Is this a rocket stove?

Hello,
Until recently I was convinced this was a rocket stove - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMcDekiRKs8&t
After reading a bit, I found out it might not actually be a rocket, but only a stove and that a proper rocket stove needs a feed/burn/chimney zone, with a specific size ratio between them.
I've searched the forum a bit, couldn't find a discussion precisely on this topic and before continuing with my project - see pic, I wanted to ask what should I adjust to this design, to get a rocket stove.
I want to use it for cooking, with minimum smoke (I don't want to smoke my neighbours and my backyard) and decent fuel efficiency. Also, not sure I will be able to insulate it, as I want this to be portable so I can't really use fire bricks or coat the inside/outside with perlite.
Thank you!

Well it is easy to get confused with the terminology  as there are several  designs that are termed as rocket stoves.
In fact by far the most popular designs are similar to your picture … ie … made from steel box section but that sort of  design is not what most folk on this forum would consider a rocket stove or a rocket heater.

This forum specialises more on home heating and or cooking with designs that operate at much hotter temperatures and are often designed and  used to heat large spaces.
So the definition  of a rocket stove is quite confusing depending  on what platform you are using and who you speak to.
Sometimes the term can be clarified but adding ‘Mass’ to the description .. ie rocket mass heater.

That's a Rocket Camping Stove.  Not a RMH to heat your dwelling with.

Thank you for the replies.

On youtube, a lot of these designs seem to generate enough smoke, including through the feed tube. Are these indeed efficient, or not so much?
It would be easy for me to just add a burn chamber, it's not welded yet. Which way should I go if I want minimum smoke?

Thank you!

Minimum smoke is gotten by having the fuel completely combusted, which is a factor of Time, Temperature, and Turbulence.
The wood gases need to stay in the hot zone long enough with enough turbulent mixing to finish burning; only after that do you want to extract heat from the system.

All-metal stoves like the typical Youtube examples will be radiating heat all over so will never get hot enough for long enough for complete combustion, and the "V" configuration tends to have combustion starting at the bottom and streaming straight up, which may not give enough turbulence for good mixing. You can insulate the steel for more heat, but as you get hot enough for full combustion, you will start to degrade the steel fairly quickly. The angled feed is susceptible to hangups if there is any irregularity in the wood, especially if pieces are longer than the feed and stick out of the top. A vertical feed is more reliable here. A vertical feed with a short (say 6") horizontal burn tunnel will give two right-angle bends for turbulence and a slightly longer flame path for more combustion time.

The best setup, of course, will have no metal at all in the flame path, but refractory material like firebrick or ceramic fiber insulating board, to keep the fire intensely hot without degrading the container. This can be held inside a metal outer shell for stability if portability is desired.

My neighbor built one of these in a metal 5 gallon bucket with a lid....like a similar design to a bucket roofing tar would come in.   Cut a slot in the side for the wood feed and a hole in the top for the exit hole and filled the hole thing with perlite.  He used it to cook with a cast iron skillet and just some twigs.  Worked pretty darn good.  He would keep it outside though so eventually it rusted out the bucket.....but something like that was easily portable.  He would take it to the creek and cook on it.