Scott Weinberg

Olga Booker wrote:Thank you Thomas and Jay for your replies.

Thomas,
1) We heat ourselves with a wood burning stove.  We have a Norwegian Jotul FS 175.
https://intl.jotul.com/products/wood/wood-fireplaces/jotul-fs-175
Very efficient but consumes a fair amount of wood.

I just want to point out the conflicting wording to those that assume  they go hand in hand.

ALL wood has a certain BTU value per weight of wood. surprisingly this value based on weight of the dry wood, is relatively close range,  i.e.  btu's per given weight for softwoods is not that much different for the same given weight for some of the hardwoods.

Thus if you burn a "fair amount of wood" and both stoves your comparing are effcient, then the BTU's produced will be close to the same.

HOW the heat is stored, dispersed, and utilized, is the difference of two different but very efficient stoves. One will not PRODUCE more heat per given weight of wood than the other. This area has been confused for years.

  But when comparing a inefficient stove that has a smoldering mode, to a RMH, that burns clean and always does so, and then effciently collects and distrubutes the heat is when things get far apart for your efforts in collecting the wood to burn.

Hope this helps!

Fox James, that is excellent on your video's.  

To others- if your around any kind of metal recycling, trash recycling, dumpster collection facilities-- The amount of griddles-racks and other componets are simply rediculous.  Perhaps I am just lucky, but if I wanted 10 various grill racks per week, it would be as simple as picking them up. (remember you can be selective with the throw away society always providing something.   CAST racks and or griddles are much tuffer/sturdier that welded racks.

With a bit of Ingenuity, raising and lowering these racks above the heat can be a very effective heat control,  remember this is a short time burn from 20 minutes to 1 hour.  just like any grill. (only we are getting our heat from yard or wood scraps)   NO treated wood, please.

Daniel Andy wrote:I'm also in the category of people who have thought about building an RMH and been turned off.  I'll cite two reasons, but insurance and materials are not them.

1) Design - I haven't seen a clear way to copy a safe design without first understanding why it needs to be done each way, and that leads to a rabbit hole of stove design expertise that I don't have the time to study.  Specifically, I want to be able to put in something like the square footage to be heated, the outer temperature, and the R value of the walls...and have something spit out a set of size constraints for the various chambers that will work.  I worry that by copying what others have built i'll end up with something either massively too big or (worse) too small for heating my space.  Then there's all the variations in the design. Such as do I go with a self-feeding design or not? I don't know and i lack the time to study enough to find out.

2) Time - Related to #1, but even if I had a turnkey design, I doubt I would have the time to spend building one, and I would be willing to pay to have it pre-built as much as possible.  Building an RMH while in the process of also building a roof and walls leads to a conflict in priorities. The roof and walls and foundation are going to win just about every time you have a moment to build something, so the RMH won't get built but a store-bought stove might go in during an hour or three, letting you go back to keeping dry.

Reduced time spent chopping wood is great, but I'm still at the point of designing the roof of my house, and I feel like I'll have to put off becoming efficient until after I can handle the basics.

Daniel, As post evolve, the themes take several directions.  with your two points, I will asnswer #1 first.

For the most part, the RMH designs protray what works. thus this method is laid out rather nicely on many fronts. and only when the design strays from "what works"  does the thread turns to what doesn't work. It would seem to put into all baskets the items that WORK, not spending much time on exactly why they work. certainly not  concentrating on all the things that don't work.

The basic RMH forums have proven, that if someone's plans are laid out for all to see, problems can be talked about, solutions made or suggested. And all goes well.  As for sizing requirements, only if you get far to small, do any promlems show.  The beauty of Mass, is the ability to burn a few times more vs less to control the amount of heat required.

#2-  Time, again, if looking for a reason not to, many reasons can be found,  as well as if your looking for reasons to do it. Also many reasons can be often found that a few extra hours can be hugely rewarded.    i.e.  $15,000 stone mason expense for labor and material vs $1000  for equal results done by home owner.  Everyone has their priorities. The beauty lies in the fact WE the HOMEOWNER can choose.

The "how to's" can be found.
The cost can be calculated.
The physical abilities have to be decided by the builder.   Not for everyone, but certainly do-able for many.

Best of success.

Tom, I think your saying ----  Size matters!

Well done.

Sophie Hatter wrote:Researching about RMH is how I found this site!  I bought raw land, have cleared a small bit of it, and am working on house design now. Due to the terrain, I've been advised to build with a walk-out basement. My challenges re RMH include: if i put it on the main floor (the living area), what do I need to do to make sure the floor can support the weight? If I put it in the basement, how do i use the heat to heat the main floor? Is there a way to use that heat to make the main level floor like a radiant heat floor? Could i put one on both levels and have the basement chimney meet the main floor chimney to go outside?

I was planning to do the RMH that's the bench style, but after reading this thread and some other posts on here, I'm not committed to that style (the warm seating would be very nice, though).

A new-in-the-box traditional wood stove came into my life before I knew about RMH. Is there a way to utilize that as a component of a RMH?

I'm in no hurry to build this, but I need to decide what I'm going to do asap so I can incorporate it into the house plans (chimney placement re roof, support under main floor, etc). I'd like heat by winter 2026 but I've managed this past winter with wearing/sleeping under layers and heating my immediate space with candles/terracotta pots, so I'm sure I'll survive if i don't get it built before it gets cold. I want to KNOW what I'm doing before i get started on it, so i still have a lot of reading and video watching to do! And suggestions/guidance are VERY welcome!!!

At first it sounds like you have a clean slate design in front of you, meaning nothing is built?  So like any house, the square feet of your living space would be most helpful,  and of
course how well you plan to insulate.   But at the end you tell of staying warm enough with candles/terracotta pots.  Where is this?

