|
Post by Donkey on Jan 14, 2012 20:04:00 GMT -8
The elbow is unnecessary, mostly a convenience. How would you modify to support oil burning? Could the same "back down to the mass" arrangement be accomplished with oil? Would it be worth the effort? What's to be learned by it all even if it doesn't work?
|
|
|
Post by Donkey on Jan 14, 2012 19:56:43 GMT -8
Randy.. Yer cooling needs might be better met, at least mostly accomplished with a thermal mass wall (read cob) in the north side, down in the shade. You might want to insulate in the south against the heat and thermal mass in the north to bleed it off.
To coils in the barrel: yeah, it can work, maybe a little too well. Pipes there should NEVER be smaller than 3/4 inch and ALWAYS include safety valves. Personally, I'd put the coils in the mass storage, a couple/few feet down from the barrel.
|
|
|
Post by Donkey on Jan 13, 2012 17:56:16 GMT -8
hi, is your "new" feed tube from the back actually ouside? just asking because of the windows to either side... No.. It's in the solarium. Depends on too many factors to make a simple, blanket statement. I used the cast iron pot-belly stove top for it's durability as well as it's convenience. Yep, though I decided not to do it. Airflow should pass in and over the glass to keep it cool and prevent breakage. My design didn't allow for that, so... Dunno.. Maybe you could re-state that in a different way, not sure I'm visualizing your intent. Nothing's gonna last forever. I built the internal core of this stove with cob made of fireclay. It's doing great, there is some damage of the regular cob that comes in direct contact with the fireclay. Interestingly, cob that is NOT in contact with a different material is doing fine as well.
|
|
|
Post by Donkey on Jan 13, 2012 17:44:22 GMT -8
countryatheart W temacie jest mowa o spalaniu oleju przepracowanego w piecu ROCKET STOVE a nie o innych wynalazkach. Znam ca³a masê takich urz¹dzeñ do spalania oleju, w których olej spala siê doskonale,bez dymu,,,,czyli niby wszystko w porz¹dku bo nic nie widaæ z komina,a to czego nie widaæ jest dozwolone.tak? To jest chyba temat na inne forum bo siê Donkey zdenerwuje,¿e zaœmiecamy mu temat. The topic is talking about burning used oil in an oven Rocket Stove and not on other inventions. I know the whole mass of such devices for the combustion of oil, which burns oil well, without smoke,,,, that is, like everything's okay because I do not see anything out of the chimney, and you do not see what is allowed so-good? This is probably the topic for other forums because the Donkey upset that cluttered his subject. Go ahead.. This thread is about burning oil. If we put our heads together, with energyseeker as a willing test subject, something interesting (perhaps even useful) might come out of it. Is it possible to use a rocket stove heat riser to create enough passive draft for an oil burner? Śmiało .. Ten wątek jest o spalanie oleju. Jeśli zbierzemy nasze głowy razem z energyseeker jak chce przedmiotem badań, coś ciekawego (może nawet przydatne), może z niego wyjść. Czy można użyć rakiety pionu ciepła piec do stworzenia dość bierny projekt palnika olejowego?
|
|
|
Post by Donkey on Jan 11, 2012 10:38:27 GMT -8
Maybe, though the term is rather generic.. What's needed is a more descriptive term, something that describes the placement and use (or something) and sets it off from other kinds of heat exchanger. ?? I dunno...
|
|
|
Post by Donkey on Jan 10, 2012 17:24:50 GMT -8
Umm. I've been thinking about re-naming the barrel too, as it ain't always a barrel. The word "bell" though kind of already has a definition that the rocket stove barrel doesn't quite fit. I do believe that to be considered a "bell", both the heat intake and outflow need to be at the bottom of the chamber.
Peterberg might want to weigh in here...
|
|
|
Post by Donkey on Jan 10, 2012 16:50:43 GMT -8
Have you chopped into a propane tank before? There are some safety rules to follow. Just 'cause the tank isn't hissing anymore doesn't mean it's empty, and simply tipping it upside down isn't enough.
|
|
|
Post by Donkey on Jan 10, 2012 8:26:39 GMT -8
Welcome to the boards, mate. Some folks have fooled around with the idea but I'm not sure that a really good solution has popped out of it yet. WVO and wood need different conditions to burn happily and building a multi-fuel firebox is tricky. I'd LOVE to see it done well though, so PLEASE! Figure it out (you got help and encouragement here if you need it) and post your results!
