Building code compliant prefabricated rocket stove, safety tested

Yeah we have cooling fins welded to the primary combustion chamber so thats already taken care of. As far as modifying the hat riser itself that would be impossible because the top plate is permanently welded on. You clean the heater out (infrequently) from the exhaust port. However we will have products that the customer can buy later down the road to insert into their Rocket Heater.

I dont want to give out ALL my concepts and idea's, lest someone gets any wise idea's and starts up competition. But I do have a lot more in mind than what I can or will divulge at this time.

F Styles wrote:there are other higher temp metals other than steel and may be affordable to use.

have you thought about a bolt on cooling fins? or thin ceramic square inserts that slide down inside the heat riser so an insulation sleeve can be slid down over the outside of the riser? that way it would avoid retesting by using bolt ons and upgrade purchases provided to the customer.

I don't know enough about the various grades of steel to comment in that arena.
.....
 I saw a post earlier,  that mentioned that you are looking to coat something with platinum. This might do more than prolong the life of that part. It may work like a catalytic converter, lowering the temperature at which some volatile gasses burn. I would expect this to aid in bringing the unit to operating temperature and to make the early part of the burn,  cleaner and more efficient.

Dale Hodgins wrote:I don't know enough about the various grades of steel to comment in that arena.
.....
 I saw a post earlier,  that mentioned that you are looking to coat something with platinum. This might do more than prolong the life of that part. It may work like a catalytic converter, lowering the temperature at which some volatile gasses burn. I would expect this to aid in bringing the unit to operating temperature and to make the early part of the burn,  cleaner and more efficient.

Sshhhhh, you're catching on to some of my plans. lol.

A prolonged, clean burn can remove contaminants from failed automotive converters. Something really common worldwide, like the converter from a Toyota Corolla, might provide a suitable burn tray, or several of them, depending on size. The inner cores look like something that could be trimmed to size.

Randy's little pellet stove is due for a redesign. I have suggested a ceramic, catalytic burn tray, with the resultant gases rising immediately to a small barrel that is water cooled with a pot on top. The idea is to prevent contact with metal, until the gas reaches the top of the barrel, where the cooling water is an eighth of an inch away. I assume that RMH barrels last a long time, because of the cold air on the thin metal. The exhaust gases from my masonry stove cool immediately, when I fill two 4 gallon pots with water. Two aluminium plates are mounted near the chimney, so that the masonry can absorb what it will and the water cools the exhaust at the exit.

I would not know the first thing on how to begin to get a unit like that UL tested

I dont know if Randy is looking to get that stove NRT: listed but I will say that it has not a chance in hell in passing the tip test. And failing any one of the criteria is an automatic failure to pass. Which is 15k down the hole and all for not. The standards are over 300 pages long.

F Styles wrote:I would not know the first thing on how to begin to get a unit like that UL tested

Sky i mentioned that only because i was amusing he is interested UL testing since thats the topic of this thread is it not?

I guess if hes not then i would say he may be off topic.

UL-1482 tested Rocket Heater that burns pellets and wood.

The building has to tip over for Randy's stove to flip. The exhaust is made of welded, heavy truck tail pipe, with a strong wall flange. Very well attached. He's not looking for certification.

Both of us are looking for burn improvement through use of a catalyst on or near the burn floor. Do you anticipate using a precious metal catalyst on anything other than the grate?

Our usage of catalysts at this time is proprietary as is our means of keeping the steel from corroding. We do coat our steel in a very obscure product that increases heat resistance to that of refractory's and we at this time will not discuss catalysts in our stove again due to its proprietary nature. Know that we are making leaps and bounds even beyond what we have divulged here.

Dale Hodgins wrote:The building has to tip over for Randy's stove to flip. The exhaust is made of welded, heavy truck tail pipe, with a strong wall flange. Very well attached. He's not looking for certification.

Both of us are looking for burn improvement through use of a catalyst on or near the burn floor. Do you anticipate using a precious metal catalyst on anything other than the grate?

Sky.

Great work. I am new to the RH and am planning on experimenting with designs and materials over the summer.
This is the first time I've seen a UL rating on one which gives me hope that the technology can be used and still covered by insurance.

