Batch rocket resource

The Polish edition is well on its way. Thanks to Jack Szczepank and Artur Jan Milicki the chapters Introduction, Workings and Building are ready. This is quite a big chunk in one go, I am curious what the pace will be further down the line.

If Polish is your first language, please see http://batchrocket.eu/pl/

The Designs chapter of the Polish edition is also online, those guys are moving fast!

Peter van den Berg wrote:The Designs chapter of the Polish edition is also online, those guys are moving fast!

It's rolling fast and meanwhile we are trying to polish the polish version to make it pleasantly readable. As at the moment the lng used is a tiny bit ....ghmmm....say....raw.  

Polish the Polish version so the Polish version becomes polished? Sounds funny, I have to admit.  
Please contact Artur Jan Milicki and discuss it with him, when he agrees to amend the text I won't object.

Please contact Artur Jan Milicki and discuss it with him, when he agrees to amend the text I won't object.

I did. That's why I'm saying we are polishing it
Slavic languages can be pretty descriptive and "exact direct translation" may sound too unpolished.

All of the Polish version is ready now, although in the coming weeks it likely will change a bit.
If Polish is your first language, see http://batchrocket.eu/pl/

Peter van den Berg wrote:A in the coming weeks it likely will change a bit.
[/url]

Believe me or not but it will not be "a bit", but rather "radically"

Davide Buldrini,  known as Bulbius on Donkey's forum offered to produce a translation to Italian. Introduction and Workings are done so far, the Building chapter is in the wings for tonight or tomorrow.
If Italian is your first language, here's your chance to see whether you got all the information right.
See batchrocket.eu/it/

The Italian version had a long time coming but it's completed now. My thanks goes to Davide Buldrini for this mammoth task he did on his own. There's no rush from the Italian people to the site yet but maybe next season?

Translation number eight is started: Russian! This one is a step up in complication as it has to be done in cyrillic lettering. Personally, I can recognize quite some percentage of French, Spanish and English of course. But Italian is out of my league and Slavic languages are way above my head. Let alone cyrillic, I can't even read the letters and what they represent!

Hi Peter,

I've read you article and I find it very informative. I've also read many of you posts here and all of this has inspired me to tryout some ideas.

In your http://batchrocket.eu/en/designs page you show results of measurements that demonstrates the performance of the design. I'd like to learn more about the instruments used and guidelines to run those tests so I can see the performance and share my findings.

Thank you for all your efforts.

Sidney

Sidney Beauchamp wrote:Hi Peter,
I'd like to learn more about the instruments used and guidelines to run those tests so I can see the performance and share my findings.
Sidney

Hi Sidney...
the test has been done with TESTO apparatus (let us Peter say what model precisely), but the results are hardly comparable unless the stoves are tested with the same apparatus as it has different scripts implemented which use different  formulas for calculations.

Sidney Beauchamp wrote:In your http://batchrocket.eu/en/designs page you show results of measurements that demonstrates the performance of the design. I'd like to learn more about the instruments used and guidelines to run those tests so I can see the performance and share my findings.

Testing has been done with a Testo 330/2 gas analiser and a computer to log the numbers every ten seconds. Temperature, oxygen and carbonmonoxide are measured directly and can be compared with other gas analisers. All the rest is calculated  using those three, so is the efficiency. As Jura Rafal mentions, the formula to calculate that are slightly different from country to country depending on what the rules say for that specific country. So difference between mine and say, Matt Walker's analizer's efficiency is about 8%. Regrettably, making efficiency numbers a very unreliable number to go for.

Peter van den Berg wrote:Testing has been done with a Testo 330/2 gas analiser and a computer to log the numbers every ten seconds. Temperature, oxygen and carbonmonoxide are measured directly and can be compared with other gas analisers. All the rest is calculated  using those three, so is the efficiency. As Jura Rafal mentions, the formula to calculate that are slightly different from country to country depending on what the rules say for that specific country. So difference between mine and say, Matt Walker's analizer's efficiency is about 8%. Regrettably, making efficiency numbers a very unreliable number to go for.

Dear Peter
My hat tip for your preciseness!
I meant the efficiency but I did not write it!

Peter van den Berg wrote:
Testing has been done with a Testo 330/2 gas analiser and a computer to log the numbers every ten seconds.

Ouch. These testers are not cheap.

Peter van den Berg wrote:Temperature, oxygen and carbonmonoxide are measured directly and can be compared with other gas analisers.

Where the measurements done at the exit of the chimney or at the top of the riser ?

Peter van den Berg wrote:All the rest is calculated  using those three, so is the efficiency. As Jura Rafal mentions, the formula to calculate that are slightly different from country to country depending on what the rules say for that specific country. So difference between mine and say, Matt Walker's analizer's efficiency is about 8%. Regrettably, making efficiency numbers a very unreliable number to go for.

I see. It does give an idea of the efficiency, just not reliable.

I have a theory that by adding a secondary vortex combustion chamber between the riser and the port, it would greatly minimize the amount of ashes that get sucked up the riser. Basically the same technology used in Dyson vacuums. It is used successfully in the Cyclone steam generators.

