Kenneth Elwell

Kevin Olson wrote:

Cristobal Cristo wrote:
That's why theoretical base is so important. So instead of blindly following recipes you can adjust them to the requirements of the location: material availability, functions, sizing, shape, finish, codes, etc.

I'm the kind of person who does want to understand the "Why" of things, so that I can adapt to differing circumstances.

But, some people just want a recipe to follow.

Some people are happy being a line cook, some want to be a chef.  We need both, and I think there is a place for resources for both types of people.

My impression is that Leah isn't interested (at least, not at this time) in becoming a thermal mass heater engineer, but she would like clear instructions on how to build her own, while others of us enjoy contemplating under what circumstances a condensing exhaust would actually function, and when it might be ill advised (or if it's ever advisable).  Some people just need heat for this winter, safely and simply.

I recall trying to help my daughter, now well into her 30s, with her mathematics school homework.  Trying to explain the slope-intercept formula for a line to her, I began with a discussion of Cartesian (orthogonal) coordinates, just so she understood the playing field.  She wasn't interested in a deep dive, and became frustrated with my attempts at explaining the background for her homework.  She just wanted a procedure (an algorithm) to get the "right" answers and be done.  She has many gifts - she is very good at organizing people and things - but analytic geometry isn't one of them, not by a long stretch.

There are many good reasons a person might not want to become a master of the theoretical basis for masonry heaters - lack of natural interest, lack of free time, or being, in fact, quite cold right now (it might be easier to focus on the theoretical underpinnings after one is comfortably lounging on a heated RMH bench!).

The "theoretical base is so important" to you and to me, but probably not to Leah.  At least, not right now.

I agree with Leah, that there's a wealth of knowledge and years of experimenting to be grateful for, while at the same time there is NO clear "snapshot" of the current state of the art - NOW - at the end of 2024. Maybe a Wiki that is a "Rocket Mass Heater - Year in Review - 2024" with links to relevant threads and information/notes about: who/what/where/how things have happened. Maybe a "pinned comment" or "staff note:" in any threads about experiments/ideas that failed, were abandoned, or required alterations to work; so that readers know that this is the case up front.

I like Cristobal's outline, though Kevin and Burra have a point about the strong technical leaning. I saw some glaring omissions that I think would help swing it towards DIY, by filling in some gaps and providing more background to the layman, and how to begin to calculate/design the project rather than rely on total guesswork.
1.) A Glossary. There's a lot of jargon and technical terms, that span chemistry, architecture, masonry, metallurgy, ceramics... most people might only have a clue about one of these.
2.) A Survey of materials. Masonry materials (bricks, blocks, flue tiles, concrete, mortar, mesh and rebar) , Refractory materials (fire bricks, slabs, ceramic fiber boards and blankets, fireclay mortar, coatings), Metals (steel, stainless, high-temp alloys), Tools - hand and power tools related to the previous materials likely to be used in the construction of the heater. Chimneys and Vents - types, materials, use cases, "general" information about codes? - (common requirements without stating any "data", who are typical  authorities holding jurisdiction? meant as a primer to get to FIND YOUR OWN local codes/authorities)
3.) Reference Tables: Weights of materials, specific heat of materials, geometric formulas, Wood species - Btu values per cord/m^3 and Btu's per weight also weight per volume, Architectural span tables? Heat loss tables for common construction types.
4.) More about calculating the heating potential of the heater: A method to calculate the heating load of the structure. How to calculate the storage capacity of the mass and the release of that heat over time, and the burn times (=Btu/hr? * core type&CSA? * fuel type?) needed to recharge.  How to identify the capacity of your existing conventional heating systems, and suitability for retrofit. Some sort of chart of theoretical 24 hr. indoor temps, without vs. with added thermal mass, and 3 outdoor temps (target of 20C/68F?, 1000 ft^2 typical home, include heat load value used, possibly two values for thermal mass?).