Is it feasible to make the unit smaller so it fits inside a regular fireplace?
(my fireplace is approx 34"W x 24"H x 18"D)

The most interesting design aspect to overcome IMO would be the ratio of the vertical burn tube to the riser and still fit in a fireplace.
Any recommendations? 1:2 is the number I understand to be the minimum and 1:3 is recommended.

Let me know your thoughts and if you plan to go this route. I would definitely be more inclined to purchase one to retrofit my fireplace if this were the case.

Thanks for any responses and good luck to you.
Paul

The J-tube rocket stove/heater depends on the relative height of the heat riser for both draft generating and confined burning to achieve full combustion. There is a limit to how short this can be and still work by itself. There is also a size limit for how small a mass heater can be and still generate and store enough heat to be useful. These are ranges, not fixed numbers, of course. Your proper system design will depend largely on the function you want it to achieve, so before advising on fitting a system we would need to know something about what you want. It would be good for you to start a new thread to discuss it rather than divert this one.

As Sky has detailed, it would be prohibitively costly for them to develop another version of their listed unit until they have their first one supporting itself. Something fitting your fireplace would have to be based on different design principles, not just scaled down.

Unfortunately it would cost you just as much for a smaller heater than this larger one, plus we would have to spend another dozen thousand dollars or so on NRTL listing, not to mention that all fireplaces are different so it would be very impractical to make a heater to fit inside a fireplace. I would highly recommend you just extend the heart pad out a little and place the heater right in front of the fireplace. It doesn't tale up nearly as much space this way as you would think.

Paul Warkentin wrote:Sky.

Great work. I am new to the RH and am planning on experimenting with designs and materials over the summer.
This is the first time I've seen a UL rating on one which gives me hope that the technology can be used and still covered by insurance.

Is it feasible to make the unit smaller so it fits inside a regular fireplace?
(my fireplace is approx 34"W x 24"H x 18"D)

The most interesting design aspect to overcome IMO would be the ratio of the vertical burn tube to the riser and still fit in a fireplace.
Any recommendations? 1:2 is the number I understand to be the minimum and 1:3 is recommended.

Let me know your thoughts and if you plan to go this route. I would definitely be more inclined to purchase one to retrofit my fireplace if this were the case.

Thanks for any responses and good luck to you.
Paul

Another picture just for the sake of it.

I dont want to come off the wrong way here but if anyone knows anyone else that is in need of a NRTL listed building code approved Rocket Heater please share this with them! We truly want to take Rocket Heaters to the next level but without sales we will have to fold the business startup pretty soon. So please if you like our heater but its not for you support us and our continuing development by sharing this info with your friends just to get the word around that we exist a little bit and someone out there has indeed made a building code compliant and safety tested Rocket Heater!

F Styles wrote:there are other higher temp metals other than steel and may be affordable to use.

have you thought about a bolt on cooling fins? or thin ceramic square inserts that slide down inside the heat riser so an insulation sleeve can be slid down over the outside of the riser? that way it would avoid retesting by using bolt ons and upgrade purchases provided to the customer.

We will have a model way off in the future that comes with something similar to this. The only difference is that instead of brittle ceramic (which will crack/break in shipping) we will be using a proprietary insulation comparable to AEROGEL in performance. A quarter inch thick of this stuff has as much insulating value at 1200 F. degree's as 6 inches of perlite. This is because virtually every other insulation's R-value goes down exponentially to almost zero as the temperature increases.

Also, the top is non-removable so simply sliding down some plates is not possible. The the pieces of steel that hold on the ash cleanout door makes inserting sleeves from the front not practical/impossible.

I'm so glad that entrepreneurs and inventors like yourselves are thinking of this technology in terms of making it legal and realistic for the average Joe to install in a home. It seems to me that one of the biggest hangups with the off the grid and sustainable home systems is that so many of them just won't fly with inspections, insurance policies, and building codes.

You guys have clearly poured an enormous amount of effort into this project, and the result appears to be something really polished and packaged that works! Sky, do you have any reviews on your product from customers yet, or is still too early in the process?

Peter van den Berg wrote:

F Styles wrote:holy goodness 1800 degrees F? are you kidding me? For real are you really getting 1800 inside your system?

