We are contemplating replacing our open fire with a stove, but, with
no experience, do not know whether a pure log burner or multi fuel
stove would be best?
Any thoughts? We are told that a multi fuel stove burning coal is
more likely to damage the chimney liner than just burning logs.
Thanks,
We are contemplating replacing our open fire with a stove, but, with no experience, do not know whether a pure log burner or multi fuel stove
would be best?
Any thoughts? We are told that a multi fuel stove burning coal is more likely to damage the chimney liner than just burning logs.
We are contemplating replacing our open fire with a stove, but, with no experience, do not know whether a pure log burner or multi fuel stove
would be best?
We are contemplating replacing our open fire with a stove, but, with no experience, do not know whether a pure log burner or multi fuel stove
would be best?
Any thoughts? We are told that a multi fuel stove burning coal is more likely to damage the chimney liner than just burning logs.
On 11 Apr 2025 at 17:37:39 BST, "Graeme" <News@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
We are contemplating replacing our open fire with a stove, but, with no experience, do not know whether a pure log burner or multi fuel stove
would be best?
Any thoughts? We are told that a multi fuel stove burning coal is more likely to damage the chimney liner than just burning logs.
We had a pure wood burner (Esse 100) put in in 2012, with the chimney being lined and insulated with vermiculite (sp?) and have been 100% satisfied. The previous open fire put out essentially no heat at all; the Esse nominally gives 5kW and heats a chunk of the house. Not sure where you'd buy coal from anyway, these days.
We are contemplating replacing our open fire with a stove, but, with no experience, do not know whether a pure log burner or multi fuel stove
would be best?
Any thoughts? We are told that a multi fuel stove burning coal is more likely to damage the chimney liner than just burning logs.
Thanks,
Not sure how the 'artificial coal' briquettes compare.
I assume you've read this: ><https://energysavingtrust.org.uk/wood-burner-regulations-fines/>
Just out of interest, do you have a free supply of wood/logs? If not,
you might find that it costs almost as much as gas to heat a house with
wood. Some slightly out-of-date info here:
You will have the cost of the stove (500 - 2500) and installation
(700 - 3000) up front, and at least once a year you'll have to have
the chimney swept (around 100). If you have to buy logs, you're
looking at around 150 a cubic metre. Remember that although there may
be a good cost saving on heating the room you use most of the day, if
you want to heat other rooms and water, that will eat into any savings.
We are contemplating replacing our open fire with a stove, but, with no experience, do not know whether a pure log burner or multi fuel stove
would be best?
Any thoughts? We are told that a multi fuel stove burning coal is more likely to damage the chimney liner than just burning logs.
Thanks,
Burn hardwood logs* and smokeless fuel. You may/will find that burning rubbish wood (treated wood etc.) does more damage to the liner or will produce more deposits that stick to the inside of the liner.
*Not the crap logs that you may find on petrol station forecourts. Where
I visit on a regular basis there are quite a few suppliers of quality
logs that come in ton bags or by the truck load tipped onto the driveway.
We are contemplating replacing our open fire with a stove, but, with no experience, do not know whether a pure log burner or multi fuel stove
would be best?
Any thoughts? We are told that a multi fuel stove burning coal is more likely to damage the chimney liner than just burning logs.
Thanks,
On 11/04/2025 18:17, Theo wrote:
Not sure how the 'artificial coal' briquettes compare.
They are crap, to use a technical term, in my experience. Very difficult
to light, needing a very hot base of wood to get them going, and they
don't give out much heat. Proper "full fat" coal, when you could get it,
in the same stove, was a doddle to light and gave out far more heat.
On 11/04/2025 20:41, NY wrote:
On 11/04/2025 18:17, Theo wrote:
Not sure how the 'artificial coal' briquettes compare.
They are crap, to use a technical term, in my experience. Very difficult
to light, needing a very hot base of wood to get them going, and they
don't give out much heat. Proper "full fat" coal, when you could get it,
in the same stove, was a doddle to light and gave out far more heat.
+1
Our free log supply ran out at the start of winter and I started using
the Phurnacite left by the previous house owner. As you say, very
difficult to light. They were also difficult to keep alight (well,
glowing), and produced large amounts of heavy ash. I wondered if they
were made of coal dust and cement! In the morning I found a lot of
unburnt and partially-burnt briquettes in the stove.
