Mikey98118

Flame retention nozzles I have occasionally seen flame retention nozzles work much better than they had any right to, according to everything I "knew; and this remains so to this day. When I started playing around with burners, tapered nozzles of one in twelve (1:12) amount of increase in diameter where the best around; but they didn't have enough draw to suit everyone. Next came stepped nozzles, which had plenty of draw; too much for weaker burner designs. Meanwhile, some people were quite content with threaded reducers as flame nozzles. The latest nozzles have short tapers at their ends, and work just fine on SOME burners, and tolerably well on others; they are easily found on the Web. A version of taper nozzle halfway between the classic 1:12 taper and the "horn rim" taper can be made with the help of a Bull pin as a form. I have seen several examples of such nozzles creating excellent flames on mediocre burners. At present, the only conclusion I can reach is to let the nozzle fit the burner's mixture flow.

Rigidizers There are three kinds of "rigidizers" at present: Colloidal silica; colloidal alumina; and fine alumina powder with a binder. The first two kinds of rigidizers diffuse onto the threads, which ceramic wool is made from, by capillary attraction; but the alumina product is use rated higher than silica. The third kind acts similar to Christmas tree flocking. I don't think it is likely to do any better than watered down alumina cement, which is what I would use instead if that was the effect I was after.

there are three kinds of "rizidizers" at present: Colloidal silica; colloidal alumina; and fine alumina powder with a binder. The first two kinds of riqidizers diffuse onto the threads, which ceramic wool is made from. by capillary attraction,' but the alumina product is use rated higher than silica. The third kind acts similar to Christmas tree flocking. I don't think it is likely to do any better than watered down alumina cement, which is what I would use instead, if that was the effect I was after. Silica rigidizers made from fumed silica (eBay) and water, with a few drops of food coloring.

It is good to know yourself. Starting from your statement, the obvious choices would be between Devil and Diamondback. Devil makes quite a range of forges. It is very easy to find yourself paying full commercial forge prices on a new brand in the marketplace; unwise! One of their single burner round forges is a good way to ensure getting your money's worth, and ending up with a good size for a beginner's forge; thus saving a whole lot more money on fuel costs. This forge is not to be considered finished as is; you will need to provide hard firebricks (as a minimum) for its ends. You will also fave to rigidize, and finish coat its insulation for health. But these are mere details, some of which you would also need to for most commerceal forges. Diamondback's single burner forge--despite the manufacturer's horrendous politics--is so well made that it is also one of the few commercial forges I can recommend; it is also the right size to save a beginner a whole lot on fuel money; this forge is turn-key (although I recommend finish coating the insulation). If you have read very much on this forum, then you know how cheap and easy rigidizing and finish coating can be. Not only are small forges the least expensive to use, but they are the only forge size that goes right on being a valuable tool for people who don't decide they like blacksmithing after all; because they are the perfect size for buildings and repairing hand tools.

He didn't; there are no linear burners in that book. Linear burners are discussed at times on the Forges 101 thread, The book discusses a particular kind of burner design, in a step by step manner. For design particulars, on the type of burner he built, he needs to read through Ron Reil's forge and burner pages; they are available free on the Web.

You guys might find my book in your local library if you live near a big city; it was set up for library acceptance at the insistence of the first publisher. I never that this would amount to much, but it's worth a shot.

Or if you have a good deal on the lower rated product, You might as well go ahead, becuase by the time you need to replace the ceramics there will be better choices for low prices replacing all this stuff.

Looks like your right. But we could get a better view if you put the inside on the forges, and reated them up. That should have read "ends" not "insides."

Maybe; if the original liner is some form of ceramic fiber board than no. In that case, it can only match it for insulating value, and will not be anywhere near as tough. Colloidal silica rigidizer (fumed silica in water) can also be used as glue. The furnace cement, watered down, has been used as a toughening seal coat for the blanket, and might also work to glue the blanket onto a hard surface.

Fosty uses annealed copper refrigeration tube between his burners and the fuel hose; you might want to look into doing the same.

I agree that flame photos are quite useful for showing what is wrong with a burner's flame. But I add that they are equally useful in showing that there is nothing wrong with a burner's flame. So I repeat about his burner, the same challenge I give for any burner that is touted as wonderful; show me the beef! Since top welding heat is only around 2300 F, the forge has no need to do so; it only needs to do a good job of preserving the flame's heat and enabling a mediocre burner's secondary flame to combust the remaining fuel within the forge, rather than beyond the exhaust opening,

All good reasons.

What an interesting question, coming from you. I believe well know that a good enough forge can help a mediocre burner to produce welding temperatures. Is this true or not? As to a flame photo being unimportant for a burner that is being loudly touted as something wonderful. I have stated this several times before now about other burners. You already seem to have denied this; do you want this chance to change your mind?

Ah yes, the 'great' Alec Steel, who can brag, brag, brag louder than a carny barker; and his wonderful burner (according to him). Gee whiz Batman. ain't he great? Of course, he is...NOT. What my eyes see are burners that are too short, with flame retention nozzles that are way too large, and way undersized air entrances; these are quite unlikely to be hot burning, yet he states they are just wonderful. How odd then, that he has no photos of them running in his adds. I mean why wouldn't he want to back up his claims with pictures??? Is there something wrong with the bearded woman, and the snake lady? On the other hand that forge video is one of the best things on YouTube; it gives excellent information, with zero BS.

Cheaper yes, but smarter is up to you. Your design mistakes tell me that you need to read through the Forges 101 thread. Your pattern of burners is totally wrong, and your forge is too short to allow any burner pattern to heat your forge without turning it into a flamethrower.

More air simply requires enlarging your present holes and/or increasing the induction rate of your burner (stronger nozzle and/or stronger gas stream ). The easy way to vary the gas stream is with MIG contact tips. Otherwise, drill a smaller hole.

You need to read through all the content on ribbon burners FIRST. The burner has to be the right size for the forge; too big and your forge will tend to work better as a flamethrower. But adjusting the size of your ribbon burner is not as straightforward as choosing a 1/2" linear burner over a 3/4".

too soon we get old. Too late we get smart.

missing hunks and crushed chunks are a subject I no longer want to pursue...I have too many of my own, and way too many memories of others I've seen in friends and strangers.

Burner position update For eighteen years I've recommended that burners be positioned vertically down (and at a tangent in tunnel, oval, and "D" forges); this allows the flame to impinge on high alumina kiln shelf or high alumina refractory floors, producing the most durable position in energy efficient forge designs. But circumstances alter cases. Better insulating and reflecting materials have recently become available at moderate prices. So, it is time to turn away from the vertical down position; this will eliminate overheating burners from chimney effects, which is an important safety factor. There are many other advantages to being free to choose the most efficient angle to aim your forge burners; especially in brick forges.

Agreed; lower cost is nice, but it has always been a secondary factor for me (and I'm CHEAP).

What; you mean I spent all this time being cautious around you (just because you know what you are doing) when there was such an easy way to hide my head in the sand?

It should work okay.

What an excellent attitude! Then you followed up with your personal experience; this is better than "advice from the pros." This is the best kind of input for confidence building in beginners, and that is what beginners need MOST!

The same thing has happened to me over the last three years on IFI. Considering all the cheeky guys who are coming up with excellent new burner and forge designs, it's just as well for both of us. After we had established our "Truths," it is disconcerting to have others turn over our apple carts and make us scramble madly to pick up the fruit scattered all over the pavement. I like it!