Mikey98118

There was no intent to discourage, so get back to us with your findings, so we can discuss them with you. Did giving the forge more time to heat up do the rick?

Between your description of the flame, and the details about your forge's construction, I am inclined to view your 'problem' as more perceived than factual. In other words, you have built in a thermal battery layer, just like many old forge designs had a quarter century ago. As a consequence it will take additional time for it to heat up, so give it this time, and see if your main concerns remain, or just turn into general dissatisfaction about the details.

And, of course, drilling the hole for its burner is easy through those soft Morgan K26 bricks. You can drill with an old spade bit, or a worn out hole saw.

An "intermediate" forge simply does not need the very best burner in the very best forge shape or design. A square brick-pile forge with a burner or burners placed high up on one side, shooting flame across to the interior's far side, a little below its ceiling is an excellent, efficient, and serviceable design for minimal effort. Save fancy forge plans for the future, and build something proper for today's needs today. This advice is being given to you by the most notorious picky-butt on IFI, so maybe you should listen up.

Rest om peace, Tim.

Well, to begin with the most famous "American" refractory series; Kast-O-lite, which we use to make ribbon burners, is a Morgan product; this is an international company that makes their products in several countries for convenience sake. You should know that they started in England and probably still manufacture lots of their stuff there. Your confusion comes from the brand names that their subsidiaries slap on the parent company's products. I would suggest that you look up the Kast-O-lite refractory line, and study its composition and characteristics. Then look for a matching or similar local refractory. Once you have mastered this hurdle, please inform your countrymen, to save them this hassle. Finally, you should know that Kast-O-lite 30 is simply a standard high alumina refractory (about 67% alumina to clay content and a binder) with tiny glass bubbles added to do all the 'magic' in this product. You should be able to buy bubble alumina, or its cheaper glass alternative at a concrete supply house. Before Kast-O-lite 30 started being marketed, hobby casters used Perlite to do the same jobs as glass bubble alumina; it worked just fine, but why bother when we could buy Kast-O-lite 30 for the same price as the commercial refractories that others were using to mix with Perlite? The homemade product came with minor risks and the Kast-O-lite was risk free. Well, what minor risks? People would go overboard with the Perlite, to get more insulation value from their refractory. The limit should be one-third Perlite by valume, but people will do what they do Before we they got clued in to Perlite, home casters used sawdust, which would burn out during firing, leaving insulating voids in the refractory body. However they made no improvement over other refractories when it came to crack resistance; Perlite did, and so does any refractory that includes bubble alumina or glass bubbles. Crack resistance is what made Kast-O-lite refractories famous.

I know nothing about AMAL burners; what I do know is that underestimating any UK made propane equipment is not a smart move. Back in 2006 I purchased a high end UK manufactured propane torch, because it was England that first designed air-fuel brazing equipment, and perfected it. So I figured they probably still had plenty of tricks to show me about manipulating gas flames. I wasn't disappointed. However, the buyer needs to be sure that the equipment is UK built; not just repackaged Chinese stuff.

Than your impression majors on the minors. Using many small flames, spread apart will tend to more evenly distribute heat. I say tend to, not because they will not, but because it is only one path to that goal. I say majoring on the minors because, NO, that is not the main advantage of multi-flame burner heads or burner nozzles. To get the hottest flame from any given fuel, the flame takes a fair amount of acceleration. Without starting some endless debate about how much acceleration serves a burner best, I will simply move on to a faster flame's downside; rapid venting out of the exhaust opening. Here is the crux of the matter: The larger the flame the longer the distance required for it to slow down before being vented. So a bunch of fast hot little flames will slow down to minimum speed sooner before being vented; this means that atmospheric exchange happens slower; slowing vent speed (which sets minimum speed) even more. This is a win win situation for forge efficiency

What configruation did you use as a flame retention nozzle on its burner? One of the many things I like about Frosty "T" burners is how well they work with a variety of nozzle designs. Yet, I have also noticed reluctance to experiment this way, in spite of the great success a few have enjoyed with them. I suspect that a multi-flame nozzle on the end of your burner would greatly enhance that forge--just a thought.

