|
|
Post by pinhead on Oct 22, 2014 7:47:40 GMT -8
That's very helpful, pinhead. Primary air intake is at the bottom front of the batchbox, correct? In other words, an opening through the door or a hole in the batchbox floor right behind the door. I really appreciate your response, since I'm laying firebrick today. Correct. The second post of this thread should show a cross-section of the typical Peterberg stove with the major parts defined. (It's linked to a public Facebook profile so if it isn't showing up let me know.) |
|
|
|
Post by craigmiller on Oct 22, 2014 8:25:34 GMT -8
Awesome, thanks! So the P-channel has a little flap that hangs down below port height?
|
|
|
|
Post by pinhead on Oct 22, 2014 8:32:29 GMT -8
Awesome, thanks! So the P-channel has a little flap that hangs down below port height? Yes, this helps prevent wood from blocking the outlet of the port and creates a stronger vacuum, drawing more air through the port. The height of the port is measured sans the P-channel. Then the P-channel is added, with an overhang equal to the "thickness" of the P-channel (a 1"x2" P-channel would overhang the port 1"). |
|
|
|
Post by craigmiller on Oct 22, 2014 10:10:10 GMT -8
Thanks! Is there a trip wire in the batch box design, or is that just for the J tube?
|
|
|
|
Post by photoman290 on Oct 22, 2014 10:20:20 GMT -8
i believe peter did experiment with a trip wire and found it didn't make any difference. it is in the very long thread linked in this thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by peterberg on Oct 22, 2014 11:10:06 GMT -8
Yes I did, but it didn't make a difference. Longer burn tunnels and lower, wider ports had effect on the performance, in a negative way.
|
|
|
|
Post by pinhead on Oct 23, 2014 7:29:27 GMT -8
I replaced the original spreadsheet and screenshot with copies containing dimensions in both inches and millimeters, and containing the calculations for primary air sizing. Check Post #1 and #2. |
|
|
|
Post by photoman290 on Oct 23, 2014 12:21:56 GMT -8
I replaced the original spreadsheet and screenshot with copies containing dimensions in both inches and millimeters, and containing the calculations for primary air sizing. Check Post #1 and #2. thanks for adding the primary air dimensions to the spreadsheet. most helpful just checked and the imperial measurements are right but the metric ones don't seem to be correct. could you have a look please. |
|
|
|
Post by pinhead on Oct 23, 2014 12:49:46 GMT -8
I replaced the original spreadsheet and screenshot with copies containing dimensions in both inches and millimeters, and containing the calculations for primary air sizing. Check Post #1 and #2. thanks for adding the primary air dimensions to the spreadsheet. most helpful just checked and the imperial measurements are right but the metric ones don't seem to be correct. could you have a look please. All of the values are calculated within the spreadsheet, itself, and the equations are the same across all rows. Unless I'm missing something glaringly obvious (has happened before), the calculations should be correct. |
|
|
|
Post by photoman290 on Oct 23, 2014 15:02:24 GMT -8
as an example take the 3 inch riser. the imperial measurement is 1 6/16 or 34mm the cell with the metric size says 7 rather than 34? it is same with all the metric numbers on the primary air rows all the other numbers seem ok.
|
|
|
|
Post by pinhead on Oct 24, 2014 5:11:47 GMT -8
as an example take the 3 inch riser. the imperial measurement is 1 6/16 or 34mm the cell with the metric size says 7 rather than 34? it is same with all the metric numbers on the primary air rows all the other numbers seem ok. Ah, OK, you're talking the primary air calculations. You are right. I apologize. The calculation was actually completely wrong. The corrected spreadsheet is being uploaded right now. |
|
|
|
Post by photoman290 on Oct 24, 2014 5:39:27 GMT -8
thanks that now agrees with my calculator.
|
|
|
|
Post by craigmiller on Nov 1, 2014 10:02:20 GMT -8
I'm installing my P-channel on my firebrick constructed batch box. I was planning on having the P-channel come down in front of the port. I just noticed that in the drawing in this thread, the p-channel is inset into the port. Is there a huge difference in performance?
|
|
|
|
Post by peterberg on Nov 1, 2014 10:36:18 GMT -8
No, there isn't. The inset channel seem to suffer more from spalling, so I would say make it in front of the port. Much simpler to implement as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by craigmiller on Nov 1, 2014 16:55:49 GMT -8
Awesome, thanks!
|
|
