Hi, I'm a long time lurker who has been very interested in RMH, specifically batch box style, for quite awhile.
Before I go any further, I want to make it clear I am super grateful for all the time, money, and work put into developing RMH. THANK YOU!
I've seen some threads recently about a book in the works and possible ways to increase popularity of RMH. It seems to me like there is a big hole in available information - a consistently reliable, long lasting, building plan for a 'basic model' (batch box).
As a computer nerd, here is my best way to explain it... you can easily find a Windows tutorial for just about anything that assumes no previous knowledge. It will show you every single necessary step, often with screen shots, on how to complete a task. Linux, on the other hand, seems to have all of their tutorials written with an assumption the reader is already an avid Linux user. You'll read an article that vaguely states you need to get this package and change a couple things in the config file. From there you have to research how to do each thing, each of those articles having other things you have to search for until finally, 20 searches deep, you can complete what you're trying to do.
There is plenty of information on the why of RMH - many people are already sold on how efficient they are. If you read reviews for books related to this subject you will see a theme - everyone says lots of great information, it'd be awesome to have one, I still have no idea how to build one.
There are tons of videos that show them being built, or discuss how a particular one was built. BUT - the way everything is worded it always sounds like they are experimental, and need constant refining to get them to operate at peak efficiency. In general, it seems like the community has had a lot of "I wonder if this would work?" over "How do I make one excellent design?" There is value to both questions, but when safety is on the line, I prefer tried and true.
There are lots of sprinkles of information:
- There are sizing charts, and core plans - with a separate discussion of bells
- Discussions of dampers, where they might go and how one might use them
- Discussions of different materials
- You can find plans, with notes saying something along the lines of "No longer recommended", without a new recommendation - which leaves people very nervous about trying a RMH
- People showing what they built, then discussing various problems that need to be addressed
- People using materials that are not long lasting - leading people to think these all have a short life span, &/or require constant up keep
( I think so far the primary objective was that the building materials be super affordable, which is awesome, but missing a whole sector of average Joes who just need to know this big thing they are building in their home is safe, and will last decades.)
I have also noticed that it is often suggested that people build them outside and do test runs. This does not give people a lot of confidence that these are trustworthy - which is vital when we are talking about indoor fire. It also just seems strange - once a plan that works is developed... given it's assembled correctly, it should work. I diy a lot - including framing, electrical, plumbing, etc. and I've occasionally done a small mock up, or a tiny test run of a new product or technique, but asking someone to build a brick structure, unassemble it, and rebuild it, is a lot.
Here is my suggestion:
Someone knowledgeable should develop building plans for a somewhat compact BB RMH with a traditional brick and glass door appearance, and make them available for purchase. It should use materials that will last decades - and clearly list all materials needed, and how/where to obtain them. The instructions should not assume prior rmh knowledge, should be detailed, and written such that anyone can follow them. It should include instructions for everything - including how to install the door, damper, clean outs, etc. It should be something that, when built according to the plan, is consistently reliable. The key factor here is that it needs to have easily reproducible results, so long as the fuel is the same and the chimney is the correct height, it should just work.
Ever ask a kid to write instructions to make a peanut butter sandwich and follow them *exactly* as written? You should 
I have been eyeballing Walker Stove plans and the ones at FireSpeaking - they seem the closest to getting there. It would be best if there were multiple people who had successful builds of the exact model before marketing the plans, and testimonials/reviews (from average joes) would be great.
Thanks for listening to my rambling
