Search result for: the-last-thing-you-aquired-
| # | Post Title | Result Info | Date | User | Forum |
| Eames 50th Anniversary | 1 Relevance | 21 years ago | NULL NULL | General discussion | |
| Eames 50th Anniversary Hello Design Addicts: The Eames 50th Anniversary Lounge and Ottoman are currently available for order from authorized Herman Miller for the Home retailers and Herman Miller, Inc. dealers in the US. The anniversary Lounge will have a commemorative medallion discreetly affixed to the underside of each chair manufactured in 2006. The tasteful, black and gold medallion is about 1.5? diameter. The Lounge will also be accompanied by a book that is being published in conjunction with the traveling Eames exhibition of 2006. The hardcover book, The Eames Lounge Chair: An Icon of Modern Design is filled with interviews, never-before-published photos and drawings from the Eames Foundation and intriguing information on the design. The exhibition will begin at the Museum of Art and Design in NYC in May. ? Herman Miller will be holding an open house on Saturday, May 20 at the museum. The exhibition will move to Grand Rapids, MI in October. Among other interesting displays the exhibition will have a full size exploded Lounge and Ottoman (all parts suspended within a framed box). The Eames Foundation currently has an exclusive on the new wood finish call Santos Palisander until May 2006. Then this new finish will be available from all Herman Miller sales channels. The Foundation is using this as a fund raiser. Herman Miller, Inc. launched the Eames Lounge Chair in 1956 on the Arlene Francis show on NBC (now the Today show). The Chair has been in continuous production for the past 50 years. USA Today will have an article on the Lounge soon as will many publications in the next several months. For a list of authorized Herman Miller for the Home retailers please visit www.hermanmiller.com . As was state in several posts ? please be sure to buy from an authorized re-seller of the Eames products ? this ensures the Eames family is compensated and that your investment is protected. Get the REAL thing ? it?s worth every penny! http://www.hermanmiller.com | |||||
| Glad to help. Modern-Fabrics | 1 Relevance | 8 years ago | Spanky | General discussion | |
| Glad to help. Modern-Fabrics is a great source. Good customer service, too, at least in my experience. That Savak Gabriel is beautiful! I had never heard of it before and now I'm wondering if I've seen it. One of the fun things about reupholstering certain Danish dining chairs (mostly I'm thinking of Erik Buchs but there are probably others) that have upholstered backrests is that under the fabric on the back of the back is a piece of thin cardboard which masks the bumps and lumps from the fabric edges that are turned under. And under this cardboard there is a strip of scrap fabric that brings the center of the cardboard up flush with the edges so that when you press on it it doesn't cave in. Just a little thing. But that fabric scrap is nearly always a bit of beautiful wool fabric! Usually something that's no longer made. I can't tell you how many times I've wished to have serious yardage of some of them. A lot of them, in fact. But I have to be content with discovering them and enjoying them for a few minutes before covering them over again. Linen is gorgeous but I have reservations about upholstering with it. Mostly because it creases so easily and the creases stay until you iron them out. I think for a seat that is stretched smooth over minimal padding and stapled tight, then ok---there's not much room for it to shift in any direction. But for cushion covers you are likely to find it creeping forward over time (or downward, in the case of a back cushion) and developing messy-looking creases. I think it's also hard to spot clean, given that it's a cellulose fiber like cotton---not so much an issue for removable covers, definitely an issue for more permanent applications. Also, even though it's a very strong fiber it will wear over time where it is creased sharply. I can't think offhand how this matters in upholstery but there's probably something somewhere where it might. One example outside of upholstery is table linens and handkerchiefs---if you fold them and iron the folds, which tend to be on the same lines all the time---the fabric will split along those lines eventually. BUT! Linen makes wonderful covers for throw pillows. And its cool smoothness contrasts beautifully with fuzzy, warm wool fabrics. | |||||
| Karpen Chairs Upholstery Advice. | 1 Relevance | 10 years ago | mgee76 | General discussion | |
| Hello. Kindly requesting counsel on choice of fabric, etc., with a pair of Karpen chairs that I'm redoing. Pretty sure this is the original fabric. Other examples I've seen that have been redone look wrong, and I'd like to have these turn out right. Obviously, I am hoping that spanky will chime in, but any input would be great. Essentially, I'm wondering what fabrics would be ideal for these... I have spent hours poring over image swatches and ordered samples, etc. I like thicker stuff, typically, but I'm mostly concerned with recreating the seams that appear invisible on the contours and curves. Looking for a brighter color, thinking yellows and oranges. But the type of fabric is probably more important. I just don't know the first thing about textiles and it limits my ability to learn... what would you call what is on here? Tweed? There