|
|
Post by Donkey on Oct 13, 2014 7:40:05 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Donkey on Oct 13, 2014 8:03:09 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by wiscojames on Oct 13, 2014 8:27:20 GMT -8
Wow is right. did you catch the video? Can't find the link now, but it looks a little bit like a special effects enhanced fire. That is a model that I might base my emergency home heat on. The Ferrari of rocket heaters...
|
|
|
|
Post by pinhead on Oct 13, 2014 9:48:35 GMT -8
Wow is right. did you catch the video? Can't find the link now, but it looks a little bit like a special effects enhanced fire. That is a model that I might base my emergency home heat on. The Ferrari of rocket heaters... Quite probably the most phenomenal display of flame and fire I've ever seen! |
|
|
|
Post by wiscojames on Oct 13, 2014 10:00:19 GMT -8
Thanks for the link. Needs to be seen to be believed. The camera may have a little to do with it, but WHY is it so different than all of the previous ones?
|
|
|
|
Post by pinhead on Oct 13, 2014 11:05:08 GMT -8
Not really "different" than the rest of the properly-built Batch Boxes other than the size - and the glass on top showing the flame.
|
|
|
|
Post by peterberg on Oct 13, 2014 11:54:36 GMT -8
Not exactly correct, this larger one happens to run very stable and producing very nice figures right out of the box. Without fiddling with the air intakes and adjusting the shape of the port, riser floor or the sloped sides of the combustion chamber. Also, the roaring sound of the smaller versions is nearly completely absent as well as the pulse like a small steam machine. The firebox walls do consist of bog-standard hard fire brick without even so much as insulation around it.
I could accept two or three variables just right first time, that would be very lucky. But this is simply ridiculous, the only reason I could think of is the much more favourable ratio between volume and wall area of the whole thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by pinhead on Oct 13, 2014 12:58:08 GMT -8
Strange that the distinctive roar would be gone - I had assumed the sound was an indicator of the amount of turbulent mixing in the throat, which contributes to the burn efficiency. I surmise that the "sound" is still there, though possibly at a much lower (sub-audible) frequency? Pure conjecture, but I suppose it's possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by Donkey on Oct 13, 2014 16:10:56 GMT -8
Peter,
I just finished listening to the Rocket Stove Innovators Podcasts from your stay with Paul Wheaton and friends..
In the podcasts somewhere, it was said that you discovered (or are discovering) a ratio for converting between metal and masonry bell sizing.. I would be VERY interested in hearing about this. Would you care to elaborate? Please??
|
|
|
|
Post by satamax on Oct 13, 2014 23:16:02 GMT -8
20% less for metal?  |
|
|
|
Post by peterberg on Oct 14, 2014 1:38:39 GMT -8
Peter, I just finished listening to the Rocket Stove Innovators Podcasts from your stay with Paul Wheaton and friends.. In the podcasts somewhere, it was said that you discovered (or are discovering) a ratio for converting between metal and masonry bell sizing.. I would be VERY interested in hearing about this. The ratio for a 6" system has been calculated before. The stove of Klemen did nice with an ISA just short of 6 m2, my own three barrel tower being just right with 4.7 m2. So the ratio between those two is 1 : 1.28, or 21.8% less for the all metal stove. So in sq ft that would be 64 sq ft for the brick stove and 50.6 sq ft for the all metal one. So Max is quite close. The 8" monster is a different story, I did an educated guess what the larger one could serve and ended up with 10.5 m2, or 113 sq ft. The three barrels and the gravel bench made this quite difficult, I reckoned the bench would be not as good as the barrels, rather insulating in fact. I calculated for the bench that the bottom quarter of the pipe won't do anything and the rest would be very slow in extracting heat. I ended up with 9.5 m2 and this happened to be just right in this particular case. I quess an all metal stove could be as large as 8.2 m2 or 88 sq ft. All depending on the configuration and the quality of the chimney stack, of course. By the way, you don't need to say please, just ask and I'll answer. |
|
|
|
Post by PNW Dave on Oct 14, 2014 6:18:58 GMT -8
Wow, that's some serious power!
"This is an insane amount of insanity" haha!
|
|
|
|
Post by Donkey on Oct 14, 2014 7:37:39 GMT -8
.. Mama taught me to say please and thank you..
Thank you!
I think this information has helped. I can feel the pointers in my head beginning to point in various directions.. Time will sort it all out, but a (however small) revelation (to me) is coming.
|
|
|
|
Post by satamax on Oct 14, 2014 11:01:09 GMT -8
Peter, did you calculate how many KW this puts out?
|
|
|
|
Post by peterberg on Oct 14, 2014 11:25:40 GMT -8
No, we were very busy doing other things. Could be done though, weighing the fuel, weighing the ashes and calculating the output. A wild quess: we're extracting about 4 kW/h per kg of fuel, a single burn lasts an hour and one load I'd estimate at something between 8 and 12 kilograms. So that would give us 32 to 48 kW/h per burn which is an awful lot of power, this means 109,000 BTU/h to 164,000 BTU/h. Someone should do this testing at permies, but I highly doubt they will.
|
|
