Creating a Vortex

This is for the welcoming committee, Allen. I mean that in the nicest way possible.

This has got to be one of my favorite videos. I starting reading about pressure a while back and stumbled across this. Not only does it contain a great beginners welding instruction 101 but the guy kicks in a vortex. This is one reason I love the horizontal feed and metal so much. It is just fun.

Rion Mather : Thanks for sharing ! A few parts make me a little uncomfortable ! Metal heat risers has to be a step backwards ! and
burning soft pine !?!

I would like Peter Burg , or Peter C. to look at this, it looks good, but I want to see proof that it is ether burning hooter
Whoops ! can you spell Freudian Slip ? - hotter, with less o2 left or more co2 produced to accept that this is truly better, lets
test it!I also feel that a metal chimney is a step backwards, especially in terms of longevity ! Apparently - ' Trying2hard ' -
is also doing his own thing in a parallel direction, so we should have complimentary documentation of the testing that both
are doing !

For the Good Of the Craft ! Be safe, keep warm ! Pyro AL!- All comments /questions are solicited and are Welcome ! A. L.

Oh, I am not saying metal is better. I am fully aware that metal and windows are not the most efficient products. I also realize that metal stoves don't retain the heat. What I enjoy about what Ppotty1 is doing in the video is manipulating a vortex. After I was turned on to the metal stoves by another poster, I started reading up on the science of combustion and the use of pressure to increase speed.

I am not recommending this as the best way to build a stove. Not one bit. I admit to being a pure novice. I find this video an enjoyable and interesting science experiment. That is all.

Oh, and it is a great lesson on using a cardboard pattern!

allen lumley wrote:I would like Peter Burg , or Peter C. to look at this, it looks good, but I want to see proof that it is ether burning hooter

The construction seen in the video do show all the characteristics of a cyclone.
On it's own this isn't a quarantee for a clean burn, at all. Moreover, this construction do need quite a high draft to work properly. The gases are forced to go round and that will take up much energy of the gas stream. The tighter the cyclone tube, the more energy will be extracted. Too low gas velocity inescapebly lead to dirty combustion in this. I've tried this before, using a wider than system size cyclone tube. As compared to the plain vanilla J-tube this had too much drawbacks.

Edit:
Rocket stoves and their derivatives do run fine when burning soft wood such as pines, even willow and poplar. To compensate for the lower density, using some thicker material will do. Heating value of wood is all the same per pound down to a few percentage points, honestly!

Peter Berg wrote:

allen lumley wrote:I would like Peter Burg , or Peter C. to look at this, it looks good, but I want to see proof that it is ether burning hooter

The construction seen in the video do show all the characteristics of a cyclone.
On it's own this isn't a quarantee for a clean burn, at all. Moreover, this construction do need quite a high draft to work properly. The gases are forced to go round and that will take up much energy of the gas stream. The tighter the cyclone tube, the more energy will be extracted. Too low gas velocity inescapebly lead to dirty combustion in this.

I assume that is why I have seen some models adding air to the stream. I have to read more up on that one.

'' Truly we live 'in interesting Times',with signs and `in-ports too ponderous and weighty for mere words '' For the Craft, and its future, - Slow down boys ! Big Al

I'll find an example of it later. I need to run now.

Here is an example:


My guess is the addition of oxygen feeds/sustains the combustion and increases the energy.

My guess is the addition of oxygen feeds/sustains the combustion and increases the energy

a little science about combustion:

Burning is a 3 step process

1: solid cannot burn, it must first be thermally cracked and then evaporate to gaseous form. This all happens when lit. And once the fire is lit, the energy from the fire keeps this process going.

2: All carbon burns to CO (carbon monoxide) first
3: CO burns further to CO2 (carbon dioxide), under the condition of still sufficient O2 (oxygen) and a temperature higher than about 400-450 degrees Celsius / 752-842 Fahrenheit for a minimum duration of 2 seconds.

In step 3 you would like to add oxygen. The cheapest source of this is ambient air. How much? If you were to measure oxygen in your chimney, you could control for 4% residual oxygen in your exhaust gas. Why no stoichometric combustion and control on 0% residual oxygen? Balance issue: At less than 4% oxygen, not all CO will burn through to CO2, and there may be too much CO in your exhaust gases. Toxic and less efficient combustion.

Is more secondary air better? Certainly not! For 2 reasons:
1: Added air must also be heated (remember minimum temperature at 3th combustion step). This will lower the temperature of the combustion gases with the chance that the CO will not burn through to CO2 and therefore slightly less combustion energy from your fuel.
2: Larger flue gas volume, so more chimney losses at the same exhaust temperature.

Vortex or no vortex?
The vortex provides a slightly longer path in the riser pipe at a slightly higher pressure. So more certainty about a good mixing of oxygen and fuel....combustion rooms of many power plants are designed in this way. (burners placed tangentially in round combustion chambers).

I have no experience with rocketstoves, but I hope more people understand the combustion process now.