That level of heat isn't uncommon in rocket heaters. In my own batch box design the highest recorded temperature has been 1180 degrees Celsius which converts to 2160 Fahrenheit. At the time, I wasn't even sure whether or not I was recording the hottest spot. Exit temperatures at the top of the riser are routinely over 900 C or 1650 F. So Sky is right, he really need to keep down those freaky temperatures inside the core or the whole thing would corrode like mad in no time. Whether or not a gas analizer would be satisfied about the results since the temps aren't really up to the phisical limit remains an open question.

Yes, quite common temperatures. My prototype that I tested the last two winters (a basic nominal 6" j-style barrel RMH) commonly burned between 1400 (that's really quite "cold") to nearly 2000 *F (1960-1980 *F ranges, spot checked, not continuous monitoring) at the top of the entry point going into the burn tunnel from the feed tube. The hottest part should be found deeper in the burn tunnel, at the bottom of the fire riser as I recall, but I never measured that point.

But as far as testing heat output, why melt aluminum, just buy a digital thermometer and appropriate test probes. I bought a decent digital unit for $18 on Amazon and a variety of probes, ranging from 200 *C or so on the low end (for measuring heat penetration of the thermal mass and under the burn tunnel to verify I wasn't transferring too much heat to the floor) and up to something like 1000-1200 *C or so (I don't recall of hand) for measuring the hotter areas. That's not sufficient to get at the hottest areas, but it is usable for measuring the transition from feed tube to burn tunnel.

Another test option is to purchase a variety of test cones, as are used to test kilns.

I prefer the digital probes, but then again I'm really only doing it for my own testing, and these days you can buy very accurate (within a 1%-2% as I recall) devices. If one wanted to get all fancy, the digital thermometer could be rewired to run on electric a.c. plug-in (or simply hooked to a comparatively masses storage d.c. battery) and feed the read out into an old dedicated computer and log the data for the entire burning season. I doubt I'll do that, but it wouldn't be all that difficult. If anyone wants to go that route, there are also basic home weather stations that can be bought for a few hundred dollars and that could supply a decent number of environmental data points (and connected to various online weather station collection systems, if one also wishes to become a home weather station data point for others).

It's an exciting idea, and I have not read the conversation, but know there are great minds and lots of experience in the discussion. I'll try to read it all, but for now I have irrigation here in this heat wave in the desert. Keeping warm is pretty far from my mind right now.

Is it possible to make a prefab shippable code complaint stove that a person would just add the fire brick to, so that all this discussion over metal in the burn tunnel and riser could become moot?

Sell the metal that goes around the stacks of bricks, forms all the tricky transitions and critical clearances, incorporates the barrel and cook top, creates the transition from the level of the bottom of the riser into the exhaust, one of the easiest place to get confused, gives a place to put the tubes that run through the thermal mass, and another place to attach the same tubes to after the heat transfer, that runs the cooled exhaust past the firey dragon, warming it for its passage up and out?

I think there are folks also working on the shippable core. Pre fab a shippable core to go inside a prefab metal housing and seems like we'd be home free. No experience required to get it right, no understanding required for code enforcers.

A person could get some experience with installing the two (or more) components, get a working relationship with the inspectors, and s/he could have a great business, and bring rocket stove technology to suburbia, which would benefit us all!

As a person who lives in one of those areas with strict (and somewhat antiquated) building codes, I find the idea of a rocket stove that is building code friendly and safety tested highly appealing. Even if it isn't the purest form of rocket stove we can design, each person has to do what they can with what is available to them. Permaculture teaches us to adapt our designs to get the best possible result with the resources available and restrictions within which we are forced to operate. Unfortunately, my current tiny house doesn't have the space for this type of heater, but I will certainly be thinking about this option if/when I build an addition.

Best of luck with this venture. It is very exciting to see the progression into NRTL-listed stoves. I believe it is the way forward if we want to get this kind of innovation to the red-tape choked suburban masses.

jen carlile wrote:As a person who lives in one of those areas with strict (and somewhat antiquated) building codes, I find the idea of a rocket stove that is building code friendly and safety tested highly appealing. Even if it isn't the purest form of rocket stove we can design, each person has to do what they can with what is available to them.