I think that #4 is the crux of it all. I know two people who dove in and built inadequate systems. So much of the information is anecdotal, and everyone's home/structure is different, that makes comparisons nearly impossible. Folks need a real picture of their situation to work from, and it would help if everyone else had their own data to share when they talk about the performance of their heaters. Maybe there's some calculation - factoring in the heater CSA, weight of thermal mass, living area + heat loss of the structure (at some standard Delta T : 25C/45F?), Btus of wood used, (Backup heat energy used),  and Degree Days or weather data for the location - that could result in a rating of the capacity of their RMH. This wouldn't need to be data-logging, just the site-specific details calculated, the usage totals, and an assumption that you are a warm-blooded human who doesn't wear a parka indoors.

As Jay said, photos would help greatly, or a link to where you purchased? maybe the brand/model? There are so many out there, we can only speculate...

You say that you prefer small tools, likely because you have small hands, but too often that also means the tools are suited for smaller work than their "normal-sized" counterparts for average size hands. Twigs not branches, stems not stalks. And if you do try, it's a battle of biting deep to get leverage, which opens the handles wide, resulting in choking up on them to get a full grip, at the same time losing leverage and necessitating a crushing grip to make the cut. There's no finesse as the cut suddenly yields, and your flesh is pinched where it is too close to the pivot, latch, or a spring.

I have done the same thing myself, both with the tiny tools (borrowed) that I can't help but choke up on (it's more of a smothering, really) AND ALSO with my Felco pruners, when I force them to do a lopper's work. I know this, yet I still won't get the loppers beforehand. So, a bit of the tool, and a bit of the technique... When I use the Felcos properly, they are great.

A friend of mine has the Milwaukee M12 battery powered shears, and they are amazing. They have two settings, a full stroke, and a half-stroke which is faster for not making the full swing. It is about the size and weight of a metal 'D' cell flashlight. The nice thing is you hold it and activate a button, not grasp and release, so there's no RMI or fatigue as with secateurs.

I'm also going to guess that corrosion/rust or a buildup of grit/gunk has it stuck. I have a keyless chuck on one drill that is dented (from what I don't know) and it drags in one spot per revolution when tightening/loosening by hand (under power it isn't very noticeable...) therefore, I would advise caution and a soft-faced hammer if you try to knock some sense into it.
If you indeed have a tool/drill chucked up, then I would try grabbing that in a vise (with soft jaw pads) and try a strap wrench to grip and turn the chuck to loosen. AFTER having applied a penetrant, maybe even once-a-day for a few beforehand... penetrants are an exercise in patience.

I have yet to try the acetone/ATF penetrant brew, but did read that it is a bit like salad dressing, that is shake-to-mix just before using. This may be a reason why so many off-the-shelf options exist...since they can literally sit on a shelf ready to use, also aerosol spray/nozzle is both convenient and not quite DIY, and the formulations may be less volatile? Head to head tests prove it to be as good or better than the top two or three penetrant brands (and WD-40 isn't one of them).

That said, I've freed up a few chucks that were sticky by flooding with WD-40 (because it is, and I am cheap) and operating it open-close-open-close.... holding it so it will drain out on a towel. The first few times, debris and rust would come out and with noticeable improvement if there were any metal chips released. I would repeat until either it was plenty smooth over its full range, and/or "clean" WD-40 ran back out.

If you do have round-shanked drills, and they get galled, you can carefully file away those bumps without harming the bit (much). The shank is softer than the tip and flutes.

Mike Haasl wrote:Posting here to remind myself (iteration of Kenneth's idea).  Repackage mostly empty paint cans into smaller containers for longer term storage.  Save/recreate label if you need to duplicate in the future.

Thoughts about storage: Most useless/ruined paints I have encountered are the result of a faulty seal. This may result in dried-up paints of both oil and water bases. Too much empty space (air) and too little product might be just as bad, so transfer to a smaller (right-sized) container might be best. There are also options for "nitrogen purging" the head space in the can, but really makes sense on a high-value commercial product not consumer-grade stuff.

Then with water-based finishes sold in a metal can, a long-term problem is rust. Both contaminating the finish with rust particles/color, and compromising the seal of the can. You can buy new quart or pint paint cans for leftovers, but rust will still get you. There are some plastic paint keeper products... but you would probably spend less buying one or two extra quarts to finish a job rather than storing the remains of that last gallon can. Paint matching is so good now, that in lieu of the original formula, a sample to scan is all you need. So while you have the paint open, make a paint "chip" on a card that you can have scanned later if need be.

