Mikey98118

The original (commercial) ribbon burners use fans for positive air pressure. For several years now people on this site have been building successful naturally aspirated ribbon burners, while a few have gone the forced air rout...less successfully. I do not find that surprising. I think their problem is way too much air pressure input, which they then find difficulty in controlling. The likely solution is to use way weaker fans; computer fans are what I would recommend, because the difference between naturally aspirated and computer fan blown is just a whisper more air--and that is all that is desirable.

Yes, their are lots of options; while deciding which one will work best for you, a simple brick stack in front of the forge opening can serve very well. It isn't as though the bricks will be wasted once you decide what kind of door system to install. Firebricks are endlessly useful.

The photo appears--based on size comparison with your hand--to be made from a two-gallon cylinder with its ends removed. What you replaced them with would be of interest to others. The square opening in its side looks like you intend to install a ribbon burner?

So, how did the workshop go?

Totally correct.

To be fair, I never liked Majestic forges; why? Because my only introduction to them was a series of inquiries on this form about old majestic style forges that people where trying to recondition. None of those people came close to being successful; this didn't leave a positive impression on me... What is a fact is that Majestic forge bodies have a weakness; and that is deformation. Could this be corrected? Probably not. Well, then could it be avoided? Certainly!!! Simply do not overheat this forge. Well, why doesn't the manufacturer fix this "flaw"? It isn't a flaw; it is a design limit. This forge was designed for ranchers, who needed a tool to do many tasks well; this forge does just that. The first thing anyone who is serious about forge design learns is compromise; to get something extra you trade something less necessary. There is no perfect tool. Every good forge design has plus and minus factors. A Diamondback forge is a rock solid and economical design, which is easy on fuel consumption and built to last. If what want to do is to learn forging, etc. it is totally excellent. If you want to ranch, choose the Majestic. If you want to run a commercial forge get a Chili forge or learn how to build your own. Buy or build the rate forge for what you plan to do.

I believe they are back under heir original management and doing business as usual. However, a Diamondback forge would probably be a better deal; they are under new management, and have simplified their forge shells in a way I think is an improvement. They have also cheapened their linings and dropped their prices; this allows you to replace the lining for the difference in price later on, so nothing is lost. What then was the point for them? I suspect that avoiding damage in transit of the original hard insulation board was the motive. It is a simple matter to buy this board locally.

The flames in your photos look just fine. As to rebuilding that forge, I would simply add more bricks to raise the floor level.

As to the flame appearance, Hefty is correct. As to commenting on Amal burners; I don't go there; they have a good reputation among their users, but their dynamics are foreign to any design I have built.

It looks like you are using high alumina kiln shelves for the front and back plates. Is that correct? Or are you using something else? How hot do the plates get over time?

If you place the burner high up on a side wall and aimed at the opposite side wall, then you can screw its mounting plate unto an existing angle iron; this also provides the best positioning of the burner in a box shape forge.

The answer is that, with ribbon burners, positioning is less critical than with any other kind. The position you propose will work just fine, as will many others. So, what is the "best" position with ribbon burners? Mostly it is simply a matter of preference. These days "refractory concrete" is a very loose term. However, most refractories do not make a good choice for use in ribbon burners, for two reasons. To begin with, ribbon burners most withstand severe thermal cycling without cracking. The second problem is heat gain in its internal mixing chamber, leading to early combustion. Kast-O-lite 30 has been the refractory of choice for years because it is formulated to resist thermal cracking and do a very good job of insulating; it is also rated to 3000 F.

The Sandia forge did work well, as Charlot said. However, its users complained that its stainless steel piping lasted kind of fast; it was still aworthwhile trade off ten years ago; mostly the trade was time and welding supplies for added heat/reduced fuel use. However, with today's steeper price of stainless steel, welding supplies, and electricity, the bargain is looking grimmer.

On most burner designs the main variable between running rich or lean is the gas opening diameter versus mixing tube's inside diameter, and the distance between the end of the gas jet and the forward ends of the mixing tube in Mikey burners, or of the distance to the exit side of air funnels in other designs, matter less. However with Frosty "T" burners the distance between the end of the MIG contact tip and the opening of the air/gas exit is every bit as critical as gas orifice size.

I also note that your burner sits snugly within the forge opening, leaving no air gap to induce reverse flow of super heated air from the forge interior after shut off. Also, the burner's mixing tube is plenty long enough to avoid over heating of the the gas hose after shutoff, unless...you leave the burner's air choke (the red sliding sleeve shown in your photo) open after shutdown; in which case, internal heat will flow merrily up the mixing tube, and out of the burner's air vents, cooking the gas hose