We are contemplating replacing our open fire with a stove, but, with no experience, do not know whether a pure log burner or multi fuel stove
would be best?
Any thoughts? We are told that a multi fuel stove burning coal is more likely to damage the chimney liner than just burning logs.
Thanks,
Guess who has the job of cutting it with the chainsaw into stove-sized
pieces, stacking it for seasoning and then moving it under cover. ;-)
Graeme <News@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:#
We are contemplating replacing our open fire with a stove, but, with no
experience, do not know whether a pure log burner or multi fuel stove
would be best?
Any thoughts? We are told that a multi fuel stove burning coal is more
likely to damage the chimney liner than just burning logs.
Thanks,
We only burn wood but went with a multi fuel stove. Partly because it keeps the option of using briquettes open but mostly because having a “bottom draught” facility makes lighting a doodle.
That said, there are good wood burning stoves that I’m sure are easy to light but I think having a bottom draught facility makes life easier.
If I were buying again I would look more closely at how well it’s designed to contain ash. Ours spills ash over our hearth all the time and is a bit messy.
I found a place near me advertising firewood. Its a recyclers and its
£20 for a van load. I emptied my Kangoo and filled it up..had to get a £1600shed to store it..trying to save money costs a packet!
In message <vtdc6n$5psk$1@dont-email.me>, wasbit
They are very slow to respond. As a generalisation, the better the
chimney draw, especially on still days, the easier they are to control.
All very useful - thank you.
Yes, I have been told that logs burn better in a log stove rather than
multi fuel stove, as the logs need a solid bottom and a layer of ash to
burn on. How true that is, I don't know. We don't have a problem
burning logs on our open fire, but there is usually the remains of
glowing coal/ovoids below the logs.
They are very slow to respond. As a generalisation, the better the
chimney draw, especially on still days, the easier they are to control.
In message <vtdc6n$5psk$1@dont-email.me>, wasbit
They are very slow to respond. As a generalisation, the better the
chimney draw, especially on still days, the easier they are to control.
All very useful - thank you.
Yes, I have been told that logs burn better in a log stove rather than
multi fuel stove, as the logs need a solid bottom and a layer of ash to
burn on. How true that is, I don't know.
We don't have a problem
burning logs on our open fire, but there is usually the remains of
glowing coal/ovoids below the logs.
In message <UdicnVssQa8e72T6nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, NY <me@privacy.net> writes
Guess who has the job of cutting it with the chainsaw into stove-sized
pieces, stacking it for seasoning and then moving it under cover. ;-)
Just out of interest, do you burn logs as is, or do you split them? On
our open fire, I tend to burn unsplit logs, up to around 4 inches diameter.
On 11/04/2025 17:37, Graeme wrote:
We are contemplating replacing our open fire with a stove, but,
with no experience, do not know whether a pure log burner or multi
fuel stove would be best?
Any thoughts? We are told that a multi fuel stove burning coal is
more likely to damage the chimney liner than just burning logs.
Thanks,
Presumably if you have an open fire you should be allowed a
wood/multi fuel burner.
On 12/04/2025 10:55, Graeme wrote:
In message <vtdc6n$5psk$1@dont-email.me>, wasbit
They are very slow to respond. As a generalisation, the better the
chimney draw, especially on still days, the easier they are to control.
All very useful - thank you.
Yes, I have been told that logs burn better in a log stove rather than
multi fuel stove, as the logs need a solid bottom and a layer of ash to
burn on. How true that is, I don't know.
Its bullshit.
Logs WILL burn on a stove base, but they burn better with a grate.
I wonder where the idea of burning better on a solid base came from.
On 12/04/2025 10:55, Graeme wrote:
In message <vtdc6n$5psk$1@dont-email.me>, wasbit
They are very slow to respond. As a generalisation, the better the
chimney draw, especially on still days, the easier they are to control.
All very useful - thank you.
Yes, I have been told that logs burn better in a log stove rather than
multi fuel stove, as the logs need a solid bottom and a layer of ash
to burn on. How true that is, I don't know.
Its bullshit.
Logs WILL burn on a stove base, but they burn better with a grate.
We don't have a problem burning logs on our open fire, but there isAll my fires and stoves have grates.
usually the remains of glowing coal/ovoids below the logs.
