marks
New Member
Posts: 20 
|
Post by marks on Nov 23, 2017 4:23:18 GMT -8
docbb quote:"some inpiration : track "strawbale " user's quotes www.ecologie-pratique.org/forum/viewtopic.php?showtopic=3775&mode=&show=25&page=2" thanks for the tip. indeed very inspirational. i like the idea with air as an insulator. and the exit flu underneath the burning tunnel. i have a some spare time on hand so if somebody have questions please make my day  so i can return something to the community in this way. the one of the most magical findings i stumble upon in this learning trip, was my own small invention of the "jet tube" style of burning. it is not developed to it's full potential, but looks promising to me. photos.app.goo.gl/LhVJ1ThZYujmFkiJ3photos.app.goo.gl/pg5BUpjPHeGMBqrh1burning video jet tube: photos.app.goo.gl/1883LpfSfXEkc5uW2it uses the secondary air flow as a firebox protector. so you can build a firebox in cheap light steel (spiral) tubing. it pre warms the secondary air so the warmth dispersion of the metal firebox is not wasted. the outer skin of the fire box can be a lightweight isolation material like a thin layer of mineral wool with any material finish! i like this idea, because now we can build a lightweight fire box! which burns very clean and durable. of course the area where the actual fire goes into the burn channel and riser has to be in a high heat resistant, insulated firebrick box. but this can be a small portion of the whole system. my experience in burning this way has the following fire character properties: *it leads the flames into a curly flow. *it takes away the hot coals from the fuel. which prevents the overload of excess burning gasses. in other words; to much of these gases without the needed oxygen and/or flu capacity are the guarantees for a lot of co2 and dirty burning *batchbox style of burning. (no guarding the fire for smoke backs, but you do need to feed it every 20minutes, nevertheless) photos.app.goo.gl/G5a2SmHmB1DWZEps1matt walker, thanks for the reply also. i think you like this jet tube as well. you were a great inspiration for my learning into the rocket stove, by watching your youtube video's greetings joachim, from the windy netherlands |
|
|
|
Post by wiscojames on Nov 23, 2017 4:40:31 GMT -8
That's a Good point, consuming half the wood of a box stove means lots of different things. Maybe you are using a fourth of the wood you'd be burning in an inefficient stove. Apples and oranges, as it were.
|
|
|
|
Post by matthewwalker on Nov 23, 2017 10:46:48 GMT -8
Joachim, you are right! I LOVE the jet tube! I didn't quite get all of it until your further description, but the cooling of the firebox, the slow flame up front and high speed mixing/combustion in the throat, it's wonderful! You are very astute as to the problem of a too-hot firebox or coal bed creating too much gas for the mixing stage, creating high CO and poor efficiency. This is exactly why I won't build a batch box with a high mass firebox. The first burn is fine, the second load is a dirty burn, every time, unless air is carefully managed.
I love these solutions! The material choices are now much broader, thanks to the cooling air around the box. Both firebox and surround materials, as you say. Brilliant. Thank you so much for sharing, my mind is racing.
|
|
marks
New Member
Posts: 20
|
Post by marks on Nov 23, 2017 13:27:50 GMT -8
thank you Matthew, try it yourself first. i am sure i am right with my solution because i observed it very well a lot of burns. but when i showed it to peter vd berg he was not so enthusiastic. he tried it only twice or three times. and measured it. with different unpredictable results he disqualified it as not useful. but i m afraid he didn't understand the possibilities properly. as he said it him self, he is more interested in what happens after the fire box. i think the problem is the same like make a car running properly, at the beginning of the fuel trajectory: the carburator mixing fuel and air in the right proportion to the exhaust pipe except for the car the exhaust can be one of the fixed variations. the exhaust of a stove and its sucking probabilities on the other hand are never the same. it's weather driven so its really important to be gentle with the fuel supply and feeding. this i learned with my automatic spring feeded bb photos.app.goo.gl/qrDQQobyo1r41vks1 it was pushed trough the throat of the fire box, by accident, into the hot hot riser and it exploded into a huge wood gassing process with an amazing orange raging monster flame and green smoke! |
|
marks
New Member
Posts: 20
|
Post by marks on Nov 23, 2017 14:40:05 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by wiscojames on Nov 23, 2017 15:30:03 GMT -8
After reading your description again, looking at your drawings, and watching the video, I see what possibilities might be opened. A wonderful tangent!
