On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 16:19:53 -0500, "George"
wrote:

How else to get air under the fire? It'll smother itself much faster
without it.

"Kenneth" wrote in message
.. .
Howdy,

The subject line says most of it...

Is it wise to use a conventional fireplace grate in a well designed
Rumford fireplace?

Thanks for any thoughts,

--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."


Hello again,

Here's why I posted the question:

I had been using the fireplace with a grate that was of the wrong
shape: It was too deep, and not wide enough. That is, it was not even
close to the shape of the hearth of our Rumford fireplace.

I then thought that surely someone made a grate that would be a
"better fit."

As I started to search the web, I found something that really took me
by surprise. I came upon a few articles suggesting that Rumford
fireplaces would burn better, and would also radiate more heat to the
room if the fire were built right on the hearth rather than on a
grate. These suggestions certainly did not fit with my intuition (for
reasons similar to your comment), but I am happy to learn.

Hours later, after my fire burned down, I gave it a try. I removed the
grate, and build a fire...

To my surprise, with no grate, the fire produced better draw, and
burned the fuel much more completely. With the grate, there were
always a few chunks of wood that fell through where they remained
unburned. Without the grate, I was left only with fine ash. (I cannot
be sure about the radiated heat.)

I will continue to experiment, but for now, despite my original
intuition, I believe that there are significant advantages to burning
in a Rumford fireplace with no grate at all.

All the best,

--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."