Win a copy of Herbal ABC's: The Foundation of Herbal Medicine this week in the Medicinal Herbs forum!

Birdman McCoy

+ Follow
since Mar 13, 2010
Colorado
Apples and Likes
Apples
Total received
0
In last 30 days
0
Total given
0
Likes
Total received
1
Received in last 30 days
0
Total given
0
Given in last 30 days
0
Forums and Threads
Scavenger Hunt
expand Pioneer Scavenger Hunt

Recent posts by Birdman McCoy

First of all a stream  is run off, lost water,  and usaly not to be recovered again,

lest jsut say you have 100 acers, of ground,  if you sealed the ground so you could catch ever drop of rain fall,  and you put a roof on it so no evaperation can take place,

you have choosen montana for your experement,
the annal rain fall is said to a little under 12 inches a year, (11.37 inches)

a acer foot of water, is about, 325,824 one acer 12 inches deep,

a 100 acers would be, 32,584,800 gallons,

you take the 32,854,800,  and divide that 365, gallons a day, 89,273,

89,273 divie by 24 hour,  3,719


3,719 by 60.  61.995

and you take that 62 gallons of water  a min, how much of a stream is that,  over a V weir, it is about  a depth of 3.75 inches of depth,  about 3 inch pipe full, if I figured correctly,

that is 100% of all the water in one year off of 100 acres, 

not one drop for any plant growth, not a drop for evaporation, 

most of permicuture  is to figure out ways of extending the limited water supply by capturing the run off waters and storing and reapplying to the land and the plants,

in most instances one will want to amplify the water supply in a 12 inches a year, situation,  not let it run off, and that is exactly what a stream is run off,

unless some one has a magical way of increasing the rain fall  or pull ground water up to the surface to create a spring,  for the most part natural foliage will use the 12 inches of rain, if you want to concentrate  the water on for plants that require more water than native plants,

where is one going to get this surplus of water, to let it run off,

lest just say you plant trees, on a 100 acres, even 1000 acres,  and it start a micro climate, (yes one some times needs moisture in the air to attract clouds and to attract rain,  but 100 acres, NO way, 1000 acres,  it may help but to have the rain fall on that 1000 acres only, very doubtful, even 10,000 (15 square miles) or even 100,000  (156 sq. miles, and area about 12 miles by 13 miles) acres worth, is still a very small area of land to start to make a micro climate change that would start to effect rain fall amounts, 

and you have a few other obstacles to over come one would need storage, and catchment of the water,  and then how is one going to grow the plants one wants if your going to let it run off or away,

where is the water going to come from? 
7 years ago
In any comparison, one has to use apple to apple comparison, or oranges to oranges,
regardless of the percentages or the words used,


in the beginning the statement RMH used 1/8 the wood,  and from the understanding I have is some person took out there old wood stove and put in a RMH and now uses 1/8 the wood he used before,

and that is the comparison right there one stove used 8 units of wood and one uses 1 unit of wood to heat the same area and building,

if all is the same, building and no upgrades, then the RMH is 8 times more efficient than the one taken out,

since we do not know what the old unit was or if it was even a conceptual air tight unit,

does not mean in all instances if you put in a RMH it will lessen your wood usage by 8 times.
My SIL bought a new cast iron box heater, and use nearly the same amount of wood in it to heat a small 12 x15 foot room. he has little control over the burn of the fire, (mostly by varying the size and amount of wood in the stove),  air control is nearly use less, on it, to control the burn so he either has a very hot fire that is going out the chimney at nearly 1000 degrees, (pipe glowing dull red),  to no fire at all,
a very efficient burn, but very poor recovery of the heat that is produced,  in my stove, I have a very good control of the fire, (I can put out the fire by closing it down),  and can pack it full and have a nice burn all night long, with a very stable heat out put that I can efferently recover, (no the burn of the fire is not as efficient as his but I can much more efficiently recover the heat produced),

now from what I under stand the RMH burns the wood efficiently (hot), and recovers the heat efficiently (keeps it in the room or building),

now if one goes from a poor wood stove that dumps the heat to one that recovers the heat you going to use less wood,  and if one can do that and burn the wood more efficiently as well, you will use less wood yet, and apparently the RMH fits the bill on both of those areas.

