Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2012 2:06:19 GMT -8
Just place the pot burner below the heat riser and ensure enough air flow.
Starting with the heat riser the applied physics will be the same, thus everything can stay the same from this point.
If a fuel will be worthy depends mainly on an inexpensive reliable supply. The energy-density of oil is much higher than of wood. It is far easier to implement an automatic feeder than it is for wood.
|
|
|
Post by Donkey on Jan 15, 2012 9:58:19 GMT -8
OK, so what's needed is a pot burner that fits well just under the heat riser. It should probably fit snugly so that any air passing by MUST enter the pot area, maybe some vanes to guide airflow into the right spot. I suppose that if the stove is to be strictly an oil burner, the feed box and burn tunnel won't be needed. Seems more fun (to me) to make an oil burner gizmo to modify a standard rocket stove..
|
|
|
Post by pluton5 on Jan 15, 2012 10:24:46 GMT -8
panowie witam.. musimy siê zastanowiæ do czego prowadziæ ma ta dyskusja bo ,,spalic mozna wszystko !!! nawet wodê----------
Olej to zupe³nie inne paliwo ni¿ paliwa sta³e dlatego wymaga innej technologii spalania zastosujê tu mój prosty podzia³,który u³atwi dyskusjê 1) piece na olej przepracowany 2) palnik na olej przepracowany Piece budowane s¹ przewaznie do ogrzewania pomieszczeñ gor¹cym powietrzem( hale, gara¿e ect...), gdzie stosuje siê nadmuch ciep³a uzyskanego ze spalania oleju w zamkniêtym metalowym urz¹dzeniu. Budowa takiego pieca jest stosunkowo prosta i nie wymaga nawet zasilania zewnêtrznego( prad) albo wyposa¿ona jest w nadmuch palenska co czyni spalanie bardziej dok³adne i efektowne. Praca takiego pieca przypomina bardzo rocket stove,,,odg³os sinika rakietowego,szum i polega na wytworzeniu samoistnego przeci¹gu.
Palnik. w odró¿nieniu do pieca charakteryzuje siê tym,¿e wykorzystujemy bezpoœrednio p³omieñ ,,spalanego oleju do podgrzewania innego medium ( wymiennik wody, topienie metalu ect) i tutaj konieczne jest doprowadzenie du¿ej iloœci powietrza do komory spalania. Bardzo efektowne s¹ komory ceramiczne,tam spalanie oleju jest prawie idealne( nie wspominam tu o sk³adzie spalin bo zdania s¹ bardzo podzielone) podawanie oleju do komory spalania moze byæ grawitacyje albo ciœnieniowe, To co napisa³em ka¿dy znajdzie w necie,ale moze u³atwi nam to dyskusjê. niebawem podeœlê fotki
Hello gentlemen .. we need to think about what lead to this discussion because,, you can burn everything! even water ----------!!
Diesel fuel ,oil,is a completely different reason than the solid fuel combustion technology requires a different apply here my simple division, which will facilitate the discussion 1) used oil furnaces 2) the used oil burner Furnaces are built mostly for space heating with hot air (halls, garages, ect ..), where applicable, the blowing heat derived from combustion of oil in a closed metal device. The construction of such a furnace is relatively simple and does not even require external power supply (electricity) or equipped with a blower palenska which makes combustion more accurate and effective. Operation of this furnace is very much like rocket stove,,, the sound of the rocket engine it will continue, noise, and depends on generation of spontaneous draft.
Burner. in contrast to the furnace is characterized by the fact that we use direct flame, burning oil for heating another medium (water heat exchanger, melting metal ect) and here it is necessary to bring large quantities of air into the combustion chamber. Very impressive are the ceramic chamber, where fuel oil is almost perfect (no mention here of the composition of the exhaust because the sentences are very divided) administration of oil into the combustion chamber can be gravitational or pressure This is what I wrote everyone will find on the net, but it may help us to discuss. podeœlê pics soon
|
|
|
Post by grizbach on Jan 15, 2012 10:50:33 GMT -8
What I have done is put a slow motor oil drip onto one of my burning sticks. Must be slow as to not use up all the oxygen. It really puts out the heat! I feel we still need to send the gases through the elbow for good mixing. For a permanent install I should try putting the drip through the ceiling of the burn chamber and then the oil can follow a corkscrew down to the floor. hopefully the oil will burn up before it gets to the floor. The only problem i can see is the carbon left behind on the corkscrew would tend to trip the oil off the screw.
|
|
|
Post by pluton5 on Jan 15, 2012 11:31:46 GMT -8
Nie spalisz dobrze oleju w kasycznym piecu rocket stove,,,brak dopalacza !!! bêdzie kopci³ Zabrudzisz ca³e palenisko ,,nie têdy droga Do not burn the oil well clasics rocket stove furnace,,, no afterburner! will be a lot of smoke Get any whole hearth, not the way sorry,,, I can not send any post I try 3 times
|
|
|
Post by grizbach on Jan 15, 2012 12:09:36 GMT -8
Pluton5, I am talking about a rmh with a vertical feed. No afterburner still.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2012 12:12:02 GMT -8
No fans needed, just enough space for an unrestricted air flow.