|
|
marks
New Member
Posts: 20
|
Post by marks on Nov 23, 2017 15:47:13 GMT -8
here is an other video (sorry for the comments as they are in dutch. but you can understand some words, like flow, secondary air. the film was addressed to peter van den berg. maybe i will dub it in englisch if you find it useful) of the jet tube showing it's behavior on wet smoky wood. it shows the slow air speed at the front end. photos.app.goo.gl/FmRsffPaksuns8ni2and the flow in fire box photos.app.goo.gl/LPtw5cHzUW9504mo1 |
|
|
|
Post by peterberg on Nov 24, 2017 2:18:48 GMT -8
i am sure i am right with my solution because i observed it very well a lot of burns. but when i showed it to peter vd berg he was not so enthusiastic. he tried it only twice or three times. and measured it. with different unpredictable results he disqualified it as not useful. Indeed Joachim, you told me about this a year ago. I did like to try it, so I took out the floor channel, found a tin can of the right size and ran it while the Testo measured the results. This first run, according to my notes was as full as possible and the tube was about 7 cm from the back wall so air could get around it. The results were remarkebly good, here's the diagram.  The high efficiency is due to the masonry bell behind it, but the CO is quite low and the O² is low too. This is a good run, but I like to have at least three runs in a row that are comparable before I believe there's something in there. So the next day the heater was cooled down enough to do a repeat. I filled the tube with coniferous wood like before and started up. The only difference was that the ash was cleaned out under the tube so air could go all around it. It came on very slowly, CO was erratic and O² refused to go down. At 40 minutes CO spiked badly, I couldn't see a reason why it would do that. This was not a good run, repeatability wasn't as good as I hoped for.  But maybe this configuration would be better when hot, so I repeated this run that night. This time the space between the tube and the bottom of the firebox stuffed with superwool, since during the first run the tube was resting on an ash bed, being the only difference with the second run. Now the CO level remained comparatively low but the O² stayed very high so diluting of the CO was in such a way the undiluted level was high again.  A curious thing I found out is that the tube needed a large amount of air in order to keep it fiercely going which won't help to get the oxygen down of course. At that stage I concluded the repeatability was not good at all and I told you that. For a really good heater, 9 out of 10 runs should be very good, just a single nice run out of three isn't enough to make it a really good heater. You were not pleased and being sure I got it wrong. I am sorry for you, but you draw conclusions just by looking at it and listening to it. Matt Walker said in this same thread: The real test is with a calibrated gas analizer and that device doesn't agree with you, simple as that. Later on I tried a couple of times more but the results weren't any better. I had the Testo coupled to the heater at the time without computer so I don't have any diagrams to show. You are thinking your idea is good, but the results were discouraging to say the least. So I abandoned the idea. |
|
marks
New Member
Posts: 20
|
Post by marks on Nov 24, 2017 11:04:01 GMT -8
hi peter, thanks for reply. firstly, i highly respect your opinion and am great full for all the work you have done to this burning community. but....  (there is always a buttttt) stuffing a tincan in your stove is not a guarantee for success it's not as simple as it looks to make it run good. i agree. i think the idea deserves a better chance than a 3 time try without asking me about anything. and then presenting me the results as being not liked by the computer standards and numbers. i was not angry, just disappointed you made a quick reproduction with a tin in a box and a computer. the first time just on the ash bed. it's amazing that it got so good in this setup anyway. matt's quote "There's a reason I believe that on this forum we should share our experiences, not what we've read or think we know." is meant for people who don't have the experience in practice, but just are venting opinions i do have experience. (except with the computer hightech instruments ) i am not one of those fanatic believers who want to see or sell only one truth. i am an artist, philosopher and a very practical man. i have also learned a lot not only by theoretic thinking but more so by observing and being a lot of time in nature. that's what the idea is about. to experiment with a open mind. before i let you know about this idea, a year ago, i took a lot of time to understand what is going on. so what i have learned by observing, the tube needs some tuning. at least to make it a success in the computer 1/0 measure world. ok so far for the personal stuff which is not important enough for me to take all the space here. now for the fun stuff.... firstly the jet tube has to be above the firebox floor, so the hot cole's can fall down like this drawing: photos.app.goo.gl/0kwBi4q9ZGw5vpQq1secondly the space before the yet tube is important to, here you can control the o2. in a gentle manner. see the video: photos.app.goo.gl/9uy6Twkx63Npq3112thirdly the firebox size around the tube does matter. you can try this by using lose fire bricks and build it around a 150mm jet tube. fourthly the actual fire box just after the jet tube has to be highly insulated and hot like hell. and lastly the holes around the jet tube are an extra control option. stuffing them tight or restrict the flow with wool is the last thing i would do.it ignores the whole jet tube principle. the air stream inside and outside the tube is of a different speed. like a venturi in a jet motor. if there is to much o2 then you close the door before the jet tube a bit. but leave the second air open. or close only the 2 at the bottom. you can also close only the jet tube and leave the secundary's open greetings from your dutch fellowman |
|
|
|
Post by peterberg on Nov 24, 2017 12:18:52 GMT -8
Hmmm... as I said before, there was about 7 cm space behind the tube, about 10 cm space in front. The fuel was just as long as the tube, the second run had space all around the tube and happened to be the worst out of three.
As you can see, I followed your recommendations and it still wasn't a good run. I told you then and I tell you now this doesn't look like a viable option to me and I think I have good reasons to believe I am right.
Now to conclude this: please build one to your specifications. Then contact me on this forum or otherwise so we can pick a date and time for me to come to Heerenveen with my Testo gas analizer and test the thing. If and when your build produces excellent and repeatable results I will be the first to say I was wrong and your idea has merit. Until then, my measured results are still standing.
