|
|
Post by josephcrawley on Aug 1, 2019 12:07:31 GMT -8
If at all possible could you draw up a 6 inch core showing the closed system version? I have followed this tread closely but have gotten a bit confused about the side air intakes.
thanks very much
|
|
|
|
Post by peterberg on Aug 1, 2019 12:46:45 GMT -8
If at all possible could you draw up a 6 inch core showing the closed system version? I have followed this tread closely but have gotten a bit confused about the side air intakes. I'd put it on the list but please don't hold your breath since it isn't top priority, maybe done in a fortnight? All ice, weather and health permitting. |
|
lsch
New Member
Posts: 18
|
Post by lsch on Aug 2, 2019 9:57:08 GMT -8
hello peter
can you save the draw with skp 8
thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by independentenergy on Aug 2, 2019 15:27:49 GMT -8
I would like to know if it is possible to increase the depth of the hearth to at least 50 cm in the open system and consequently increase the length of the upper box
|
|
|
|
Post by peterberg on Aug 2, 2019 23:40:40 GMT -8
hello peter can you save the draw with skp 8 thanks It slipped my mind, obviously. At some point all the drawings on the batchrocket site are replaced by version 8 format. Both DSR2 drawings are in this format now as well. |
|
|
|
Post by peterberg on Aug 2, 2019 23:45:13 GMT -8
I would like to know if it is possible to increase the depth of the hearth to at least 50 cm in the open system and consequently increase the length of the upper box Yes, you can without repercussions as far as I know this would be within safe margins. The stumbler and the end port need to be relocated as well. In general, heart of the stumbler is in the middle of the top box, heart of the end port at a quarter. |
|
lsch
New Member
Posts: 18
|
Post by lsch on Aug 3, 2019 4:21:25 GMT -8
thank you very much peter for that and for all you do.
that your health will be fine.
|
|
yasin
New Member
Posts: 33
|
Post by yasin on Aug 4, 2019 11:24:46 GMT -8
Hello dear Peter, Long time no see ! I hope your health will improve.. can't give up while being that close ! The open fire design is very interesting.. no secondary air ! WOW, that is something ! It looks to me as if the open fire design would be equivalent to a design with a door that have a backward offset, so that the air would come from every sides of the entrance of the firebox. That would be a full glass door without the normal air inlet, but with the air coming from left, right, top, down instead — thanks to this offset. Here is an example of what I mean: www.dropbox.com/s/lhmd4oi7povuc7m/2019-08-04_test_cuisiniere_V8.skp?dl=0Also, before your designs with refractory concrete where using 30 mm thick slabs. Why did you change it to 40 mm ? Regards, |
|
|
|
Post by Vortex on Aug 5, 2019 1:47:28 GMT -8
Welcome back Yasin! Hope you are going to stay around, we've missed your contributions here.
That was how the secondary air around the door on my original vortex stove worked, but not so big a gap as there was also some air up through the ash trap. The new stove door I built has an air tight seal, so I made a two position door catch so it can be locked but still open slightly to allow the secondary air around the edges.
|
|
|
|
Post by independentenergy on Aug 5, 2019 4:25:34 GMT -8
Peter I noticed that the riser measures 137x 166 mm and not 150x150, is a measure dictated by the size of the bricks or is it a technical reason?
thanks
|
|
yasin
New Member
Posts: 33
|
Post by yasin on Aug 5, 2019 11:12:11 GMT -8
Hello Vortex , thanks ! My time in the pacific is over now, so I'm back to France and mass heaters ! I see that you have had some great fun with double vortexes ! That's awesome ! For the air intake, I was in fact thinking of introducing fresh air in between the two skins of a conventional mass heater.
The intake for fresh air would be in the first skin (or underneath the heater), but not in the door. The fresh air would then move in between the two skins and make his way to the firebox. If it works, that would make outside air intake possible with a batchrocket mass heater. That would also increase the heat transfer between the two skins of the heater due to an increase in convection. .. all this while simplifying the design ! |
|
|
|
Post by peterberg on Aug 5, 2019 12:45:07 GMT -8
Hello dear Peter, Long time no see ! I hope your health will improve.. can't give up while being that close ! The open fire design is very interesting.. no secondary air ! WOW, that is something ! It looks to me as if the open fire design would be equivalent to a design with a door that have a backward offset, so that the air would come from every sides of the entrance of the firebox. That would be a full glass door without the normal air inlet, but with the air coming from left, right, top, down instead — thanks to this offset. Here is an example of what I mean: www.dropbox.com/s/lhmd4oi7povuc7m/2019-08-04_test_cuisiniere_V8.skp?dl=0Also, before your designs with refractory concrete where using 30 mm thick slabs. Why did you change it to 40 mm ? Regards, Hi dear friend, I understand from another post you are in France again. Welcome back, I missed you! How's elegant Guinevere and baby-son Isae? I am not so sure a door with a backwards offset will work the same as no door at all. No door means the incoming air will cool the fuel so not all of it will burst into flames at the same time. Duration of a burn is as long as with door and air inlets, overall efficiency is down just a couple of percent, not more. Even oxygen is able to go down to 8% at the top of the burn, I didn't expect that to happen. It's very different to have a door at first and open it halfway the burn. In that case the chances for a real overload coming up are greater than 60%. About the material thickness: the drawing was meant for sksshel, I tried to match the thickness of his slabs. For my own purposes I still would use 30 mm in castable refractory. |
|
|
|
Post by peterberg on Aug 5, 2019 12:48:37 GMT -8
Peter I noticed that the riser measures 137x 166 mm and not 150x150, is a measure dictated by the size of the bricks or is it a technical reason? thanks Using bricks means your freedom of sizing is limited. The riser is slightly off-square, yes, but not smaller as compared to a 150 mm square. Not a technical reason, just dictated by the size of the bricks. |
|
|
|
Post by independentenergy on Aug 6, 2019 3:00:42 GMT -8
Peter I noticed that the riser measures 137x 166 mm and not 150x150, is a measure dictated by the size of the bricks or is it a technical reason? thanks Using bricks means your freedom of sizing is limited. The riser is slightly off-square, yes, but not smaller as compared to a 150 mm square. Not a technical reason, just dictated by the size of the bricks. ok thanks, all clear |
|
|
|
Post by peterberg on Aug 7, 2019 5:13:31 GMT -8
Another variant out of split fire bricks this time, encased in a box out of ceramic fibre board. The box can be assembled with screws, all of those are out of the danger zone so they won't melt. Of course the top front could be done in cfb instead of bricks. It's just an example, true proportions and so on, mass in there is greatly reduced and insulated as well. The firebox could be half a brick deeper, this won't influence the results. The file is in SketchUp version 8. pberg0.home.xs4all.nl/pictures/dev2018/DSR2/DSR2%20opensplitv8.skp |
|