No problem burning wood
On 12/04/2025 12:03, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/04/2025 10:55, Graeme wrote:
In message <vtdc6n$5psk$1@dont-email.me>, wasbit
They are very slow to respond. As a generalisation, the better theAll very useful - thank you.
chimney draw, especially on still days, the easier they are to control. >>>
Yes, I have been told that logs burn better in a log stove rather than
multi fuel stove, as the logs need a solid bottom and a layer of ash
to burn on. How true that is, I don't know.
Its bullshit.
Logs WILL burn on a stove base, but they burn better with a grate.
We don't have a problem burning logs on our open fire, but there isAll my fires and stoves have grates.
usually the remains of glowing coal/ovoids below the logs.
No problem burning wood
Yes, my fire has a grate & has no problem burning logs. This allows an
the ash to be collected & removed easily.
Without the grate the fire would burn on the bottom of the stove which
isn't as thick as the walls & the ash removal would be less convenient & messier.
In addition the flue installer told me that once the fire was going well
to control it with the top air inlet not the bottom.
On 12/04/2025 12:03, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/04/2025 10:55, Graeme wrote:
In message <vtdc6n$5psk$1@dont-email.me>, wasbit
They are very slow to respond. As a generalisation, the better theAll very useful - thank you.
chimney draw, especially on still days, the easier they are to control. >>>
Yes, I have been told that logs burn better in a log stove rather than
multi fuel stove, as the logs need a solid bottom and a layer of ash to
burn on. How true that is, I don't know.
Its bullshit.
Logs WILL burn on a stove base, but they burn better with a grate.
I must say that I agree. The air flow will be better with a grate as it
will enter pretty smoothly from underneath at the same rate as the hot
air rises. I wonder where the idea of burning better on a solid base
came from.
On 13 Apr 2025 at 10:12:06 BST, "wasbit" <wasbit@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote:
On 12/04/2025 12:03, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/04/2025 10:55, Graeme wrote:
In message <vtdc6n$5psk$1@dont-email.me>, wasbit
They are very slow to respond. As a generalisation, the better theAll very useful - thank you.
chimney draw, especially on still days, the easier they are to control. >>>>
Yes, I have been told that logs burn better in a log stove rather than >>>> multi fuel stove, as the logs need a solid bottom and a layer of ash
to burn on. How true that is, I don't know.
Its bullshit.
Logs WILL burn on a stove base, but they burn better with a grate.
We don't have a problem burning logs on our open fire, but there isAll my fires and stoves have grates.
usually the remains of glowing coal/ovoids below the logs.
No problem burning wood
Yes, my fire has a grate & has no problem burning logs. This allows an
the ash to be collected & removed easily.
Without the grate the fire would burn on the bottom of the stove which
isn't as thick as the walls & the ash removal would be less convenient &
messier.
In addition the flue installer told me that once the fire was going well
to control it with the top air inlet not the bottom.
Indeed. Once it's going well, close the bottom vent altogether, jut use the top.
In message <UdicnVssQa8e72T6nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, NY <me@privacy.net> writes
Guess who has the job of cutting it with the chainsaw into stove-sized
pieces, stacking it for seasoning and then moving it under cover. ;-)
Just out of interest, do you burn logs as is, or do you split them? On
our open fire, I tend to burn unsplit logs, up to around 4 inches diameter.
On 12/04/2025 10:46, Graeme wrote:
In message <UdicnVssQa8e72T6nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, NY
<me@privacy.net> writes
Guess who has the job of cutting it with the chainsaw into
stove-sized pieces, stacking it for seasoning and then moving it
under cover. ;-)
Just out of interest, do you burn logs as is, or do you split them?
On our open fire, I tend to burn unsplit logs, up to around 4 inches
diameter.
Most of our own logs (from pruned/felled trees) are no more than 6
inches in diameter and I don't split those. I tried splitting some of
the larger wood, but even a fairly sharp axe makes no impression on the
wood at all. I even tried using it as a wood splitter - hold the head in place with the axe handle and then clout the head with a sledge hammer. Again, the blade makes no impression on the wood.
On 12/04/2025 10:46, Graeme wrote:
In message <UdicnVssQa8e72T6nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, NY <me@privacy.net> writes
Guess who has the job of cutting it with the chainsaw into stove-sized
pieces, stacking it for seasoning and then moving it under cover. ;-)
Just out of interest, do you burn logs as is, or do you split them? On our open fire, I tend to burn unsplit logs, up to around 4 inches diameter.