(in our last cold snap, below 0 for number of days, my SIL with his barrel stoves and box stove and 1940's cook stove (yes three stoves burning) could not keep the temperates in the house on the main floor, above 40, basement was good and bed room where there box stove was good) but the kitchen and main living area got below freezing at night,  they went through a estimated 500 pounds of wood that day, and I went though about 120 and my house was at 70 on the main floor and about 55 up stairs, and one stove, (yes the houses are different in there insulation qualities, size is much the same,  but he had three stoves going and only a few comfortable locations, and I had one going and the whole house was basically comfortable,  there are differences of efficiencies, of the stove out there and the buildings there in,

he told me about a piece of yellow pine he threw in the box heater, said it was a 2 x12 about 14" long, and he said it weight about 14 pounds, he put it in the box stove and said it turned the little heater to a dull red,  and the stove pipe to a dull red,  (he said he got his fire extinguisher and keep it ready as he could not control the burn rate of the fire in the box stove,)
now if that piece would have been in a RMH, most likely it would have heated the room for many hours, but under the conditions of his stove 90% of the heat mostly went up the flue, and out side, and in return they only got an hour or so out of  usable heat out of that wood, where if they could have recovered that heat and stored it for some time they may have recovers over 90% of the heat instead of only about 10% of the heat that was produced, 
that would easily result in a 8 to 1 reduction of wood usage,

7 years ago
wood stoves vary greatly, on the amount of wood that they can use for the heat that is put out,

IN my own experience, and my SIL, he will go through 4 or 5 times amount of wood, than I do go though,

I had my folks wood stove, before I moved mine in to the house here, it would burn about twice the wood amount for same amount of heat that was put out, and this was a "air tight" stove.

and if you have a old non air tight, it may take a double the poorer air tight,

depending on the stove one is comparing against, I could see the possibility of a 8 to one savings on wood usage, but my guess is that would be the extreme, not the normal,  to a good quality manufactured wood burner,

another factor is/was the fuel the same, was it the same species, the same moisture, the same degrade do to age, or pounds per cubit feet,

 
7 years ago
IMO

that is the only way one can justify the claim you first started with,

you would have to "TEST" the two different stoves in the same given set of parameters,

with out the parameters changing,  and the basic fuel (wood) the same in both.

one can do a base calculation on estimated heat loss by measuring the building and it components and the R values,  and one could weigh the wood and estimate the BTU it has, and come up with some type a comparison as to efficiency that way as well,

the only efficiency rating that is important is how much heat are you getting in the house, from the wood burnt, 


7 years ago
thank you for your reply,

I currently am using two tire tanks, so there black and much more insulated than the steel tanks, one is a tractor tire turned inside out with one side wall cut off, (I made my self and the second is a industrial earth mover tire I bought)

one both tire tanks, one the first I took a culvert and put it in the earth about 9 feet, (this one was not above the rim of the tank and in the course of time got filled with water,
water is at its dense about 40f degrees (why a lake does not freeze from the bottom up)

need less to say not to good of results,

the second tank the large tire tank the culvert is above the rim of the tire tanks edge, and only has air in it, (it is covered, with a tire cut in to and plywood center),  it helps to keep the tank thawed but at sub zero the cold over takes the earth heat, 
this year I am trying aquarium blubbers and it has some success, at least keeping the ice thin where it is bubbling,

one of the problems is moisture condensation is freezing in the air tubes and blocking the air flow,  one set of lines is about 75 feet, when it is working it nearly keeps the float free,