I totally agree Jen. Back when I lived in suburbia, the biggest challenge with planning our dream home was always code enforcement getting in the way. I'm in a place now where it's not as much of an issue, but it can be a crippling setback for a lot of aspiring builders.

I really can't wait to hear some success stories from these stoves - hoping the buyers come back here to fill us in on how it went for them!

Destiny and Jen, you are aware of the issues with metal in the high temp areas of rocket stoves? Too bad to have a metal riser fail at an inopportune time don't you think? I'm optimistic about this, but cautiously so.

Thekla, yes I was reading through some of that discussion yesterday actually. It's concerning, but that's why I love the free market If you want a product to succeed, you only keep improving it.

I'm a big supporter of entrepreneurs, particularly in product niches like this. It's not something I'll personally be needing now in my current area, but I feel confident that the creators will find a solution.

On a side note everyone, Sky sent me an email that he and his father will be at a convention this weekend, but will be back Monday, so I'm sure he'll be by this thread to answer more questions and add some updates.

I really can't wait to hear some success stories from these stoves - hoping the buyers come back here to fill us in on how it went for them!

Thanks for posting that video. "Survival Doc" didn't seem to quite understand what he had there, but it was interesting to see how the stove responded to having it's air supply repeatedly cut off and then returned.

About the fourth time he pulled off the lid you could see he really had to tug on it, and when he got it off, you could see the feed tube was filling with smoke, that was immediately sucked back down and into the burn chamber when air was allowed to enter.

I think the burn tube glowing red had him worried.

I met Sky and his father today in Springfield Missouri at the "Prepper show"

I want to say that I saw the product first hand and it appears to be of very high quality.  I was impressed with the finish on the product, and if the thickness of the metal on the j tube and flue outlet was any indication, this is a well constructed stove.  Of course we were inside and we couldn't fire it up, but I definitely give my endorsement and 2 thumbs up.  Very nice people and passionate about the product and rocket stoves in general. I hope to meet them again in the future and witness the stove in action.

Thekla McDaniels wrote:It's an exciting idea, and I have not read the conversation, but know there are great minds and lots of experience in the discussion.  I'll try to read it all, but for now I have irrigation here in this heat wave in the desert.  Keeping warm is pretty far from my mind right now.

Is it possible to make a prefab shippable code complaint stove that a person would just add the fire brick to, so that all this discussion over metal in the burn tunnel and riser could become moot?  

Sell the metal that goes around the stacks of bricks,  forms all the tricky transitions and critical clearances, incorporates the barrel and cook top, creates the transition from the level of the bottom of the riser into the exhaust, one of the easiest place to get confused, gives a place to put the tubes that run through the thermal mass, and  another place to attach the same tubes to after the heat transfer, that runs the cooled exhaust past the firey dragon, warming it for its passage up and out?  

I think there are folks also working on the shippable core.  Pre fab a shippable core to go inside a prefab metal housing and seems like we'd be home free.   No experience required to get it right, no understanding required for code enforcers.  

A person could get some experience with installing the two (or more) components, get a working relationship with the inspectors, and s/he could have a great business, and bring rocket stove technology to suburbia, which would benefit us all!

There is no way that a shippable core will ever be NRTL listed to UL-1482 standards for the following reasons.
1: All materials used in their manufacture must be audited, sources and suppliers listed, essentially everything
2: All processes in manufacturing must happen under the factory that the lab audited. I can't just, say, move operations of even a single part elsewhere without havign that factory also audited. For example, before we had the information plates for the heaters we actually had to wait two months to get approval to order the info plates even though we had tested the heater and went through ALL of the auditing before and were guarantee'd to get the plates. We literally had dozens of heaters all in a row ready to get their plates riveted on them. A lot of our potential customers asked to buy the heater, and then rivet on the plates themselves with a pop rivet gun. There's no logical reason why they couldn't do that. But the legal reason is that we would lose the labs endorsement and the heaters would no longer be NRTL tested. In fact, information plates (metal labels) are technically their property until the stoves actually leave the factory.

