Hi. I am Clark. I got here by sort of a weird path. I started out researching rocket mass heaters. That lead to keeping the fly ash out of the horizontal chimneys which lead to vortex type cleaners. Apparently a number of people have gone that far and found that it generates to much heat lost and/or to much back pressure to work. That left me wondering if they were doing it correctly. That lead me to the DYI stuff for wood working hoping for a better answer and left me looking for low back pressure low surface area answers that might apply which eventually lead here.
So has anyone tried this as part of a rocket mass heater build? My thinking is to shorten the length of the J tube and put a mildly shorter top hat design in below the heat riser.
Heat loss is surface area so the chamber size need to be as small as possible and as close as possible to spherical or worst case a cube. Problem is the material to be separated is all really fine fly ash to which bigger is better and I understand that too. Are there tables here some where of pipe size with velocity and separation quality information in some form.
Beyond that though having been a shop nut for my whole life I can't help looking at the current designs for wood working and thinking I can easily do that for wood working and fume ventilation.
So the next question is there a list of things that were tried and failed or succeeded with various designs. Of the changes that I would like to try I have seen 4 or 5 shot down and 3 that actually seem to have improved things from the reading starting forward from the original baffle design.. But that still leave a list of other thoughts I haven't crossed off the list yet. If this is stupid questions ignore them. I will get to it reading on.
1. If the blower is mounted directly in the outlet has anyone tried spinning the outlet pipe with the blower to reduce friction in the chamber.? This might also include spinning all or part of the ceiling of the chamber with the blower? This one is totally going with air flow if I understand it right so it should help.
2. What about a spinning disk on the baffle plate? If it spun freely with air flow it would reach some speed between static and air flow but should manage to reduce internal friction. It might be pumping air the wrong way because the centripetal acceleration is fighting the tumbling effect of the air is why it might not work. This one is way more questionable
3. What happens if the chamber opens to a bigger diameter up below the baffle plate? Conservation of angular momentum would seem to say that it would help with separation if I understand the air flow correctly. The particle should be slowed horizontally by its outward trajectory transferring energy from forward to outward while maintaining most of its vertical velocity which should improve separation.
4. Has a key hole in the baffle groove been tried to provide a place for larger stuff to fall through?
Finally are there good pictures somewhere of what the air flow is doing? I think I understand what is happening above the baffle and would like to confirm it. But the air flow below the baffle literally has me baffled.
So has anyone tried this as part of a rocket mass heater build? My thinking is to shorten the length of the J tube and put a mildly shorter top hat design in below the heat riser.
Heat loss is surface area so the chamber size need to be as small as possible and as close as possible to spherical or worst case a cube. Problem is the material to be separated is all really fine fly ash to which bigger is better and I understand that too. Are there tables here some where of pipe size with velocity and separation quality information in some form.
Beyond that though having been a shop nut for my whole life I can't help looking at the current designs for wood working and thinking I can easily do that for wood working and fume ventilation.
So the next question is there a list of things that were tried and failed or succeeded with various designs. Of the changes that I would like to try I have seen 4 or 5 shot down and 3 that actually seem to have improved things from the reading starting forward from the original baffle design.. But that still leave a list of other thoughts I haven't crossed off the list yet. If this is stupid questions ignore them. I will get to it reading on.
1. If the blower is mounted directly in the outlet has anyone tried spinning the outlet pipe with the blower to reduce friction in the chamber.? This might also include spinning all or part of the ceiling of the chamber with the blower? This one is totally going with air flow if I understand it right so it should help.
2. What about a spinning disk on the baffle plate? If it spun freely with air flow it would reach some speed between static and air flow but should manage to reduce internal friction. It might be pumping air the wrong way because the centripetal acceleration is fighting the tumbling effect of the air is why it might not work. This one is way more questionable
3. What happens if the chamber opens to a bigger diameter up below the baffle plate? Conservation of angular momentum would seem to say that it would help with separation if I understand the air flow correctly. The particle should be slowed horizontally by its outward trajectory transferring energy from forward to outward while maintaining most of its vertical velocity which should improve separation.
4. Has a key hole in the baffle groove been tried to provide a place for larger stuff to fall through?
Finally are there good pictures somewhere of what the air flow is doing? I think I understand what is happening above the baffle and would like to confirm it. But the air flow below the baffle literally has me baffled.