which is very low and has a streamlined throat and no throat chamber to speak of.

They never did test the correct design which would handle stops and goes slow and fast etc etc which is everyday life within a fireplaces internals.Rather like Rumford did they chose to go with the attempt to overwhelm the draft interuptions pressure changes with constant laminar flow....so much so that they did away with the rear smoke shelf because of break away eddys. It was said that these eddys deposit ash and are useless...however they very well can be what is called a break away vortex which in a intermittent way repel and keep orderly what would otherwise would become chaos. 
There is no such thing as a constant nice- a-nice flow in a fireplace. Even when it happens there are so many things that trip it up intermittently. The only way to defend this is to plan on it. The rosin for this reason is very low and the straight back urges one to keep strong tee pees going.
I do neither...A modified Orton uses it's strong defense to result in a fantastic offense so stealthy it is hard to see.....but I can see it at any time as of late last winter.

I came very close to posting a pic of my thoat chamber's uppers..but I cant yet...it will silence certain people.

My inventor buddy told me to be very careful as there are lawyers whom comb the patent data base for un dotted I's and T's. 
I need to prove out a straight back's moa first. method of action.


----------



## Fancis Casini (Jan 31, 2013)

JBM said:


> The fireplace has already been perfected @ rumford.com.


This is Rumford's essay's footnote mentioning the extra heat from just a partially leaned fireplace behind that 4'' face [never did crack].

It clearly states he was off to build a portable masonry/metal stove!

Reverting back to the straightback is bad enough but changing the depth of the 4'' throat thereby ruining a frugal throat into a 1:20 ratio is ridiculous and insulting to the intellect of all those whom have strong chimneys above their Rumfords.

If you want I can post where Rumford stresses 4'' throats.

Imo perfection would be a hotter slanted f.p. with a 1:30 throat

the footnote;
Having been obliged to carry backward the fireplace in the manner here described, in order to accommodate it to a chimney whose walls in front were remarkably thin, I was surprised to find, upon lighting the fire, that it appeared to give out more heat into the room than any fireplace I had ever constructed. This effect was quite unexpected; but the cause of it was too obvious not to be immediately discovered. The flame rising from the fire broke against the part of the back which sloped forward over the fire, and this part of the back being soon very much heated, and in consequence of its being very hot, (and when the fire burned bright it was frequently quite red-hot,) it threw off into the room a great deal of radiant heat. It is not possible that this oblique surface (the slope of the back of the fireplace) could have been heated red-hot merely by the radiant heat projected by the burning fuel; for other parts of the fireplace nearer the fire, and better situated for receiving radiant heat, were never found to be so much heated; and hence it appears that the combined heat in the current of smoke and hot vapour which rises from an open fire may be, at least in part, stopped in its passage up the chimney, changed into radiant heat, and afterwards thrown into the room. This opens a new and very interesting field for experiment, and bids fair to lead to important improvements in the construction of fireplaces. I have of late been much engaged in these investigations, and am now actually employed daily in making a variety of experiments with grates and fireplaces, upon different constructions, in the room I inhabit in the Royal Hotel in Pall Mall; and Mr. Hopkins, of Greek Street, Soho, Ironmonger to his Majesty, and Mrs. Hempel, at her Pottery at Chelsea, are both at work in their different lines of business, under my direction, in the construction of fireplaces upon a principle entirely new, and which, I flatter myself, will be found to be not only elegant and convenient, but very economical. But as I mean soon to publish a particular account of these fireplaces, with drawings and ample directions for constructing them, I shall not enlarge further on the subject in this place. It may, however, not be amiss just to mention here, that these new invented fireplaces not being fixed to the walls of the chimney, but merely set down upon the hearth, may be used in any open chimney; and that chimneys altered or constructed on the principles here recommended are particularly well adapted for receiving them.


----------



## Fancis Casini (Jan 31, 2013)

Originally Posted by JBM View Post
Probably 50-65% of all the Rumfords built with a vestal damper with its flange cut off dont work. Increasing the height of the firebox isnt where the problem is I dont think. I believe its the width of the smoke chamber above. 6' chimneys, larger ones, some of the guys start the smoke chambers way out on the sides of the chimney. But I cant be sure thats the problem right? It could be the turbulence behind the face above the lintel. Adding more height would make more turbulence. 

So why would anyone pursue a Rumford with a vestal damper when its known to be a possible smoker?

Regarding the above; This damper cutting I started to do after getting handed the Orton book by a customer back in 74 or so.
It is also when I elevated the damper to 12'' min above the opening while maintaining the one brick breast!

I know of certain culprit practices that would cause your bad experience which parallel Jim Buckley's poor track record with slanted f.p's.