Most of our own logs (from pruned/felled trees) are no more than 6
inches in diameter and I don't split those. I tried splitting some of
the larger wood, but even a fairly sharp axe makes no impression on the
wood at all. I even tried using it as a wood splitter - hold the head in place with the axe handle and then clout the head with a sledge hammer. Again, the blade makes no impression on the wood.
I tried chainsawing a notch into one log, and then use the axe in there,
and had slightly more success, but there were still a lot of times when
the axe just bounced off the wood. Maybe I should have split the wood as
soon as I cut it, rather than after it had seasoned...
I now have a long-handled axe with a really sharp blade, so I'll have to
give it a try when I can find a way to hold the logs so they stand
upright and don't fall over as soon as the axe touches them - the perils
of not cutting the long lengths into logs that have faces at right
angles to the axis of the log. Some of the logs are from a fallen willow
tree that is about 18" diameter and I had to cut it using a battery
chainsaw because it involved me standing in a stream so my electric one
was unsafe. I managed about three cuts through the whole trunk
(attacking it from both sides) per battery, of which I have three, used
in rotation. It takes about half an hour for a used battery to cool down enough to start accepting charge and then another half hour or more to
charge it. I should get a petrol chainsaw for that job! The next tree to
be logged will be a dead elm which is still standing but we need to get felled because of the worry that it will fall in a gale.
On 12/04/2025 10:46, Graeme wrote:
In message <UdicnVssQa8e72T6nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, NY
<me@privacy.net> writes
Guess who has the job of cutting it with the chainsaw into stove-sized
pieces, stacking it for seasoning and then moving it under cover. ;-)
Just out of interest, do you burn logs as is, or do you split them? On
our open fire, I tend to burn unsplit logs, up to around 4 inches diameter.
Most of our own logs (from pruned/felled trees) are no more than 6
inches in diameter and I don't split those. I tried splitting some of
the larger wood, but even a fairly sharp axe makes no impression on the
wood at all. I even tried using it as a wood splitter - hold the head in place with the axe handle and then clout the head with a sledge hammer. Again, the blade makes no impression on the wood.
Another point is that for our Clearview stove the air that does not
pass through the grate is preheated by being passed through a channel
at the back of the stove and then blown down over the glass to the
top of the grate. This cleans the glass and gives more efficient
combustion than when air comes up through the grate.
On 12/04/2025 10:46, Graeme wrote:I normally use a cheap'ish hydraulic splitter but was bought a Kindling
In message <UdicnVssQa8e72T6nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, NY
<me@privacy.net> writes
Guess who has the job of cutting it with the chainsaw into
stove-sized pieces, stacking it for seasoning and then moving it
under cover. ;-)
Just out of interest, do you burn logs as is, or do you split them?
On our open fire, I tend to burn unsplit logs, up to around 4 inches
diameter.
Most of our own logs (from pruned/felled trees) are no more than 6
inches in diameter and I don't split those. I tried splitting some of
the larger wood, but even a fairly sharp axe makes no impression on the
wood at all. I even tried using it as a wood splitter - hold the head in place with the axe handle and then clout the head with a sledge hammer. Again, the blade makes no impression on the wood.
I tried chainsawing a notch into one log, and then use the axe in there,
and had slightly more success, but there were still a lot of times when
the axe just bounced off the wood. Maybe I should have split the wood as
soon as I cut it, rather than after it had seasoned...
I now have a long-handled axe with a really sharp blade, so I'll have to
give it a try when I can find a way to hold the logs so they stand
upright and don't fall over as soon as the axe touches them - the perils
of not cutting the long lengths into logs that have faces at right
angles to the axis of the log. Some of the logs are from a fallen willow
tree that is about 18" diameter and I had to cut it using a battery
chainsaw because it involved me standing in a stream so my electric one
was unsafe. I managed about three cuts through the whole trunk
(attacking it from both sides) per battery, of which I have three, used
in rotation. It takes about half an hour for a used battery to cool down enough to start accepting charge and then another half hour or more to
charge it. I should get a petrol chainsaw for that job! The next tree to
be logged will be a dead elm which is still standing but we need to get felled because of the worry that it will fall in a gale.
I normally use a cheap'ish hydraulic splitter but was bought a Kindling Cracker as a present - it's a brilliant gizzmo and highly recommended.
Here's the original https://www.kindlingcracker.com/ but I suspect there
are cheaper clones.
