Contractor Talk - Professional Construction and Remodeling Forum banner

21 - 40 of 80 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,133 Posts
I found it!

I spent 2 hours on Google looking for this, anyways, this summer I am going to be ordering this for future Rumfords, as thats the direction I am taking my new construction chimneys.

http://www.hart-pagosa.com/Hart-Rumford/index.html

Just need to come up with a refractory concrete mix to use in them.
I would google "castable refractory" I'm sure something good will come up. No large aggregate used from what I recall, just castable, sand and water, unless the castable is already wet but that would be expensive
 

·
mason contractors
Joined
·
487 Posts
slant rumfords

Hey guys, I came across this thread just today and it seems like a good place for discussion.

We are 4th gen masons from CT. and longtime Orton Style Rumford Builders. I've been doing them since 70 when I first read his book.

It's ashamed what's being said about Vrest and the slanted version of the Rumford and when one notes who these people are and their agenda to sell prefab throats etc for the so called "True Rumford", eyebrows should raise.
They privilege themselves to finish writing history by stating, Count Rumford failed in attempt to get his experimental slanted fireplaces to work, therefore he was silent when he promised to elaborate on his findings.
Ben Franklin had long invented the stove that was quickly catching on, while the Count was no doubt encountering many problems trying to adopt this new style into pre-existing,thick front walled fireplaces.
He made mention in his footnote about the only slant he adopted into a bedroom chimney with just a 4'' front wall.
He was used to keeping the back vertically plumb just 4'' behind the face wall which would only be a depth of 8''. He wanted to deepen it to 12 or 14'' for a coal basket or wood logs, so he did so, but only up to 10'' above the fire then straight up again.
This was more like a cove at the lower back that undoubtedly caused mass turbulence the longer it burned, especially a wood fire.
The rhetoric circulating today, suggesting that the Count's potter failed in fabricating a clay throat to suffice his experimental slant firebox, and finally, some 200 years later it's been achieved [for a straight back?]
IF this smoke blowing is fooling anyone it's these young masons, whom only know what they're being told.
Let's remember that Rumford had only partially leaned his wall up to 10'' above the fire in the bedroom f.p. and now was trying to adopt a slant for larger deeper fireplaces on the lower floors because he was amazed with the increased radiant heat.
For him to slant an already deep enough box he'd end up with a deeper box than needed, unless he completely removed the front wall up to about 7 feet or so and perhaps higher on larger f.places, in order to bring the throat forward enough to provide a slanted back wall.
If he ever continued in his experimentation, even after realizing the extra work and cost, he perhaps would've needed Harry Potter to change direction from a forward lean into a backward lean, once he past the throat. I.E.he now has a longer throat that is under the front wall and needs immediate reversal of the chamber in order to clear above fireplaces, and perhaps even side angling as those multi fireplace chimneys were very busy inside with thick stone flues, I know I climbed in them and rebuilt them,.. full of mice droppings and other.
One wouldn't have to stretch his imagination to agree that Count Rumford opted to move on, to compete with Ben in developing his own stove [which he did], after realizing that straight backs were best suited for rebuilding those monstrosities, just as they are better suited for exterior chimneys today, having the throat and chamber at the rear which makes for easy clearance of headers and air spaces.

