Aurelio Ape

Hello Pedro.
I think the design is now ready for examination.


Regardless of whether it needs correction, I have a dilemma. The house where I will do the batchbox is 1000km from where I live, obviously I will have to use a vacation for work; but in the meantime I value doing a test of the core, here, abroad, not so much because I distrust the design but rather my constructive capabilities. I would do it with a slip for later disassembly and transportation to its final location. For one thing, I know the value of pre-testing, especially when it's your first time at something; but, on the other hand, dragging 300 kg that distance at the price of diesel is not going to be cheap. Writing this I realize that nobody can give me an accurate answer, however I would like to know if any of the novice builders would have liked to do a test before the debut

Understood, Peter.
I have a tendency to go my own way, with age I have learned to listen to the voices of experience and knowledge. I will follow your instructions to the letter.
Thank you for your patience.

Hello Peter.
I have made the corrections and submit the model for your approval. In your last recommendations, you suggested that I lower a course of bricks from the bank and add a course of slabs. With this, the internal height stays at 32 cm and in another post you told me that the correct one is 35 cm, at least. Do I make that change?
Thanks, Peter.

Crystal clear, thanks Peter.

Thanks Peter
I will gladly make the indicated modifications. However, to expand my knowledge, doesn't raising the output threshold make us get less heat capture? If the problem is soot clogging, in my design I see it as feasible, using the clean-out port and a vacuum cleaner, to clean it. I thought an exit from the hood to the chimney was sufficient, with an obvious minimum equal to the diameter of the riser, in this case something less than double. Do I increase the height by one brick and keep the widths?
Thank you, professor.

Hello everyone
I have made the corrections indicated by Peter. I think the design is finished. Peter give me your thumbs up if so.
I have two more questions left, I need you to confirm that the slabs on the bench can have an internal metal mesh and that metal expansion does not cause problems. What material is the right one to close the top of the batchbox?
Thanks in advance.

Thank you, Peter
What a good idea that one of the slabs of the bench is the lintel.
All the rest, I have understood.
I just want to ensure one detail, I think I understand that the bench slabs CAN have an internal metal mesh and that the heat they will receive will not cause the expansion of the mesh to crack the cement.
I will redo the drawing with your instructions.

Hello partners.

I attach the last drawing of the heater and the bench. There are new things that I submit to examination.

Metal profiles. Metal and heat do not combine well, I made a design in which the lintels rest on pillars, it was well within the dimensions of the web; but it is undeniable that they restrict the passage of gases. I made this other one, with beams for the openings. As the joint is 5mm I have opted for a 50x50x5mm L profile. The wings are inserted in place of the joint and the brick rests without mortar on the beam. The expansion of the thickness will be minimal, but not in the length, for which I will leave a 3mm tolerance on each side, I think it will be enough. I use two facing L's to hug the bricks. They are located on the lintels leading to the bench, at the exit to the chimney and on the batchbox. The latter will be wrapped in superwool, the others I have not contemplated. Give me your opinion on all of this.

The internal area of the bell is 5.41m2, that of the bench is 3.53m2; their sum is 8.94m2. It is below the 9.4m2 of the web. To get closer to that figure I have three options. First, raise a brick plus the bell (11cm), it has a height of 2.09m so it would be 2.10m; Keep in mind that the ceiling is lower than usual, it is only 2.38m. Second, lengthen a brick plus the bank (24cm). Both report 0.3 m2, so we are very close to the recommendation. Third, leave it like this to ensure a slight power excess and good draw in all circumstances. Which option do you consider more correct?

I was worried that the fumes that go down the right and rear side of the batchbox would find the exit to the outside before the passage to the bank. I placed some unglued bricks over the lid of the box to cover that gap, is it useful or a waste of time?

I placed three 10cm diameter round logs, please tell me if the number and location are correct.

On the door, I sized the air inlet to 7850mm2, I found that the profile that supports the glass is the one that restricts the passage of primary air upwards, to eliminate this possibility I have chosen to reduce the lower part of the glass by increasing the metallic part, with which we leave enough space for the primary air. Tell me if it seems correct to you.

For the bench I found some cement slabs with 100x100x4 cm, a bit big to handle; I can always cut them in half. I have to ask if they have metal mesh inside, I imagine that this is not advisable for mixing with heat.

Thanks in advance for your cooperation, Peter.

Thanks Peter for your answers.

The reason for the intricate design was my desire to separate the hood as much as possible from the walls, without interfering with the passage of the door or the window. In my ignorance I thought it would be for the best. If you think it's completely unnecessary, I'll redesign it. t was a little hell drawing the turns of the walls and their links and I'm sure it would be no less to do it in reality.

Chimney sweeping is planned from the lower level and can ultimately be accessed from the roof terrace, Dick van Dyke style.

I did not think of any record opening at the bank. maybe one at the beginning of the bank and one at the end? What opening surface is suitable? Does the hood have to have a register?

“The standard opening for a combined primary and secondary air intake is 25% of the csa of the system” That data is crucial, I didn't know it, is it on the web? I will redesign the door with that premise.

The common brick joints are designed to be 5 mm thick and the refractory joint is 2 mm. Are they appropriate?

Greetings to all.

Hello partners.

Although late, I wish you Happy Holidays and a Happy New Year

After much drawing and erasing, he arrived at a final design, except for any objections you may present.

I have tried to separate the hood as much as possible from the walls. The bench makes a small jog to fit the wall.

The interlocking of the bricks to interlock the different directions of the walls will probably not be the best design; but that's what occurred to me. I accept all possible improvements.

If you have not made a mistake in the calculations, the area of the hood and bench add up to 9.35 m2.

I have several specific questions.

The lintels that give way to the smoke on the bench and the exit to the chimney are supported by pillars instead of metal beams. Appropriate option?

For the lintel of the hood over the firebox, he used a 30x30x3mm L-profile and to support the first layer of the hood roof, a 30x30x3mm T-profile. Are the dimensions and thickness adequate?

The door is an adaptation of the Mallorcan design to the dimensions of 200mm. The air inlet in the door is 7,182mm2 and the gap between the door and the anti-ash cover to feed the primary inlet is 7,700mm2. Is this setting correct?

The back of the sofa and the armrests are designed from aerated concrete blocks. Suitable option? The exhaust manifold cover is designed with the same material. Appropriate option?

Thanks for your patience.