No mail <nomail@aolbin.com> wrote:
I normally use a cheap'ish hydraulic splitter but was bought a Kindling
Cracker as a present - it's a brilliant gizzmo and highly recommended.
Here's the original https://www.kindlingcracker.com/ but I suspect there
are cheaper clones.
I was given one of those and I consider it a complete waste of space. It does nothing that can’t be achieved with a little care and a hatchet. Designed to appeal to the terminally cack-handed I suspect.
Tim
On 13/04/2025 22:54, John R Walliker wrote:
Another point is that for our Clearview stove the air that does not
pass through the grate is preheated by being passed through a channel
at the back of the stove and then blown down over the glass to the
top of the grate. This cleans the glass and gives more efficient
combustion than when air comes up through the grate.
I believe this is what friends have and what they purchased second hand
to replace a wood burner that was installed 25 years before. The "new" multi-fuel burner is MUCH better than the old in every respect. The new burner has holes in the back fire brick liner and when running you can
view vortexes of flame as air is re-circulated back into the main fire chamber. Although advertised as keeping the glass clean its not 100% effective, but the glass remains cleaner than the old stove/burner.
On 14/04/2025 16:09, alan_m wrote:
On 13/04/2025 22:54, John R Walliker wrote:To my mind fire bricks are used because the metal is too thin.
Another point is that for our Clearview stove the air that does not
pass through the grate is preheated by being passed through a channel
at the back of the stove and then blown down over the glass to the
top of the grate. This cleans the glass and gives more efficient
combustion than when air comes up through the grate.
I believe this is what friends have and what they purchased second hand
to replace a wood burner that was installed 25 years before. The "new"
multi-fuel burner is MUCH better than the old in every respect. The new
burner has holes in the back fire brick liner and when running you can
view vortexes of flame as air is re-circulated back into the main fire
chamber. Although advertised as keeping the glass clean its not 100%
effective, but the glass remains cleaner than the old stove/burner.
Logically you want the heat to radiate out not be contained within the fire.
On 14/04/2025 16:09, alan_m wrote:
On 13/04/2025 22:54, John R Walliker wrote:
Another point is that for our Clearview stove the air that does not
pass through the grate is preheated by being passed through a channel
at the back of the stove and then blown down over the glass to the
top of the grate. This cleans the glass and gives more efficient
combustion than when air comes up through the grate.
I believe this is what friends have and what they purchased second
hand to replace a wood burner that was installed 25 years before. The
"new" multi-fuel burner is MUCH better than the old in every respect.
The new burner has holes in the back fire brick liner and when running
you can view vortexes of flame as air is re-circulated back into the
main fire chamber. Although advertised as keeping the glass clean its
not 100% effective, but the glass remains cleaner than the old stove/
burner.
To my mind fire bricks are used because the metal is too thin.
Logically you want the heat to radiate out not be contained within the
fire.
No mail <nomail@aolbin.com> wrote:
I normally use a cheap'ish hydraulic splitter but was bought a Kindling
Cracker as a present - it's a brilliant gizzmo and highly recommended.
Here's the original https://www.kindlingcracker.com/ but I suspect there
are cheaper clones.
I was given one of those and I consider it a complete waste of space. It does nothing that can’t be achieved with a little care and a hatchet. Designed to appeal to the terminally cack-handed I suspect.
Tim
On 15 Apr 2025 at 10:12:16 BST, "wasbit" <wasbit@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote:
On 14/04/2025 16:09, alan_m wrote:
On 13/04/2025 22:54, John R Walliker wrote:To my mind fire bricks are used because the metal is too thin.
Another point is that for our Clearview stove the air that does not
pass through the grate is preheated by being passed through a channel
at the back of the stove and then blown down over the glass to the
top of the grate. This cleans the glass and gives more efficient
combustion than when air comes up through the grate.
I believe this is what friends have and what they purchased second hand
to replace a wood burner that was installed 25 years before. The "new"
multi-fuel burner is MUCH better than the old in every respect. The new >>> burner has holes in the back fire brick liner and when running you can
view vortexes of flame as air is re-circulated back into the main fire
chamber. Although advertised as keeping the glass clean its not 100%
effective, but the glass remains cleaner than the old stove/burner.
Logically you want the heat to radiate out not be contained within the fire.
I think that, over time, the metal would burn through.