1] making the fireplace too deep. 2]Making the fireback too high.3]angling the sides to the 1/3 the opening in certain situations such as the above or in weak chimneys.4] sudden reversal of the smoke chamber to clear framing esp 2'' by 6'' coupled with f p's more than 4'' into the room.5]too short dampers [length] 6] not enough height in the throat chamber caused by too low a throat or damper....especially when coupled with 1,2,or 3, or worse with all three and still worse when 6 is added and declining still when 4 is included.

Keeping the header as high as the ceiling is an option if needed as is reducing 2x6 wall to 3 at the throat area to enable slow leaned chambers or flue. The outer header can be raised in certain situations while leaving the inner one as is,if just a few inches more are needed.

There is this link-s I've had for Rumford dampers along with a 8'' vestal for Rumfords that I never knew existed.I still have not seen a better velocity maintaining high choke damper like my free one....heck it saves a lintel too.

https://theportlandforge.wordpress.com/catalogue/hardware/count-rumford-fireplace-dampers/

thin 8'' deep vestal 
FIREPLACE DAMPER – CAST IRON BODY, CAST IRON PLATE
POKER CONTROL – 8" THROAT OPENING AT BASE
Model Standard Wt. Ea. Part
No. Front Back Depth Front Back Depth Pkg. Lbs. Code

http://www.vestalmfg.com/PDF/Catalog-BuildingProducts2011.pdf


----------



## JBM (Mar 31, 2011)

Nice couple dampers. 

Ive built hundreds of 20" deep boxes with slanted backs. They in general are 30" tall though, but work perfectly fine. Just dont make a lot of heat. 

I generally dont trust the cored bricks not cracking on the faces. Adding more height to the damper just is a risk im not going to pursue when I can simply slap in my form and pour it with heatcast.


----------



## Fancis Casini (Jan 31, 2013)

JBM said:


> Nice couple dampers.
> 
> Ive built hundreds of 20" deep boxes with slanted backs. They in general are 30" tall though, but work perfectly fine. Just dont make a lot of heat.
> 
> I generally dont trust the cored bricks not cracking on the faces. Adding more height to the damper just is a risk im not going to pursue when I can simply slap in my form and pour it with heatcast.


why do you always go off on tangents? now you are adding cored bk to your equation-s....I dont like them in a fp nor do I use 4'' hollow block.
AND adding a cast throat to a slant is a trick I'm sure you haven a clue about judging from what youve posted here.

I wonder what you would make it's contours like ....where/what /and why THEY WOULD BE LIKE WHATEVER YOU MAKE ONE.

Factoring in osmosis from my many many posts I'd be curious where your thinking is at designing a throat for a slant? 

a 30'' tall fp is short....more apt to heat the breast ..if you place a cut vestal 4'' behind a face of one at 12'' over lintel and dont lock in the lintel's ends nor the damper then it's overheating within the throat chamber. I never had that problem with my fp's however I have never built a conventional other than the samples in masonry school I already told about! The Orton Book came out is 68 I graduated in 70 and it was Ortons ever since! Refused many low rider fireplaces!


----------



## JBM (Mar 31, 2011)

Fancis Casini said:


> why do you always go off on tangents? now you are adding cored bk to your equation-s....I dont like them in a fp nor do I use 4'' hollow block.
> AND adding a cast throat to a slant is a trick I'm sure you haven a clue about judging from what youve posted here.
> 
> I wonder what you would make it's contours like ....where/what /and why THEY WOULD BE LIKE WHATEVER YOU MAKE ONE.
> ...



Its not a tangent, generally new constr. chimneys get a short squatty fireplace. Its in my best interest to avoid cracks on the face of them, after hundreds ive only had 2 crack. 

If someone wants a fireplace that makes a ton of heat, they are wood burning nutjobs, ill build a straight back Rumford with the forms I built this spring. 

If someone wants an orton, ill pass on the job lol. As far as I can tell its a more shallow fireplace with a slanted back, a short vestal damper and a firebox that is at minimum 48" off the floor . I dont see the advantage. It would take me longer to build but I wouldnt be alble to charge more then a straight back. 

Straight backs make me more money and work perfect.


----------



## Fancis Casini (Jan 31, 2013)

From Kenya;

Francis


Yes, go ahead and post my comments on your facebook site.


On writing a book ... we're living in a whole new world now, you don't need a publisher! Write it and self-publish on Amazon for free!


You don't even need to put it up on Amazon, you can sell it as a downloadable product on your own website. Or you can do both (many people do this).



And it doesn't have to be a big book. Even a few pages of very useful info can sell at a decent price.



I'd be happy to help you do it. As a layman (non-engineer, non-mason) I can help with editing to make it understandable. And I can help you put it up on Amazon.


