Cramer
Junior Member
Posts: 129
|
Post by Cramer on Jan 5, 2014 13:07:58 GMT -8
Yeah, I will have to search and see where I might be able to find such a thing. Well, that is the cart, I should not put it in front of the horse. Lots of things to do before I get to that point in the project. It appears to be very encouraging, I don't know if you can imagine the amount of enjoyment I derived from this little test. I was all giddy when it started drawing right away and when it never smoked back even a bit ecstatic! All the thanks goes to Mr. Walker and Peter van den Berg (oh I hope I spelled that right) for the guidance and everyone else for the encouragement!
|
|
Cramer
Junior Member
Posts: 129
|
Post by Cramer on Jan 5, 2014 12:47:58 GMT -8
Your discovery Matt, thank you! I just hope the little test helps us along!
|
|
Cramer
Junior Member
Posts: 129
|
Post by Cramer on Jan 4, 2014 20:38:27 GMT -8
Funny, I was kind of thinking the same thing. I need a large hot area on top of the bell too but that should be workable don't you think?
|
|
Cramer
Junior Member
Posts: 129
|
Post by Cramer on Jan 4, 2014 19:28:50 GMT -8
Here is the rudimentary burner set up to test the idea of the "Slanted" riser instead of broken riser. The wood used was not so dry deadfall and sticks from the woods. Started with a hand full of pine needles and one blow on them immediately began a good draft. Shown is the very beginning of the burn, the bit of smoke at about a minute forty in to the video cleared up completely when it began burning well. In two hours it never smoked back even once. Just thought you might like to see the test.
|
|
Cramer
Junior Member
Posts: 129
|
Post by Cramer on Jan 4, 2014 19:05:53 GMT -8
It worked just fine! The beginning of the burn is shown, I burnt it for about 2 hours with sticks and dead fall from the woods. The wood was far from dry and not ideal in any way but the bit of smoke seen at around 1 minute in cleared up entirely when it began burning well. I started with a little pine straw (them are pine needles for all y'all who ain't from the south) and one blow on them when they started burning immediately started a good draw. During the entire two hour burn it never once smoked back. It was calm outside and this rudimentary build was just to test the hypothesis that the riser could slant up at an angle from the middle of the burn tunnel with no ill effect on the burn. I would say it worked just fine! Anyone care to comment?
|
|
Cramer
Junior Member
Posts: 129
|
Post by Cramer on Jan 3, 2014 17:30:03 GMT -8
Okay, got some 6 inch and 10 inch duct from work along with some 6 and 10 inch elbows to make a test rocket of the slanted riser variety. I will use perlite in between for insulation purposes. Expendable materials for the trial run. I might just dig a hole in the ground to stabilize everything and try the 40 degrees up from horizontal to see what happens. If that appears to work I will go down to 30 degrees and see what happens. If 40 does not work I will go up ten degrees at a time to gauge just how much of an angle seems to work other than true vertical. Wish me luck guys!
|
|
Cramer
Junior Member
Posts: 129
|
Post by Cramer on Jan 1, 2014 6:21:07 GMT -8
I thought the same thing when I looked at the photograph of the entire system. The bell (not including the bench) looks like it might be the ISA mentioned (I think you said 28 ft^2), What I would try would be to blank off the bench foot by foot on the inside at the far end, moving closer and closer to the chimney outlet until I got an acceptable and workable chimney temperature. There is a lot of internal surface there to be played with there and if you do it on the inside then you can still have all of the bench for aesthetic purposes, it just will not all be heated.
|
|
Cramer
Junior Member
Posts: 129
|
Post by Cramer on Dec 30, 2013 16:14:15 GMT -8
Hi Matt! You know what I am planning on doing. What you built and put in your bedroom, is it broken (as we discussed earlier) or is it angled?
|
|
Cramer
Junior Member
Posts: 129
|
Post by Cramer on Dec 29, 2013 12:13:43 GMT -8
And you shall. material acquisition begins as soon as I get some time off to procure some things.