I approved of their burners four or five years back and said so, but the trouble is that they kept changing them. I also noticed that they quit showing photos of what kind of flame the new burners produced; between that and the rediculous trumpet shaped flaring of their newer burner's flame retention nozzles, I started dissing them. That's where I stand right now. As to their forges, if the burner is trash, why even look at the forge it's supposed to heat? I'm always willing to discuss burners, but I think forges have been covered very well, since I see zero new designs in them now.

Haven't touched a bow in seventy years. I have no use for Havalinas or other pigs, since the doctors don't allow me to touch bacon or any other fun stuff. I have been kicking back lately, unless someone asks me to answer a question. You have been doing just fine. I've been monitoring, but feel no need to but in (much:)

Any competently built 3/4" burner will sufficiently heat 350 cubic inches within a reasonable forge design to forge welding temperatures. Two such burners from Mister Volcano will heat 700 cubic inches inside a forge up more than high enough to do that job. These burners are nearly as hot a a Mikey burner; I bought one just before they quit selling them, to find out how hot they are; it was the best $25 I ever spent.

That is the best position in a tunnel forge. However, the wider floor in a "D" forge presents the possibility of a little better positioning; that would be burners placed just above the floor, facing upward and inward. However, that improvement comes with lots of headaches. To begin with, the burner bodies will now be protruding out to the side and downward, which means that you need to change out a single larger burner for two or even three smaller (therefore shorter) burners, to insure plenty of distance from their air openings and whatever surface your forge rests on. It also means that the whole inner surface of the forge must be just as flame proof as only the floor is in other forges. How much return for all that extra work? maybe seven percent; maybe as much as ten percent We, the insane, will jump on that deal; practical people? Not so much. Okay, so I started out the same way. It took maybe ten years before I would admit my mistake, and started to advise people to aim toward, but short of, the far edge of the floor That last paragraph was for you, Frosty. The system simply merged it into my previous post.

When it comes to burner placement, what is best and what is worst is quite plain to see. Flames which are placed to allow and even encourage swirl in the forge atmosphere are best. Next in importance is positioning flames to travel the longest distance before they impinge on part surfaces. If you combine both factors, you the receive maximum benefit. Of course, you may need to sacrifice some of one factor to increase the other, with some forge designs. So, what would be the worst choice? Well, how about mounting the burner in the middle of the back wall and aimed straight forward toward the front opening? Yes indeed, this will do a horrible job! Naturally, none of us are that stupid, right? The point here, is that if you'll just take a moment to consider such an absurdity, it makes something plain. If you will picture a burner flame's heat path, which may be as much as two feet, from a four inch long flame, positioning is no mystery. Take a little time to think things out. The more you think things through the more obvious forge design becomes. So, what about doing things different then what us gurus claim is best? Let me just say that you can cheat and get away with it. Yes, indeed you can. Lets look at positioning a burner at top dead center and facing straight down toward your work on the forge floor below it... Mikey says don't do that!!! I say place that burner at 10 or two o'clock and aimed two inches short of the far end of the forge floor for best performance, and I am (of course) quite right But, my best buddy had me build him a forge with top dead center facing down burner position for a special purpose; he wanted to heat 1/4" square stock in it to build hooks for horse harnesses, as a business, and he only wanted to heat them to red. He wanted to heat a lot of pieces at one time. He thought that this positioning would be his best shot at achieving his goal. I built what he asked, and the forge and burner setup worked find and dandy...wait a minute, what happened to all my rules about burner positioning, huh? what kind of deal is this? Maybe Mikey ain't so smart as he thinks, yeah? Um...when backed into a corner, my advice is to cheat, whenever possible, so that is just what I did. The forge was built from a five-gallon propane cylinder with a Mikey burner placed top dead center facing straight down on his work pieces, which of course is a perfect receipt for building scale. What to do? He only needed red heat, so I used a 1/2" Mikey burner in that forge. All problems were solved. But, what about swirl? The smaller burner size allowed a kind of double swirl, with the flames dividing toward either wall of the forge, as they impinged on its floor; not ideal, but workable. It is nothing I would have recommended, but circumstances alters cases, and the customer is always right, right? You consider all factors and do the best you can, within the limitations imposed by the forge design...which is why you should very carefully look at the WHY of that design before putting ink to paper. Then, review that why over and over as you proceed. And should you find that your design "just looked cool" when it came into your head, stop; revise it while it is just a doodle on paper. Because a paper doodle will turn into an embarrassing mess when you attempt to make it real.