seem to be many catch-alls in fabric terminology. Should I just get Hallingdal and be done with it? Secondly, should I consider keeping parts of the chair that seem decent? The seat cushions, for example, feel OK to me and I definitely want the new cushions to be the same size and thickness. Much of the exterior dimensions of these chairs is soft foam; you only start to feel the frame a couple of inches in on all sides. This stuff seems to be holding shape pretty well... is it even an option to retain it? I guess I imagine that it should probably be stiffer than it currently feels. I'm not sure. Ideally I won't have to micromanage the upholsterer with every little detail, but I'm like that. Thanks for any input! I hope to get some shots of the inside for the skeleton thread. Can take more closeups of the seams, also, if that would be relevant. | |||||
| Adding flip-down armrests | 1 Relevance | 10 years ago | Spanky | General discussion | |
| Adding flip-down armrests like that would be a pretty major revision for an upholsterer to do! Not impossible, but I'm thinking more likely to be original. An upholsterer might add height to a back or the arms but adding hinged flip-down armrests and probably reworking the frame of the back to accomodate them, and figuring out the dimensions and padding so that they feel like the rest of the back when in the UP position---that's some major designing there. There are a couple of other things I noticed, though. The legs have a more pronounced taper than the Wegner legs, which are pretty distinctive. It's hard to tell in the photos because of the shadows and the low resolution but it's definitely there. The front edge of the Wegner sofa is higher in relation to the bottom of the frame in front, plus it is angled out from the frame edge. This isn't the case on your sofa. The arm on the Wegner is shorter in front than in the back. Yours appears to be the opposite or may be about the same height front and back---but either way, it's not shorter in front. The vertical front surface of the arm on yours appears to be round though this may be an illusion. It looks round in the photo whereas the Wegner's has definite corners---rounded corners, but corners. There's also that business of the welt that runs parallel to the top surface of the arm on yours. That would be an odd thing to add by an upholsterer later. Possible...but odd. | |||||
| Happiness is as good as any other design goal...Pt. 1 | 1 Relevance | 20 years ago | dcwilson | General discussion | |
| Happiness is as good as any other design goal...Pt. 1 if it is pursued authentically--at least for an American. America is the only state in the world that I know of that actually is founded in writing on "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." And you know what? When we held that up to the world and tried however misguidedly and at times disingenuously to live up to that wording, we were a legitimate beacon of hope to the world that people could self govern to a new, better society that could indirectly make the world a better place. It put our flawed, often confused human hearts in a right place, at least, whether we bungled it or not, or whether the monsters among us got control temporarily. Now its historically accurate that the original draft read "life, liberty and the pursuit of property." and it appears true that alot of the propertied founders of America had incentivised colonists participation to fight in the revolution with the promise of free land. And its true that they welched on most of those promises. And its true that they welched on those promises, because alot of the founders wanted to keep the "property" gained by the revolution for themselves (George Washington reputedly being one significant example). And its true that Jefferson, or Madison, I forget which, substituted "pursuit of happiness" for "pursuit of property", because they were afraid it would force them to have to honor their promise of distributing alot of free land to the revolutionary war veterans. And its probably true that they substituted "pursuit of happiness", not out of the goodness of their hearts, but because it sounded good and they thought happiness didn't cost anything to promise. But here's the thing: the idea of "the pursuit of happiness" turned out to be a fantastically robust and enduring expression of the human spirit and will. It turns out people really did want to be happy and IN A BIG WAY. And it turns out binding happiness up with the notion of a life with liberty became one of the real cornerstones of the American identity. IT became a precept for our society. "Don't tread on me" morphed into "I aim to be free and happy in spite of all you oppressive sonsuhbitches." | |||||
| Rehab question: should the Great Pyramid be reskinned? | 1 Relevance | 20 years ago | dcwilson | General discussion | |
