from very fine quartz found in some clays, from finely ground silica powder and from molecular silica liberated during the formation of mullite from kaolin.
Yes, that's the central premise here, from the beginning of my first post:
all ceramics undergo crystal phase changes in this way when heated to the temps we’re using.
For those of us using these ceramic products, we should all be aware that the products we’re putting into our stoves are physio-mechanically not the same as the material resulting from being fired at temperature
If feldspar is present in the body then any available molecular silica is taken up in the formation of silicates, and thus cristobalite does not form.
This is yet another statement you've taken out of its original context, and attempted to apply it in a wholly different situation where it is not only untrue, but the exact opposite of this is true.
I think the issue here is that you're failing to consider the most important variables which act as mechanisms in crystal formation. This was the same issue in our discussion re: cordierite.
This is *not* a simple stoichiometric chemistry equation (where you start with a reactant, add a "reagent," apply a single temperature, get a resultant product, and you're done.) It is a continual process that keeps changing as we use the ceramic fiber in the flame path of our rocketstoves, continually impregnating it with wood ash as we rapidly thermal-cycle it.
Those variables are things like: 1) rate of temperature climb 2) "soaking" [holding single temps for extended periods] at various temperature thresholds 3) rate of cooling 4) repeated thermal cycling to temperature threshold(s) 5) rapid thermal cycling through all of the temperature gradients without "soaking" (as our rocketstoves do) 6) ALL of the fluxes present in the original ceramic composition — which act more as "dopants" than "reagents"— and which react in completely different, often opposite ways, depending on their ratios and other fluxes present. Yes, in some kaolin porcelain compositions, potassium from feldspar can impede cristobalite formation — but only on the first firing at temp, and only when other oxides and impurities are not present.When additional metal oxides are present (like sodium, iron, titanium, magnesium, etc.) the cristobalite-suppressing effect is not only lost, *it can be utterly reversed* This is HIGHLY variable depending upon the fluxes' ratios to one another. Furthermore: When that kaolinic porcelain (or kaolinic superwool) is repeatedly reheated at temp, it will undergo DEVITRIFICATION. This devitrification of kaolinic ceramics can cause the mullite to decompose to cristobalite. (as cited below) These fluxes, as we've established earlier, also have an enormous impact in catalyzing the low-temperature formation of cristobalite.
7) ALL of the fluxes which continue to be added from the wood's ash content. This is an unpredictable variable you cannot accurately know beforehand or model for, because various plant species contain very different mineralogical profiles in their ash content — even varying within the same species grown in different soils. This ash/flux content variable is significant because more and more ash is accumulated in the ceramic fiber the more a rocketstove is burned... and none of the studies on ceramic fiber insulation account for that. (Even though they do show that cristobalite DOES form, *even when only heated indirectly without wood ash present or continually accumulating in it.)
Waterglass and other reagents will have the same effect as feldspar.
This, as a blanket statement, is utterly false — for the reasons I mentioned above — and is even stated otherwise at the very beginning of the paper you cited. ["Waterglass," after all, is sodium silicate] Your source information literally states the exact opposite of your claim:
Decomposition of mullite to cristobalite in aluminosilicate ceramic fiber (even *without* the added effect of fluxing wood ash minerals, which can accelerate it): Note here that POTASSIUM is cited as the cause, and that potassium (as noted earlier) is the greatest residual component of woodash, although not the only component, and is the active fluxing component in feldspar: (source: www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/1994-0329-2574.pdf)
Of significance, the above paper showed that cristobalite formation can be rendered harmless if the crystals can remain large enough to stay adhered in the deteriorating ceramic wool — or remain large enough that they are not actively carcinogenic once detached and ingested/inhaled (although they would still present a risk for general silicosis.) This is why it is suggested to seal the ceramic wool's surface with colloidal silica. Silica *may* act as a flux to encourage cristobalite formation — but it would A) help the ceramic fiber surface hold the formed cristobalite intact, and B) inhibit the wood ash from penetrating deeply into the ceramic fiber structure and decomposing it from the inside-out.
And I'm sorry to dismantle your theory, here, Karl, but this is an issue of grave importance to rocketstove makers and users. It is a materially substantiated warning, issued by health officials and ceramics manufacturers, themselves. We must not be cavalier in dismissing this for our own health and safety, and we certainly must not misinform others by spreading dangerously false claims and erroneous misrepresentations which inaccurately claim this cristobalite hazard is not a real and present risk.