woof, woof

I'm so glad that you feel compelled to hold the line on terminalogy, Frosty, so I don't gotta

Sorry Brian, for not responding earlier To begin with, although you chose a helium cylinder, its dimensions are in the ballpark with the five gallon propane cylinders that hundreds of people have used over the last quarter century to build gas forges from. The only thing you will find necessary when using a 3/4" Frosty burner in this size forge, is to turn it down a little, so as not to melt your parts

BTW, I only use this method to tap critical parts. To thread a hole in a part like that? I trap the part in a wrench one hand and a tap in a holder in the other hand. After aiming as close as I can by eye, I just start threading, and allow the tap to center itself (gasp!) How is this possible? Brass is more forgiving than steel, and the tap used is a taper tap--not a plug tap. If Mikey the picky-but will tap free hand, then how hard can tapping with the help of a drill press be? Common; this ain't brain surgery. Airplanes won't be falling out of the sky if you mess up a little.

There is no need for an elaborate setup to tap a single hole in your part. Simply insert the tap directly into the the chuck, and move it down to the part by hand. Then, turn the chuck by hand to get the tap started into the hole correctly. Then release the tap from the chuck. Mount the tap holder on the tap, which is now started in axial alignment with the part's hole, to finish threading correctly with it.

As to a pass-through in the rear forge end; an under sized opening calls for work to enlarge, but an over sized opening will prove much harder to correct.

Frosty is right. What you want to do is keep the steel shell at least one-inch away from the opening's refractory, in order to keep that steel shell from any danger of warping. As to the stand, I prefer to use legs to ensure air circulation between the forge shell and anything the forge sits on. Those legs can always be trapped on stand or bench surfaces.

Yes

Yes, and also insulating bricks that have higher temperature ratings. However the higher the rating the less insulating they are. Everything is a trade-off. There are no free rides. Nevertheless, all these bricks are more insulating than standard firebricks.

Frosty is right on. Choose Morgan insulating firebricks, which are at least rated for 2600 degrees. 2800 is even better if you have a really hot burner. Then coat their flame faces with at least kiln wash, or some tougher re-radiating surface, to save fuel costs and lengthen brick life.

I was writing about the small burner in their photo. We can use it for our discussion, so that others have a visual reference for the conversation. I must admit to an unfair advantage, since it is similar to a Mikey burner. So, to begin with, they have done a good job with the shape of its air openings. I try for totally square corners, but their small rounded inside corners are not going to hurt performance. However, the lack of beveling at the forward and rearward ends of those openings certainly will do so. Am I saying that all such openings absolutely must have bevels? No; it depends on the thickness of the burner tube. The thicker that tube, the more substantial the eddy currents creating drag to incoming air that will be become, and the more essential a knife edge, instead of a blunt surface is. On the other hand, Mister Volcano burners made a brilliant decision to take advantage of thinner stainless steel burner tubes, to avoid the necessity for beveling. I purchased one of their burners to see if they "got it right," and they certainly did. The second thing is that these burners do not have a flame retention nozzle. To get maximum performance from a high speed tube burner, it is needed. That said, inside a forge, only picky-butts like me would even see the difference. Finally, I would bet money that this burner only has a drilled hole as a gas accelerator. However, the smaller the burner the hotter its performance (don't ask why, 'cause Mikey don't know). So, what's lacking here probably will make no significant difference; if it does, you can always install a 3D printer nozzle. I'm sorry that I cannot find a first class small burner to suggest for purchase at present. At least their are still reasonably priced improvable burners available. Any questions remaining about this or some other burner choice?