|
|
Post by Vortex on Feb 17, 2019 14:17:53 GMT -8
The second video looks like it's almost trying to form a double vortex, but the exit seems to be pulling the two sides back together into the middle.
Luckily 9" x 4.5" is a common firebrick size, and also equal to 1 CSA if your running a 6" system.
Wondered if it was because your resolution is to high. Vimeo reconvert them anyway so your better off uploading smaller videos. My camera says it's set to the medium range: HQ 320 X 240
|
|
|
|
Post by DCish on Feb 17, 2019 15:38:08 GMT -8
The second video looks like it's almost trying to form a double vortex, but the exit seems to be pulling the two sides back together into the middle. Yeah, and the fire fountain gets so fat toward the top that the vortex shape gets funny. It probably could be finagled so that it makes a better vortex, but with the heat dissipating so quickly in such a large space, it hardly seems worth it.  Just checked, mine is recording in 1920x1080. Smallest it offers is 640 x 480! I'll try that and see how my file sizes come out. |
|
|
|
Post by peterberg on Feb 18, 2019 6:02:26 GMT -8
Back in 2017, the first double shoebox I'd build looked like this:  As is clearly visable, the top box is twice as wide as it is high. I also found a video using the same layout that shows the double vortex you guys seems to be so fond of. It was in broad daylight so the flames aren't as clear as they would be in the dark. It happened to be quite a windy day, despite that it appears to run smokeless for about half of the burn. Some days later I ran a test (first one on this layout) since it looked like a promising configuration. There's a secondary air provision in there, firebox half full according to my notes. The Testo's filter came out just greyish, rather uneventful run. And the results are down here:  Not very nice, mark the purple CO line is very high although there aren't any spikes above 4000 ppm that would indicate smoke. As can be seen, it ran smokeless during the video. I posted this just to show there's more to it than what can be seen and/or smelled. When you're after the most spectacular fire display please call it that way, nothing else. Better efficiency or cleaner burn than what you have already can't be achieved by eye, ear and nose, at this level it's all speculation. Just my two cents, please ignore in case it isn't appreciated. |
|
|
|
Post by DCish on Feb 18, 2019 8:10:14 GMT -8
Hi Peter,
I try to be careful to specify from time to time that my ability to measure my tinkering is limited to the range of the eye and nose, and that fire viewing is one of the factors I am considering as important. I figure if I try something and it gives worse results to the eye and the nose, then it is certainly no good. On the other hand, if a setup very easily runs clean to the eye and nose, and for a long stretch, then it could be worthy of considering for further testing. I also have some ideas about what visual indicators may be clues to cleaner burn, but I am aware that I can't catalog and test these ideas without a flue gas analyzer. Unfortunately, my day job has been very slow this past year or more, and the little fund I'd started accumulating toward a flue gas analyzer had to be put to other uses, so I am stuck muddling along in the world of ideas that I cannot yet test objectively. And full credit to you for your DSR work! For me that opened the door to considering the top slot as a possibility, and seeing Vortex add it to his stove was further encouragement. Playing with the restriction size after the primary afterburner has been what has made the difference for me between burns that tilt relatively easily into having visible smoke (or no visible smoke, but perceptible smell), and burns that are quite stable in the range of smokeless and smell-less. I still think I've pretty much done what I can without test equipment and a tighter test platform, though. This last larger afterburner box was a play off of some thoughts from some other threads, and the outcome (easy to tilt into visible smoke or perceptible smell) was unsurprising.
Cheers,
Brian.
|
|
