Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Stove or a back boiler

  • 24-12-2012 1:08pm
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 238 ✭✭


    Hi there,
    Just looking for some advice from more experienced people.

    I was thinking about getting a stove in (normal one not a boiler one)
    but then a friend said about getting a back boiler installed.

    So the debate is which one to get.
    The thing with the back boiler is there are 16 rads in the house, so just wondering how effective it would be running from a normal fire.


Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,878 ✭✭✭arse..biscuits


    To heat all the rads, you will need a beast of a stove and you will have to feed it a lot of fuel.
    A dry stove, will heat the room it's in easily (wont have to be as big) and wont go through as much fuel.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 238 ✭✭HighWire


    Thanks, what do you think about the back boiler option off the normal fire?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,756 ✭✭✭demanufactured


    HighWire wrote: »
    Thanks, what do you think about the back boiler option off the normal fire?
    Waste of time and money.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,878 ✭✭✭arse..biscuits


    HighWire wrote: »
    Thanks, what do you think about the back boiler option off the normal fire?

    Wouldn't bother


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,349 ✭✭✭Jimmy Garlic


    HighWire wrote: »
    Thanks, what do you think about the back boiler option off the normal fire?

    Highly inefficient, most of the heat goes straight up the chimney. You can get insert stoves with back boilers and you would have the efficiency of a stove and the aesthetic of a fireplace.

    Denver%20Black%20Stove.jpg

    You can forget about heating 16 rads with it though.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,756 ✭✭✭demanufactured


    As above....no stove will heat 16 rads without burning molten lava.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,275 ✭✭✭RubyGirl


    Why not look into heating a certain amount of rads and the water. We have that off our fire, it heat's the rad's downstairs (6) and the water. Looking to change it to a insert stove next year hopefully.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 238 ✭✭HighWire


    Great thanks for the replies, that really helps, thanks.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 70 ✭✭markbld65


    just installed a stanley erin with back boiler in november, house is just over 2000 sq ft and its transformed the house, we also got the cavity pumped a year ago and between the boiler and cavity work the place is so cosy

    go for a boiler stove if you can its worth it, i calculate app 3 euro a day on fuel eg coal to heat from midday to late at night its working out way cheaper then oil, running 13 rads no problem

    anther thing is insulation we had the cavity+upstairs completly redone+all pipes lagged and window seal'sl redone, done a lot of the work myself which cut costs a lot

    so boiler stove all the way


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,097 ✭✭✭Dtp79


    HighWire wrote: »
    Hi there,
    Just looking for some advice from more experienced people.

    I was thinking about getting a stove in (normal one not a boiler one)
    but then a friend said about getting a back boiler installed.

    So the debate is which one to get.
    The thing with the back boiler is there are 16 rads in the house, so just wondering how effective it would be running from a normal fire.
    Of course go for the boiler option. Why heat one room when you could heat the whole house with almost the same fuel. Imagine a non boiler stove sitting in front of you with a huge fire on it. Waste of a good fire when that heat could be heating your entire cyclinder and most rads too


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,919 ✭✭✭Odelay


    Dtp79 wrote: »
    Of course go for the boiler option. Why heat one room when you could heat the whole house with almost the same fuel. Imagine a non boiler stove sitting in front of you with a huge fire on it. Waste of a good fire when that heat could be heating your entire cyclinder and most rads too


    But it won't heat the whole house, a bit like an engine in a car, yes you can add on a trailer but will need more fuel and affects the performance of car/stove.
    I would a go for one with a boiler and use that to heat a few rads (trailers!), but I think why these systems sometimes don't live up to expectations is because people expect too much and if the system says it will heat a max of six rads, they link it to six double rads and a big cylinder and then wonder why it doesn't work. Limit the number of rads, I think???


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,097 ✭✭✭Dtp79


    Odelay wrote: »


    But it won't heat the whole house, a bit like an engine in a car, yes you can add on a trailer but will need more fuel and affects the performance of car/stove.
    I would a go for one with a boiler and use that to heat a few rads (trailers!), but I think why these systems sometimes don't live up to expectations is because people expect too much and if the system says it will heat a max of six rads, they link it to six double rads and a big cylinder and then wonder why it doesn't work. Limit the number of rads, I think???
    Oh I totally agree. Maybe have the stove heating the living area zone. Even if not if the rads are only warm in the house for a long period it should stop the house owner turning on the oil


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 324 ✭✭radioactiveman


    Dtp79 wrote: »
    Oh I totally agree. Maybe have the stove heating the living area zone. Even if not if the rads are only warm in the house for a long period it should stop the house owner turning on the oil

    Hi got an Erin stove in recently and I noticed exactly this. The stove won't heat the whole house and you need to have oil or gas central heating (or geothermal or whatever) on to get the temperature up. But that said when both are going it really raises the temperature of the house.
    Thought it was worth getting the stanley over a cheaper make and also thought that the cost of getting it fitted was basically good value for money relative to the cost of other home improvements.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 238 ✭✭HighWire


    So the number of radiators in the house seem a problem - 16 rads.

    So the choices from reading the thread seem to be:

    Open fire with back boiler - Most of the comments seem to be against this

    Standalone stove - not hooked up to anything

    Stove heating one set of rads - either upstairs or downstairs, but not all of them (16)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 70 ✭✭markbld65


    HighWire wrote: »
    So the number of radiators in the house seem a problem - 16 rads.

    So the choices from reading the thread seem to be:

    Open fire with back boiler - Most of the comments seem to be against this

    Standalone stove - not hooked up to anything

    Stove heating one set of rads - either upstairs or downstairs, but not all of them (16)

    you could zone upstairs from downstairs rads, its possible i have done that in my own house,

    13 rads downstairs and 6 upstairs however hardly ever need to put the ones upstairs on for more then 1 hour


Advertisement