I'm planning to build a prototype out of sheet metal and tweak it before making one out of refractory material.

I have access to a lot of fuel that generates troublesome ashes like leaves, sawdust, coffee grinds and contaminated paper and cardboard ( a single drop of oil on them is considered contaminated and is sent to the landfill ) this generates unburnt ashes. By keeping them in the vortex they should burn completely and settle at the bottom center of the chamber.

Sid

Sidney Beauchamp wrote:Where the measurements done at the exit of the chimney or at the top of the riser ?

Neither of those. Measurements has been done in the vertical stove pipe that comes out of the heater, between 1 yard and 2 yards away from the heater's exhaust opening.

Sidney Beauchamp wrote:I have a theory that by adding a secondary vortex combustion chamber between the riser and the port, it would greatly minimize the amount of ashes that get sucked up the riser. Basically the same technology used in Dyson vacuums. It is used successfully in the Cyclone steam generators.

I am sorry, but that won't do the trick. A cyclone after the riser could be done, but it'll cost a lot of energy. Which need to be compensated by a strong draft, either from a very hot chimney or a chimney ventilator.

Sid, could you please start a separate item about your plans and proceeds? As it is now, you are going off-topic in this thread.

Peter van den Berg wrote:Neither of those. Measurements has been done in the vertical stove pipe that comes out of the heater, between 1 yard and 2 yards away from the heater's exhaust opening.

After the bench if there was one right ?

Peter van den Berg wrote:I am sorry, but that won't do the trick. A cyclone after the riser could be done, but it'll cost a lot of energy. Which need to be compensated by a strong draft, either from a very hot chimney or a chimney ventilator.

Thank you for the feedback.

Peter van den Berg wrote:Sid, could you please start a separate item about your plans and proceeds? As it is now, you are going off-topic in this thread.

All ready in the plans. I only have this rough idea at the moment. Nothing else to elaborate on until I understand your batch rocket in more details. There is a lot to learn and I am very grateful for your patience.

Sid

There are some pieces added to the end of the Building, Designs and Applications chapters. In Building, a really simple way to calculate the Internal Surface Area is described. In Designs, a simplified riser build is pictured and in Applications some systems that are designed to run without doors or secondary air provision.
See for yourself: www.batchrocket.eu/en/

Nice! So it is recommended 300x and not the smaller bell size recommended on donkey here?

http://donkey32.proboards.com/thread/1822/sizes-single-bell-systems

Back in 2015 it was still a guess what could be used. Today, there is a lot more experience with sizing of bells so I can safely say yes. Remember though, those are maximum numbers so you need to ask yourself whether it's a good chimney you are going to use. When in doubt, 5% underspec'd won't hurt anyone.

Perfect.
One thing I'd like to suggest adding is information on connecting two bells together as it seems to be missing on the site but available in thread forums.

Just basic information on ISA reduction as you add bells, the requirements for connector sizing and the height that they should be connected at.

Good idea about incorporating the double bell requirements into the site, that will be next on my to-do list. At the moment I am busy to do a very belately rework of the Dutch version, most of the articles are about half as long as in its English counterpart.

The resource is so amazing, Peter. I've shared it with many people. Some who intend to use it for their own build.

You are welcome. Please keep passing it through, you'll never know whether or not I might kick the bucket in the forseeable future. The site is hosted and payed for by a third party.

This morning a new milestone has been passed: the batchrocket site is viewed by 100,012 unique visitors since the site went online in April 2016. In September I estimated this would take place around Christmas but it happened two weeks in advance.

It looks like the number of 300,000 views will be exceeded in the second half of Februari, it's now 277,126.

Last night the total of unique visitors of the site exceeded 150,000. At the same time the total views counted 409,777. It took 14 months to go from 100,000 to 150,000.

At the moment translations aren't doing well. Russian has grind to a halt, Chinese, German and Portuguese didn't come to light at all and the Italian translator can't be reached anymore. I am lagging behind myself with the publishing of the Double Shoebox Rocket developments, it's high time to start writing a longish article. Both in Dutch and English, the latter one being the base for all the other translations.

One good thing to mention: I am going to conduct a workshop in Belgium, from 1st through 7th of May. A DSR2 design, bell and bench construction similar but not quite the same as the Mallorca build in 2017. It's announced on Facebook in Dutch, but Google knows what it'll look like in English, more or less.

I am sure that the addition of your double shoe box will boost the visit numbers.

Peter van den Berg wrote:Last night the total of unique visitors of the site exceeded 150,000. At the same time the total views counted 409,777. It took 14 months to go from 100,000 to 150,000.

Long life exponential growth!

Peter van den Berg wrote:  I am lagging behind myself with the publishing of the Double Shoebox Rocket developments

As most of PL translation of the battchrocket.eu  are my words, I feel obliged to  continue with translation of the DSR II  "longish art". (unless anything untoward happens)  

Peter van den Berg wrote:I am going to conduct a workshop in Belgium, from 1st through 7th of May.

Gosh! so called "long polish may weekend". This  period has already been scheduled :-(