|
Post by jliebler on Aug 29, 2014 16:57:49 GMT -8
A lot of work has been done to optimize the burn in a batch box. Is there any reason that the batch box rocket can not be used as the "core" of a masonry heater? What I'm thinking of is basically enclose the batch box with insulated riser in a double walled masonry "bell" ( the fire box would be part of the inner wall where the fuel door is). The advantage of the rocket is it burns cleaner sooner because of the insulated riser and to a lesser degree the insulated firebox. Also the rocket would appear to burn much cleaner than typical masonry heaters when the firebox was partially loaded.
|
|
|
Post by satamax on Aug 29, 2014 21:20:17 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Daryl on Aug 30, 2014 3:27:18 GMT -8
Check out Robert's builds.
|
|
|
Post by lincsoldbird on Aug 30, 2014 11:18:33 GMT -8
Check out the 4in one I built last year. Works very well.
|
|
|
Post by peterberg on Aug 30, 2014 11:36:59 GMT -8
Six years ago, I tried to incorporate rocket combustion chambers in masonry heaters. One of the ancestors of the batch rocket, with a different approach to creating turbulence, has been pictured here. It worked quite good, but the syphon needed heating up first. The current batch rocket is much more versatile albeit a finicky combustion unit. It's not easy to get it right. Here's another attempt, a stacked double bell system complete with bypass valve.
|
|
|
Post by jliebler on Aug 30, 2014 18:49:45 GMT -8
The batch box sure has evolved! The coupling of the "burn chamber" to the heat riser has been reduced to a short horizontal "port", much simpler! Why does Peter say the current design is "finicky"?
|
|
|
Post by peterberg on Aug 31, 2014 0:03:36 GMT -8
It's a highly critical device. A good chimney draw is very important and the internal proportions also. It's very sensitive to restrictions somewhere in the smoke path. Everything that's impairing the gas velocity will hamper the combustion.
|
|