|
Post by pinhead on Sept 21, 2017 7:22:01 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Dan (Upstate NY, USA) on Sept 21, 2017 17:18:28 GMT -8
Thank you...
|
|
|
Post by peterberg on Sept 27, 2017 3:31:13 GMT -8
Please ignore the phrase "S-portal is freely available for self builders but not for commercial use" in the above pdf. It's clearly a development built on the batch box rocket design and as such it is subject to the same license as the original.
Here's the text of this license:
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.
No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Actually, since the author of this pdf didn't follow the license he is operating outside of the license terms himself.
|
|
|
Post by pinhead on Sept 27, 2017 4:47:32 GMT -8
Since this is a modification of your original design, Peter, would you like me to take the post down?
|
|
|
Post by peterberg on Sept 27, 2017 6:47:48 GMT -8
Not need for that. I prefer to have it public but that copyright note shouldn't be there, that's all. Could you host the pdf somewhere as well?
|
|
|
Post by pinhead on Sept 27, 2017 7:35:37 GMT -8
Not need for that. I prefer to have it public but that copyright note shouldn't be there, that's all. Could you host the pdf somewhere as well? Yep, I moved the PDF to my Google Drive and shared the link. Do you suppose I should edit the PDF and image and remove the disclaimer and the URL as well as the brand tagging? Perhaps add a link to your rocketstoves site?
|
|
|
Post by peterberg on Sept 27, 2017 12:11:56 GMT -8
No, I don't think so. Please leave it as is, it's his addition and I think proper attribution is all-important. The fact that he ignores the terms of the license doesn't mean we should do the same.
Just my two cents, open source is sometimes quite complicated.
|
|
fuego
New Member
Posts: 5
|
Post by fuego on Jul 11, 2021 4:15:42 GMT -8
Hii i am new on the forum, troghut reading a lot of post. The other night I was thinking about that idea, because right in that area of the portal is where the gases accelerate and low pressure is obtained. What I would add to that model is a connection to the combustion chamber where in theory there is a high pressure causing the excess air to burn at the exit of the portal producing a good mixture at the same time. I am following the theory of venturi and bernoulli. although in stoves I do not know how much it applies or what other things need to be taken into account. according to my theory the port should be deeper for better acceleration and post mixing. thus also leaving a design similar to the double venturi cone. Greetings and thanks for sharing your knowledge
|
|
fuego
New Member
Posts: 5
|
Post by fuego on Jul 11, 2021 4:26:55 GMT -8
Please ignore the phrase "S-portal is freely available for self builders but not for commercial use" in the above pdf. It's clearly a development built on the batch box rocket design and as such it is subject to the same license as the original. Here's the text of this license: Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.
No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.Actually, since the author of this pdf didn't follow the license he is operating outside of the license terms himself. Good morning Peter I hope you are well. My curiosity leads me to ask you, did you try this type of port modification? making it deeper and with multiple air intake holes?
|
|
|
Post by peterberg on Jul 13, 2021 2:00:00 GMT -8
I am following the theory of venturi and bernoulli. although in stoves I do not know how much it applies or what other things need to be taken into account. according to my theory the port should be deeper for better acceleration and post mixing. thus also leaving a design similar to the double venturi cone. Hi Fuego, welcome to the boards. I'm sorry for you, but according to testing over the years, a deeper port won't be of any benefit. In fact, the best results were obtained with a port that was as deep as wide. I tried about 8 years ago how a deeper port would work in steps upto 2 1/2 times as deep as wide. Anything above 1 in 2 for width and depth did make for less good results, according to the Testo gas analizer. In short, nothing to be gained with a deeper port.
|
|
|
Post by peterberg on Jul 13, 2021 2:07:30 GMT -8
My curiosity leads me to ask you, did you try this type of port modification? making it deeper and with multiple air intake holes? The question about a deeper port is answered above. Multiple air intake holes have been tried, several times in fact and also by more than one person. In order to supply enough secondary air in the port lots of holes should be drilled, so close together that a slit is much more convenient and just as effective. The pressure diference is presumably too small to make just separated holes effectively enough. But don't let you be discouraged, start your own line of experiments, buy a solid fuel filter set, a dedicated computer and a Testo 330-2, have it calibrated once a year and you are good to go!
|
|
fuego
New Member
Posts: 5
|
Post by fuego on Oct 31, 2021 18:05:22 GMT -8
Thank you very much Peter for answering, yes I will do that. greetings and keep watching how your tests turn out.
|
|