Thanks!
|
|
Cramer
Junior Member
Posts: 129
|
Post by Cramer on Dec 29, 2013 11:22:27 GMT -8
Well thought out treatise and certainly food for thought.
|
|
Cramer
Junior Member
Posts: 129
|
Post by Cramer on Dec 29, 2013 10:17:56 GMT -8
I'll not be as harsh. I believe it will be a good learning experience and once you find that what was said is truth you may forgive the manner in which it was communicated. Hey, even if it is short lived you had good heat, at least for a while. Next build after learning the miscues of this one should be better and lastlonger. Charge on josjor!
|
|
Cramer
Junior Member
Posts: 129
|
Post by Cramer on Dec 29, 2013 9:53:03 GMT -8
By this you mean yes it should be included in the ISA calculation or no, it should make no difference? It seems to me that even if it is well insulated it would be conducting heat from combustion and be radiating it rather than taking it in and thus it would NOT figure in to the ISA calculation? I have pondered on the efficacy of this solution. Has this been done before? It seems to me that there is a pressure differential between the bell and the chimney once the expanding heated gas stream begins, making this a viable solution. I suppose I could do a redesign of the burner and have it angle to the left, placing it at the same end as the chimney outlet thus eliminating the need for the extra pipe inside the bell. That might be a better solution?
It was suggested that I do a mock up using expendable materials before fabricating the real thing. I have yet to figure out just how I am going to be able to do that and still simulate the load of the bell on the burner. A prudent thing to do for sure, I just have not figured out the logistics as yet.
I also have not yet come up with a method to fabricate the casting (for the real thing, should testing prove fruitful in the mock up design) so that I can attach the riser tube to the burner after it has been installed (slid into place) in the opening of the bell. I have been thinking of the possibility of casting a depression into the burner body that will accept a 9 inch ceramic flue liner with three inches of kaowool or superwool with a rigidizer inside leaving a 6 inch inside diameter riser. In case of a riser failure in the future sometime this would provide the opportunity to replace that section of the burner without having to rework anything. Is there such a thing as a 9 inch flue liner?
Interesting, I wonder if the spiral is still there and just not visible to the naked eye. I cannot think of a way to test for this though. It may be that the invisible spiral, devoid of burnable gasses at the perimeter are the cause of the neat taper of the exiting flame?
|
|
Cramer
Junior Member
Posts: 129
|
Post by Cramer on Dec 29, 2013 0:00:45 GMT -8
One more question. Does the surface area of the portion of the burner assembly inside a bell count toward the total ISA of the bell? I am kind of right on the edge at 50.79 ft^2 for a 6 inch J Tube burner. I could shorten the length of the bell by the 2 1/2 inch dimension of a brick if need be. or the 4 1/2 inch dimension or if really need be the 9 inch dimension but I think that would be going too far. Here is the latest iteration if anybody wants to take a look at it. Bell and burner together with the proposed layout. I am wondering if anyone thinks the chimney might be in the wrong place considering the way the riser is pointed? Okay make that two more questions then. Bell and burner together.skp (165.27 KB)
|
|
Cramer
Junior Member
Posts: 129
|
Post by Cramer on Dec 28, 2013 22:07:43 GMT -8
LOL! Not going to happen! Too funny though!
|
|
Cramer
Junior Member
Posts: 129
|
Post by Cramer on Dec 28, 2013 18:49:38 GMT -8
The million dollar question! The application calls for a long narrow short bell. I am trying to ascertain whether or not I can do this without a "pop up" section on the bell making the bell about belt high for the entire surface would be a best case scenario. Well then the concept of the angled riser becomes less useful except for directing the flow. Okay then, I would like to contribute to research into the concept of the angled (not broken but truly angled) riser. Hypothesize that as long as the gasses from pyrolysis remain contained in a well insulated riser for the proper distance (dictated by the 1:2:4 ratio) and have at least some upward angle, a (complete as possible) burn can be achieved. Burner Rev1.skp (145.43 KB) (revised with proper ratio) The length of the feed tube has been shortened and the 1:2:4 ratio is maintained. I believe your assumption that the double helix of the exiting gasses causes this has validity here. That dual spiral would tend to hold itself together over a fairly long distance. Has anyone ever lengthened a riser? If the ratio is not the magic and the distance above the feed tube/burn tube is (that is if the proposed design does not work as is) then either the riser will need to be lengthened or a longer riser (new one) would have to be used. I have no problem re-building the burner if the design is flawed but if nobody tries this how will we all know whether it will work or not? A little background on me. I have worked in the HVAC industry for the last 16 years so I am not devoid of at least a bit of knowledge of thermodynamics. Many years ago I was also a high rise fire safety Marshall with training in fire science but that training was long ago and far away. Using what I can recall of that training I very much believe the ratio is the main driving factor rather than the rise in the riser tube. I am willing to test that hypothesis but not without input from as many sources as I can get. Thanks to you all, if I can borrow a Testo and someone can tell me what methodology to use to run the numbers after the build I would be glad to do so.
|
|