Kevin Korteway

Andrew, and Allen, thank you both for your information, and opinions! I think there could be possibly thousands of design modification to the MRH, and each one would have it's place depending on it's intended use! One then I DO see, is that we almost unanimously agree that designs for cooking purpooses, are not that good for heating purposes, and visa versa! I have finally collected all materials needed, to begin my experimental design, and even got in touch with a local university, who is (hopefully) going to provide me use of testing equipment, so I can give some acurate feedback on our findings!!! I have also spoke with a local glass manufacturer. My idea with the glass is that I can use it on one side of the stove, so we can actually SEE what is happening inside the stove while it's in operation, along with the test equipment! I'll keep you all posted!

Thanks again Alan for your info, and input!!! I personally fail to see the difference between the L, and J designs, unless it's a matter of turbulence! I believe that in either design that the meat, n potatoes of the units, are in the tube, and heat riser! Although, I do not have Ernie, & Erica's years of hands on experience, but I have done some trial n error of my own, with both designs, with quite similar results, according to the test equipment I use, which is none other than my "finely tuned" eyes, ears, and nose! lol... All joking aside, I think they both are great designs, and both produce excellent results, so I think that leaves us with personal prefference! "PERSONALLY" I preferr the J design, simply because it's self feeding, I just want to expand on the self feeding design!

Thanks for the links Alan, I'll take all the info I can get! As for the political flack...I work at a factory of union workers, so I'm quite used that! Political garbage is second nature around this place!!! lol... Thanks again for your input my friend!

John, Thanks for the info! I'll be reading it tonight, and will get back to you!

Hi friends
Kevin here, and I've been following many threads, and post on here, trying to take in all the information I can before attempting to build my own RMH, so this is my first post! I've seen many post, and comments, about tending/feeding the stove, and read many possible ideas, but the only idea I haven't seen yet, (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is an enlarged firebox! I can't imagine Earnie, and Erica have not tried this yet, as it seems they have encountered everything there is with the RMH...My thoughts are, if you could make the firebox large enough to hold say 3 to 5 standard size log quarters, but have a cover that has the original size opening in it to allow air to flow through it, to cover the wood. A cover with a hole in it essentually, and the fire tube, and heat riser would be the same size as usual! I would believe that this may enhance the turbulance, due to bottle necking, and increase the overall burning temp, since the bed of coals would be larger giving an overall heating surface. Has anyone seen a post on this yet, or heard of anything like this, and if so, how well/poor did it perform?

Hi Yuri, in your issues of draft, I have to ask...is the gap between the barrel, and heat riser too big? Another question is, is the heat riser insulated?

Vicky Barton, the barrel stove you're reffering to; is that an old pot belly stove, or a barrel laid horrizontal with a door? If it's a pot belly stove, my thoughts would be to use that over the heat riser, (you would have to cut the bottom out of it of course) instead of the typical barrel, which Would be quite attractive I think!