Talk:Furnace (central heating)

message: Several discussion items listed below express opinions that this article needs to be cleaned up.  I whole heartedly agree.  I am a professional engineer who worked as the head of engineering for an industrial furnace/oven manufacturer for 23 years.  The article has some misleading elements and is substantially incomplete.  I agree that the article should be split between comfort heating furnaces used in residential and commercial buildings and Industrial furnaces used in manufacturing. Also outdoor wood fire boiler has no place on this page.  
Jbh803 (talk) 10:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The references show a lot of heavy-duty textbooks; I reckon the text in 'industrial furnaces' comes from those books. I personally think that the 'industrial furnace' section could use some cleanup (too technical), but I don't know where to start, as some of that text is relevant. Sentinel75 08:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dammit, hit 'save page' before I had finished thinking; who wants me to put a 'cleanup' tag at the top of this article? Sentinel75 08:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean up

message: I think the outdoor wood fire boiler section should be moved to the boiler page. It seems wierd to include it in the furnace page.
And, although the term furnace is itself very vague, one should try not to mix up the terms boiler and furnace or just a simple heater. Typical standards of definition would be by the type of fuel used. Another way would be by deducing whether only liquid phases are involved or both liquid and gaseous phases. Another way is whether it is used for chemical reactions, or just simply heating up stuff?
This way, we can focus the page down. Otherwise, anything that burns something and produces heat can be called a furnace and gets included in this page.
And with induction furnaces, it seems like anything that heats something else can be called a furnace..
Anchorage48 (talk) 10:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleaning up furnaces

message: The article First fire was prodded the prod was removed with a suggestion to merge here. Thoughts? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as the term is only used in furnaces, then I fully support it. Wizard191 (talk) 12:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Merge completed JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

text:  I've never heard it applied to furnaces as such. Kilns mostly, also smelters and blast furnaces.  Lighting a plain furnace is easy. Lighting a kiln (i.e. an enclosure of insulating bricks) is much more fraught, as they're the ones that can fail on heating and for which a successful first fire is thus a milestone. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge "first fire"

message: The paragraph on the ignition system seems to contradict itself (probably a typo).  The article states 
The next sentence is the contradiction:
It seems that if the ignition control received this half wave signal from the flame sensor then combustion will NOT continue, since this is most likely a result of a short, as the paragraph mentions.  The ignition control does not know if the flame exists during a short and so gas could be accumulating to explosive levels.  Hence, it makes sense to end combustion when receiving a half wave signal.
Ekulrbx (talk) 03:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern Furnace Components 

message: The edit I made at 9 december 2010 seems to have been reverted: Furnace&oldid=401454280
I wrote that " A furnace is a thermally insulated chamber (or oven) used for forging. " the revert was done because, as stated by Wizard191 "a furnace obviously has other functions too"; given that these "other functions" are about devices that also go under other names, and are even more correctly referred to by these other names, it destroys the quality of the article and the info is best placed at articles with their proper names. At present, the article is such a complilation of different devices that it's unreadable, please fix this, we require this article to have a standard acceptable by wikipedia .
91.182.217.92 (talk) 09:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this article is somewhat convoluted, however, instead of breaking each type of furnace into its own article, why don't we split it off to industrial furnaces and household furnaces? Wizard191 (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't find this a suitable division, ie if we would do it this way, we can never put down a good comparison of the types (ie regarding thermal efficiency, ...) Also, it would be confusing since a single type can exist in both categories, this makes things unnecessairily complicated.
91.182.29.99 (talk) 14:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Article has no focus

message: --> Not sure whether it's best to mention these here, or whether it's best to make new article pages for each type of furnace (this can only be skipped if this article is focused exclusively on metallurgy)
* Smelting furnaces:
- using cokes:
** Cupola furnace without heat recovery (25 to 30% efficient)
** Cupola furnace with heat recovery
-using natural gas/fuel oil
** Rotary kiln furnace (50 to 65% efficient)
** Shaft furnace (50% efficient)
** Crucible furnace (30 to 45% efficient)
** Cokes-less cupola furnace
- using electricity
** Electric induction crucible furnace (middelfrequent furnaces, ie 750kW/ton are 65 to 75% efficient)
** Electric arc furnace
* Ladle furnaces
** Shaft furnace
** Electric induction crucible furnace
** Electric induction channel furnace (80% efficient)
* Casting furnaces
** Electric induction channel furnace
Other older or specialised furnaces; including
* blast furnace, used to reduce iron ore to pig iron
* Puddling furnace
* Reverberatory furnace
* Bessemer converter
* Open hearth furnace
* Basic oxygen furnace
*Vacuum furnaces   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.217.92 (talk) 14:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Efficiency of furnaces

message: "In American English and Canadian English, the term furnace on its own is generally used to describe household heating systems based on a central furnace (known either as a boiler or a heater in British English)"
Err hate to have to point this out but we (USA) call them heaters the most often (at least in parts of the country) or more specific terms as well, such as "boiler", "heat pump", "central air", "furnace", and so on.
I'm curious where the terms are used the most.
Here, a "furnace" can be a centralized heater for a home or a kiln for brick-making (masonary) and such.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.142.23 (talk) 12:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably a regional thing, because here in Chicagoland we call them furnaces not heaters. Wizard191 (talk) 15:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  terms 

message: We are the No1 Furnace manufacturer in india, we do different types of furnace and covers broad spectrum of our expertise in manufacturing the Industrial Furnaces and Ovens and also Heat Treatment Services that are offered by us  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.166.106.23 (talk) 07:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Furnace manufacturer in India(therelek Engineers Pvt ltd) 

message: Haven't read the whole thing, but the general tone of the part explaining single, 2-stage and modulating furnaces bothers me. It doesn't sound right to have it stating that a 2-stage is "better" than a one-stage, or that a modulating furnace is "most desirable". These are opinions, not facts. You could say that "many people consider" them to be better, but it sounds wrong the way it is. Not encyclopedic, and it almost comes across like an advertisement. Lets say, what if the person who wrote that also happens to be in the business of selling modulating furnaces, it seems like a conflict of interest. Yes, someone has listed some of the pros of a single-stage furnace, but I would rather see the phrasing changed to reflect the benefits of each type without actually saying one is better than another. Let the reader form their own opinions based on the facts (which is what an encyclopedia is supposed to contain...facts)..45Colt 12:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone of article. 

message: https://www.achrnews.com/articles/87035-an-early-history-of-comfort-heating2606:6000:514B:AD00:F128:41B9:FA:F7C7 (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comfort heating history 

message: The Categories and Heat distribution sections should be part of Home furnaces.  Maybe they should be moved to the Central heating page.2606:6000:514B:AD00:F128:41B9:FA:F7C7 (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization 

message: Internal scientific mechanisms of the furnacesSudhakarlistens17 (talk) 03:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:   Internal scientific mechanisms of the furnaces