Kim





On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 5:27 AM, <[email protected]> wrote:

Kim Thank You 
You're the third or fourth person to tell me I should write a book. 
A few years back I approached Yankee Magazine whom first published Orton's Book around 1968. I mentioned a few things however I couldn't fully divulge right then, but they said although it sounded interesting, they only had limited stories to consider. I'll do it eventually though! 
I wonder If you'd mind that I post what you said below on my Casini Masonry site on face book? this is link to my you tube site https://www.youtube.com/user/fcasini25/videos and here is the face book site. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Casini-Masonry/159609824086030 

ps keep me informed on the progress! Frank

In a message dated 7/28/2015 12:45:08 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, [email protected] writes:
Hi Francis


Thanks for the clarification, now I understand what you meant about the backwall being 1/3 to 1/2 the opening.


You ought to put your knowledge into a book and sell it on Amazon! Obviously there is a necessity and demand for the knowledge you have. It's tragic that in this the information age the only book on Amazon about Rumford construction is Ortons old book.



Thanks for your help, I will make a go of building the Orton Rumford using your guidelines.


More power to you.


Kim





On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 3:17 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:



In a message dated 7/27/2015 1:39:09 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, [email protected] writes:
Please clarify: I did not understand this phrase in your email - "the rear wall length is best when between two and three times the front opening". If the face height is 37" and lintel to throat is 16" doesn't that mean the back wall is 37" + 16" = 53"? Which gives back wall as 1.43 (53/37) of front opening. What am I missing? 

Re above; ''you dont include the 16'' as the opening because it is later covered over with whatever face you build.''

In true Rumfords Count Rumford calls for the length[width looking into the back of the box] of the rear wall to be half of the width of the opening. I suggest doing something between 1/2 and 1/3 the width of the opening. All Rumfords have square openings. The opening is the finished brick or stone facing which hides the damper that is about 14'' higher.

Your fireplace finished opening should be 40'' by 40'' .....the depth about 19 to 20'' from the face's front and the back wall between half to one third the 40'' front width. The 1/3 is a bit aggressive and sometimes causes smoke. One half [20''] is ok with me but you can do 16'' if you like.
The theory is to get the side walls to reflect the heat's rays.....however this is done regardless via the slanted rear wall where as Rumford built his with plumb rear walls up til that last one.

The rear wall will go up 8 to 10-5/8'' then start to angle forward to the rear of the 4'' throat which is 14 or 16'' higher than the ''to be'' 40'' finished opening.

The angle iron is 4'' by 4'' Weld a plate across the open side [leg to leg] stopping the plate at the firebox's side walls which will be 40''/ The l iron extends past the firebrick onto the backup masonry another 4 to 6'' each side! note dont let the ends of the inverted angle [below]be stopped with mortar ...especially the welded angle piece!

This inner welded plate is the front angle skirt of the frame of the damper housing. The best damper is one that hinges on the edge of this angled housing and tilts or opens toward the room. If you look at the photo closely you will see mine opens the same way. The blade on this reverse hinge can be cut at angles on it's ends to facilitate throat chamber corbels when it opens....ie it wont hit! over sized throat chambers are cold storage especially if on the exterior.

This damper and throat will match the 40'' opening and firebox....note make the firebox 1-3/4 or 2'' bigger so the face will hide the firebrick side wall jambs where they meet the new face.

The blade of the damper merely sits on the edge of the angled plate's edge and is merely a point for swivel. It's other edge will sit on another angle iron set 4'' back open end up and filled with masonry to form the shelf. It will be welded to the front angle iron per the following. Take another piece of 4'' by 4'' iron and cut it from zero to four'' and use the resulting two pieces at each end and weld them to connect the higher rear angle to the lower front. These will be about 3-3/4'' to 4'' welded to the top of the front angle and butt welded to the back ''higher'' angle.. they will of course have the flat side down and cut angled edges up inclining to the higher rear angle. They need not be angled to match the side firebox walls but can be if yo like. The rear angle is longer than the rear wall and can be 3 by 4'' having the 3'' flat and burried in the shelf. Having it's length longer than the rearwall provides add support if the firebox is ever rebuilt. keep it's ends free too.


The handle is merely a 1/4'' strap with notches that a 4'' grinder with a metal cutting disk cuts nicely!

Place the damper plate on and note you may need some fine grinding on the inclined edges of the ''side pieces'' that were just welded, because plates are not always on one plane! The handle will need to be curved somewhat to avoid the inner front face wall.

No need to make the smoke chamber with refractory.....I always use brick....they never get that hot make sure you keep at least 8'' of solid masonry with a 2'' air space at the firebox and chamber. The flue can have just a 4'' solid masonry surround ...1/2'' to 1'' air space bet flue and surround. If cold [I doubt] an 8'' surround is best at the chimney exterior to maintain warmth. Try to use brick instead of light weight cement block near the firebox and chimney near the throat and chamber.....they expand too much vrs brick! Reg cement blocks aren't so bad but I use brick...they are the best.

Frank








-- 

Kim Kanari (0721-691700)
PayslipMaker.com



-- 

Kim Kanari (0721-691700)
PayslipMaker.com


----------

