Talk:Franklin stove

There remains a problem: nowhere in the article are there any attempts at judging/reporting the efficiency gain of all these extra costs. Surely that must have been the most important goal behind the ovens although smoke also must have been an important consideration. From my own experience, wet wood must have been a special problem as the effective us of the heat must have increased the risk of condensation of moisture in the smoke which have a lot of nasty side effects. Also, getting the fire and smoke exhausting to get going must have been trubbelsome compared to a ordinary fireplace. This is not to debase Mr. Franklin's work, only to enlightn today's wealthy readsership who can produce heat by pressing a button. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.49.44.163 (talk) 09:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments

This article contains a lot of history of the stove but nearly no description of it or how it differs from other stoves. If someone were to add this and possibly a diagram, this article would be greatly enhanced. -Lommer 02:11, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, and nearly 10 years later I still think we've described a metal-lined fireplace rather than a free-standing stove. We also seem to have focused on proving that Franklin is not the primary inventor of the Franklin Stove!

Other problems:

1. How much fuel was saved? 20%? 80%?
2. By 1790, what were Americans using, the new fireplace design, or a free-standing stove with David Rittenhouse's L-shaped chimney? --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

---

I don't know enough about Franklin stoves....is this accurate and in need of copyedit and wikification, or does it need to be scrapped? I'm happy to do the copyedit and wiki stuff if I know I'm salvaging good content. Anyone know these stoves at all? Jwrosenzweig 19:17, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Argh. Looks borderline, but AFAIK basically accurate, if rather vague on exact details. Give it a try, I guess. -- Infrogmation 19:27, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Facts vary a lot from the info at http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/story034.htm

i suggest that you should say how it impacts us today and the importance of the stove.

According to TV (History Channel? NOVA?) the stove impacts us little today, and is not important. The stove is difficult to make work correctly. The complicated flue will back smoke into the room if not operated just right. As a result, the design was never popular, even in Franklin's time, and quickly fell into disuse. I dunno if there's a connection between the Franklin Stove and box-shaped fire boxes used today. I don't recall any mention of the fact on the TV special. Markspace 01:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

i need help what did he use to make its a project —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.176.186.139 (talk) 23:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Timeline

Peter Johnson (05:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC))

Referring to the line, "Franklin designed a similar stove with more advanced metallurgy and was successful in making it work--at some point in 1742, if we are to believe his own account of this invention." (The emphasis is mine.)

The innuendo is offensive for three reasons: (1) No reasons are given to doubt his account, and (2) Franklin is widely held to have been a great man, (3) the invention was his, the result of the application of his considerable intellect solving the problems that made impractical and even dangerous the "circulating" stoves of 70 years previous.

Benjamin Franklin was an American hero and his posterity deserves better than this article.

Thermodynamics

The article gives: According to Tom Burnam in Dictionary of Misinformation, Franklin's stove could not work, because it was supposed to draw heated air downward, whereas heated air will only go upward--a principle of thermodynamics unknown in Franklin's time. There are two problems with this sentence:

• The idea that hot air rises was, in fact, understood at the time, e.g. hot air balloons, and chimneys.
• The hot air can go down at the start of it's flow, and then rise to a higher level (at the top of the chimney) the same way you siphon gasoline from a car: the fluid starts going upwards (when you prime the flow with suction) then ends up draining to your gas can below the level of the tank. The flow continues by itself, without contradticting the law of gravity, because the gasoline ends up lower than where it started. Hot air can move the same way, starting out flowing downwards, but then up to a higher point through the chimney, without contradicting bouyancy.

I'd be inclined to just delete the reference. Franklin was a real scientist who built real working prototypes, and you can see them working at museums and historical sites up and down the east coast. Pete St.John 19:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• I'm the one who added the Burnam reference: can you provide some citations for your statements? Incidentally, I've siphoned gas myself so I know what you are talking about. Dougie monty (talk) 22:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I need help what did he use —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.176.186.139 (talk) 23:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)