Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!brl-tgr!wmartin
From: wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin )
Newsgroups: net.nlang
Subject: Re: retronyms
Message-ID: <10383@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 2-May-85 17:44:23 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.10383
Posted: Thu May  2 17:44:23 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 4-May-85 06:49:04 EDT
References: <532@cadovax.UUCP>
Reply-To: wmartin@brl-bmd.UUCP
Distribution: net
Organization: USAMC ALMSA
Lines: 25

In article <532@cadovax.UUCP> bob@cadovax.UUCP (Bob "Kat" Kaplan) writes:
>How about "wood-burning fireplaces"?
>-- 
>Bob Kaplan
>

Sorry -- that's a valid distinction. It means the flue and fireplace
itself is designed for handling woodsmoke. It is used to distinguish these
from those which can only take a gas fire -- either with fake logs or from
a burner behind a cast-iron decorative plate. Trying to burn wood in a
fireplace built to handle gas only is a good way to burn down your house
or apartment building...

I've had both kinds of fireplaces in houses I've owned. The gas-burner kind
were common in this area [St. Louis] in pre-WWI houses, where they were
really used for heat. The burners were large sheets of perforated brass,
so you had a large number of tiny flames. This was concealed behind a
cast-iron perforated panel. Trying to convert such fireplaces to handle wood
is usually a mistake and costs more than it's worth.

There are also coal-burning fireplaces, and I think the distinction there
is that the flue is midway in size between the gas and wood varieties.
Also the firebox is of a different depth (the gas ones are quite shallow).

Will