| I am for reasons not always clear to me fascinated by questions of to rehab, or not to rehab? Consider the Great Pyramid in Egypt, one of the earliest known mixed use real estate developments. It was orginally covered with a smooth, white marble surface that made the thing visible for great distances on nights when there was any moon light at all. It functioned as lighthouse for those navigating the desert and the Nile. It also functioned as perhaps the largest survey marker in history, allowing a vastly expanded land ownership grid to be layed in the vicinity of the verdant Nile; this was a hugely powerful function for the Nile flooded annually and played havoc with property lines. The guy with the highest survey marker could therefore also be the man to command the most expansive property rights grid for growing food and fiber. One set the ancient equivalent of a level, or theodolite, probably some kind of sextant, on the flat top of the pyramid and could then have unimpeded site lines far in the distance that could relocate boundary markers whenever needed. In fact, with the white marbled radiance of the pyramid, it was possible that surveyors and early astronomers could work all night relying on the reflected light. This was perhaps the first 24 hour shift in the epistemic sector of the economy. 🙂 The pyramid also served as a combination bank vault and burial tomb for the pharoah and his descendants. So: should the Great Pyramid be reskinned, or not? Undoubtedly we could learn an enormous amount about how the pyramid functioned and how ancient Egyptian culture was ordered by its analytic parameters. A thorough refurbishment would certainly be a boon to Egypts tourist economy. Yattta, yatta. Or should society be dedicated to allowing the Great Pyramid to waste slowly away as some kind of architectural clocking ticking on human civilization? Any thoughts? | |||||
| Barry: There's really... | 1 Relevance | 19 years ago | finch | General discussion | |
| Barry: There's really... Barry: There's really nothing to agree or disagree with. I think you're assuming, quite wrongly, that I am propounding knock-offs in place of originals or licensed repros. At most I'm simply promoting a dialogue of a more dialectical nature, rather than a position based on heart felt opinions and generalizations. That said, I have suggested that there are unofficial manufacturers, including Modernica and Modern Woodworks to name two, who make exceptionally high-end renditions of certain classics, using high-grade materials, and in both instances, qualified American labor, and that the disparity in prices between them and the licensed guys should at the very least compel buyers to scratch their head before taking a dive. That is not unreasonable or even disagreeable. Lucifer: My beef with Fritz Hansen is the inconsistency of a few of their products -- namely the bases of the two Jacobsen designs, which changed in the eighties from the one piece tine style base to the two piece stem and spangle base. It doesn't ruin the design for me, but it is a noticeable departure. Also, the finishing of the bases has varied over the years. Then we have the Swan base, which used to attach to the chair underneath the upholstery, but which now bolts onto the underside with a large aluminum plate. As for the dividing line separating thoughtful revisions which ensure a product succeeds in the contemporary market, and revisions of a more superfluous or unnecessary nature -- this is a tricky thing to establish. Where do you draw the line? Aniline dye and chrome plating have never been good for the environment either. Another example: I recall many months back an interesting argument that the ESU design should not be modified beyond its original schemes to allow for things like big screen TVs, etc., and yet, it would seem that this would be one design, with its modularity, that especially lends itself to the sort of 'tinkering' which so typified the Eameses approach, in order to keep it relevant. Food for thought. As they say, folks, you mileage may vary. Happy Valentines! | |||||
| Really | 1 Relevance | 17 years ago | SDR | General discussion | |
| Really What well of angst do words like these come from ? This will come as a shock to you Mike but the people who actually worked bloody hard to make these pieces happen in the first place deserve respect, alive or dead and the confidence they placed in their chosen manufacturers should be respected too. They and all the people who helped them make it happen often refine and represent the peak of technological and artistic development in our culture and you and your suppliers are grubby little profiteers, what do you put back into the industry? Do you maintain archives? Do you hold conferences, open days or exhibitions? Do you sponsor competitions? You come from this class of people who is naive and greedy enough to think that everyone can have whatever they want at the click of a mouse. I can't even afford your knockoffs, theres no way I can afford Knoll or Herman Miller or Vitra but I have the ability to see beyond my own desires, do you? I will not give you any more oxygen, you've had enough. posted by Heath Mike wrote: I know people hate to hear this but the last thing on most of the original designers' minds was creating a luxury brand, which is what has happened with these large corporations licensing their products. I know what it costs to make a lot of these products and I know what these corporations are marking up their products by. I hope in the future more people on this forum will be open to the possibility that (a) companies like ours can actually sell high quality reproduction pieces at reasonable prices and (b) just because a large corporation has licensed a product does not mean that the company's reproduction is any more "original" than another company. I know those are not possibilities that all people agree with, but I'm just asking to keep an open mind. I wonder how people will feel when one day those licenses expire.. __________________________________________________________________________ Like it or not, those are valid points. What is being threatened in you, that you have to respond as above ? The truth is, everybody wants something at a price. The laws of supply and demand obtain, whether we like it or not. I'm withholding judgement on the present manufacturer, because I haven't seen the products at first hand. How do you know they aren't perfect reproductions ? Yes, I'm the first one to decry the pollution of history by inaccurate copies of furniture or any other historic design item. But what's with the venom ? | |||||