Last Edit: Oct 3, 2021 16:48:50 GMT -8 by Forsythe
The accuracy of info we share here is more important than my ego, your ego, or Peter's ego. None of us has exclusive ownership over the truth.
Cristobalite forms spontaneously (within bodies) at temperatures above 1100C
You are becoming more and more annoying.
Quite obviously you do not understand the meaning of inversion nor conversion nor Devitrification. Maybe your sources do not too. If your claims were true christobalite would be a very common mineral, but it is not.
Quite obviously you do not understand the meaning of inversion nor conversion nor Devitrification. Maybe your sources do not too.
You’re really going to claim that the ceramic scientists publishing these papers — ALL of them — including the ones you yourself cited, erroneously, and which directly contradict the claims you've made — know less about this than you do?
You can’t compare apples and oranges, Karl — you cannot compare cristobalite formation in man-made ceramic fibers with natural cristobalite formed by geothermal process.
They start with very different mineralogical profiles, undergo totally different rates of thermal heating and cooling, and are subjected to entirely different processes of oxidation and flux addition while thermal cycling.
Where in nature is ceramic fiber produced in the density and thicknesses of ceramic fiber insulation? Nowhere.
Where in nature is anything like commercial ceramic fiber subjected to the temperature cycling of a rocketstove — from ambient to 1100°C (ish) as frequently as twice daily, in an oxidizing environment, and constantly impregnated with the finely-divided, powdered [and thus exceptionally reactive] metal oxides of completely-burned organic plant matter? Literally Nowhere.
Once again, you’re trying to apply data from one set of circumstances to a completely different scenario and failing to understand the differences between the kinetics of the totally divergent variables.
The foundation of scientific experiment and research is knowing and controlling variables to produce repeatable outcomes.
Comparing the rarity of natural cristobalite formed under natural geological processes — to the formation of cristobalite in man-made materials of man-made purity under man-made conditions is wholly unscientific and remarkably short-sighted.
Let’s apply the same logic to other man-made ceramics:
Where in nature do you find glazed porcelain teapots, Karl? Nowhere. If ceramic science was true, then glazed porcelain teapots would be common in nature, but they’re not. Therefore, glazed porcelain teapots must not exist, and all the potters of the world are lying to us.
Last Edit: Oct 5, 2021 14:10:35 GMT -8 by Forsythe
The accuracy of info we share here is more important than my ego, your ego, or Peter's ego. None of us has exclusive ownership over the truth.
...and along these same lines, mullite is also an extremely rare crystal in nature.
And yet: mullite occurs so readily in high-fired, man-made aluminosilicates — that humans have been making it in kaolinic porcelain since at least the middle ages, totally by accident, and without even being aware of it:
...but you appear to accept that mullite readily forms in just such man-made aluminosilicates, even though mullite doesn't occur frequently in nature... Why the inconsistency?
I mean, cristobalite and mullite are both right there in ternary equilibrium between Al, Si, and Mg crystalline phases. There's no rational reason to deny the existence of cristobalite expression in man-made refractory ceramics, the vast majority of which are mostly comprised of Al, Si, and Mg.
Whew! This is intense. Is the take home message rocket stove refractory materials in the flame path potentially are converted to chemicals that should not be inhaled? Are these chemicals a source of air pollution from the flue pipe that are as evil to alveoli as PM 2.5 and smaller particles? Is this a concern just with the ceramic fiber products? What about insulating firebricks?
Or, is the concern that when dismantled, these materials are a danger to the stove builder? I’m assuming a N-95 mask would be a good idea when handling refractory materials on account of silicosis.
For people using rockets for cooking, this is a big deal!
Whew! This is intense. Is the take home message rocket stove refractory materials in the flame path potentially are converted to chemicals that should not be inhaled? ...Or, is the concern that when dismantled, these materials are a danger to the stove builder?
Refractory materials in general should not be inhaled, just like any fine sand or rock dust should not be inhaled. The risk is cumulative for most fine dust particles. (if you race dune buggies on the weekends and work in a crushed stone quarry during the week, your risk is higher than if you only did one independently of the other.)
However:
A) insoluble crystalline fiber particles are particularly hazardous for inhalation, far more-so than fine crystalline dust.
B) amorphous / biosoluble fiber products (like kaowool) are far more susceptible to BOTH crystalline conversion AND airborne disintegration than monolithic bricks or cast refractory slabs.
C) firing those biosoluble kaolinic fibers over 800°C in direct contact with flame and woodash can make them bio-INsoluble, negating their relatively "safer" use. (The resultant decomposed fiber is no longer the "biosoluble kaowool" as originally installed... the same way a clay bowl can no longer be re-wetted, re-shaped, or have its glaze washed off after it has been fired in a ceramic kiln. It has physio-mechanically changed into a different substance.)
