Thanks! 👍 And me too, the grate is superb.

Yea. I was burning both so I did find them helpful. As a long term user, what are the biggest improvements over your Clearview?

Hi. We’ve had our Clearview for over 10 years. I find it very hard to achieve a good tickover setting, often have to clean the glass, it leaves more ash than the Woodwarm and eats more logs per day. The Woodwarm can often get us through a whole evening on just 3 logs. Love it!!

That’s really helpful feedback, thanks. I imagined these would be the case, but it’s good to have it backed up.

😅 you’re too kind!

@@TheTortoise and I barley care about fire places

It’s a superb industry and you’re very welcome 😂

It is very well thought out for sure. That double glazing is amazing. I didn’t mention it in the video, but it’s affect is undeniable!

I’m definitely a Woodwarm convert. They’re both fantastic things, but the Firebug is too dog! 😜

Both fuels at once is not really an issue, but this is primarily because dry fuel is used. Don’t get me wrong, the wrong hands, fuel or technique could potentially cause a problem, but this is true of anything and like driving a car, most people get it correct enough not to cause too bigger problem.

It is a fantastic stove. The comments have got me questioning about the availability of a wood version though. Their website heavily implies they make a wood version, but I must admit I’ve never seen one 😆😬🤷‍♂️🤦‍♂️ www.woodwarmstoves.co.uk/stove-range/fireview-eco-contemporary/ Check out this page. It has a list of stoves, but then lists them again under “woodburning” too!

There is nothing wrong with burning wood and coal together. That’s a common misconception based on the idea that moisture in wood mixes with sulphur in coal leading to the deposition of sulphuric acid within in the liner material itself. However that is an idea based on mechanistic theory, not outcome data, in reality the theory itself is bunk and has absolutely no scientific validity whatsoever.

Hi chris my post is valid and based on a lifetime in the industry,liner failure is very common ,when you discover a fault with liner being a sweep we know exactly what the customer has burnt by the deposits we remove so no guess work is involved,we also know how the customers have used the appliances ,obviously a well insulated flue and dry fuel is a major factor but slumbering smokeless with a few logs on top is the perfect way to destroy the liner.

@@MegaSweep1 i appreciate you are a chimney sweep and have decades of experience and many tricks of the trade to help your customers however i will say your report is anecdotal which unfortunately is not a valid claim backed by science, from a scientific standpoint an anecdote has zero efficacy. Therefore unless you can provide some scientific evidence to support the claim such as a study where controls are in place to keep the variables from skewing the accuracy of the results then i am not convinced. Every chimney sweep i have spoken with has considered this idea completely bunk or just not significant enough to ever worry about. Liner failure is primarily a result of use and is inevitable over time with any flue and any fuel eventually, corrosion from sulphuric acid is inevitable when burning coal but the idea that mixing wood with coal will increase that rate of corrosion damage is not supported by science. You will find with flue heat exchanger pipes they often corrode because they are much colder than the sulphuric acid dew point is, however so long as running temperatures are where they should be and the flue is also up-to temperature the moisture in the wood won’t necessarily lower the temperature to any significant extent to add to that damage. One could even argue that the coal improves cleanliness by keeping firebox temperatures high when reloading and when wood may otherwise be smouldering, thus reducing overall carbon and other emissions.

Chris although many variables do exist the vast majority of sweeps who are experienced agree the sweeps you have spoken to must be inexperienced, I can tell you have some knowledge of the subject however your incorrect

@@MegaSweep1 I’m not incorrect at all, and that is an appeal to authority fallacy you keep making. If you want to debunk my claim you can’t just say “oh you are wrong” you will need to back it up with actual scientific evidence, which i have already given. Basically unless you have a permanently cold stove and flue the dew point is never low enough to cause a build up with significantly more damage than normal operation. So to suggest it’s more harmful to the flue is completely dumbfounded and ridiculous. It’s literally made up, and it is exactly something a sweep would say to his customers to gain credibility and sound smart, but lucky for me i am educated and i know better. And i have burned anthracite and wood for about 5 years and not needed a sweep even once i have practically no soot built up at all, just a mm thin layer of soot. Yet i am told by the majority of sweeps that my flue needs cleaning every 6 months or at least once a year. Again either provide evidence in the form of a scientific study, or explain the mechanism behind the damage, otherwise understand the facts i have presented and you can already disprove your claim.

A DEFRA kit is normally as simple as a block that keeps an air vent partially open. This stove actually has it engineered into the movement of the vents so it can’t be removed, but a lot of stoves simply have a screw that blocks a person from closing the vent fully. The cynic in me would say that if you have a relatively short sited view on green issues then a DEFRA kit makes stoves burn cleaner, and that must be good. However this can mean that a stove uses more fuel, and when you consider what it takes to get fuel to a person, the net result is worse for the environment, but good for economies. On the flip side, the best stoves are DEFRA approved whilst also maintaining great control, long burn times and high efficiencies.