|
|
Post by nimrod on Sept 12, 2024 20:59:35 GMT -8
Hello, I'm trying to understand what are the differences in the geometrics of the stoves? Is the DSR2 as good as the batchbox? And what about the Vortex stove which looks like a copy of the DSR with the port slot in the other direction? But in the end, the DSR3 looks a lot like the Vortex stove? I want to know if these models are all equally efficient in terms of pollution and wood savings. Then I'll be able to choose which model to build.
Thanks to all. Nim |
|
|
|
Post by martyn on Sept 12, 2024 22:39:46 GMT -8
Hopefully Peter will answer your question but from my perspective and limited knowledge …. The original batchbox is an awesome and powerful stove but it works using a tall riser. The tall riser, like the J tube, makes the stove quite easy and forgiving to operate but also a large tall stove.
The more compact designs require a good insulated chimney and some can be quite fickle to use.
It seems the new ‘Shorty’ design is the most simple to build and operate of Peters designs.
The vortex is by far the most attractive stove to watch burning and if built to Trevs specs also seems to work very well but there is very little leeway in the construction and design.
|
|
|
|
Post by nimrod on Sept 13, 2024 0:01:18 GMT -8
Thank you for this initial response, which helps me to better understand the differences between these models. I don't know the shorty, I'll look for the plans. And about the vortex, there are a lot of versions, but in the end which is the best and cleanest?
Thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by peterberg on Sept 14, 2024 0:44:15 GMT -8
Hello, I'm trying to understand what are the differences in the geometrics of the stoves? All the designs you mention, and including the recent Shorty batchrocket, are relying on the turbulemce induced by the venturi or port. There are differences in how this is implemented though. Is the DSR2 as good as the batchbox? Roughly, yes. The original batchrocket is easier to get start up but the DSR2 is easier to build. Both has the possibility to reach overfuel situations, where the production of burnable gases is getting greater than what the afterburner can handle. But this instable situation is avoidable quite well if handled correctly. And what about the Vortex stove which looks like a copy of the DSR with the port slot in the other direction? But in the end, the DSR3 looks a lot like the Vortex stove? The DSR1 predated the Vortex by about a year, but I ditched mine because of frequent overfuelling, I wasn't able to get the thing in a stable state. Both core designs have the port in the same direction, by the way. With the DSR2 done, the Vortex seemed to have a lot of promise so I tried to mimic Trevor's design. It failed me miserably, this core should be incorporated in the same cooking range and using the same fuel as Trevor's. In other words, the exhaust gases should have the same friction in its path through the heater. The above conclusion is all my own opinion. Later on, I found a way to build a kind of maximum burn rate into the DSR3 core design, development was stretched out to a full year. This way, overfuel situations were becoming very, very seldom. Knowing the way to do this, last winter I took up development of an old idea, becoming the Shorty later. This last one is simpler to build, very compact and even more resistant to overfuelling as compared to the DSR3. The compacter cores have a slight tendency to be troublesome cold starters though, which could be alleviated by a bypass valve if desired. All models are scalable, being reliant on laws of physics for their workings. What core design to choose is up to you, all have their own unique merits. |
|
|
|
Post by nimrod on Sept 14, 2024 8:30:10 GMT -8
Hello Peter, Thank you very much for these good explanations and all your work in general. I have already experimented with the Batchrocket which has been heating my house for 8 years now. I tried the DSR2 in my workshop as a heater with two barrels. Today I tried the shorty and I must say that I find it really very efficient. I was wondering if it was possible, or if anyone has tried, to put a Shorty door on a Batchrocket (perhaps by changing the 25% to 30%) in order to dispense with the floor channel. It may be a silly idea, but it would make it possible to do without this fast-wearing part! Thanks
Temperatures are not real. But we can see the heat coming out of the chimney. At that moment there was no smoke. |
|
|
|
Post by peterberg on Sept 14, 2024 9:41:51 GMT -8
I was wondering if it was possible, or if anyone has tried, to put a Shorty door on a Batchrocket (perhaps by changing the 25% to 30%) in order to dispense with the floor channel. It may be a silly idea, but it would make it possible to do without this fast-wearing part! As it happens, the DSR3's air inlet arrangement is the same as the Shorty's. As far as I know, nobody tried to use that configuration on a a standard batchrocket yet, so the honors are all you! In order to have it running optimally, there are some rules for using a batchrocket or Shorty core like that. To achieve the best combustion the fuel shouldn't be loaded higher than the port and there should be at least 5 cm or 2 inches open space at the front and the back inside the firebox. This way, air is able to reach the port unhindered. So your fuel should be about 10 cm or 4 inches shorter than the firebox's depth. A number of Shorty's are built with a deeper firebox, 25% more or 5B, where B is 72.34% of the chimney's diameter called the base number. The more experience there is with running the Shorty, the more I like it. It's also built as a sidewinder already, with commendable results I have to say. The one I saw was able to run entirely without smoke, even while refuelling on a very hot coal bed. None of my other core designs was able to do just that. |
|
|
|
Post by nimrod on Sept 14, 2024 12:07:59 GMT -8
Thanks for the good advice, I'm going to extend the depth of the box so that I can use 50cm pieces of wood on my next project. I like working with the barrels for the direct heat on ignition and also to make hot water with a copper coil wrapped around it is simple, efficient and durable. I wonder how I could do the same with a shorty! Great, I've got new things to try. I put a piece of ceramic glass on the chimney and the vortex flames are great.
I have another question: is the power of the shorty the same as the batchrocket? If I make a rocket in 200 I expect 2.2kw of power in one blaze. Is it the same for the shorty? It's to correctly dimenssion the power of the stoves.
Can the final smoke outlet slot be placed on one of the other three sides of the heat riser?
Thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by peterberg on Sept 14, 2024 23:55:44 GMT -8
Thanks for the good advice, I'm going to extend the depth of the box so that I can use 50cm pieces of wood on my next project. I like working with the barrels for the direct heat on ignition and also to make hot water with a copper coil wrapped around it is simple, efficient and durable. I wonder how I could do the same with a shorty! Can be done, the 130mm core development model was (still is) housed in two barrels. Since Shorty is so erhmm... short and exhausting horizontally, highest heat will occur just above the firebox. I think that would be the best place for a tightly wrapped coil. I have another question: is the power of the shorty the same as the batchrocket? If I make a rocket in 200 I expect 2.2kw of power in one blaze. Is it the same for the shorty? It's to correctly dimenssion the power of the stoves. Hard to say at this point in time, but it's possible that due to its maximum burn rate it might be a bit lower or not at all. Can the final smoke outlet slot be placed on one of the other three sides of the heat riser? I've tried that in June, the thing stubbornly kept smoking. Conclusion at this time: the exhaust opening should be at the same side as the port underneath. In case you want the exhaust pointing to left or right, build it as a sidewinder, this is tried in July and worked as hoped for, no problem at all. |
|
