|
Post by independentenergy on Dec 7, 2023 12:36:31 GMT -8
your system is very nice for my construction however I think I only need the data for the dsr3 port then I can start the construction with Peter's blessing obviously:-D
|
|
|
Post by independentenergy on Dec 7, 2023 9:23:44 GMT -8
Thanks Martyn for your intervention, I cook with the pan on the plate not directly, I think 350/400 are fine. The space between the riser and the cooking plate (size 150) is 30 cm higher with smaller systems . Could the 130 shorty project be able to reach this temperature? I have had a batch box for 8 years and it is a 150 core with a 120 cm thick wall, the surface temperature when fully operational reaches 100 degrees with a 115 chimney. But I have no experience with small batches with a cooking plate. I can't afford it to build on a permanent basis and then not be able to cook. However, I trust Peter if he says that I can reach these temperatures with a 130
|
|
|
Post by independentenergy on Dec 6, 2023 20:56:28 GMT -8
Hello Peter. the depth is not a problem, part of the core will come out of the bell so that the riser remains in the center of the cooking plate, I will cover the external part to make it aesthetically acceptable so 77 cm is not a problem. my idea of using a 150 core is given by the fact that the first bell has a refractory wall 6 cm thick (brick) then there is a space of about 2.5 cm now empty, then there is the second skin of 4 cm red bricks the cavity can be filled with material that is insulating or conductive based on the surface temperature, so the mass is quite consistent, the second bell instead has the refractory brick (6cm) a cardboard edge and then the usual brick from 4cm. the idea was to cope with the mass with a powerful core. in any case I could opt for a 140 core to have a power reserve. but I need the cooking plate to be very hot so I would lean towards the 150 system, which would be the main cooking system there. What I find complex however is the construction of the door with the air intakes inside the frame, is there a drawing of this door to understand how it is made and how to size the air intakes? Furthermore, the frame that remains inside the core is quite thick. Should the hearth depth calculation take this into account? The dimensions are the same as the batch box except for the first port which is 2.1B high and 0.4B wide and the riser is 5B which for a 150 system is high : 5x108= 540,I'm working on a sketch with schetchup. I'm not clear on the size of the final door.
|
|
|
Post by independentenergy on Dec 6, 2023 4:48:31 GMT -8
the total ISA of the system is approximately 3,24 square meters without by pass
|
|
|
Post by independentenergy on Dec 5, 2023 13:32:54 GMT -8
Thank you peter
|
|
|
Post by independentenergy on Dec 5, 2023 13:02:07 GMT -8
hi peter. in reality my conditions are different, I have a 150 cm insulated stainless steel chimney 10 meters high, I have 60x220x110 refractory bricks and 4 cm tiles for the base and roof, I can cut the refractories to size to comply with the proportions, I think I should use a 150 core size since my chimney is 150. with 50 high riser I have 30 cm of space from the cooking plate. I can also build a round riser with superwool lining inside and fixed with waterglas . Spark screen so an open core is possible? if I used a door would I have to build a frame like the dsr3 with square sections and cuts for air? I actually also have a P Channel ready if it were possible to use it sorry for my English
|
|
|
Post by independentenergy on Dec 5, 2023 6:21:04 GMT -8
Hi Peter, I was looking for a core with these characteristics, when you have a good enough version I could build it. I have a construction with a cooking plate and a small bell, connected to a 10 meter chimney in 150mm insulated stainless steel. I opened a post ( donkey32.proboards.com/thread/4055/replace-tube-batch-box ) for some advice on which core to install since I demolished the jtube that powered the system, this design is compact enough and not too much else for a cooking plate. but I can only build with hard refractory bricks, no insulation except on the outside.
|
|
|
Post by independentenergy on Dec 4, 2023 16:57:58 GMT -8
I am about to replace a j tube system in a masonry kitchen, I am forced due to the size of the first bell and cooking plate to use a batch-box with a short riser (40/50cm). My skills and my means are limited to a core in hard refractory bricks not insulated like the first developments of this system, but I can insulate the outside of the core and the riser with superwool. I would like to know if anyone has had experience with this installation? Precisely the short riser is octagonal better? Is it better p Channel or floor Channel? and finally, is an open system without secondary air possible? this system is used on the kaminmassa site but I don't understand the configuration it uses for secondary/primary air
|
|
|
Post by independentenergy on Jun 10, 2020 15:15:10 GMT -8
In these days I have experimented with a jtube similar to the one developed by Peter in the post small scale development I made a p Channel and a turbulator on the roof of the tunnel after the turbulator there is a section of the ceiling in the shape of a roof, during the second charge about halfway through the combustion, the flame took on this aspect, the temperature rose dramatically and the smell of the drain was nil it didn't taste like laundry, as usual, it didn't just smell. I don't have an instrument to measure this but the result seems to me a remarkable sin that did not last long, maybe a few minutes. youtu.be/rSM645UdqSI
|
|
|
Post by independentenergy on Dec 21, 2019 6:23:41 GMT -8
my questions are founded on doubts, thanks for having dispelled it
|
|
|
Post by independentenergy on Dec 19, 2019 22:49:04 GMT -8
This discourse makes me think that an open system is more sensitive to what comes after the core. Could it be said that an open system is more suitable to have a large bell after it, rather than, for example, a cooking plate?
|
|
|
Post by independentenergy on Dec 19, 2019 8:19:54 GMT -8
but if we analyze only the core it is suitable to be built as an open system?
|
|
|
Post by independentenergy on Dec 19, 2019 5:47:03 GMT -8
Is this design suitable for use as an open system? without the conduit for the second combustion air
|
|
|
Post by independentenergy on Nov 15, 2019 15:21:03 GMT -8
in my case there were three cracks and only on the upper part and not the brick but the refractory mortar was cracked two were repaired with plaster and mesh
|
|
|
Post by independentenergy on Nov 14, 2019 16:48:19 GMT -8
in fact I am skeptical precisely because I have always thought that we should use tubes of the same diameter as the system
|
|