Tying two stoves to one chimney is never a good idea, RMH's are generally sized to the size of your chimney. but again, if starting from scratch is your plans vs redoing something, the range is huge for what you can do.   if you have read much at all about RMH's the thought of selling your "new in the box traditional stove" but that also is just a guess, as these "stoves" could range from tiny to big, we have no idea.  It sounds like you may be shooting for total house heat? not relying on any backup, but it is not clear.   I am guessing when the group has more information, you'll get back better suggestions in kind.

Best of success.
Scott

Good line, Tom

Benjamin Dinkel wrote:Yeah, it was a couple of hours of unpaid labor in the end. Cleaning up and rebuilidng I obviously didn't charge.
But it was cool to be able to reuse the material, just soak and repeat. . Do any of you have had bad experience with half circle brick arches?

By having such a small compressive face ( the bricks laid flat in your arch ) you are pushing the limits of your thrust line.  The thrust line, is simply from the center of the top of your arch to each outside edge of the arch.  The thinner of the face, the harder it is for this line to stay within the top and bottom of the brick faces or perhaps better said, inside and outside of the arch. Viewing from the end, this line should always be within the inner and outer faces of your brick.

I suppose with the cob hard this would greatly help, but until hard, there would not be much compressive strength at all.

But as you say, only some time has been lost.

Ironically I had a very simple arch collapse today, but was do to my  not holding the above mentioned thrust line stable at the base--  Totally my fault.

I certainly stand corrected, on your intentions, so sorry for that.

With my circumstances being somewhat different than most with tremendous drawing chimney, I will let others chime in on the size comparison of a" J tube to a batch box of smaller size, Although this has been talked about in the past, I am not adept in doing a search for such items, perhaps one of the staff rocket scientist  has all of this already sorted out.

Sometime ago, there was a subject title of  "What is holding you back from building a rocket mass stove" (I am paraphrasing this a bit) And there was a lot of different answers, with one of them being, simply  -People thinking  but not finding   a guide that super defined  exact build BOM for each size.  The problem of course is all the variables.   I would suggest that the numbers are all there for a single bell-batch box, of each size.  But aside from that there are again many variables.

So with that in mind, I will try to attach an example of a 6" shorty, internal unit.  This one was set up for the use of super wool between tiers,  again, so many options but if the pdf comes through on sheet two will be a complete BOM  (Bill Of Materials)  I hesitate a bit on posting this sheet, as one little change can alter so many of the dimensions.  But.............it would get you close.

Take this with a grain of salt, it works very well for some, and not at all for others.   This was derived from a Sketch up file for the shorty 6" size. Interpretation can be different for others.  My way of saying this is NOT gospel  It is entirely a credit to Peter van den Berg of rocket mass fame!  If you have not read all of his excellent ideas on the workings of various stove, this  needs to be done.

Best of success!

Tycer Lewis wrote:

thomas rubino wrote:Hi Ty
Always a good idea to gather your materials ahead of time.
And buying now, rather than later, will save you some bucks for sure.

To help you with the materials, you need a definitive plan for what you will build.
A first-generation 6" Batchbox is quite different than an 8" J-Tube.
Are you thinking of a piped mass? Or perhaps a stratification bell?
What material do you want to work with?
Are you hoping to build as cheaply as possible? Or do you want a beautiful work of art?


Let us know what your plans are.

Thanks for the reply!
Piped cob mass. I know that they are different however I have not done more than watch a few of the videos on the batch box whereas I have read a bunch about the J-tube. If I were to build a J tube, it would be sizedan 8 inch for my application.


Thanks again for your help here! I really want to get that refractory order in the and the pipe ordered ASAP…

You really have to help those that are able to help you by defining better what you intend to build.

You have said " If I were to build a J Tube, it would be a 8" size for my application"  But you do not say if that is what you plan to build,   Could it be a comparable BATCH box?  

With all of the offerings (shown builds on this forum) have you picked one that exactly fits your bill? if so, that will greatly help all of us sort out your bill of materials.  

Now to refine this a bit more, have you picked a J-tube vs a shorty vs anything else ?  Keeping in mind that all of them need to be "shut down or closed" at the end of the burn period"  Will that be a problem as the time of burn can range from 45minutes to two hours, depending on the stove.

I feel the answers for you are out there, but we need you to zero in on the intended end result.  Even down to your available chimney height planned. if you want to get really detailed.

Best of success.

All of these are most interesting in the perceptions of danger and all the rest.

Probably not much on here, but if like myself, a small private plane is a great thing, but often proves the saying, "if you fly by air, have time to spare"  As far as the big planes go, 99% of frequent flyers would say, it is all in the mind set. Basically it will go the way you precieve it will go. Greatly or Poorly.

As far as bags, go, rules are rules, but for good reasons,  i.e. if there is only X height under a seat, then there is nothing one can do to change it. With the vast majority of travelers making it work, then perhaps a person who doesn't think it will work for them, shouldn't be trying to do what they already know won't work.  I am not trying to be mean.  Just a simple fact in life.

Lastly, while when things go badly on a aircraft, they are really bad, the odds/chances are so slim that it is not worth talking about.  Everytime your on a two lane road, just think how many times you meet someone going 55 mph or more, where only 1/2 of the deviation or seperation  is controlled by you == it is or could be a scary thought if you dwell on it.   When you step back and understand the newspaper/radio ways, What makes more sensational headlines, one airplane crash or 500 car crashes.  ( the spread could easily be bigger than that ) but the airplane news will win every time.

Stay safe everyone.
Scott