Mike Barkley wrote:I'm curious what the star looking things on the outside walls are. Are there metal bars inside the building attached to those to reinforce the building? Seems doubtful they're just decorative. I never knew there was a Ft. Knox v1.0. Learn something new every day.
That's st andrews crosses, a Cross on a wall, attached to a metal bar going just through the wall, or all the way across the building, and you have the same cross on the other side. To avoid the building to bulge.
Tho, there is a lot there.
Can't find anything in english, but here you have tons of pictures.
I just wanted to give you an option. Because i know that Diana Lee has had problems with cleanouts. And others too.
What happens, if the back tube gets clogged by fly ash, and your vacuum doesn't reach? Have you seen the size of your arm compared to the T and elbow on the pic? Well, anyway, you do whatever you want.
Hi, Thank you for the feedback. I am following plans by Ernie and Erica; the only cleanout I left out was the one directly after the manifold. Thomas suggested this. It was my thought that the manifold cleanout could access that area. The chimney pipe is telescoping, so the idea was that it could be slid up to clean out the area below. I was also thinking that by the time things got around to that area, that ash collection would be minimal. But complete RMH newbie here. I appreciate all the comments- thank you!
Open wood fires are about 20% efficient. A rocket, can be in the range of 90%
Heat recovery, and ambient air loss is also at play.
Heat recovery in an open hearth, might be in the order of 10% of the heat recovered. And if the fumes are cold, this is not due to only the fumes going up the chimney, but because of air dilution. The chimney sucks huge amounts of hot air, with your smoke. So you're cooling the home, to heat the home.
This is why stoves have been invented, and refined.
You put the propane burner in a pocket, opposite the heat riser, and i think you should be fine. May be doing a sort of door on that narrow side too, onto which the burner is attached, and be moved away when the stove is used with wood. And replaced by a plain metallic door. You know, a bit like the door on oil burning boilers.
Daniel Ray wrote:I saw a video of someone loading theirs up all the way and then lighting from the bottom.
Been there, done that.
The most idiotic way to do it, i think. The rocket, in order to work well, needs the heat of the flames at the port, their velocity too, dragging air in. So, if you light opposite of the port, and at the bottom, where all wood might catch fire there. against the door. And have no flame reaching the port, to light the afterburner.
I have done loading the full box too, and lighting on top, right in front of the port. Works a bit better.
But in both cases, if your system stalls by reaching dew point, you get a nasty smoke back, filling the whole house.
So lighting a small fire in front of the port. And ramping up your fire, is the best bet in my opinion.
Jeremy, it's been done. That's for sure. And, iirc, it's better to do the burn tunnel tall and narrow, than shallow and wide. I have always heard that the burn tunnel should be the narrowest point in the whole system, if there is a point that has to be narrower.
Tho, it's better to keep the system size constant.
Making the burn tunnel narrow or wide has effects.
First, embers and fuel exposed.
If tall and narrow, less embers and fuel are exposed to air keeping the burn hot, but might have lots of excess air going over the burn.
Low and wide, more fuel is exposed, and embers too, to incoming air, which might cool off the fire too much.
Low and wide also has the tendency to block from embers accumulation.
Lately, i'm onto a batch and J mixture, in this case, it's real tall and real narrow.
Andreas, if you cob your pipes, you don't need to seal them. Otherwise, chimney pipe aluminium tape.
And as for the top gap, You have to understand CSA or cross sectional area.
The csa is the number of square inches or centimeters the cross section of your pipe has.
And in a normal J tube, you shoot for 1.5 to 3 times that number, in ring projection.
To explain ring projection, the top of the pipe makes a ring, at which point, it's the narrowest point between top of the barrel and pipe, like if the pipe continued to the very top, touching it. In reality it is not. But you can calculate the circumference of the tube, by the top gap, and that will give you a surface, which should be at the very least 1.5 times the CSA of the pipe, and a good idea would be to have a goo 3X the csa. , if you don't care about cooking on top of the barrel. Maximum gap doesn't exist. Well, if does, when your internal surface area (isa) reaches the point gases cool down against the walls of the barrel, (or bell) and stall the drafting of the stove.
Well, that latest test was very good in my opinion. No smoke, no overfueling. Pulsating a bit. So, i know i need a bit more air, primary air, i would think.
But this core seems to raise no interest whatsoever. I thought top load was really interesting. As i don't like to bend over to load the firebox. I get less surface for cooking, but it heats up faster. Only problems i see, the riser being real close to what would be the front of the bell. And the riser that i haven't managed to shorten yet.
If some are interested, please give me your opinion, i need feedback.
I prefer it that way, flat behind the port, to increase the depression zone. I wonder what Peter has to say. It might not be that important. It's just old studies, about mechanics, and a smidge of fluid mechanics, which makes me think this way.
Peter, what i mean is, steel T's tucked into the bricks, with an expansion gap.
Heat induced metal creep is around 600C°, i doubt it will reach that.
Then a layer of superwool, flat on top of the bricks.
Then the sheet metal over that, to me it's just an easy way to "airtight" the top of the bell. Then pavers or whatever he likes above. Providing one edge of each of these is laying on the metal above a row of bricks.
The top is free, able to expand and contract, but the weight of the pavers keeps the joint tight.
This is for the "just in case" exceptional situation, where the top of the bench would reach more than 400C° which is normal concrete spalling temperature.
I didn't imply, by any means, to mortar the metal plate!
Any suggestions for a budget option if we don't sit on it. We could always replace it later if things are working well.
Well, carry on with your idea of covering it with normal concrete. But put a metal plate underneath. A piece of 2mm steel, the right length and width. You could even support the whole complex of metal and concrete with three crosswise T bars. Tho, remember, that theses should not be mortared in. and have expansion space lengthwise. Usually, you fit these in slots cut into the bricks, filled with a bit of superwool or rockwool.
I would go along the redbell of Peter. May be with a bigger core and bell. 2700sqft is big.
I heat ground floor workshop, and upstairs with mine. 113m², that's 1130sqft approximately. 650 or thereabouts on teh second floor. And 635m3. Bad insulation. i went through 17 steres last winter. But i live at 5000ft elevation, with sometimes -20 -30c°.
I gonna build a small stove upstairs, doubled up with cast iron cooking plate, and oven.
Make that, 3 or 4 pieces, so you can lift theses by yourself, of two persons. And if one cracks, you don't have to replace the whole thing. make the joints between different slabs with superwool or rockwool.
Well, i wouldn't play with concrete, nor rebar for the top.
I know it won't be that hot. But that's the part which will take the bulk of the heat the fastest. To me, it's refractory poured with stainless needles. Or refractory "pavers" I've checked ebay.au. Nothing!