| Sounds like you're just using... | 1 Relevance | 17 years ago | HPau | General discussion | |
| Sounds like you're just using... Sounds like you're just using too much glue, if you've got a good join just brush on a film, press together and clamp. The joint should be tight enough to hold itself together. If you have a sloppy joint use a sprung hand clamp for a few minutes and let the glue rest a little then clamp. A bit of tackiness will develop in the glue which will help hold it togther while you clamp. Don't use excessive pressure either, aim for a feeling of moderation throughout. If things are sliding around out of control its easy to clamp one part down, tap your glued piece in, clamp very lightly, tap it in again then apply pressure proper. You really want a line of small beads, nothing more than that, you should never ever get drips. What glue have you been using? I use this stuff, it foams like hell if you use too much, apply it with a cotton bud, I know that sounds silly but its really the ideal size for quickly getting into the crannies of a mortise or the corner of a tenon. Its pretty good but one thing I have learned with these glues is to decant them into seperate well sealed glass jars if you buy a big bottle, if not in a humid environment they get a skin and turn to rock. They cure in the presence of moisture so you can dampen the join to speed that up, especially on dry timber. I lick the join (yes I lick the wood wearing my lucky glue shorts:)and it cuts cure time by about 1/3, though of course you shouldn't be stressing it for 12 hours anyway. Oh and they turn your hands black if you're not being careful, after a weekend of that and applying shellac my hands look like I've just crept out of a crypt. ah ok! You're doing resoration, mmmm what fun, not. If you've scraped off old glue and now have a sloppy joint and are using too much glue to compensate then a liberal application of polyurethane glue or even (shudders) epoxy is what you'd probably have to do. In that case masking off with tape is a good idea, don't try and tape to the edge, tape over the edge and slice off the excess tape with a razor blade. If you have a REALLY sloppy joint shim up the tenon with a scrap of veneer or even a small piece of coarse paper. SDR might have some ideas too. http://www.vise.com.au/ | |||||
| i live in seattle and looked... | 1 Relevance | 13 years ago | nothing_to_one | General discussion | |
| i live in seattle and looked... i live in seattle and looked over what others have said, so here's my 2 cents: 1. Architecture: art deco not so much but certainly some examples. PacMed was mentioned and this towers over beacon hill. you can't miss it from the I-5 corridor. other art deco includes a few hospitals in the central district as well as buildings around pioneer square like seattle tower & exchange building. to me, downtown is a real mashup of architectural styles and it's not difficult to get around by foot between pike place and pioneer square. a lot of the public libraries feature great design and the downtown main library is seattle's ode to contemporary design. also as far as the seattle center goes, note the rock and roll museum as well as the sculptural elements both new and old (we just installed a chihuly garden, but if you really want glass, take a side trip to the tacoma glass museum). 2. Food/Coffee: save your money and don't go to canlis, unless you're really into exquisite service and dressing up entirely (totally valid, just not my thing)... i'd skip most (not all) of tom douglas too. ethan stowell is where you want to go for amazing NW/italian fusion with a seafood focus. there are a number of great gastropubs (quinn's is my favorite). i'd recommend focusing on ballard neighborhood or the pike/pine corridor leading into cap hill for some hidden gems. As for coffee, i am a coffee roaster by trade so i'll just say this: if you just love sbux and want to spend your time in seattle with them, i guess you should visit the fake original in pike place. if you're in love with sbux but looking to branch out, stop by monorail espresso downtown - still darker roast but much better and real classy/underground and if it's the weekend Costa is your barista. but, if you want some real great amazing, special coffee, check out places like analog, herkimer, vitta, stumptown, 7Roasters, victrola | |||||
| I find it... | 1 Relevance | 20 years ago | koen | General discussion | |