So with those tow things alone, we know that a shippable core will NEVER be listed for indoor use. EVER. The safety labs line of thought is that they dont know how skilled the person putting it together is, they dont know exactly what materials you are using or where they were sourced and made, and so on. Its too many inconsistencies for them to underwrite.

Unfortunately, its not even about the inspectors at this point in time. Inspectors will never be able to approve anything without it being Listed by a Nationally Recognized Tedting Lab (NRTL) such as UL, ETL, and so on. And as I already pointed out, putting two things together after it leaves the factory is a huge no-no, except unless both of those things left the factory and they simply bolt together (mixing refractory's is another no-no. Any process that physically alters the materials is strictly forbidden)

As far as burnout, way down the road we will be using nano-technology and extremely high-tech insulation that will make our factory made heaters outperform literally any homemade Rocket Mass Heater on the market. We will also look into using nano-technology in conjunction with catalysts to create a Rocket Heater that is so incredibly efficient we want to literally be the worlds most efficient burning stove EVER and with the technology we have there is no doubt we will achieve it. I want you all to know that we already have the insulation purchased (very very very expensive. Literally thousands of dollars just to do a few stoves) and we will experiment with the nano-technology insulation we have when we can build another heater. However again as I was explaining earlier, safety labs are quite bureaucratic and if we do design an improved one thats ANOTHER 8 thousand dollar test. We have yet to make 8k just on this first heater design so until we can not be losing more money than we are making each month we will be too poor to bring about a RMH-2.0. Ming you it will be EPA tested, have gracity fed pellets, approved for BOTH wood and pellets, and tested for emissions on both. This insulated model will also cost a LOT more.

AAAIIIIEEEE!!!  the things that make sense and ought to be doable.  You have certainly done more research than I have, Sky.  The department of "make you sad" is at work here, and you certainly have more patience than I do.

I hope your metal will withstand the temperatures.  I don't have first hand experience on the "metal in rocket stove high temperature locations".   I jsut have heard ongoing discourse on the topic.

Anyway, thanks for clarifying why what I think would work won't.  Still, I wish it would.

Thekla McDaniels wrote:AAAIIIIEEEE!!!  the things that make sense and ought to be doable.  You have certainly done more research than I have, Sky.  The department of "make you sad" is at work here, and you certainly have more patience than I do.

I hope your metal will withstand the temperatures.  I don't have first hand experience on the "metal in rocket stove high temperature locations".   I jsut have heard ongoing discourse on the topic.

Anyway, thanks for clarifying why what I think would work won't.  Still, I wish it would.

We have a prototype that we've used for over three years now with no signs of corrosion. There are several reasons for this, but we designed the fire so that it makes minimal contact with the steel. The burn tube is wider than the feed tube and hence the fire for the most part burns sideways without touching the steel. It still gets very hot, mind you. Our new readings tell us the fire exceeds 1800 F. and sometimes 2000 F. which is incredible IMO considering we dont use any insulation. I can't wait to see what the nano-tech insulation does!

Sky: this innovation sounds really great. Congratulations on bringing this to fruition. I've taken a rocket mass heater workshop with Ernie and Erica, and have a friend who has expertise - so have always considered making my own as the best option. That said, the new place we just got has a lovely interior I'm not too eager to mess with (as in, trying to preserve it's century home feel), so we've been leaning towards wood stove. Your rocket heater sounds like a good middle ground for this particular situation. We can always make our own custom rocket mass heater for the future greenhouse or other structures made on site (where we can also be more confident on the structure of the floor supporting the weight.)

That said - I can't get the URL to work. I'm hoping this means the site is crashing due to oodles of interest in your product!

Also - I'll need information on shipping this to Canada, and whether you guys will offer that, and thought I might as well ask here so others can see the answer. Will you offer shipping to Canada? (I understand that you wouldn't be able to guarantee your units are compliant with Canada's building code, but if you could, that would be great too.)