But there can be no better choice of a firebox than the slant, when the chimney is interior.
This is a point when one must decide on which firebox style works better and where.
This question is often met with rhetorical wizardry on behalf of the marketers, whom make statements like, Slanted Ortons are smoke prone due to turbulence coming from the slanted wall which casts smoke into the room; They can't accommodate a Ti Pi fire therefore smoke that gets emitted from the ends of logs, and is cast forward instead of being high and near the throat, like the "true rumfords"; They don't have rounded breast ;their throats are longer and as much as 1/3 larger in area, resulting in a bigger heat loss up the chimney!; And the straight back has passed epa tests for combustion, suggesting doubt a slant with out the
ti pi fire and it's longer throat will pass.
I will address the epa part first by saying that if the same dry wood is used in a slant or in most any good drawing fireplace, and a large flamed fire is supplied as was in their test, results will be close.
Secondly; To end the rest of the claims I've sent videos to certain people whom were a bit taken aback when they witnessed my 18 year old 50'' slant burning smokeless with the damper at 2-3/4'' the face virtually unstained by eddys.
This killed all the birds with one stone, so to speak, because it shows that no matter what shape the back wall takes, the same throat area for both can suffice a clean draw.
With this being proved, and the slant being the better radiator as even the Count acknowledged, is attest to why for the past 150 years, the slant has been the choice over the straight.
I've only done video visuals of my damper but the next one will show a measured 2''x2-3/4'' inserted into the blade which is fabricated by me.
I like to use my fabricated dampers which I believe enable a thinner throat, although I have adopted cast irons to suffice but not nearly cabable of choking to the same depth.
These fabricated dampers are actually lintel dampers and very handy.Key is proper configuration so when the blade is choked it doesn't cause turbulence.
Lastly to elucidate on Orton's discussing how the slant was time morphed into the smoke prone mess [that these nay-sayers refer to in general and braket together] during the late 50s and 60s.
Raised hearths became popular, and shortened the height of the openings on slants.
This along with starting the slant too high, made the slant's angle too great.
Then came the cast-iron dampers with the big front flanges, with instructions to place them 3 to 6'' above the lintel, and worse many masons put them at the same height thinking the inclined blade would suffice for a smoke collector before the throat. Or an arched opening would flush out with the flange at mid point [the center of the arch]
I can recall giving Orton's book to building inspectors back then so they could enforce proper practice.
This took many years and in fact many architects and inspectors are just now coming around to Orton's descriptions just as the hecklers are too, as they point out some of his add libbed statements such as, "Rumford slanted his fire-backs" and "cold air descends down the back of the chimney as heat rises on the inside then rolls and mixes".
Perhaps they are right in saying air cannot flow bi directional simultaneously within a pipe!
But I say WITHIN A FIREPLACE's chimney, multiple pressure differences constantly occur, resulting in either a full upward flow of heated air coming from inside, this can be from a force full large fire [injection style];or a suction style via good cold outside air movement and ample make up air; A vacuum like scenario, where outside movement is sucking but inside air is not ample to replace [negative].
The latter will cause hot cold turbulence in segments of the chimney all the way up, simulating simultaneous bidirectional currents, and this is what gives impression of constant up down air in a chimney. No matter though, because on sluggish days especially when a low fire is present, a pulsating type draw and eddys will occur if the throat isn't at the front of a shelf and chamber.
I've had this discussion and they claim it makes no difference where the throat is positioned, nor the chamber, BUT THEY ENCOURAGE LARGE TI PI FIRES, bearing out their injection via rounded breast theory and necessity of a ti pi.
It is a longtime observation of mine that slants actually are better suction devices with their longer throats up close behind the face, in contrast to straights being straight up and out the back.
They both draft [suck] on good drafting days but the slant is the better with it's long [true full length] throat and when choked thin it actually increases in strength tremendously actually enebling further choking. This is not as fool proof with slants and unlike the straights, when draft is not so good, a force fire cannot push through as easy, therefore the back wall slope;upper throat / "damper" and chamber need to be right or turbulence will occur.
One very nice equalizer is that when the longer upper body of the slant [including the shelf and chamber] get hot, it's like someone can put a plywood over the chimney and it'll push it off.
I have videos and pics if anyone would like to view them, nothing is for sale it's just for knowledge. In fact the last video was done with a 12'' elm log on a pea soup night which absolutely would devastate most straights with a standard fire......heck who wants to bother stoking and poking a ti pi all night...lol!

Fank Casini Oxford Ct. http://www.facebook.com/pages/Casini-Masonry/159609824086030


http://www.youtube.com/results?sear....0.0.0.95.599.9.9.0...0.0...1ac.1.-ocvCdwX5Uc
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,917 Posts
I feel like you have a lot to share, but it is tough to make out a specific point you are making.
 

·
mason contractors
Joined
·
487 Posts
Yesterday's post in a nutshell

There is no better chioce for a interior chimney-ed fireplace than the Orton They work great.

The straights are better suited on exteriors where the flue has to clear framing or in basements when placed against the foundation.

All young masons should learn Ortons they are very rewarding, and if anyone designs their own home put the fireplace inside and close to the middle of the house, like the old timers did.They work great warm and tall......lol

By the way Jim Buckley has seen my video and was amazed with the throat being a bit smaller than the [straight] true rumford's throat.

He suggested I paint a plywood black and place thermo couplers on it, 5 feet in front of the fire, to compare with his.

I never did due to the fact we had equal throats but I had the 8'' forward slanting back wall. Common sense! Yet he / they still claim mechanical and thermal superiority?

It's too bad they don't get smart and change [or customize] those pre fab breast / throats [esp.on the bigger boxes]to have the throat more forward, thereby enabling a longer damper and a thinner than thick breast.
This would more than likely enable them to bring the fire more forward instead of the usual [sure draw] ti pi fire.

Where's Harry D. Potter when u need him.

As to why no firebrick they don't look as good for colonial stlye.

The firebox brick are good common brick.They last long ,mine are about 18 years used and are somwhat spalled at the baotton but it looks better that way esp on colonials or salt boxes like mine.
I use to use harvard gonics which were like iron but thy spall sooner. I have 14'' of masonry at the base including the fire brick; 2'' of clippings for expansion an 8'' more of brick. I try and not use light weight block there because they expand so damed much.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,917 Posts
I appreciate your passion I really do, but I personally built a straight back in one of my previous houses and it was obnoxiously hot.

Unless in a wide open room it is not practical to keep and maintain a large tee pee sized fire as it simply will to hot.

An occasional log on top of the hot coals is all I could put in my fireplace unless I was in the other room. This was only a 36" opening as well.