D) refractory materials rated for higher temps than kaowool / superwool / fibrefrax (biosoluble fibers) have already been fired above the conversion threshold and should be handled with extra care when installing, even prior to the first firing in a rocketstove. This includes the use of dust masks and protective clothing, etc.
E) Sealing the surface of a ceramic fiber product with a rigidizer can make it far more resistant to both crystaline conversion AND airborne decomposition. Many products are available for this purpose, but the best ones are those rated to resist slag attack in DIY home metal forges/foundries. Colloidal silica (AKA "fumed silica", also used in epoxy resin casts) is a common one, as are commercial brand names like "Hellcoat," "HTC-100," etc. Many people use waterglass (sodium silicate) because of its ease of application, and the fact that it comes in liquid form, meaning: they don't have to worry about dust from the pre-mixed rigidizer. [Note, however, that the sodium content of sodium silicate waterglass can reduce the temperature rating of your ceramic refractory, causing the bonded surface to melt below its rated threshold... but this is both bad and good, because...]
F) ...studies have shown (mentioned on the previous page) that if the particles/fibers of cristoballite can vitrify/melt together they can 1) stay large enough that —if inhaled— their carcinogenic effect is reduced, AND/OR 2) they can remain adhered to the substrate, substantially reducing the risk of inhalation to begin with.
Are these chemicals a source of air pollution from the flue pipe that are as evil to alveoli as PM 2.5 and smaller particles?
Here are some infographics on general silicosis and the additional carcinogenic risks fiber particulates: - - - - -
Is this a concern just with the ceramic fiber products? What about insulating firebricks?
The porous nature of these refractory products is what makes them particularly susceptible to crystalline conversion and disintegration. (as noted earlier, the open-pore structure accumulates woodash (flux), while also allowing oxygen (often in the form of water vapor and condensation) which, when fired and superheated, react with the woodash flux and aluminosilicate in the pores, expanding those pores, propagating cracks and disintegration, all-the-while converting the surrounding exposed microsurfaces to cristobalite, etc. This is why the use of a "hot face" of cast refractory slab, dense (non-insulating) firebrick, or slag-resistant surface coating is always required in foundry furnaces and forges — and why woodfired ceramics kilns also require a dense "hot-face" between the woodflame and insulating brick.
Hi Vortex, a few years ago, while I was buying insulating firebricks from our firebrick manufacturer, he warned me against using it if there is an oven afterward in the flue path : he explained to me that he had sold those insulating firebricks to a cookware (ceramic dishes and the like) manufacturer and that the manufacturer had it mounted directly as the inner lining of his ovens. The problem was that the cookware products were corrupted with small deposits from the insulating firebricks. The problem was solved by putting the dense firebrick before the insulating firebricks, so that the insulating ones were not in direct contact with the hot gases. I had also problems with using superwool around the risers of batchrocket cores : they melted away after just one year of use (surely because of the water content of the gases) and the clients complained about the bad taste of foods. From then on I stopped completely to use those products..
...Personally, I recommend using a surface sealant on the "hot-face" of BOTH exposed ceramic fiber AND insulating firebrick (the more insulating and lighter-weight the insulative firebrick, the more porous its surface will be, and the more susceptible to disintegration it will be.) After your first firing, those coated surfaces will essentially form a hard, glazed surface which will resist woodash flux penetration and thus low-fire crystalline conversion and decomposition.
..And for a black oven, (exposed directly to flame) I would always use a dense firebrick, ceramic liner/ unglazed tile/ cordeirite, etc. or slag-resistant cast refractory slab for the internal surface. Even though you don't aspirate food, you do ingest it, and crystalline silica (especially fibrous ones) can be hazardous to the lymphatic system, kidneys, and potentially also the colonic epithelium.
I’m assuming a N-95 mask would be a good idea when handling refractory materials on account of silicosis.
An N-95 mask is not considered sufficient for most dust-mitigation applications. (N95 masks reduce the inhalation of much heavier water droplets and reduce the spread of EXHALED viral particles carried on those water droplets. They do very little to filter fine, lightweight, airborne dust — which can enter the nose and mouth around the gaps created beneath the eyes at the bridge of the nose. A proper dust face mask which seals tightly around the mouth and nose would be more appropriate)
The accuracy of info we share here is more important than my ego, your ego, or Peter's ego. None of us has exclusive ownership over the truth.