Glass jars might be ideal, other than being fragile, since the color and condition can be seen without opening. To avoid rust: maybe a plastic lid rather than metal, or a layer of plastic under the metal lid? Or vacuum-sealing with one of those Mason-jar devices?

Labels in a durable medium (don't rely on the thermal ink sticker from the store) or create a "house" notebook where info can be found later. Color/formula, brand, finish, store, date, color sample, where/what used for, etc... Or photos, if you have a good filing system?

M Broussard wrote:Plastics - Perhaps something about converting feed sacks into tarps to protect soil/gear?

Other types of waste:
Ashes - fertiliser, soap, lye (for cleaning or preserving food)
Bones - biochar and grind into fertiliser
Reculcant-to-compost organics - citrus peels, walnut shells, macadamia shells, hardwood offcuts from woodworking - mulch or biochar
Hazardous waste - smoke detectors (radioactive), batteries (heavy metals), fluorescent lights (heavy metals), old paint (lead, asbestos, microplastics), stained glass (lead), plant residue from phytoremediation projects, etc. Showing responsible disposal of these types of things is important for preventing soil contamination

Unfortunately, most feed sack plastic is without UV stabilizers, and breaks down in a season and shreds into tiny fragments... (I tried with brewer's grain sacks, and regretted it.) I would proceed with caution here... do a test? Use only indoors or under another cover?

I do like the lens of cost/benefit and lifecycle analysis to decide: Am I "saving" anything (time, labor, materials, energy, environmental factors, money, demand-side economics) by reusing or repurposing *a thing* versus  purchasing *a thing*, and can I or will I do better than "professional" recycling or sequestration when available...

Leading to considering  when making the initial purchase: am I able to reuse the packaging? what will I do with the "leftovers" of a larger than needed package? will I just end up disposing of spoiled *stuff* in five years time? where does *this thing* end up at the end of its life, and is that as long I want/need it to be?

Re-use idea: Use up household finishes such as wall and house paints, stains and varnishes, while they are still good to be used. Touch-up/refinish worn furniture, chipped/scuffed paint in high traffic areas. Use-up paints on accessory/incidental projects, either to match a room (furniture, wall shelf, toy box, etc...) or where it doesn't matter (closet walls or shelving, basement/garage: workbench, shelving, or walls, or as a base-coat under a desired color?)

Last haircut by a barber was 35 years ago, just before high school yearbook photos. When short, my hair has a mind of its own, I never did have a crew-cut though. Once it was just about long enough to sit on, and since then whenever I start pulling my own ponytail while shifting in a chair/car/bed... it gets 6 or 9 inches cut off. I wear it up most all the time, since I don't like it in my face, and I am too often around machinery to want to have to think about it.

At this point, however, the whiteness, and thinning on top of my head offer little sun protection, and the ponytail isn't as full as it used to be... so I'm considering shorter... which might be shoulder length and still long enough to be tied-up? I sure hate sunburn on the back of my neck though, even if I don't get it where the shirt tags rub, that's something. It might be another ten years before I'd want to try actual "short hair" again.

Like Christopher and Rebekah, I see re-use/re-purpose, and upcycle, ahead of "recycle"... some of this may just be semantics, but recycling only sees the material itself. Crushing glass into gravel to me is downcycling, and recycling by melting aluminum is also resource intensive. (you may have a need for the gravel, and that's fine, and a cast aluminum project may also use up all the scraps from upstream uses)

re-use is real simple-like: it's a container, now use it to hold something different, or create a storage system using multiples of the same container... or maybe alter it to suit your need.
maybe a container altered to fit a specific item or location begins to be up-cycling, or when it is used for some intrinsic property that the item provides. The shape makes a funnel, a scoop, or a grommet, or a tube when top/bottom removed. You get a flat sheet when cut-up, or thin enough aluminum to emboss with a ballpoint pen for indelible labels, or use as flashing, or cut-out to make washers.