Mind you, not a tube of 150 mm round and a riser plus chimney of the same diameter, that isn't an improvement over the batchrocket. The whole point is the fact that it can be loaded with quite a large amount of fuel and have it run by itself.
|
|
marks
New Member
Posts: 20
|
Post by marks on Nov 25, 2017 4:55:30 GMT -8
hi peter, thanks For the offer.
appreciate it a lot!
i will do my best to make it happen, but first i will need to find an other experimental lab with a nice chimney.
as my former experimental lab is my living room now. with a fine working j-tube.
you said the jet tube needs a lot of air to get it burning at speed. there is a solution to this.
if you start a small fire in the coal pit behind the yet tube in the firebox first,
then put in all the wood. and let longer sticks stick out the yet tube just above the small fire, you don't have the dirty burning in the beginning. and it will provide for a hot coal bed to burn the secondary air + wood gasses.
if you give the wood a push every time it seems to die of a bit it will burn better. but if you don't want to assist it every time it dies out, you can experiment with different wood combinations. some thick hard wood together with light wood will provide for longer burns.
in addition, it was never my intention to present it as an improvement of the batch rocket.
i think this system is an alternative alongside of a j-tube, BBox and a riserless walker stove.
it's in favor above the other systems only in situations like:
when the draft of the chimney is not sufficient enough for a j- tube or bbox in all weather conditions. (which happens a lot in low budget situations) and will guarantee some smoke back in room.
or when the warmth accumulating quality of the bench/bell can't speed up with the explosion of heat supply by the bbox
which in turns down efficiency
or for other personal reasons like:
it is saver to burn it by itself for a 20min firing compaired to a j-tube. in other words you still need to feed or cuddle it often, but you don;t have to be afraid it will smoke your home like a mackerel
so this stands between a bbox and a j-tube in case of practicability
and you can construct a lightweight (small) batchbox in need for mobility or again, low costs.
and lastly i think if you learn to burn it well, it will get cleaner easy over the average burns. more stable than a j-tube.
|
|
|
|
Post by peterberg on Nov 27, 2017 3:14:14 GMT -8
you said the jet tube needs a lot of air to get it burning at speed. there is a solution to this. if you start a small fire in the coal pit behind the yet tube in the firebox first, then put in all the wood. and let longer sticks stick out the yet tube just above the small fire, you don't have the dirty burning in the beginning. and it will provide for a hot coal bed to burn the secondary air + wood gasses. if you give the wood a push every time it seems to die of a bit it will burn better. but if you don't want to assist it every time it dies out, you can experiment with different wood combinations. some thick hard wood together with light wood will provide for longer burns. As I understand now, according to you I fiddled the wrong way with it. So there's a whole set of how-to's and do's and don't's without knowing what triggers what. Shifting fuel in while the burn is going on reminds me of small cooking devices like the Winiarsky rocket cook stove. Leaves the question how you do know which sound and view produces the best results. in addition, it was never my intention to present it as an improvement of the batch rocket. i think this system is an alternative alongside of a j-tube, BBox and a riserless walker stove. OK, it isn't an improvement then, but it certainly is an addition. It do consist of a firebox, venturi port and a riser behind. That's the definition of a batch box rocket, your jet tube is a bolt-on item. The system ("Marks jet tube") of your own invention you presented in another thread is an already existing combustion core with an addition. As such, you used my design and added something to it. According to the relevant Creative Commons license you are obliged to name the designer and share your results. I didn't see my name in the presentation, could you please rectify that? Being an artist, you of all people should know what Intellectual Property means, open source doesn't mean all of the rights are up for grabs. |
|
marks
New Member
Posts: 20
|
Post by marks on Nov 27, 2017 8:10:30 GMT -8
peter quote:" As such, you used my design and added something to it. According to the relevant Creative Commons license you are obliged to name the designer and share your results.
I didn't see my name in the presentation, could you please rectify that?
Being an artist, you of all people should know what Intellectual Property means, open source doesn't mean all of the rights are up for grabs."
of course. no problem.
but again, it is not competition we are talking here. the tube is a addition on it's own. it also works in my normal stove, without a heatriser or fireport or batchbox properties
|
|
|
|
Post by peterberg on Nov 27, 2017 12:50:24 GMT -8
No, it isn't a competition we are talking about, just setting things straight. But when your jet tube isn't an addition to a rocket heater per se and not a rocket heater in itself it should be moved to the "Other types of stove" department in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by travis on Dec 9, 2017 6:12:23 GMT -8
Hi this is interesting stuff here! I also want to just mention that I read a bit of a concerning thing. You mentioned that you get long wood and don't make it shorter before you feed your stove. This can be dangerous and if it does not feed properly when you aren't watching a long stick may burn up and fall out of the feed tube, of course you can see the trouble from there.
Keep up the work and posts!
|
|
so i can return something to the community in this way.
(there is always a buttttt)