Yes.
|
|
|
Post by pluton5 on Jan 15, 2012 13:06:42 GMT -8
bardzo prosty piec,który uda³o mi siê zrobiæ bez wentylatora dzia³a bardzo dobrze,zero emisji dymu olej po rozgrzaniu siê rozpala do czerwonoœci dopalacz,czego nie uzyskasz w RS
próbowa³em ró¿ne opcje z rocket stove,nie uda³o siê, brakuje dopalacza
very easy to bake, which I managed to do without a fan works very well, zero emission of smoke oil when heated to red-afterburner ignites, do not get the RS
I tried various options with the rocket stove could not be, there is no afterburner
|
|
|
Post by energyseeker on Jan 15, 2012 13:07:14 GMT -8
Ok, Here are a couple of delivery systems that I was thinking of. Possibly a1/4 inch steal pan the width of the burn tunnel (7 inches in the case of my test set up). This could be lengthened or shortened along the length of the burn tunnel to check burn inefficiencies. Then it could also be pushed from the front to the back of the burn tunnel to get the burn pan into different heat temperatures. The depth of the pan and height of the pan in the burn tunnel could be varied. Oil feeder tubes could run into the bottom of the burn pan. Maybe one inlet or four inlets for better distribution of the oil. The feed tube or tubes could lead to a small tank with a simple float valve in it. This tank could be raise or lower to vary the level of oil in the burner pan. The burner pan could then be tested with different mediums in it like crushed refractory brick of different sizes, kiln insulation to act as a wick, or maybe metal bolts like the mother earth burner. The stove would be started with wood and than the oil introduced.
I also thought of using peters siphon design and putting the burn pan in the bottom of the siphon; however, this leaves less room for variations.
I want to start simple with no fans, mechanized burners or thermal activated switching. there has got to be a way to make an off grid system work. I also want to stay away from spray systems like a Babington ball. I don't want the possibility of an oil soaked mess if something goes wrong.
If someone has already tried some of these variations I would appreciate your input.
thanks Shaun,
|
|
|
Post by pluton5 on Jan 15, 2012 13:40:13 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by energyseeker on Jan 15, 2012 15:41:18 GMT -8
Just a note,
I know about most of the oil fired stove designs on the internet. It is possible that the burner assemblies themselves may work in a RMH. The problem is that all the heater configurations that I have seen have the burner assembly directly in the vessel that radiates the heat. Thus the problem arises that when you try to steal to much of the heat for say heating water, the combustion chamber temperature declines and either makes it burn dirty or puts it out. The great thing about a RMH is that the more heat you take from the heat exchange barrel, the better the draw. I have considered that with only slight modifications to the mother earth oil fire heater it may work well for heating water. Such as: installing an insulated heat riser and drawing off the bottom. However that is not what this thread is about. I think the RMH is so much more versatile and easier for the average joe to build. That is what could be real valuable to alot of people.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2012 6:39:49 GMT -8
Spike's design could be improved by placing a second outer tube around the perforated inner one with an air inlet only from one end. The air would be sucket into the double wall and become preheated on the way to the holes in the inner tube.
|
|
|
Post by energyseeker on Jan 17, 2012 10:11:37 GMT -8
I do think something like this is an option but any burner that has a tube running into the insulated fire box is going to carbonize and get clogged. I don' t think that dripping into a burner will work either. Even if the tube was insulated the tip would be exposed and would carbonize right at the opening. The primary burn vessel would have to be completely outside and underneath the burn tunnel; however I do kind of like that idea. What ever the design, the burner must be easy to remove for cleaning. that is why I was thinking of some type of bottom feed pan. It may have the problem of gumming up with a thick bitumen gunk after a short period. Karl, I like the preheated air idea but it might be better to pull air off the heat exchange barrel with some ducting. this way the flow into the hole would be unimpeded. I will try a few variations in February if I can dig enough of my tools out of storage.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2012 11:15:43 GMT -8
It makes little sense to place a burner inside a burn tunnel, at least in one of system size, as it limits the size of a burner very much. Also the metal would become much hotter as needed. In Spike's design the feder drips into the removeable pan at the bottom. The oil vapor is already burning in the pan and the perforated tube works as an afterburner, with the hottest part of the flame above it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2012 12:10:18 GMT -8
energyseekerIf you have the technical skills you could try to create a horizontal rotary cup oil burner driven by natural draft. A rotary burner could be implemented in an horizontal burn tunel. The oil would be sprayed by the rotor and air velocity I would have to be feeded through the axis and it would be hard to light it. however I do not belive it would be worth the effort.
|
|