in two of the tanks I am using electric heaters, the ones that sink to the bottom of the tank, (in years past I tried the floating ones and they did little),  (trying to conserve on power here, the small tank has a 500 watt, and the medium tank has a 750 watt) they make the meter spin fast enough,

the other thing I tried this year is to put a pipe with a elbow in the one tank that has the water filled culvert in it, and dropped a aerator in the pipe to pull the warmer water up off the bottom of the culvert and move it into the drinking area of the tank, (note this tank only has one cow drinking and goats have access to it),  but the goat also have the small steel tank (sheep tank) that has the 500 watt heater and a set of aerators in it, it keep the places where the aerators ice down to about 1/4 inch thick,

the large tire tank has the cattle and when they come and drink it get refilled with warmer water from the pipes in the earth,
but still will freeze up in 0F weather, (no power in that tank, not feasible to get power to it), but do have the air bubbler's and the dry culvert in the earth,  but still need to go break ice daily  and fork it out ever few days, before it over whelms the tank,

my goals are to go electricity free or nearly,

two tanks are in full sun light, one is only in the sun during the morning hrs,

I have considered this Idea,  http://www.ibiblio.org/farming-connection/grazing/features/builtank.htm

which is similar to this commercial unit, http://www.cobett.com/HTML/products_SBNoFloat_Main.html

I have never considered this type, but I do not have any hills either, http://agwater.okstate.edu/research-and-extension/Research/presentations/Freeze-Proof%20Stock%20Tanks.pdf

may be a solar panel with a submersible pump to put it up on the panel when the temp in the panel is at a give temperature and then it would drain dry when the temp dropped,

sure would like to get the power use in a minimal use than just dumping a heating element in the tank,


7 years ago
the problem with the roller mill is the one the feed mill owns will not close up tight enough to do millet, I ended up making a burr mill with 6" burrs, I bought from CS Bell, used in there La Milpa mill, 


since the picture a belt guard has been added and the proper switch (the original switch was faulty),  and the frame was painted,  It grind about 10 pounds a min.
7 years ago
What methods do you use to keep the stock water from freezing, or at least holes open in it?
this is in various water tanks from 40 cattle, 10 goats, to one cow in a pen, (different tanks)
pulse a dozen cats,  we also have the chickens in another area,
7 years ago
I would think that after going through the Magic heat, and so froth the heat would be reasonable even in the pipe, 
when I lived in MT, the chimney had Icicles hanging from the cover on it most all winter,
I know it has to be reasonably cool,

and I do not know why there seems to difficulty in thinking that a low temperature chimney would draft, as gas appliances have hoods that pull in fresh air, on them that lower the temperature to not much more than 100F, 

even the rocket heater, it draws even tho it has a low temperature flue,

one of the keys to efficiency is to remove the heat into the living area,  and not let it go up the chimney.

for a standard wood stove the magic heat is a good item, in some cases it can extract double the heat that the stove would produce by it self,
7 years ago

paul wheaton wrote:
When i talk about rocket mass heaters, the most common question is that how can it use five to ten times less wood to heat a home, if the existing wood stove is 90% efficient.

And by "question" I mean that there is usually a long list of my obvious mental deficiency and how I must be selling snake oil. 

To me the answer is obvious:  smoke leaving the house of a 90% efficient stove is really hot.  Usually 300 to 600 degrees.  It has to be to get the smoke out.   Exhaust leaving a well built rocket mass heater is leaving the house at 70 to 100 degrees.   

That's it.   

Am I overlooking anything?




I do not know what kind of wood stove you use, but but my stove pipe going to the chimeny is only about 150 F, or less,

I have the wood stove, (a down draft unit made in 1980), with a stove pipe oven on it and a magic heat, and then about 3 foot to the chmmeny, and it draws fine,  it has been used in two diffnret houses, and has worked well in both of them,



7 years ago
what happens if one builds a "beeze way" between buildings? and then screens or side it in in time?
7 years ago