Rob Read wrote:Sky: this innovation sounds really great. Congratulations on bringing this to fruition. I've taken a rocket mass heater workshop with Ernie and Erica, and have a friend who has expertise - so have always considered making my own as the best option. That said, the new place we just got has a lovely interior I'm not too eager to mess with (as in, trying to preserve it's century home feel), so we've been leaning towards wood stove. Your rocket heater sounds like a good middle ground for this particular situation. We can always make our own custom rocket mass heater for the future greenhouse or other structures made on site (where we can also be more confident on the structure of the floor supporting the weight.)

That said - I can't get the URL to work. I'm hoping this means the site is crashing due to oodles of interest in your product!

Also - I'll need information on shipping this to Canada, and whether you guys will offer that, and thought I might as well ask here so others can see the answer. Will you offer shipping to Canada? (I understand that you wouldn't be able to guarantee your units are compliant with Canada's building code, but if you could, that would be great too.)

Yes, we will be able to ship to Canada (shipping international is expensive, bear that in mind)

http://www.rocketheater.com/ should be functioning and working, it does for me on all my computers?

As far as Canadian building codes go, its kind of iffy. We are tested and certified as having met both UL-1482 and ULC-S627 (the latter being the Canadian standard) however because our information plates and user manuals are not also in French there might be an issue there.

consider crowdfunding the rmh 2.0
there might be allot of interest in the high-tech insulation, eliminating allot of the fears of durability

Gabriel Lambert wrote:consider crowdfunding the rmh 2.0
there might be allot of interest in the high-tech insulation, eliminating allot of the fears of durability

Crowdfunding is not a magical solution for easy money. You need to be popular on social media and put a lot of money into the campaign, money we do not have.

Sky Huddleston wrote:
Crowdfunding is not a magical solution for easy money. You need to be popular on social media and put a lot of money into the campaign, money we do not have.

Sky, I have no way to know, and I do not mean to belittle your efforts or your estimation, I just want to say if your stove is what you believe it is, success will come. This way may take longer than crowd funding, but  you'll get there.  The code compliant rocket stove is much needed.  I would say 'around the world' but the code is not really 'universal', they just like to call it that.

I hope you have a patent, and/or as much protection as possible for your ownership of what you've discovered/developed, because power has a way of robbing and or suppressing from the not so powerful.

Surely those on Permies with a foot in social media, will put the word out.

good luck to you

Sky Huddleston wrote:

Gabriel Lambert wrote:consider crowdfunding the rmh 2.0
there might be allot of interest in the high-tech insulation, eliminating allot of the fears of durability

Crowdfunding is not a magical solution for easy money. You need to be popular on social media and put a lot of money into the campaign, money we do not have.

dont spend any money on it, just try and put out there
you would rather have the option available then not

im saying for you're circumstance, i would rather invest and buy into an rmh 2.0 then spend money on version 1, which is the unfortunate case for most people

Gabriel Lambert wrote:

Sky Huddleston wrote:

Gabriel Lambert wrote:consider crowdfunding the rmh 2.0
there might be allot of interest in the high-tech insulation, eliminating allot of the fears of durability

Crowdfunding is not a magical solution for easy money. You need to be popular on social media and put a lot of money into the campaign, money we do not have.

dont spend any money on it, just try and put out there
you would rather have the option available then not

im saying for you're circumstance, i would rather invest and buy into an rmh 2.0 then spend money on version 1, which is the unfortunate case for most people

I want to let you know that it is going to take many many years for a second iterations to come out. We will need a larger factory, more tooling, CNC's, a bigger shear and huge press-brake, etc. Combine that with the testing nd we are talking about 150 thousand dollars or more easily. So version two will take 5 to ten years to come out. I highly doubt a kickstarter will get us 150 thousand dollars. I could be wrong, but i might try it in a few months. However, if the kickstarter fails then I'm closing the business down and moving on. You're going to have a VERY long wait. It took four years of R&D just for the first version. Also, the second version is going to be an extremely high-end deluxe iteration, and deluxe models always cost more. We are thinking from our current estimates that a MSRP for a second version will easily be three thousand dollars or more. We will have a glass door with stainless steel trim so people can see the pretty fire, catalysts which cost a couple hundred dollars alone, removable tops to maintain certain new aspects that will be put in it, high-tech nano-technology insulation, and much more. And again the design will call for a press brake that can bend 1/4" plate steel at a 90% bend and those brakes easily cost 20 to 45 thousand dollars alone (and thats the used market), we will need a shear that can shear the same thickness and plate shears are incredibly expensive as well, at the very least a CNC plasma cutter which is another 20 thousand dollars, but a 100 thousand dollar waterjet would be ideal. Oh and a much much bigger facility, about 20 times larger than what we have now. The aforementioned shear would literally be larger than our current facility itself. And more land right off the major interstate, which is expensive.

