|
|
Post by satamax on Oct 4, 2015 12:49:10 GMT -8
Hi everybody.
Well, Peter, if you happen to be around. Have you ever thought about a vertical batch? I mean, something of the right CSA for a horizontal batchbox. But squarer, and vertical. Door on top. A port on the side, of the right size, with the P channel. A V at the bottom. May be some bottom air instead of top air.
I'm thinking about this for the retrofit of ranges. It would be easier to load than my tiny horizontal batch.
|
|
|
|
Post by peterberg on Oct 5, 2015 12:19:29 GMT -8
Forget it Max, I've tried that in another construction.
The batch box is a two stage, horizontal cross draft burner. That is how the double vortex is forming.
|
|
|
|
Post by satamax on Oct 5, 2015 12:44:16 GMT -8
Dat's a shame then. Nevermind!
|
|
|
|
Post by satamax on Oct 10, 2015 14:04:25 GMT -8
Peter, if you care to explain, how did you do your experiment?
Because i don't see much difference between loading the wood horizontally or vertically, if all the other parameters are alike. Except may be flame creep up the wood. The thing i can see, obviously, is it will need bottom air. As per a proper batch.
Two other details imho could make the difference for it to work. A flame developing gap. between the wood, and the port. Where the flame could expand. May be even a grid would be in order so embers don't fall towards the port and blocks it. The problem is to finds the right distance. And may be side gaps, so the primary air can flow around the wood, and attain the port a bit better. Actualy, that would be may be like a S portal, type of thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by satamax on Nov 12, 2015 3:53:40 GMT -8
Peter, regarding the recent evolutions, would you reasses your position? I'm realy keen on the idea of a vertical batch. I will try it at some point. I think i know the trick for this one. Make a gap between the firebox and the heat riser, like a burn tunnel, but shorter, of the same CSA as the heat riser. The uppermost lip of the "burn tunnel" meeting the firebox should not be at more than 35° from the bottom of the port. Otherwise, the embers risk falling into the port. May be add a grid at the top bellow that lip, to decrease the free flame distance between firebox and port. Because we know that if the flame is too far from the port, ram horns won't form. I think the cross sectional area of the vertical firebox can be a smidge smaller than an horizontal one, as the gases and fresh air don't have to pass above the wood.
|
|
|
|
Post by peterberg on Nov 12, 2015 7:55:48 GMT -8
You are right Max, maybe it's time to do uncharted territory again. By the way, I didn't read your first post carefully enough. So this configuration isn't tried yet as far as I know of.
|
|
|
|
Post by satamax on Nov 12, 2015 10:14:31 GMT -8
Cool Peter. This one, i hope, will come into testing soon. Shame that the workshop cobbled up stove's firebox, you know one of thoses landini flue elements. Is dead. Otherwise, that could have made a quick way of testing.
|
|
|
|
Post by patamos on Nov 12, 2015 10:32:58 GMT -8
Sata, if i am not mistaken, your idea has some similarities to the ones Trev and I have been pondering in how to modify a vortex with some sort of heat riser above the throat/port. Not quite as vertical, but many similar considerations about flame pattern. Very interesting times  |
|
|
|
Post by patamos on Nov 12, 2015 10:38:02 GMT -8
donkey32.proboards.com/thread/1563/vortex-stove-variant. Docbb's link to Russian technique also in the same zone... the distinction or transition between 'heat riser' and 'first bell' could be up for reassessment. Maybe there are clues from little known examples in far away places...
|
|
|
|
Post by satamax on Nov 12, 2015 11:05:44 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by satamax on Nov 12, 2015 11:20:46 GMT -8
To explain a little more. We know that to make a batch with heat riser and firebox side by side, is not possible, embers would block the port.
So we need a "flame deployement zone" A kind of burn tunnel, but not long enough that the flames disapear before the port. By fine tuning, it could even be more "overload resistant" than a normal batch.
We know that embers will tend to fall if left enough room. Sand gravell, and all sorts of piles tend to have sides around 30-35° So, above that number, it's impossible to make this thing work. If we choose 35° from the top lip of the burn tunnel into the firebox, to the bottom of the port, which we don't want blocked. The burn tunnel will be either too low for the port, or too long for the flames to deploy correctly.
So a solution has to be devised. Either a grid restraining the embers to fall. Or something which bumped just now into my mind; a wide and low port at the bottom of the firebox, of more than the system CSA, and the burn tunnel with a slanted roof to accomodate the port. The thing is, how to stop thoses fckng embers to restrict the flow!
|
|
|
|
Post by Daryl on Nov 12, 2015 11:32:09 GMT -8
There are down draft gasifiers so why not vertical? You can do it, Max! (Cheer, cheer) By the way, I posted somewhere on here a masonry stove model with a "port" on the top. I don't see why an inverted rocket couldn't be possible. You are basically directly gases through channels. Fire is going to want to draft. Gases are going to want to rise. You just have to guide it. (Again, cheer cheer)
|
|
|
|
Post by independentenergy on Nov 12, 2015 12:31:46 GMT -8
I thought about creating a j tube similar to your design.
is similar to a J-tube is no longer in the throat put forward to the expansion chamber, we should try how it behaves after a few hours of operation when it presents the ashes.
and see if it does not burn backwards.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vortex on Nov 13, 2015 2:30:39 GMT -8
You could angle the vertical feed tube slightly so it's tilted away from the riser, that would take care of keeping the port clear as stuff would tend to fall away from it rather tan into it. Wouldn't need much of an angle, just enough for what you want but not so much the wood doesn't slide in on it's own.
|
|
|
|
Post by satamax on Nov 13, 2015 4:39:43 GMT -8
Hi everybody.
Trev, i've thought about that. But the problem is the sandpile effect. The embers roll on the lower embers and that angled firebox wouldn't do any better. I don't need the self feeding effect of the J tube. I could pile the wood horizontaly. The idea behind this drawing is the ease of retrofiting ranges. It would be easier to feed from the top, than to kneel down to feed from the front. Mind you, feeding sticks verticaly is a good idea.
Peter, i was thinking, most of us using batchboxes, don't have much problem with rolling embers. Is the port self clearing vaguely?
|
|