At the end of the day I choose Jim's throat and design as my specialty fireplace. If everything is equal, I think it simply looks better.
 

·
mason contractors
Joined
·
487 Posts
If it burns and doesn't smoke it's a good design in my book.

I like that....u sleep at night! Tell me does that logic go for cigars? lol: laughing:

Well now maybe u see what is important to one is moot to another.

The only reason I post this stuff is to elucidate the truth of both style boxes. I got tired of reading bull statements dissing Orton's slants along with his book, now in it's tenth edition. Also most younger masons today are actually believing all this snake oil rhetoric as fireplace gospel.

And I figured as I'm just a voice of experience and not for profit, some facts would be appreciated.

Perhaps you guys will one day be called upon to build the orton and remember the book, The Forgotten Art OF Building a Good Fireplace and
remember my testimonial.

Since the book came out I was instrumental in getting his style popularized with inspectors and architects from Newhaven to Westchester. and n- west as far a Hartford, Litchfeild, Danbury so
maybe I'm venting a bit,.. but they started in the 80's. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,133 Posts
The only reason I post this stuff is to elucidate the truth of both style boxes. I got tired of reading bull statements dissing Orton's slants along with his book, now in it's tenth edition. Also most younger masons today are actually believing all this snake oil rhetoric as fireplace gospel.


Perhaps you guys will one day be called upon to build the orton and remember the book, The Forgotten Art OF Building a Good Fireplace and
remember my testimonial.
After reading your post and looking up what an Orton FP was I believe that I built one 7 or 8 years ago. It was a design in a book that my old partner had and was called a rumford even though it had the rolled back. It was much shallower and had more splay than a traditional FP but was deeper than a rumford and had the slanted back. We used it because the FP was only 28" wide and so a rumford would have only been 8 or 10" deep, not enough for log and not even enough to pass code. When we built it it drew very well and we heard from the home owner a couple years later that the tiny little fireplace threw so much heat that he had to open windows in the winter because it got too hot with the fireplace roaring, and it never smoked even when the fire had died down.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,917 Posts
Im not really sure what your point is, that there is a slanted back way to build a Rumford, so what? It makes more heat? Ok, says you. It draws better? Better then what? Or is your point that you defied the Rumford plan and altered the design and it still worked? Who cares?

At the end of the day if someone requested me to build that I would probably turn them down. Why? Because it simply doesnt achieve anything that a straight back Rumford can do, it would take me longer to build, and I dont think it looks any better.

In todays codes a fresh air inlet is required, have you tested it with that?

Judging from the space at the top of the firebox I would be interested to know how you achieved your 8" in the throat area? I am sure you did it, but it would be far easier to achieve this with a traditional Superior Clay throat. So why fight city hall....From what I can gather the damper is pretty snug up against the front of the face, it doesnt leave an additional 4" space like say a vestal poker damper would. Or like you said, is this firebox best used for an interior chimney where you wouldnt be in a rush to achieve your 8" to meet code.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,133 Posts
I think that the benefit of the "Orton" is that it is deeper than a rumford. Code (at least mine) says that a FP must be at least 12" deep. Personally I think that a minimum of 14" is more desirable because in a shallower box you have to lean the logs against the back and when they collapse the ashes fall out onto the hearth. Also i think that Frank Casini is saying that a lazy fire will smoke less in an Orton than a Rumford since the rolled back brings the throat closer to the front. I can't make a comment on this personally since I don't build near enough fireplaces. In fact I'll be building one this spring for the first time in about 5 years (except that outdoor one I built last spring)
 

·
mason contractors
Joined
·
487 Posts
we'll see who cares?

I posted a similar post this morning at my face book site. I'm amazed with the 6 hr fire I had last night while the damper was set at 2''. I have had the damper at 1-3/4'' just once in my first video [short one] and although there was no visual smoke, it did emit an odor after a few hours. Last nights 96 sq inch throat area was great and I don't know why I skipped straight to 2-3/4'' a few years back when I was hashing with Buckley.
This setting amounts to 1/25 of the 50" x 48 1/2'' opening = 2400 sq.inch-s and amounts to a big reduction to the 1/17 to 1/20 ratio, that the straights so proudly boast. Both Buckley store dampers for a 48'' straight is 5'' x 27.5'' at 137.5sq.inch-s and as I'm sure they are not chokable [flat dampers] that's 1/16.5 ratio.
The intensity of the draft intensifies so much as the blade is closed actually enabling further closing...keep in mind there is no breast rounding or parging at all in this f p.
Kudos for the integrals of a well made interior Orton and the proper damper which enables it less any turbulence!

I'll do an explicit video soon showing this with fires of different intensities, and I feel the ramifications and benefits are evident.

This is what I should have been doing years back but I was too busy wearing out trowels.
Perhaps I'll patent them for parging!.....Buckley liked my idea for niche tools, "Granfather's Mason Tools", I told him. He said to me "I don't have the time to go to flea markets"...lol
 
21 - 40 of 80 Posts
Top