So anyone waiting for a 2.0 version is going to have a very long wait.

As far as longevity goes, because everybody here is concerned about it, I would like to draw all of your attention to the Wiseway Pellet Stove which uses the EXACT same steel as we do. The difference between wiseway and our stove? Our heater can burn wood, the wiseway can NOT burn wood (only pellets). The wiseway lets all the heat go up a few zig-zags and straight up the chimney whereas we have a Rocket Heater heat exchanger. The Wiseway needs to be preheated with a torch for ten minutes and then light, whereas ours requires less than 30 seconds with a torch and no preheating. The wiseway is EPA certified and honestly I bet ours is even cleaner because ours is a Rocket Heater with a DOWNDRAFT combustion system, all the VOC's are pulled through a super-heated carbon bed which burns up everything like a gasifier, whereas the Wiseway is an updraft system. Our heater on pellets is totally smoke-free in less than three minutes and the Wiseway takes over ten minutes to be smoke-free.

Gabriel Lambert wrote:

Sky Huddleston wrote:

Gabriel Lambert wrote:consider crowdfunding the rmh 2.0
there might be allot of interest in the high-tech insulation, eliminating allot of the fears of durability

Crowdfunding is not a magical solution for easy money. You need to be popular on social media and put a lot of money into the campaign, money we do not have.

dont spend any money on it, just try and put out there
you would rather have the option available then not

im saying for you're circumstance, i would rather invest and buy into an rmh 2.0 then spend money on version 1, which is the unfortunate case for most people

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/92360815/169316342?token=72e4ecd8
Here is the proposed kickstarter. Does anyone here think I can get 300k in 60 days to make RMH-2.0 a reality?

I think there are enough people who need it, and would buy it if it were an established popular technology, but most of those, in my opinion, will not hear about it without a massive publicity campaign, and will not be the early adopters who pre-buy.

Glenn Herbert wrote:I think there are enough people who need it, and would buy it if it were an established popular technology, but most of those, in my opinion, will not hear about it without a massive publicity campaign, and will not be the early adopters who pre-buy.

Aha! Somebody gets it! And there we run into the catch-22 problem.

Ah, Sky, you are like me, saying I'm not going to do a thing is a way of considering the pros and cons.  I looked at the kickstart project, and I think it might not be a good idea to try to cut yourself too short budget wise.  What if you DON'T find what you need at your conservative estimates?  That'll be heart attack country for you.

I backed the go sun grill kickstart and they are almost a year behind their projected delivery date.  They send posts and updates about all the places they are spending their time and design efforts, the things they are doing instead of dedicating themselves to fulfilling their agreement with their backers.   They had this idea that they would have a phase change thermal battery so that you could heat the thing up during the day and store the heat to cook later.  They took a long time to decde that was not doable.  Now they are going to make a solar charged battery (electric), but are having trouble with that.  And they are putting off the people who did not select the battery, like me.  I just want the thing I can put in the sun and it will cook my food fast, even on a cloudy day.  Somehow their priority is to do the battery thing, the solar cooker that works at night thing, and won't fulfill their agreement with the non battery while they tinker tinker tinker.  And they just started a indie go go fundraiser for another project so they can"keep their design staff".   (My sneaking and suspicious hunch is that they need that money to finish the kickstart project)
 
My point in repeating all that is not to underestimate your $$$$ needs.  I am pretty irate aobut the go sun, I guess that's evident.  I think it would be too bad for you to end up in a similar situation with disappointed and irate backers.

I notice that your projected delivery is 2021.  But the other version is available a lot sooner.  When I think about paying $3000 and waiting 5 years.... well I may not live that long.  Still, if I did it would be a fun thing to have, and I'd feel good about backing your research, though my previous posts are pretty clear I am skeptical about the metal...

