Scott Weinberg

While we can get "what appears to be high quality service" on our aircraft motors we do so at such a ridiculous cost, that it is hard to believe.  I bring this up as we have flat 4's and 6's.  with 1950 technology in mfg and research involved.   Volumes of info on these on how to rebuild, but not so much on how to incorporate new NON EXisting parts.

So crazy that often we hear and see rebuild cost of $35-45K per engine.

Granted the volume of Subie engines is far beyond any aircraft engine catergory, but still.

Enjoyed your engine breakdown photos Tom, looks like your well on your way for a good to go car again.

Scott

A few tools, to make tools of course.

Let the fun begin!

Becarfel about going down the anvil path, as soon you could be a collector, both of tools ( for both square and round holes in anvil.  The variations are tremedous, with the largest I have seen at 400#, but all are very useful.

Holding the anvil is almost as important as the anvil itself.  Often edge cut blocks, ( edge face towards floor and anvil ) if it is heavy enough, ensuring it will not move out of place is often enough.

With the right tool selection for the anvil, often cold bends can be preformed easy enough.

Best of success.

Scott

Looks great!  Way to stick to the plan and complete!
Scott

Peter van den Berg wrote:  in the drawing the flue is drawn as a 200 mm diameter one, while the core and ISA is for a 150 mm system. You won't need a 200 mm chimney, any particular reason to have one?

.

Not pertaining to this build, but the question (of flue sizing) seemed to fit in well here.  

Would this oversizing of the flue, effect the performance or workings of a stove

I am thinking about those that may have aquired a place that had a large flue, but don't need that much stove size for the needed heat value of a larger stove that the flue could handle.

thank you, and if this already has been answered elsewhere, I will read up on it there.
Scott

I have found for really big pest, you need really big dragonfly's  Bigger the better!

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.