|
Post by satamax on Oct 12, 2016 10:57:07 GMT -8
Well, you haven't got enough height for a full riser with a 6 inch batch.
I was wondering if the cooking plate valve couldn't act as bypass valve too.
|
|
|
Post by sinthome on Oct 13, 2016 14:49:20 GMT -8
Why can't I save on height with a horizontal afterburner like the Walker "riser-less" style. I don't see why bench heater designs don't turn a portion of the bench into the afterburner area, but I admit I still don't fully understand how the "riser-less" design actually works. Is there a succinct explanation of "riser-less" vs "batchbox + riser" somewhere without following a hundred pages of development thread discussions?
|
|
|
Post by satamax on Oct 14, 2016 0:50:56 GMT -8
Well, Matt's thread is quite short. If you understand how the batch works, you're set.
Why don't we turn the bench in an afterburner. Well, it could be done. But burner and afterburner have to be next to each other.
The problem is, i think, generating the turbulence in order to mic the gases well. Fighting against buoyancy, stratification, laminar flow, boundary layer etc, in an horizontal pipe. And also, relying on the chimney alone, to give all the draft's velocity. While, in a vertical riser, gases buoyancy help us greatly.
Imagine, that in some cases, i find heat risers to be too short to have a complete burn inside them. Plus, you might detract, by doing a discworld riser, from the actual bench flue lenght. But it is doable. Search for "sharp orifice" on this site.
|
|
|
Post by sinthome on Oct 14, 2016 7:02:16 GMT -8
Interesting, thanks. I still have a lot to learn, I think I will stick to a standardized batch with vetical riser of the proper height. I think the solution to my problem of having an integrated cooktop with bypass valve is to have a second small firebox under the cooktop but with a shared access flue to the main heater. When using the heater firebox, the cookstove valve could be opened for faster radiant heat and maybe simmering.
|
|