My house has a thatched roof, so it is not as simple as many others. But
when I enquired about installing a wood-burning stove, it quickly became evident that the chimney temperature of a wood-burner is a lot higher
than that of plain fire. Back in 2011, we had several quotes for
installation of a suitable chimney liner, all of them in the £7,000
region. We declined the wood-burner.
On 15/04/2025 10:28, Tim Streater wrote:
On 15 Apr 2025 at 10:12:16 BST, "wasbit" <wasbit@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote: >>Indeed. And to too do firebricks, but they are replaceable
On 14/04/2025 16:09, alan_m wrote:
On 13/04/2025 22:54, John R Walliker wrote:To my mind fire bricks are used because the metal is too thin.
Another point is that for our Clearview stove the air that does not
pass through the grate is preheated by being passed through a channel >>>>> at the back of the stove and then blown down over the glass to the
top of the grate. This cleans the glass and gives more efficient
combustion than when air comes up through the grate.
I believe this is what friends have and what they purchased second hand >>>> to replace a wood burner that was installed 25 years before. The "new" >>>> multi-fuel burner is MUCH better than the old in every respect. The new >>>> burner has holes in the back fire brick liner and when running you can >>>> view vortexes of flame as air is re-circulated back into the main fire >>>> chamber. Although advertised as keeping the glass clean its not 100%
effective, but the glass remains cleaner than the old stove/burner.
Logically you want the heat to radiate out not be contained within the fire.
I think that, over time, the metal would burn through.
On 12/04/2025 12:49, Davey wrote:
My house has a thatched roof, so it is not as simple as many others. But
when I enquired about installing a wood-burning stove, it quickly became
evident that the chimney temperature of a wood-burner is a lot higher
than that of plain fire. Back in 2011, we had several quotes for
installation of a suitable chimney liner, all of them in the £7,000
region. We declined the wood-burner.
We too have a thatched roof. We had the chimney lined to go with the multi-fuel stove.
Our insurers insist the chimney is swept twice a year. We have it done midsummer and midwinter, so it is half way through the burning season. Usually there's not much up there as we burn dry wood.
Getting the fire going I use the bottom vents. It will get going like a
blast furnace! Close them once properly lit, and use the top vent as a
heat control. There's a "tertiary" inlet somewhere that can't be closed,
but it's only a trickle.
As for keeping the glass clean - it doesn't work. Airwash my ****.
On 15 Apr 2025 at 11:28:32 BST, "The Natural Philosopher" <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 15/04/2025 10:28, Tim Streater wrote:
On 15 Apr 2025 at 10:12:16 BST, "wasbit" <wasbit@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote: >>>Indeed. And to too do firebricks, but they are replaceable
On 14/04/2025 16:09, alan_m wrote:
On 13/04/2025 22:54, John R Walliker wrote:To my mind fire bricks are used because the metal is too thin.
Another point is that for our Clearview stove the air that does not >>>>>> pass through the grate is preheated by being passed through a channel >>>>>> at the back of the stove and then blown down over the glass to the >>>>>> top of the grate. This cleans the glass and gives more efficient
combustion than when air comes up through the grate.
I believe this is what friends have and what they purchased second hand >>>>> to replace a wood burner that was installed 25 years before. The "new" >>>>> multi-fuel burner is MUCH better than the old in every respect. The new >>>>> burner has holes in the back fire brick liner and when running you can >>>>> view vortexes of flame as air is re-circulated back into the main fire >>>>> chamber. Although advertised as keeping the glass clean its not 100% >>>>> effective, but the glass remains cleaner than the old stove/burner.
Logically you want the heat to radiate out not be contained within the fire.
I think that, over time, the metal would burn through.
Here, they tend eventually to crack. Whether or not this matters and one should replace them immediatly or whether a 1-2 mm crack doesn't matter, I know not.
Here, they tend eventually to crack. Whether or not this matters and oneExperience says that cracks are OK. It's when chunks fall out the
should replace them immediatly or whether a 1-2 mm crack doesn't matter, I >> know not.
problem starts. You can fill cracks with 'refractory cement' IIRC
NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
On 12/04/2025 10:46, Graeme wrote:
In message <UdicnVssQa8e72T6nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, NYMost of our own logs (from pruned/felled trees) are no more than 6
<me@privacy.net> writes
Guess who has the job of cutting it with the chainsaw into stove-sized >>>> pieces, stacking it for seasoning and then moving it under cover. ;-)
Just out of interest, do you burn logs as is, or do you split them? On >>> our open fire, I tend to burn unsplit logs, up to around 4 inches diameter. >>
inches in diameter and I don't split those. I tried splitting some of
the larger wood, but even a fairly sharp axe makes no impression on the
wood at all. I even tried using it as a wood splitter - hold the head in
place with the axe handle and then clout the head with a sledge hammer.