Thank you, that was an amazingly well researched reply. The images of the fibers undergoing phagocytosis by the macrophages is unforgettable. My N95 is fit tested, but you are right about most of them having gaps. So water glass sprayed on the soft firebricks, that are kept out of the flame path, makes good sense.
I appreciate your reply. Your post would be helpful in the cooking part of this site too.
I appreciate your reply. Your post would be helpful in the cooking part of this site too.
You’re very welcome, and I’m sorry it took me so long to respond. This fall has been a crazily busy one out in the woods — not least because I realized I would need to build a wood-fired kiln to fire the kaolin blocks I’m planning to use in my grundofen… and then I realized how much more firewood I was going to need to cut just for the kiln to make the blocks… to then make the grundofen, which would then consume the firewood I had stocked-up thus far. 😅
The accuracy of info we share here is more important than my ego, your ego, or Peter's ego. None of us has exclusive ownership over the truth.
Do you know if I can use pure Potassium Silicate to protect my heat riser porous refractory bricks ?
I have plenty of this in liquid form. Can I just spray it on the bricks or use a bath to dip them in ?
Hey fiedia , sorry for my delayed response here. I gotta figure out how to get my notifications configured, apparently.
I would not recommend potassium silicate to seal any insulative refractory... I don't particularly recommend sodium silicate, either, as it adds additional flux that can shorten the life of the refractory by lowering the melt temperature... but potassium is a lot more aggressive in fluxing aluminosilicates than sodium is, and potassium has been shown to cause refractories to melt as low as 600-700ºC. This is particularly problematic in rocket stoves where the burning biomass constantly introduces even more potassium salts to the refractory — in the form of wood ash.
....And since A) woodfire creates water vapor and condensation, and B) potassium silicate is water-soluble, yet takes longer to thoroughly dry than sodium silicate; that wood-ash potassium is more likely to stick to the potassium-silicate sealed surface... where it will incrementally increase the flux ratio, decreasing the melt threshold temperature of your refractory.
“K-silicate is principally used with acid resisting bricks and tiles for acid resisting masonry construction, because of its very low cost. It is highly recommended to protect chimneys, incinerators and other high temperature equipment.” “Max. Temp. : 900 C” "CHEMICAL RESISTANCE : K-silicate when completely set hard, is resistant to high concentration of oxidizing acids, inorganic acids and salts and most organic solvents at high temperature. It is not recommended against Hydrofluoric acid, fluorides, fluoride salts, water, diluted solutions, alkalis etc." “APPLICATION : Mortar is buttered on acid resistance brick/tile as usual bricklayers Method. Brick/tile also should be clean, dry and at ambient temperature. After hardening of the joints, it should be treated with 10 % Hydrochloric acid before the acid resisting lining is placed in use.”
...note that the required 10% hydrochloric acid treatment ☝️ is undoubtedly to neutralize the alkalinity of the potassium, and that —without that hydrochloric acid step— the potassium would very likely reduce the high-temperature usefulness of the masonry by lowering its softening-point temperature.
The cheapest route [**SEE EDIT NOTE BELOW**] is to use fumed silica (AKA "Colloidal silica") and be sure to fire it good and hot as soon as it's dry. Fumed silica is cheap if you buy it as sold for use in fiberglass and resin casting... but they charge a much higher premium if you buy it from a refractory company. It's literally the same product, though; amorphous, unreacted silica. When fired, it will incorporate and crystalize with the aluminosilicate. An added bonus of using fumed silica is that it creates a tougher substrate to bond an IR reflective coating like ITC-100, HTC-100, bubble alumina, satanite, etc... which will actually increase the insulative value of the refractory, making the rocketstove burn cleaner, sooner in the burn-cycle. Here's a short set of 60-second vids on using fumed silica to seal ceramic fiber blanket (had to split this into <1 min blocks, as that's the max imgur allows)
[**EDIT NOTE** — "the cheapest route" here means the cheapest route to rigidize a ceramic fiber blanket — instead of buying a ceramic fiber rigidizer from a refractory company which is usually nothing more than fumed silica, itself.If you are installing the ceramic fiber blanket **AS THE HOT-FACE** of a rocketstove core, it is strongly recommended to follow the fumed silica rigidizing treatment with a slag-resistant refractory coating. The fumed silica will ONLY "rigidize" — thereby keeping the ceramic fibers from becoming airborne. Fumed silica WILL NOT increase the ceramic fibers' "slag resistance" to wood ash, and will not help a low-temp-rated ceramic fiber from melting if your stove design exceeds its working temperature, and that working temperature decreases with direct exposure to woodash. Considering the two-step process involved in firing each coating, it may be easiest to rigidize the ceramic fiber with a slag-resistant refractory coating specifically sold as fulfilling both roles: as a rigidizer, AND as a slag-resistant refractory coating. The zirconia-based products for this purpose are also Infrared-Reflectant, and thus will also improve combustion efficiency...and that class of slag-resistant, infrared-reflectant, ceramic fiber rigidizer coatings is what I would personally recommend for ease of application. ...Further detail on this can be found later in this thread, starting here: donkey32.proboards.com/post/37535]
(I guess the imgur videos all autoplay as gifv simultaneously when I try to embed them... so... I'm trying a different embed method. fingers crossed.)
