|
Post by scottiniowa on Jun 29, 2018 17:43:04 GMT -8
If those in the know could look this over for the dimensions, I have tried to stay within the boundaries of most successful stoves, but the shoe box may have some twist that other have found, and I have not seen/read about...
Hopefully the two photos will show, what I am up to. With dimensions so far. I will post two more photos tomorrow of the top and rear views.
I want to make sure this (posting) all works up to this point. AS you will be able to see, there is very little scrap, and very little cutting of the brick. and almost all of it is made with standard fire brick dimensions available locally. 2.5" thick by 4.5 by 9" or a cut variation of same block.
well I guess I can't post a photo as it says the forum has exceeded the max...Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by travis on Jun 29, 2018 23:04:35 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by scottiniowa on Jun 30, 2018 3:47:49 GMT -8
Ok, on the photo hosting, so lets try this- imgur.com/a/8dczekT and will see if all the photos show, or just one. As far as the other link on past work, yes, I have studied it much. and this is the reason for putting numbers to the layout for best guess on build. Any edges that need to be cut back (angled edges) can be done easily, if required. My goal of course is to do as little of brick cutting as possible. So that anyone can build with little outside help. By using my spun rock wool, I can steel encase, the wool/bricks for minimal brick support yet a long lasting build. those photos will be coming forth, depending on thoughts on these measurements posted so far. thanks in advance
|
|
|
Post by scottiniowa on Jun 30, 2018 3:50:28 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Vortex on Jun 30, 2018 4:50:35 GMT -8
You can post your pictures here by using code like this: [img]https://i.imgur.com/lmmSAxE.jpg[/img]
What made you choose a square port?
|
|
|
Post by peterberg on Jun 30, 2018 7:40:16 GMT -8
In my view, this isn't what I call a double shoebox rocket. The port is a square opening instead of a narrow rectangle and is situated in the front part of the firebox instead of in the rear. In my design there's a certain length necessary in order to allow the flames to burn out completely which is absent here. And where in your design is the secondary air provision? When you change the port from square to a rectangle parallel to the front it looks like a variant of Vortex' stove to me.
|
|
|
Post by scottiniowa on Jun 30, 2018 8:01:50 GMT -8
In my view, this isn't what I call a double shoebox rocket. The port is a square opening instead of a narrow rectangle and is situated in the front part of the firebox instead of in the rear. In my design there's a certain length necessary in order to allow the flames to burn out completely which is absent here. And where in your design is the secondary air provision? When you change the port from square to a rectangle parallel to the front it looks like a variant of Vortex' stove to me. Ok, this is the reason that I was asking the questions, and certainly no problem is making changes to what is "desired or thought best". I was basing the square hole on the videos that I had watched, and figured if the flame was coming into the chamber in a very round/square pattern, so that is what I come up with with very little cutting.(the cut corners are exactly the same as the angle pieces in the fire box for NO WASTE. So no big deal for me to make the change, and I will do so and re- present based on the advice given here. by "certain length", I presume this means the port for the fire to come up into second chamber. This can be done or drawn- and I will do according the measurements given on the stove sizing charts long since published. I didn't know if this was being used for this type. My reason for posting. AS for secondary air- Most CAD systems- or in my system is that I work from the inside out, in this case the bricks, much like your dry layups. When satisfied there, then I work in the best way to present secondary air. The P tube should fit nicely. Had I put it into this drawing, I would just have to do it over again, so no wasted time was had on this part. thanks for the advice . OH yes, I will try to do the inserted Http/// photos on next posting. Scott
|
|
|
Post by peterberg on Jun 30, 2018 8:19:46 GMT -8
I think it would be a good thing when you look into the SketchUp drawing of the mockup during the Montana event last year. The original setup in my back garden is very similar to that one. The short chimney isn't really necessary, it's just to create enough draw and keep the hot blast out of the operator's face. A proper chimney will do the same, draft-wise. No p-channel possible by the way, I tried that with negative results. The floor channel-ish secondary air feed is in the drawing. If at all possible, build it in your back garden with bricks and clay/sand as mortar like I did and you'll get the same results, guaranteed.
|
|
|
Post by scottiniowa on Jun 30, 2018 11:19:24 GMT -8
I have to admit, somehow, someway, I did not know all the follow up conversations took place following the Montana event last year. I simply did not know that all this was out there... by the looks of things all the information I needed to give this a try, is there. so sorry!
And yes, a prelim build shall take place.
thank you all.