Again, the blade makes no impression on the wood.
Get a Fiskar X25 or X27. You won’t regret it. An awesome log splitting tool.
I’m 5’8” and manage the X27 fine but the shorter X25 might appeal if you’re
shorter. Taller folk seem to find the 27 fine.
On 14/04/2025 14:56, Tim+ wrote:
NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
On 12/04/2025 10:46, Graeme wrote:
In message <UdicnVssQa8e72T6nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, NY
<me@privacy.net> writes
Guess who has the job of cutting it with the chainsaw into stove-sized >>>>> pieces, stacking it for seasoning and then moving it under cover. ;-) >>>>Just out of interest, do you burn logs as is, or do you split them? On >>>> our open fire, I tend to burn unsplit logs, up to around 4 inches diameter.
Most of our own logs (from pruned/felled trees) are no more than 6
inches in diameter and I don't split those. I tried splitting some of
the larger wood, but even a fairly sharp axe makes no impression on the
wood at all. I even tried using it as a wood splitter - hold the head in >>> place with the axe handle and then clout the head with a sledge hammer.
Again, the blade makes no impression on the wood.
Get a Fiskar X25 or X27. You won’t regret it. An awesome log splitting
tool.
I’m 5’8” and manage the X27 fine but the shorter X25 might appeal if you’re
shorter. Taller folk seem to find the 27 fine.
Being a cheapskate, I use a 'grenade' to split logs (struck with a lump hammer), and a small axe/hatchet to split (straight-grained) firewood
into kindling.
Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
On 14/04/2025 14:56, Tim+ wrote:
NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
On 12/04/2025 10:46, Graeme wrote:
In message <UdicnVssQa8e72T6nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, NY
<me@privacy.net> writes
Guess who has the job of cutting it with the chainsaw into stove-sized >>>>>> pieces, stacking it for seasoning and then moving it under cover. ;-) >>>>>Just out of interest, do you burn logs as is, or do you split them? On >>>>> our open fire, I tend to burn unsplit logs, up to around 4 inches diameter.
Most of our own logs (from pruned/felled trees) are no more than 6
inches in diameter and I don't split those. I tried splitting some of
the larger wood, but even a fairly sharp axe makes no impression on the >>>> wood at all. I even tried using it as a wood splitter - hold the head in >>>> place with the axe handle and then clout the head with a sledge hammer. >>>> Again, the blade makes no impression on the wood.
Get a Fiskar X25 or X27. You won’t regret it. An awesome log splitting >>> tool.
I’m 5’8” and manage the X27 fine but the shorter X25 might appeal if you’re
shorter. Taller folk seem to find the 27 fine.
Being a cheapskate, I use a 'grenade' to split logs (struck with a lump
hammer), and a small axe/hatchet to split (straight-grained) firewood
into kindling.
You haven’t lived until you’ve tried an X27. Total game changer. ;-) If you’re in Ayr you can try mine.
On 18/04/2025 19:41, Tim+ wrote:
Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
On 14/04/2025 14:56, Tim+ wrote:
NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
On 12/04/2025 10:46, Graeme wrote:
In message <UdicnVssQa8e72T6nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, NY >>>>>> <me@privacy.net> writes
Guess who has the job of cutting it with the chainsaw into stove-sized >>>>>>> pieces, stacking it for seasoning and then moving it under cover. ;-) >>>>>>Just out of interest, do you burn logs as is, or do you split them? On >>>>>> our open fire, I tend to burn unsplit logs, up to around 4 inches diameter.
Most of our own logs (from pruned/felled trees) are no more than 6
inches in diameter and I don't split those. I tried splitting some of >>>>> the larger wood, but even a fairly sharp axe makes no impression on the >>>>> wood at all. I even tried using it as a wood splitter - hold the head in >>>>> place with the axe handle and then clout the head with a sledge hammer. >>>>> Again, the blade makes no impression on the wood.
Get a Fiskar X25 or X27. You won’t regret it. An awesome log splitting >>>> tool.