...and... I almost hesitate to share this last method, because of the additional fire/explosive hazards of working with powdered metallic aluminum, but this is what I'm currently working on, experiment-wise:
Powdered aluminum is exceptionally reactive to oxygen — often ripping the oxygen atom(s) off of other, adjacent oxides (as it does when combined with iron oxide — the mixture of the two being "thermite") ... and it oxidizes with an **extremely** hot exothermic reaction. ...And when reacting with water, it liberates hydrogen gas... which is *spectacularly* explosive.... but... The chief advantages in using it to produce refractory products are that: 1) The reaction is capable of reaching sintering temps far hotter than most home-hobbiest ceramic kilns can produce (The bodies only need to be fired to 930ºC, at which point the aluminothermic reaction takes place, raising the refractory bodies' internal temperature to 1450º-1850ºC, [depending on the dimensional thickness of the body] — and that temp range is virtually impossible with traditional fuels, certainly so in a small batch-size kiln.) 2) The in-situ reaction creates a stronger bond between silica, grog, alumina, and mullite crystals than common, simple vitrification does. 3) The reaction leaves behind aluminum oxide (Al2O3) ... so it's not only a high-temp fuel source for ultra-high firing of high-temp refractories, it's also an alumina feedstock for high-alumina refractory bodies. 4) The Al2O3 —resulting from ripping oxygen atoms off of Silicon Oxide— alloys the metallic silicon with some metallic aluminum before re-oxidizing, creating an intimate mix of high % alumina, mullite, and spinel — with very little free silica left for quartz-cristobalite inversion, and less reactivity to the fluxing effects of wood-ash. 5) The reaction takes place evenly from the inside-out, resulting in evenly-fired alumina brick without the risk of cracking and spalling associated with traditional electric, wood, oil, or coal-fired kiln fueling, (which heats unevenly from outside-inward.) 6) Prior to firing, a small amount of the finely-powdered aluminum reacts with the water used to form the clay body, generating enough low-grade heat to dry the body *within hours* from the inside-out — instead of the *weeks* of slow-drying required for traditional green clay refractory ware. This prevents a) cracking during drying and b) spalling during firing, all while greatly expediting production times for the refractory bodies. 7) Due to the fact that the reaction causes a ~32% volumetric expansion of elemental Al-to—>Al2O3, it is possible to produce useful firebrick in a single firing without having to first calcine part of the kaolin/fireclay. (Un-calcined kaolins and fireclays can contract as much as 17-23% upon firing, and thus the Al—>Al2O3 expansion can be made to directly counteract that same rate of contraction with its own rate of expansion, keeping the body dimensionally stable.) 8) due to the densification effect of the reaction —particularly when combined with the presence of 1-3% (perhaps up to max 5%) MgO in the refractory body's composition— it may theoretically be possible to create ultra-dense stove tiles / blocks which are more heat-absorbing and heat-transferring than commonly available [and relatively porous] firebrick — even that of the "dense" firebrick variety. (This last theoretical possibility is one of the key things I'm aiming to pin down through the current experimentation.)
I'll be sure to start a thread on powdered metallic aluminum refractory experimentation when I have enough powdered / granulated aluminum to do some significantly-sized batches. It takes a while to DIY powder it safely, and trying to purchase it in bulk will land you on terrorist watch lists... since it's used in military explosives, rocketfuel, and large-scale, licensing-required pyrotechnics... (but powdered aluminum is also used in cosmetics, paints, and a whole variety of other, not-explosive industries.) 😬😂 Regardless, I've found some really good research papers on aluminothermic refractory production, and a number of now-expired patents detailing the process, which I'll be sure to share (along with the requisite material-handling safety caveats, etc.)
