Thank you for the welcome and reply, Thomas! What makes you lean towards caps? I was leaning towards plugs as it might be easier to get a tight seal. What advantages do you believe that caps would have?
thomas rubino wrote:
We are not real keen on building metal rmh's here, but rocket stoves are more short term.
I wish I could use a more durable material, but the application for this RMH is unusual: occasional winter use in a travel trailer. The flexing, and size/weight/temperature safety requirements made traditional materials untenable, unfortunately.
I've done the best I can with this steel but do have relatively low expectations for life expectancy. The top plate is removable for inspection, so we will see how long the inner burn chamber lasts so far so good after two burns, no noticeable corrosion. The walls in the inner chamber (which is insulated) are 3/8". I am trying to keep temperatures relatively low (about 1000 F) and burn times short to extend the life of the stove a bit. We will have to wait and see!
thomas rubino wrote:
I will mention that if its making creosote, then its not reaching true rocket temperatures .
Sorry, I should have been more clear. When both the fuel magazine and the intake are open, some smoke rises up and out of the magazine, and creosote is depositing inside the fuel magazine exclusively. The smoke tends to stall in the magazine under these conditions and condense. The exhaust (which is 4", on the back of the stove, through the second wall) has been relatively clean once the stove has been operating for about 15 mins.
The stove runs awesome after testing and tweaking. I have tested it both in CAD simulation and reality and found it to be efficient and safe. It is definitely not meeting the ideals of a RMH for operating temperatures, but then probably shouldn't in this application.
