kpl
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by kpl on Oct 28, 2014 23:15:34 GMT -8
Issues to tackle: 1. The ram horn 2. Batch box modifications 3. Dispersion/pattern of gas flow through a mass, in my case an oven (that's another toughie)
So, yes, Peter is right. It won't work. But a girl can dream...
You know, answers like "it won't work" are like a red rag to a bull From my understanding, the ram horn is just for strong mixing of gases, which most probably can be done other ways too. Port from firebox to riser should be made with same area as for normal batch box, but with square shape, so it would fit inside round or square riser. At the transition from smaller port to bigger riser, there will be inevitable huge turbulence, and secondary air can be injected there as well easily, with just a small slit in lowest brick. Most probably it will not be as good as normal design, but shouldn't it be good enough, if there is a good length of a riser above? OK, anyway, if there is no real experience with this kind of setup, I have to try it myself, or use a known design. I'll try to draw something in sketchup, so there is actual stuff to speak about. www.dropbox.com/s/l0jkd4m3fk60lne/vertical1.skp?dl=0
|
|
|
Post by Daryl on Oct 29, 2014 2:34:12 GMT -8
Issues to tackle: 1. The ram horn 2. Batch box modifications 3. Dispersion/pattern of gas flow through a mass, in my case an oven (that's another toughie)
So, yes, Peter is right. It won't work. But a girl can dream...
You know, answers like "it won't work" are like a red rag to a bull
That's cool. I am the same way. Eats at me until I at least try it. I might fail but at least I tried. But then, I learn a lot from my failures. Have a good one!
|
|
|
Post by aparker on Oct 29, 2014 6:09:55 GMT -8
Take a look at what has been done with the L-tube (Rocket Elbow) and TLUDs to increase turbulence and mixing. Lots of different ideas.
Nothing stiffens my resolve like someone telling me it cannot be done.
"Don't tell me that it won't work, explain to me how it might work."
I greatly appreciate the patient input of Peter and others who have put in countless hours of experimentation and come up with successful innovations which they are willing to share with us. I hope that they do not take our stubborn curiosity the wrong way.
|
|
|
Post by peterberg on Oct 29, 2014 7:14:42 GMT -8
I'm sorry, gentlemen. In my humble opinion pigs won't fly but I am willing to welcome proof otherwise.
|
|
kpl
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by kpl on Oct 29, 2014 11:33:58 GMT -8
I'm not here to insult anybody, or to convince I'm smart or whatever, just to understand. I know several of you here have spent years trying this stuff, that's exactly the reason I'm asking here.
If there are several critical aspects to get effective burn, probably those can be obtained other ways too. I basically do not see a big difference between short straight channel with fast movement of hot gas, which is located horizontally vs vertically. Or is it that sharp turn, which is critical?
|
|
docbb
Junior Member
Back from ZA
Posts: 92
|
Post by docbb on Oct 29, 2014 11:37:40 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by shilo on Oct 29, 2014 14:24:19 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by ronyon on Oct 29, 2014 16:30:57 GMT -8
It seems like having the combustion air enter from the bottom of the chamber might be important. Existing rockets do this with primary air as do tluds. Of course keeping the channel clear of ash could be an issue, one already addressed in the batch and j designs.
|
|
|
Post by Daryl on Oct 30, 2014 2:22:26 GMT -8
If there are several critical aspects to get effective burn, probably those can be obtained other ways too. I basically do not see a big difference between short straight channel with fast movement of hot gas, which is located horizontally vs vertically. Or is it that sharp turn, which is critical? This is also directed to any lurkers, review the threads on here and build one outside. You will see. Even a small tester stove will show you the difference. Other popular online names for this effect of mixing gases are vortex and double vortex. You won't get that with sending flames straight up a riser/flue.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2014 5:08:53 GMT -8
Of course there are many ways, but hardly one as simple and straightforward as Peters design, which can be easily build with bricks. There are other build techniques giving more freedom and maybe comparable results.
|
|
kpl
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by kpl on Oct 30, 2014 6:32:00 GMT -8
sure, this design is good, but in that tiny space even that part of firebox sticking out of a barrel, is a problem. So, if rocket is not gonna work, means there will be no rocket. Or, more probably, several months of waiting, as it had to be started several months earlier.
|
|
kpl
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by kpl on Oct 30, 2014 8:54:34 GMT -8
By the way, looking at his last experiment with water bucket. Looks like that stove is not connected to a real chimney at all, so all the gas movement has to be created in a stove alone, without further suction. How can that happen without a "rocket" - it does not look like he's using one. That centrifugal box alone most probably does not produce any suction.
|
|
|
Post by shilo on Oct 30, 2014 12:01:48 GMT -8
sure, this design is good, but in that tiny space even that part of firebox sticking out of a barrel, is a problem. So, if rocket is not gonna work, means there will be no rocket. Or, more probably, several months of waiting, as it had to be started several months earlier. why not the sided batchbox?
|
|
kpl
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by kpl on Oct 30, 2014 12:29:46 GMT -8
why not the sided batchbox? It does not quite fit in the given space anyway. I would like not to exceed the floor space of a 200L barrel (about 60cm=2 feet), with square brick base just a little bit wider than that, so it would be possible to enclose lowest part of a barrel with bricks. Actually that increases *inside* dimensions to the same 60cm, so probably it can be squeezed in.
|
|
|
Post by DCish on Oct 30, 2014 12:34:51 GMT -8
He does say that it almost but not quite runs, so a fan is required. If the afterburner is above the firebox there will be a flow of gasses upward during combustion and flow of gasses downward during the cooling after combustion. Similar to a rocket, perhaps, though not necessarily engineered to take full advantage of the principle. Even so, in recent posts on another thread about a condensing type stove, the concept floated by donkey is to not rely on the rocket effect alone to make a reliable stove, but to reheat the gasses a tad after latent heat recovery and use a chimney to add enough draft power to make the stove run reliably under a wider range of conditions.
|
|