Scott
|
|
|
Post by scottiniowa on Jul 2, 2018 3:45:36 GMT -8
Hello all, I have done much of the re-do on my drawings and brick layout, now that I understand more on how it was done for the test burns. And think I have it coming along nicely. To make sure I am on the right track with this (or close to it) And my other systems - J and batch box were both 8" systems- so I have decided to keep this the same size as well. With that said, I used Peter's call outs for main burn/wood box size for 8" as close to the numbers as I could. 11-8/16" wide 17-4/16" high 20-3/16" deep
With the port to 2nd box as close to the prescribed numbers of 2-14/16" wide x 12-11/16" long x 2 depth Which again I may have missed any changes, now is the time to know. With my fire bricks at 2.5" thick, has anyone come up to the idea that little 45 degree cuts need to be made on these bricks (nipping 1/2" off the edge) to get to the prescribed 2". Or, does slight variations in length of port-- i.e. 13" vs 12-11/16" have an effect. Basically have you found there is some leeway? (brick layout fudge factors)
Lastly, Peter it looks like you experimented with the second box size (volume) with height of it being changed and came up with 4.5" + 2.5" thickness as being best, thoughts on this 8" size? it would be great if you thought that two 4.5" brick could be laid on edge for inside box height of 9" but I will go with what ever you think. I can also add the split brick thickness of 1.25" as an option as well.
I know I am tossing out a lot of dimensions, but am getting closer with the final design for the pro-to type, and thought I might as well zero into the best estimate for the first try.
thanks all. Scott
|
|
|
Post by peterberg on Jul 2, 2018 6:17:56 GMT -8
To have it scaled up properly it's best to keep all the proportions the same. In order to do that, look at the difference between the experimental size and what you want to build. In short: diameter of your system is 1.33333 times mine. So scale all linear dimensions up this way and see whether it fits the bricks you are intending to use. In case it doesn't, scale a little bit up or down until it fits. Best results were obtained with the published one, being one out of seven not counting the different configurations of secondary air channel. My experiment was done in firebricks, mostly uncut. There should be some common factors in the bricks you have there to get it right.
When scaling up, the depth of the port might be scaled accordingly. Although there's some leeway, better too shallow than too deep.
I experimented with height and width of the top box. Looking at the dimensions your 9" dimension is very close to my best configuration proportionally.
|
|
|
Post by scottiniowa on Jul 2, 2018 11:59:42 GMT -8
Thanks Peter, Looks like I am getting near a final drawing, (with this info) then the test build. Should be interesting... I will post the results. I have some ceramic clay that I think will be a good glue for the bricks at least for the test burning. Fire mortar for the final build.
cheers Scott
|
|
|
Post by scottiniowa on Jul 5, 2018 11:32:14 GMT -8
three little questions before I do the test build. If a person has the metal skinned outer sides like some have done, can or has it been done, to create this <gap> between the fire brick and the outer skin and fill this with one quick fill of insulating aircrete? I am not opposed to ceramic blankets, or rock wool and have used both, but this aircrete with water glass is intriguing for it's quick to make up, has full gap sealing ability and will flow into any shape or crevice I may have created.. Just thinking out loud.
I thought I could make some "mud" for the temp fire brick test build and used a cup full out of clay used for the lowest temp ceramics. Mixes well, applies great, looks great but after I thought it was dry, held little. But perhaps I should have waited 24 hours for it to dry more... probably don't even need for test burning
one last thing- I could do the entire build with splits (1.25" x 4.5" x 9") instead of fulls (2.5"x 4.5" x 9") for 1/2 the mass, but a little harder to build with.. and the cost is not much different for me... is this an area where less mass is a good thing? Again, just wondering...
thanks in advance..
|
|
|
Post by peterberg on Jul 6, 2018 0:44:04 GMT -8
1) Has been done I believe and it works as long it is sufficiently heat resistant.
2) For test burns a mortar of clay and fine sand 1:1 volume wise works nice. Just clay is a little awkward since it will shrink quite a bit on its own.
3) It depends what you want from it. A higher mass firebox tends to stay warm far longer, but the riser need to be very quick up to opreting temperature. Full bricks in the firebox has the added advantage of less prone to abrasion. On the other hand, since you are planning to insulated it with poured-in aircrete it presumably is sturdy enough built entirely out of splits.
|
|
|
Post by scottiniowa on Sept 3, 2018 5:29:39 GMT -8
Hello folks, much has been done with the above suggestions, and I built or I should say "rebuilt" with the suggestions both in CAD and real life. Did a few test burns to make sure all is well, and it was. i.imgur.com/jlz9EIl.jpg is how it looks this generated just a few more "housekeeping questions. I will follow this up with those questions. In this photo, I have ghosted the side panels, but they will be in to hold the insulating mix poured in from the top side. This should really help keep the fire bricks doing there job as well as the entire stove. I will stop here to make the test photo came through. Scott
|
|