I’m 5’8” and manage the X27 fine but the shorter X25 might appeal if you’re
shorter. Taller folk seem to find the 27 fine.
Being a cheapskate, I use a 'grenade' to split logs (struck with a lump
hammer), and a small axe/hatchet to split (straight-grained) firewood
into kindling.
You haven’t lived until you’ve tried an X27. Total game changer. ;-) If >> you’re in Ayr you can try mine.
If you are fit & healthy & have room to swing it, then an axe may be for
you.
But £80+ for an axe (probably plus carriage - I didn't check) is 2/3 the price of a log splitter.
wasbit <wasbit@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote:
On 18/04/2025 19:41, Tim+ wrote:
Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
On 14/04/2025 14:56, Tim+ wrote:
NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
On 12/04/2025 10:46, Graeme wrote:
In message <UdicnVssQa8e72T6nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, NY >>>>>>> <me@privacy.net> writes
Guess who has the job of cutting it with the chainsaw into stove-sized >>>>>>>> pieces, stacking it for seasoning and then moving it under cover. ;-) >>>>>>>Just out of interest, do you burn logs as is, or do you split them? On
our open fire, I tend to burn unsplit logs, up to around 4 inches diameter.
Most of our own logs (from pruned/felled trees) are no more than 6 >>>>>> inches in diameter and I don't split those. I tried splitting some of >>>>>> the larger wood, but even a fairly sharp axe makes no impression on the >>>>>> wood at all. I even tried using it as a wood splitter - hold the head in >>>>>> place with the axe handle and then clout the head with a sledge hammer. >>>>>> Again, the blade makes no impression on the wood.
Get a Fiskar X25 or X27. You won’t regret it. An awesome log splitting >>>>> tool.
I’m 5’8” and manage the X27 fine but the shorter X25 might appeal if you’re
shorter. Taller folk seem to find the 27 fine.
Being a cheapskate, I use a 'grenade' to split logs (struck with a lump >>>> hammer), and a small axe/hatchet to split (straight-grained) firewood
into kindling.
You haven’t lived until you’ve tried an X27. Total game changer. ;-) If >>> you’re in Ayr you can try mine.
If you are fit & healthy & have room to swing it, then an axe may be for
you.
But £80+ for an axe (probably plus carriage - I didn't check) is 2/3 the
price of a log splitter.
I suppose some people must buy them new but all the axes I have known
amongst self ,friends and
family have been handed down or acquired from one of those rural types who attend village shows etc who sell old tools found in the sheds of the departed for whatever you can bargain for but a lot less than £80.00, even if it needs a new handle and a professional sharpen you can still be quids
in
with a tool made from decent steel forged in Sheffield .
GH
On 18/04/2025 19:41, Tim+ wrote:
Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
On 14/04/2025 14:56, Tim+ wrote:
NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
On 12/04/2025 10:46, Graeme wrote:
In message <UdicnVssQa8e72T6nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, NY >>>>>> <me@privacy.net> writes
Guess who has the job of cutting it with the chainsaw into stove- >>>>>>> sized
pieces, stacking it for seasoning and then moving it under
cover. ;-)
Just out of interest, do you burn logs as is, or do you split
them? On
our open fire, I tend to burn unsplit logs, up to around 4 inches
diameter.
Most of our own logs (from pruned/felled trees) are no more than 6
inches in diameter and I don't split those. I tried splitting some of >>>>> the larger wood, but even a fairly sharp axe makes no impression on
the
wood at all. I even tried using it as a wood splitter - hold the
head in
place with the axe handle and then clout the head with a sledge
hammer.
Again, the blade makes no impression on the wood.
Get a Fiskar X25 or X27. You won’t regret it. An awesome log splitting >>>> tool.
I’m 5’8” and manage the X27 fine but the shorter X25 might appeal if >>>> you’re
shorter. Taller folk seem to find the 27 fine.
Being a cheapskate, I use a 'grenade' to split logs (struck with a lump
hammer), and a small axe/hatchet to split (straight-grained) firewood
into kindling.
You haven’t lived until you’ve tried an X27. Total game changer. ;-) If >> you’re in Ayr you can try mine.
If you are fit & healthy & have room to swing it, then an axe may be for
you.
But £80+ for an axe (probably plus carriage - I didn't check) is 2/3 the price of a log splitter.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 11:15:48 |
| Calls: | 10,389 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,859 |
| Posted today: | 1 |