If my math is right, you only need 100 people to back you at the level where they get the "Liberator".  I think it is possible, but probable?  I dunno.  I am not one of those people with a large social media network....  I do know a man whose stepson has ?5 million or 500 thousand, or anyway a LOT of people, and he could send out a link, but are they the ones who will back you?

I don't know if my meanderings will be helpful, I'm just thinkning out loud here. Is there a time limit from when you make the trial site and when you have to go for it?  I think it's a good idea to put it up for feedback.  The conversation may turn up some interesting things.

good luck

Thekla McDaniels wrote:Ah, Sky, you are like me, saying I'm not going to do a thing is a way of considering the pros and cons.  I looked at the kickstart project, and I think it might not be a good idea to try to cut yourself too short budget wise.  What if you DON'T find what you need at your conservative estimates?  That'll be heart attack country for you.

I backed the go sun grill kickstart and they are almost a year behind their projected delivery date.  They send posts and updates about all the places they are spending their time and design efforts, the things they are doing instead of dedicating themselves to fulfilling their agreement with their backers.   They had this idea that they would have a phase change thermal battery so that you could heat the thing up during the day and store the heat to cook later.  They took a long time to decde that was not doable.  Now they are going to make a solar charged battery (electric), but are having trouble with that.  And they are putting off the people who did not select the battery, like me.  I just want the thing I can put in the sun and it will cook my food fast, even on a cloudy day.  Somehow their priority is to do the battery thing, the solar cooker that works at night thing, and won't fulfill their agreement with the non battery while they tinker tinker tinker.  And they just started a indie go go fundraiser for another project so they can"keep their design staff".   (My sneaking and suspicious hunch is that they need that money to finish the kickstart project)
 
My point in repeating all that is not to underestimate your $$$$ needs.  I am pretty irate aobut the go sun, I guess that's evident.  I think it would be too bad for you to end up in a similar situation with disappointed and irate backers.

I notice that your projected delivery is 2021.  But the other version is available a lot sooner.  When I think about paying $3000 and waiting 5 years.... well I may not live that long.  Still, if I did it would be a fun thing to have, and I'd feel good about backing your research, though my previous posts are pretty clear I am skeptical about the metal...

If my math is right, you only need 100 people to back you at the level where they get the "Liberator".  I think it is possible, but probable?  I dunno.  I am not one of those people with a large social media network....  I do know a man whose stepson has ?5 million or 500 thousand, or anyway a LOT of people, and he could send out a link, but are they the ones who will back you?

I don't know if my meanderings will be helpful, I'm just thinking out loud here. Is there a time limit from when you make the trial site and when you have to go for it?  I think it's a good idea to put it up for feedback.  The conversation may turn up some interesting things.

good luck

I know exactly what you are saying and am 100% in agreement. The first generation heaters are actually available right now and are production units. I put this proposed kickstarter (its not live and it likely wont go live) up to show people the ridiculous cost of making one using insulation, catalysts, etc. and how if they will just wait around for a new iteration they are going to have such an incredibly long wait had they just purchased the first generation heater now it would have already returned on its investment and saved them so much money they will have the money just from the savings the first gen heater brought them they could buy the second gen heater and STILL have money leftover. I'm basically trying to show people that waiting for some newer model that may not ever exist down the road is foolish. Its like never buying a car because a newer one will be produced in the future with more features and gadgets. Oh this imaginary next gen heater would not have metal make any contact with the heat source. We would be using nano-technology insulation in place of refractory's. We can't use refractory's because they would fall apart during shipping.

Now I have accounted for the costs here and we could definitely do it all for 300k, I would just have to wait for deals on the shears, brakes, etc. on eBay.

I recommend that if everyone wants a Rocket Heater that meets their building codes and insurance policy, that they just purchase one of our current heaters because the next gen heater will be many years off in the future. Many many years. It took 3-4 years just to get our current heater where its at now.

The real problem like the kickstarter you mentioned is "idea's" and "Concepts" that aren't proven. We've proven ourselves here more than competent enough to make Rocket Heaters and deliver on what we say. We have the worlds first and only safety tested Rocket Heater.