Plastic up-cycling could be something like make a tool (scoop, funnel, scraper) or a clothing accessory (pocket protector, sheath, knee pads) a time/labor/brain-cell saving device (super-visible key fob, a signal device/flag to show state of ON/OFF or OPEN/CLOSED at a distance, or a to-do/done task schedule board - or performance tracker)
Plastic recycling could maybe involve DIY filament for 3D printing or something like Precious Plastics creating "new material" such as planks or bricks to make other stuff from. Or reshaping by vacuum-forming or blow-molding into a new shape with a new purpose.

Glass bottles could be cut and reassembled as "stained glass" in many ways. Glass could also be tumbled to make "pebbles" or "sea-glass" to be used for decoration, art/jewelry projects, or even sold to others who want to use it but not make it...

Maybe make any of these things AND THEN: Give it to someone else to use, as a gift with new way of thinking/living. Or sell it to someone else, either online or at a local market/event?

While I sort of like Triple Burn Masonry Heater and gave it a vote, it sounds a bit like a better mousetrap marketing ploy. I like Montana Masonry Heater much more.

I agree with Mike Hassl's assertion that Montana lends a sense of "if it can make it there, it can make it anywhere!". Montana Masonry Heater also sounds like an attribution to a place where the worldwide idea has received some level of distinct refinement. Kudos.

The inclusion of "Masonry Heater" is the critical element, for regulatory adoption/understanding, as well as cultural adoption. We are all quite familiar and comfortable with masonry, we know what it is (most commonly brick or stone) and many have a chimney/fireplace in their home and it seems "normal", rather than some counter-cultural "dirty-hippy-shit". It also seems durable and time-tested, not just some new-fangled idea prone to fail, become obsolete, or fall out of fashion.

Almost as important to rebranding this is the EXCLUSION of "rocket" and "R" or "RMH" with substitutions for the words. A clear, clean break from "RMH", "Rocket", "Rocket Mass Heater" disambiguates internet searches, and future conversations promoting the concept from the "welded-metal camping stoves" and the variety of DIY RMH systems that a dedicated few have built and use.

"Mass" has less of an image problem, so "Montana Masonry Mass Heater" could also be an option, which might be more descriptive, or make "MMMH" the abbreviation (Mmm...Heater, sounds like something enjoyable.)

Ah, now I understand my confusion. You are using words like "gone" and "missing" referring to the faded colors/fugitive pigments. To me, gone and missing, meant areas of loss of paint from the canvas, or that a larger canvas had been cut down to make that tall shape.
I couldn't quite get to seeing brushstrokes where the leaves were "gone"!  ha ha. The "paint" (the oil medium) is still there, but is colorless like a glaze, and "see-through" to other paint or gesso below. The "painting" (the process of creating an image) has "gone missing", and the canvas is whole (maybe, TBD...)

r ranson wrote:One of the things that makes it tricky is we are missing about 3 quarters of the painting whereas we can see all-ish of the book version.

From what I can see of the brushmarks where the paint is gone, it seems a better painting than the one in the book.  (Family member says it's significantly better, but my art knowledge is still too small to say one way or the other).  That's why he is wondering if the painting in the book is copied from this one and adapted to the books style.

I've seen students outshine teachers, so I'm still very much on the fence.  

Pehaps the frame would give some clues as to the decade?  Not sure this painting and frame are an original match as the paper has been removed from the back.

I'm confused by your earlier post about the difference in proportions, to then be followed up by "missing 3/4 of the painting"... If it is a student work after the example painting in the book, there's no rule that it must be the same scale, or proportion, or just a segment. My guess is that it was done with a canvas/stretchers that were available, or chosen to fit a particular spot in a home more tall than wide? If the canvas were larger, and re-stretched onto a narrower stretcher then there might be evidence when removed from the frame, either image wrapped around the sides, or paint that has been cut through?
But the spacing of the flowers seems elongated vertically, as if to fill the taller space, and extra hips added to aid the composition, makes it seem intentional. The book version has a more cohesive "burst" of light in the center, that the painting didn't get in the upper left, but both have a sort of misty, impressionistic moving away from the flowers, with only the leaves in the foreground having a lot of detail. So, I'm not sure it's "loss" on the painting, rather an oversight? or intentional, to maybe be more about the flowers? more artistic license.