| I find it... difficult to be overwhelmed because it is so close to the more fundamental work that Gilles Deleuze did in layered plywood back in 1995-96 (best known thanks to Bernard Cache's book on that research: "Terre meuble" ISBN 2-910385-06-X) Other pieces are quite basic improuvements on Marc Newton's work. I think it is great that someone extends, improves and refines Marc Newton's chairs because the basic idea is so promessing and M.N. never took the time or effort to let the original idea evolve into refined and "well designed" products Bengtsson fills that gap with talent and flair. Before I create angree reactions on my comments on M.N. I would like to ad that it is of course his full right to limit himself to excell in generating ideas, rather than refining them into good products. I am just pointing out that it opens opportunities for those who want to take up the thread and continue where he left off. What also prevents me from being excited about it is this ungoing "rediscovering" of long known technology. The equipement he uses for winding carbon fibers might be the digital version and as such quite a recent version, but producing products by crosslinking epoxy or polyester impregnated strands of fibers is now almost half a century old. I know that there is (as you recently pointed out M_Andersen) an obvious lack of education in design history in design schools, but it makes me wonder how many times we will see history repeating itself because of this lack of knowledge of what has been done already. Let's wake up! Industrial production of this kind of winded impregnated fiber cones and reservoirs for airplanes, other aeronautical applications and other down to earth applications date back to the early sixties! So it is not good enough to re-discouver it and basically repeat experiments that were done at that time., and that one choses to ignore. Let's get on to the real thing and do it in such a way that it can be shared with all those who are tired (as I am) to look at these things in magazines, musea and galeries and just want to sit in it. All in all I am still impressed enough to move it to the associated link box http://www.bengtssondesign.com | |||||
| cont. | 1 Relevance | 18 years ago | koen | General discussion | |
| cont. Something like that must be at the origin of our habit to act before we think. As unprepared and unwilling grand parents you might ask your son "...what were you thinking?!?!.." but we all know that the girl is pregnant because neither he nor she were thinking...Something similar seems to force us to form an opinion, form it fast and stick to it. Is it a way of dealing with complicated issues? Is it the positive and important contribution of that large sub-conscience part of the brain we do not control? Is it a way of building a secure environment around ourselves (always knowing what other's opinions are?) I do not know, but I always seem to surprise people with the fact that I have changed opinion on something and have allowed myself to go back and forward on an opinion more than ones. That is what I tried to express in not enough words... Although acting before you think is the natural thing to do, one of the great pleasures of being a designer is to be allowed to think before you act, and it allows you to make a living out of it. Allow me to clarify this with an analogy. If I need to hammer a nail into a wall, I might not even go to the workshop but just hit the nail with the heel part of my shoe. The amount of thinking is minimal and relies on my ability to recognizing something in my vicinity that will do the trick. If I have to nail twenty nails, I will go down, grab the first hammer in sight and do the planned job, but if I have five hundred nails to hammer I will actually look twice and choose the one with the right shape and weight...in other words I would do more thinking. If, as a designer I am asked to design a hammer, I will study the archetypes, the dynamic anthropology, the bio-mechanics and physics, the existing hammers, I will test them, look at the manufacturing technology that was used for the different components, evaluate them, use similar ones but better, or better ones and finally make provisional prototypes of it, test it, have other people test it, improve on it etc. The reasons why I can do this is that the end result will be multiplied by the thousands and used until worn out, Probably after thousands and thousands of nails. So in designing this product I am in fact accumulating thousands of small fragments of time that users would put into choosing or making the right tool. That is the task they have delegated to me and I do it for them. Nobody would ever put that kind of effort into making a hammer to nail one, or a dozen or a few hundred nails. In the best case they will use whatever is nearby, and think afterwards?I could have used a lighter hammer, or the shaft should not be straight etc. etc....oh yes, that's my opinion | |||||
| Reupholstery Tips for Eames Knockoff | 1 Relevance | 19 years ago | dkcaudill | General discussion | |
| Hi all, long time lurker here! About a month ago, my wife and I were driving down a state highway in TN on a warm fall day. We passed a garage sale and nearly crashed, as I noticed an Eames lounge chair out in the front yard. Long story short, I chased the lady out of it(she was running the sale from the chair, out in a muddy lawn!) I bought the chair and ottoman for $10. We drove home totally giddy about the find of a lifetime. I am totally at a loss to identify the chair. The labels have been removed, as you can see from the pictures. This is a chair thats been heavily used for 20 years according to the owners. But what do they know, they just let the beautiful thing go for $10. I am pretty sure it's not the genuine article from the bases- but they look like they may be replacements. They read "Frank Doerner Company, Waterloo Canada" Who made this? If it's not an Eames, someone was surely sued over the similarity! I need some advice on getting it redone. I have been quoted some pretty awful prices by people "in the know" about the chairs- like $1100(vinyl)-2052(leather). I know what a monumental ripoff the modern furniture market is, so I am a little suspicious of these prices. I want to supply an upholsterer with marimekko barkcloth. How should I find a good upholsterer, and what should I really expect to pay? I'm a school teacher, I don't have two grand to drop on a chair. Can't wait to hear your responses! | |||||
