|
Post by ericaus on Dec 27, 2015 11:40:10 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by peterberg on Dec 27, 2015 13:16:58 GMT -8
When you mean that fancy colored double barrel tower, the answer is no. Matt Walker brought his heater single-handed to the decathlon, its combustion core was largely based on my batch box design. Matt has some nerve to do that on his own without financial backing, don't you think?
|
|
|
Post by ericaus on Dec 27, 2015 13:52:24 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by ericaus on Dec 27, 2015 15:53:25 GMT -8
When you mean that fancy colored double barrel tower, the answer is no. Matt Walker brought his heater single-handed to the decathlon, its combustion core was largely based on my batch box design. Matt has some nerve to do that on his own without financial backing, don't you think? So Peter, you got no recognition for his effort? Very poor if that's the case.
|
|
|
Post by DCish on Dec 27, 2015 17:38:38 GMT -8
That's one of the super-cool things about this forum... folks like Peter who are focused on the long view and supporting others who share that vision. And I've never known Matthew to shy away from giving Peter credit. Great bunch of folks.
|
|
|
Post by ericaus on Dec 27, 2015 18:22:33 GMT -8
That's one of the super-cool things about this forum... folks like Peter who are focused on the long view and supporting others who share that vision. And I've never known Matthew to shy away from giving Peter credit. Great bunch of folks. I think I may have misunderstood what Peter was saying in that post. Probably nothing to do with lack of recognition.
|
|
|
Post by briank on Dec 31, 2015 22:59:18 GMT -8
Hi guys, new here but I've been lurking for a while. I met Matt down at the Decathalon in DC in the fall of 2013 when I went down to pick up a Beta version of Woodstock's new Ideal Steel hybrid stove while they were there.
I thought Matt had a tremendous amount of guts to go toe to toe with the big boys that showed up at that Woodstove Decathalon. Plus he was just a heck of a nice guy with a very cool concept.
I'll keep lurking abd hopefully learning a bit here.
Happy New Year, Brian K PA, USA
PS: I know "metal is doomed." But one of the manufacturers of institutional rocket cookers uses 310 stainless and Inconel 601 in their rocket portion of the stove. I searched this forum and found no mention of either. The Inconlel 601 has some interesting properties from what I've read as far as resisting spalling and high temp corrosion resistance but it's probably expensive. Has anyone tried using it?
|
|
|
Post by satamax on Dec 31, 2015 23:42:48 GMT -8
Inconel is not only expensive. But i'm a bit dubious it could resist much more than a cooking rocket.
|
|
|
Post by peterberg on Jan 1, 2016 3:00:19 GMT -8
Maybe I wasn't clear and using the wrong words, but I do respect Matt highly for his efforts during the decathlon and beyond. He'd give credit to other people's work when appropiate, and that's all I am asking for.
|
|
|
Post by briank on Jan 1, 2016 15:37:49 GMT -8
Inconel is not only expensive. But i'm a bit dubious it could resist much more than a cooking rocket. This is off topic but... Here's the blurb from their website: "How it Works: Rocket Stove Technology At the heart of these stoves is an advanced, insulated metal combustion chamber built from high-temperature 310 stainless steel and 601 nickel alloys. The “rocket stove” design concentrates heat and mixes combustion gasses to create operating temperatures in excess of 1100 degrees Celsius, which allows the stoves to literally “burn up the smoke.” This produces a fire that is cleaner and more efficient than is possible otherwise. In fact, we believe testing shows our institutional stoves to be unparalleled in performance." They use the 310 for a 60 L stove rocket which they claim burns a little over 2000* F and the Inconel for the 100 L stove which burns hotter than the 60 L.
|
|
|
Post by satamax on Jan 1, 2016 16:42:18 GMT -8
Did they run destruction tests? I will only believe when i see results. Not commercial babble.
|
|
|
Post by satamax on Jan 1, 2016 16:56:36 GMT -8
Checking their site, instove.org/sites/default/files/60_and_100L_stove_tech_bulletin_v1.8.pdfThey claim burning 3kg of wood in 2 hours. That's 12kw of energy aproximately. A 6 incher batch can burn 7 kilos in an hour. That's 28kw. Not quite in the same league. Plus, in a cooking rocket, you don't look for efficiency, but rather smokeless, more than anything, and thoses L tubes run with big amounts of excess air. Cooling the fire. So yes, metal can be used in thoses. But for how long. They claim 10 years waranty, kind of. By replacing the parts. And they cost around 800 and a thousand dollars. So, i still think refractories are more efficient. Burn tunnel and heat riser in a J tube gets more heated than in a L, due to less excess air. And in a well tunned batch, it gets even more, because a lot of energy is released in there, faster than the previous two.
|
|
|
Post by keithturtle on Jan 1, 2016 23:29:15 GMT -8
but it's probably expensive. Has anyone tried using it? It is. Pratt and Whitney used its cousin 625 in the saturn series rocket engines. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RocketdyneRocket engine, rocket stove, yeah, sounds like it'd work I reckon Turtle
|
|
|
Post by satamax on Jan 2, 2016 0:22:34 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by scottiniowa on Jan 5, 2016 7:08:45 GMT -8
For a view of all the stoves and some details (though just highlights) you might find this a good link. www.popularmechanics.com/home/how-to/g1116/14-bright-ideas-for-a-better-wood-stove/I'm sure somewhere there is a list of the fine details. I figure some of this might boil down to the often overlooked fact that sometimes savings in energy cost will NEVER pay for expense of unit cost. Simply said, if a unit cost, $5000 USD, and you save $150 per month, you would only need it to last 6.6 years based on 5 months heating. This of course is figuring that your wood is free-split-brought to your door and stored for you. (all cost) verses some of the great stoves here, that may cost $3-500 total and save nearly as much. Something to think about anyway.
|
|