seanvan said:
i really appreciate the feedback guys.
i am just a little disappointed in the options, besides going to an expensive and inefficient mason type fireplace.
You are right, for woodburning fireplaces with large viewing openings along with heating efficiency at the same time, the choices are limited.
"Higher efficiency" pretty much rules out even the old Rumsford traditional masonry fireplaces. This was what people thougt of (likely most still think of) when the word "fireplace" was used up to the 70's or maybe even 80's. But they never did much for actually heating a house.
That is why (in my unexpert opinion) a whole industry was born creating "inserts" to stick into those heat-sucking openings. People got tired of sending their house heat up the chimney wasting their dollars. So they "sealed off" the fireplace openings with inserts, and at the same time got a unit that would put back actual heat into the room.
But there are "some" choices where you can get high efficiency along with a decent view of the fire. Sometimes, limitation of choice is really just a disguised blessing-----it makes it easier to choose!
As to "double-sided" I don't think you have a choice of heating efficiency and large double-sided openings at the same time-----for this, it is a choice of either/or. That is, if you want double-sided, then forget heating efficiency.
The available double-sided fireplace options with large openings, "I guess", would be "slight" heat losers when not in use for a fire (I have not seen anywhere any actual studies of this for available units). The damper shut, along with closed glass doors, should cut down the heat loss very appreciably, but they would not be airtight. "I guess" when such units are not in use, the heat loss might not even be noticable in terms of comfort, and perhaps only slightly noticeable in terms of utility bill.
Think of your kitchen stove hood fan. There is a non-airtight opening there too. It is a heat-leaker too, but do you ever notice it or even consider it? It is basically a hole installed on purpose in your otherwise tighly sealed new house. One could think of a fireplace the same way. The chimney to a zc fireplace wouldn't be that much larger than the opening for a kitchen fan vent, I don't think.
Like a previous poster said, sometimes "looks and ambiance" trump high heating efficiency.
So, you have some decisions to nail down:
1) How important is "double-sided" viewing to you? (Single-sided view will open up many
more options).
2) Can you live with slight (perhaps not noticable) heat loss when fireplace not in use?
3) Do you want woodburning as opposed to gas? (Gas would open up more options,
including double-sided viewing).
If one of the companies can come to market with a zc woodburning fireplace with a "large" (33" x 52") viewing area together with high efficiency (net heat producder for house), I think the market is just waiting for them. If they can do this somehow with a double-sided unit, they might win the Nobel Prize.
All that said another zc woodburning option with large viewing area is Napoleon Z6000. But it is single sided, and note they are "tricky" about saying anything about efficiency or pollution levels. plus it is perhaps the most expensive of the zc options for sale. And it may not be approved for use in all jurisdictions.
****My comments above do NOT address or comment on the masonry/oven option just mentioned by another poster. The OP seemed to rule out the expense of this option.