Cheers
Last Edit: May 1, 2022 5:21:43 GMT -8 by Forsythe: edited for clarification and linked to the follow-up discussion later in the thread
The accuracy of info we share here is more important than my ego, your ego, or Peter's ego. None of us has exclusive ownership over the truth.
I am going to order fumed silicate to dip my light bricks into it. I will do the same with superwhool pieces where temperature may go above 700°C (top of the bell and firebox).
I wonder if it would also benefit to the dense refractory bricks inside the firebox.
Man... I didn't think embedding those vids would make them all autoplay... I gotta try to fix that, I guess.
It does not auto play at least in my WNN 7 based com,p in my chrome browser.
Yeah, I went back and re-embedded them using the "insert video" button within proboard's dashboard, and that worked. Before editing the post, they were all auto-playing as gifv files when I had embedded them using the BB code from imgur, which works for pictures... just not for videos, apparently.
I could have just dropped in the youtube link to that guy's full video on youtube, but I've found that there are quite a number of old youtube videos posted here to the forum which have since been taken down or moved, and the links have gone dead, which I find extra frustrating. So, I wanted to be sure I could embed something that people could still watch in the future.
The accuracy of info we share here is more important than my ego, your ego, or Peter's ego. None of us has exclusive ownership over the truth.
I wonder if it would also benefit to the dense refractory bricks inside the firebox.
I did some digging on this question, but I can't seem to find any definitive info as to what effect (if any) fumed silica surface treatment would have on dense firebrick.
I suspect that it wouldn't offer any benefit in that use-case... and in the worst-case scenario, it may actually lower the relative alumina content at the brick's surface, allowing it to become more reactive to woodash in the firebox.
As far as surface-treatment coatings of dense firebrick within the firebox are concerned, I believe the only coatings that would be useful are the kind containing high amounts of alumina and are thus "slag-resistant". (That class of coatings would include things like HTC-100, ITC-100, bubble alumina, and that metallic-aluminum-powder + fireclay treatment mentioned in those above research papers by H.G. Schurecht et al.)
The accuracy of info we share here is more important than my ego, your ego, or Peter's ego. None of us has exclusive ownership over the truth.
fierolepou: Hi everybody! Starting a project from scratch, this is a goldmine!
Dec 10, 2022 5:20:09 GMT -8
Solomon: Best way to not die in a house fire is to build a stove where the really hot stuff isn't near the flammable stuff.
Jan 10, 2023 11:34:39 GMT -8
beppe: Hi to everybpdy. I'm new about the rocket stoves and this forum
Aug 30, 2023 22:17:32 GMT -8
beppe: I have a living room+ kitchen of 75 square meters that was heated by an ordinary pellet stove with a power of 8KW.
Aug 30, 2023 22:19:29 GMT -8
beppe: I want to switch to a DIY pellet rocket stove but I haven't found yet a project that is really suitable for my situation. Is there anybody able to indicate to me a good detailed project?
Sept 4, 2023 9:05:15 GMT -8
sksshel: Yes, very happy with my DSR2. I had not heard about the DSR3. I probably won't be using it but I will look into it.
Oct 16, 2023 9:15:37 GMT -8
rockinon: I have some questions about a Rocket Mass Heater, as I am in progress of getting a place built in Arkansas in the mountains of NW Arkansas and it will be very helpful. How can I add pictures to illustrate what I am requesting
Jan 23, 2024 11:01:07 GMT -8
dd24: Bonjour, Quelqu'un expérimente t-il sur les poêles "bubafonya" ou "stopuva"? merci pour votre réponse!
Mar 2, 2024 10:32:32 GMT -8
marcios: Hi Trev, What dimensions did you keep for the top chamber?
May 9, 2024 13:41:47 GMT -8
*
Donkey: rockinon, place them on some other web hosting service and link them here.
Jun 27, 2024 16:25:24 GMT -8
atrii: How can I see these photos Donkey?
Jul 16, 2024 16:17:59 GMT -8
Donkey: atrii When the images are properly linked, they will be visible.
Jul 21, 2024 19:02:47 GMT -8
dvawolk: For images i use "Greenshot" app - i can print screen part or whole of my screen and upload them directly to imgur throught the context menu. Works very well and fast for me...
Aug 21, 2024 2:21:17 GMT -8
martinm: Hi there , looking for info on hot water heat exchanger for integrating in the bell of masonry rocket stove.
Sept 10, 2024 3:43:38 GMT -8
lightworker: Hi beppe:
Oct 19, 2024 16:45:02 GMT -8
