Mikey98118

You may need to replace your burners with smaller ones. Every burner has a minimum stable fuel pressure; the larger the burners the greater the pressure. It's not like your present burners will be wasted; you will simply use them in another project.

The burner flame will create enough light to throw a shadow play on a smooth surface like cardboard, which is held a foot or so away; this will show the spent gasses as wavy lines on its surface. You can then move the burner's position until the clear but heated gas enters the burner; thus satisfying your self of exactly what is going on.

Any naturally aspirated burner will stall out if run in the vertical down position in your hand. How sharp an angle it can stand depends on how long the mixing tube is. At some point spent gasses from the flame will be driven by buoyancy into the burner entrance, replacing needed oxygenated air. This process can also happen to burners in forges if you don't prevent it, as has been suggested. There is no mystery here.

Also, the burners aren't constructed properly; their reducers are too small and their mixing tubes are too short. Reil's burner notes are still available on the Web. You can also find all the whys and hows of burners on the Burners 101 thread. Forges 101 will show you how to change your forge to do a better job.

Reduce that flame as much as you can, by reducing input gas pressure. Your goal should be an outcome you can work with; not perfection.

Industrial equipment is subject to the "gorilla factor"; that is to say, stupid, lazy, and malicious employees. If the equipment is being used by someone who cares about it, making an occasional fast patch should not present a problem.

I believe someone already pointed out that asbestos used to be well known as being "safe". What they can claim presently, without being liable in the courts, is one thing, and the truth of the matter may be quite another. So, what the purchaser must decide is how much the chance that their claim is true is worth its high price; recent history would indicate not.

Overwhelmingly rich.

No.

When you get down to using the same safety procedures to ensure handling this product with due regard, how will it be better than Kaowool?

They make workable flame nozzles at least as often as a stopped clock is right; whether or not someone finds that acceptable is a personal problem--er, I mean decision

It doesn't increase it in proportion to the same amount of fiber product in a lower density (in other words in proportion to the same amount in a much greater area). The bargain is actually more fiber traded for more toughness in the finish product; not more insulation.

Hi John, There is nothing wrong with both together; it would mostly boil down to convenience. What does matter is how much the total increased difference in area is; not how you arrive there.

Folding squares of Kaowool in half and deliberately compressing them in layers around curved surfaces in heating equipment has been a standard construction technique for decades. The pros and cons may be debated, but some pretty smart people have been doing it for quite a while.

I have considered Metrikote without any final judgment, for years. However, your last two photos have convinced me of its complete efficacy. I would be pleased to see them, and your opinion on Metrikote, placed in the Burners 101 thread, where all the other people who are wondering what would make an excellent low-cost heat reflective seal coating for ceramic wool tthey use.

Yes, there should be a market. Whether or not you want to bother... The smaller the jet opening the smaller the time needed for propane to plug it up, so instructions on how to clean gas jets of a few thousandths of an inch would need to be included. Also, very small jets require quite high fuel pressures, due to friction. The kind of area weed burner that uses 16 oz. propane canisters require full canister pressures to run; that is as much as 135 PSI. I would expect that they would not run below 60 PSI (this is only a guess). Propane, as it is marketed, is not a very clean fuel. Butane that is used in blue flame lighters, for instance, used to be as much as triple refined. Today triple refining is considered a minimum, while some of this fuel is now refined up to fifteen times. While especially crude propane is not the rule, at openings as small as .030" I have had to clean tar balls out of MIG tips for a friend who was using ''bargain" fuel. It only took three 16 oz. propane canisters to completely plug my weed torch, which as a very small jet bore.

Drilling holes and cutting capillary tubes can both cause internal burrs and scratches to interfere with the smooth bore needed to produce a long volume of gas from gas jets. The answer to this problem is the use of a set of torch tip cleaners to remove them.

Drilling holes and cutting capillary tubes can both cause internal burrs and scratches to interfere with the smooth bore needed to produce a long volume of gas from gas jets. The answer to this problem is the use of a set of torch tip cleaners to remove them.

Just so. I like to use a set of torch tip cleaners inside the bore to ensure there are no burrs in drilled holes or in cut capillary tubes, to avoid that.

I think that Frosty meant your forge is hot enough to make an outstanding example. The heat can always be reduced, but a cold forge is the usual first effort we see here; congratulations

Yes, that is what I am speaking of. All of your questions are answered in that discussion; go back enough pages to read it all, including the references to the original article in Digitalfire that it came from.

For one thing, your mixing tube is too short; it is supposed to by nine times the pipes ACTUAL inside diameter. Actual inside diameters of pipe are always larger than its call-out size. Nine diameters between the reducer and the end of the pipe. Worse is your flame nozzle; it has no taper and it has no spacer ring; it needs one or the other.

Without even going into problems with your burner, you hit it in one. Butane simply doesn't run with sufficient fuel pressure when running to support a naturally aspirated burner.

In very small diameter tubing, friction losses rapidly mount up; this is not a problem, but a solution to not finding exactly the best inside diameter available for the desired burner size. For instance, in a 3/8" Mikey burner it allowed me to use .020" inside diameter stainless steel heavy wall capillary tube and get the burner perfectly tuned by sanding the tube down to about 9/6" length inside the end cap. I say about 9/16" because I started out at 5/8" and hand sanded down a few thousandths at a time until the burner tests gave me a perfect flame. I also tried heavy wall brass capillary tube in .022"; it never got as good a flame, although I expected it to do much better than it did. Experience only goes so far, and then experiment needs to settle matters.

Back about six pages is a discussion of a homemade heat reflecting seal coat, which I would recommend hands down over ITC-100; it costs a whole lot less too. While I fully back silicate rigidizer for ceramic blanket, I'm less sure about its efficacy on ceramic board. Two 3/4" T burners should handle the job. Proper soft flames generally take less distance than hard flames to finish combustion; I recommend Frosty's burners over my own in square forges for that reason.