|
|
|
Post by Donkey on Jan 10, 2012 8:15:49 GMT -8
The bottom of the bell is open currently. I had thought of this yesterday and dug out some stuff to ensure that there is more than enough room for everything to vent..is it possible it's too loose and needs to be collected into the exhaust duct? ?? Not sure I understand the question. I don't know if it's possible to have too much space down there.. OK, theoretically you probably can, but as a practical matter I just don't see it happening. On the barrel, too big is fine, too small IS NOT. I've noticed they run better with more space in the barrel area (in every dimension) rather than less. Also, since you are not using a 55 gallon barrel (at least NOT AS 55 gallons) the critical measurements have changed. The measurements in the book are designed for THOSE PARTS. If you change the size of the parts, you gotta check the measurements.You said you've cut down a barrel to a 16 inch diameter.. Assuming you mean 16" measurement at the NARROWEST point inside the barrel, and assuming the gap between the inside of the barrel and the WIDEST point on the outside of the heat riser jacket is 2" all the way around: This tells me that the heat riser (jacket) has a 12" diameter. What has to be done is figure the cross section area of the two measurements and subtract the inner on from the outer one to find out if you got enough space. The inside area of the barrel is 200.96 square inches. The outside area of the heat riser jacket is 113.04 square inches. The gap between the two should have an area of 87.92 square inches. Six inch pipe has an area of 28.26 sq. in. so you got plenty of room and some to spare. That burn tunnel is not helping you AT ALL. You gotta narrow it down. Often the pulse indicates a bottleneck, yes. I'd fix the burn tunnel first, then if you still got issues, go looking for a pinched spot.
|
|
|
Post by Donkey on Jan 9, 2012 8:37:33 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Donkey on Jan 9, 2012 8:35:42 GMT -8
So, yer feeding a set of 6 inch bench guts from an 8 inch rocket stove?? If so, that's yer problem. If not, I guess I didn't understand your description..
All things being equal, I'd look at where the barrel connects at the bottom. That space down there needs to be larger than is at first imagined.
|
|
|
Post by Donkey on Jan 9, 2012 8:30:23 GMT -8
Umm... Since there's no barrel (this ain't a mass heater) you can probably get away with a shorter heat riser than I said above.. Maybe twice as high (as the feed) instead of three times..
|
|
|
Post by Donkey on Jan 9, 2012 8:27:35 GMT -8
Well, I build 'em in the yard out of heavy stuff.. Otherwise, they will be essentially the same. The heat riser needs to be a little taller than your standard Aprovecho cook stove. That's pretty much it. You gotta remember that the Aprovecho cooking rocket was designed, not just to be an efficient fuel user, but to ALSO be culturally appropriate to the target audience. They discovered fairly early on that regardless of how well the thing works, it just won't get used if it doesn't fit into the cultural practices of the people that you introduce it to. The things are very short because in the places where it was introduced, the people traditionally cook sitting on the ground at a 3-stone fire. But look, we're trying to introduce this technology back to the west.. We HAVE to make them culturally appropriate or they will NEVER reach wide acceptance... Sure, people will say " wow, that's cool, I want one." but when you leave it to 'em, the novelty will quickly wear off. If the thing isn't comfortable to use (culturally comfortable and "convenient"), it's just gonna end up in the garage gathering dust with the rest of the junk. Ok, rant over.. So, you'll need a taller heat riser. It should be roughly 3 times as high as the top of the feed box, and the burn tunnel should be as short as possible. This is gonna have it's pluses and it's minuses.. The minus is that (I think) some of the careful proportions that Aprovecho came up with may go out the window. The gap around the pot will remain the same, but it will now be higher off the flame itself, which will change how much heat gets into the pot, how fast. It's gonna effect the efficiency (of getting heat to the food) a little. The up side is that the cooking surface will be higher, which is more culturally appropriate for folks in the west who cook standing up. I'd accentuate, maybe even putting the whole thing on legs to get the pot up at waist height. Seems like a good trade off, shave off a tiny bit of efficiency to gain wide acceptance in the target audience. In short... It's gonna work great AND people will love it!
|
|
|
Post by Donkey on Jan 4, 2012 21:47:45 GMT -8
I like doing it with metal, 1/8 inch or better steel is nice, thinner stainless works. Metal can be insulated REALLY well while brick tends to have higher thermal mass. Higher mass heat risers take a little longer to get fully hot, a little longer to really kick into action.
I use black, single wall chimney pipe and insulate around it with pearlite/clay. I'll go a little extra heavy on the clay slip, single wall stovepipe WILL burn out and I want the pearlite/clay mix to hold together well. I try to hold off on plasters right away and just live with the thing for a while. When the stovepipe does burn out, I'll take off the barrel, open up the stove, give it a good cleaning, pull out the metal shards and do any last minuet fix/adjustment. After all that and things are still working fine, THEN I go ahead and plaster it and make it pretty.
|
|
|
Post by Donkey on Jan 2, 2012 10:27:13 GMT -8
There's a lot of oxygen in that area.. My bet is on the brick.
|
|