| It remains very difficult for many to grasp evolution... | 1 Relevance | 18 years ago | dcwilson | General discussion | |
| It remains very difficult for many to grasp evolution... Human beings and the universe itself are evolving. Evolution is not preordained in how it will go. There is NO ultimately correct way of doing things, because life keeps evolving; this is the hardest idea for persons accept with any profundity. Even the idea of evolution itself is neither perfect, nor complete. We are constantly being borne into a new world. This world has many things that do not change, but it has many others that do change. Hence, there can be no ultimately correct way of designing, nor an ultimately correct dictum for design in evolving world. Evolution keeps happening, and life keeps reorganizing itself to the changes. So do salesmen. So do plumbers. So do designers. Every human activity solves some problems and creates others. Design is no different. Perfection is not an option in this world. Miminalism is a good fit for some problems. Minimalism is a misfit for others. Minimalism maybe right one time and not another. Designers should only use dicta as tools for solving problems. Designers who begin to use dicta as laws, or things to be believed, or worse, believed in, are in a drift toward ideology, or religion, or both, and not design. The only worth any designer, or scientist, or doctor, or plumber, or soldier, or politician has for fellow humans is in solving problems with tolerable trade-offs. The problems you solve must give more utility (which includes beauty, function and price)than it causes problems, at least in the short term. I don't want a designer to believe in minimalism. I want him to use minimalism, or whatever, as a tool to make me a really good widget that I need. I don't need, or want, a secular designer priest. I need an an effective designer. A designer can have a design philosophy without believing in it as one might the creed of a religion. A designer can (and should) change a design philosophy any time doing so allows him/her to be more effective in designing something. Often consistency can be a good thing, because repetition allows one to get better at something. But consistency that leads to sub-par design is silly. Don't feel bad about getting disillusioned with minimalism, if it isn't solving your design problems. But also don't grown disillusioned with minimalism, as if it were a religion you just saw through. It's just suddenly a 10mm wrench, when you need a 12mm one. | |||||
| Let's get our terminology right , Boys and Girls | 1 Relevance | 19 years ago | Olive | General discussion | |
| Let's get our terminology right , Boys and Girls All of these units are "Wood Stoves" NOT fireplaces. Big Difference! Many fireplaces especially in old homes that didn't use a flue are horribly inefficient with heat being sucked out of a space whether or not a fire was actually burning in the fireplace. Heat rises, me dears, basic physics. Wood stoves on the other hand have exposed chimney pipes (usually) and the unit themselves stand free of a wall and are surrounded by the air of the space. This allows them to deliver their heat into the space much more efficiently than a fireplace does. I've shown off my Morso 1125 on the site before, and let me tell you that sucker kicks some serious thermal arse! It's about the size of a US mailbox...actually smaller in the height measurement, but it can heat a 1270 sq ft room to the point where we're down to skivvies if we're not careful. We only burn a few logs a night as the thing is so good at its job. And there are lots of examples of both fireplaces and woodstoves at are outrageously efficent at heat extraction. Most scandanavian countries use a high mass, circuitous flue fireplace that basically only lets out a sigh of smoke at the top that has no heat left in it at all. The clever Finns have been making soapstone (which has a high heat absorbtion index) fireplaces and woodstoves for years that also waste very little heat. And they're lovely...see below As for the inherent dirty-ness of wood. Bull hockey! Sorry Stephen, you are spouting rubbish on that point. What made London and Sydney so dirty was the burning of COAL not wood. Coal is nasty, evil stuff and a significant factor in global warming. The amount of CO2 that it pumps into the atmosphere on a daily basis is astounding. And in the US it still accounts for nearly 1/2 of our electricity production. We know this yet we keep using it. Humans are stupid and stubborn that way. Wood produces no more CO2 in its burning than it would if it rotted in the woods. Also basic physics there, conservation of energy and Newtonian laws of matter versus energy. | |||||
If you need any help, please contact us at – info@designaddict.com