Piet
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by Piet on Jan 5, 2019 8:16:48 GMT -8
Hi all.
I've been studying the Vortex stove Aryan style, Peters' BBR, DSR and DSR2 and Matt's tiny cores. I get most of it and understand the relations of the different dimensions but I can't understand what's the importance of the size of the fire box itself. How is it related to the rest? I wonder how flexibel one can be with sizing a firebox up in any direction. There's probably an easy answer for it.
Thanks! Cheers Piet
|
|
|
Post by wiscojames on Jan 5, 2019 9:58:54 GMT -8
|
|
Piet
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by Piet on Jan 5, 2019 13:02:27 GMT -8
Thanks wiscojames. Oh yes I know that spreadsheat very well. If one can increase front to back, why not side to side and top to bottom? I am hoping for a somewhat logical explanation.
|
|
|
Post by wiscojames on Jan 5, 2019 13:15:24 GMT -8
Because it hasn't worked in the past. Maybe that it alters the ration between the chimney and the CSA, unlike lengthening the firebox.
|
|
|
Post by Vortex on Jan 5, 2019 15:23:29 GMT -8
Hi all. I've been studying the Vortex stove Aryan style, Peters' BBR, DSR and DSR2 and Matt's tiny cores. I get most of it and understand the relations of the different dimensions but I can't understand what's the importance of the size of the fire box itself. How is it related to the rest? I wonder how flexibel one can be with sizing a firebox up in any direction. There's probably an easy answer for it. Thanks! Cheers Piet Some designs like Peter's BBR's are only tested to within certain size ranges. Also the size of the fires you want- small fires in big fireboxes don't work well. How often you want to light it. Size of the wood you have available. Gas flow; you want the air to flow across the fuel. Most designs are cross-flow; air comes in one side, flows arcoss the firewood and burning gasses flow out the other end. You don't want blind corners out of the air flow. Also if the firebox is too large for the chimney it wont be able to cope with the volume of gases efficiently.
|
|
Piet
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by Piet on Jan 6, 2019 1:49:46 GMT -8
Vortex, you have a very clear perspective on these kind of things. I like your style and work. I’ve learned a lot from you.Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by peterberg on Jan 6, 2019 2:13:46 GMT -8
If one can increase front to back, why not side to side and top to bottom? I am hoping for a somewhat logical explanation. Straight batch box rockets are explored extensively, the following rules are derived from that experimentation. Volume of the firebox is dictated by the combustion capacity of the riser. So making the firebox lower and wider would be within parameters. But... the port has its own set of parameters. For example having a closed space above the port and being narrow enough for the double vortex to form. Ports that are as high as the inside of the firebox itself won't work, this has been tried numerous times. A lower and wider port in order to maintain that closed part of wall above it didn't work either. The backwall left and right of the port need to be more or less equal in width, otherwise there's a fat chance the double vortex would be uneven. So the back wall is more or less defined, maximum workable volume is defined as well. And yes, I've tried a vast number of sizes during early development in 2012. Wider, lower, deeper, you name it. The published measurements are chosen in such a way that the thing would yield excellent results in most if not all circumstances. And following that, it turned out to be scalable as well.
|
|