Mikey98118

Frosty, I'm not saying that you're off topic. I'm asking you to post a copy of what you wrote were it won't be drifting out of notice. I'm saying that it is worth keeping some place where it will still be viewed next year and next decade.

The only thing wrong with what I read here is that it belongs in your "T" burner thread, lest future researchers miss reading it. I started the two 101 threads to encourage readers to mess around and come up with newer burner and forge designs, that I can't even imagine. The more information we leave behind the faster they will come up with new and better ideas. On the other hand, it is fun for me to hear the history of your technical journey. I went straight to employing MIG contact tips in burners simply because I had been using them for MIG welding since the sixties. It seemed smart to suggest them as the easiest means for people to buy and mount superior gas orifices in their burners, which they could buy at their local welding supplies store. These days, it is even easier to buy them online. However, I had been falling behind, having no idea that 0.020" welding wire even existed. This was a serious boo-boo, because their 020 contact tips for 15AK MIG guns use M6 x 1 threads; the same threads as 3D printer nozzles, making 1/2" size burners (how very convenient for experimenters)

Where's the fun in that? Seriously, I said from the beginning that the more good burner deigns the merrier. All this stuff is just a hobby for me. At present the flower gardens are more important. Come winter I will play in the garage, to avoid all that nasty rain

Started out building burners with black water pipe, and gave up, after the book was published. Stainless steel pipe is just way better. Clear back then, what convinced me wasn't its dimensional shortfalls, or out of round condition, but the internal weld seams on various different pipes being utterly unpredictable; some of them had smooth beads about 3/32" high and others were an irregular lumpy mess about 3/16" high. How is a fella supposed to get predictable results that way?!?

The bore is supposed to be 0.023" which is just about perfect for 1/2" Mikey burners. I will need to build a new one with this tip after gardening season is over.

Oh my; it's true. 020 MIG tips exist. I will have to buy some and test how much oversize they are, and whether the designation is for wire size or through hole size. Wire size would probably mean they are perfect for 1/2" burners. If they have a bore of 0.020" (.6mm) they are perfect for 3/8" burners

Most of the research and design time I put in has to do with repurposing burner parts, like MIG tips and 3D printer nozzles, in an ever changing market. The latest twist is mention on here of a ".020" MIG contact tip. If true, I will have some changes to make in my burner plans.

True, Frosty, But what I like best is picking your brains, as for instance: "Huffing is typically caused when back pressure puts the flame out, causing pressure to drop in the chamber which lets the burner induce combustion air again and it relights only to repeat the process." Beautifully put; I will use that one

Exactly, Frosty, Not to mention MIG contact tips that have no thread at all. When giving instructions for a particular burner, of a particular size, I give that kind of advice. Here...not so much; he is already committed to 1/4-27 (or 1/4-28 if he must) thread by the gas pipe. Twenty-five years ago my favorite MIG tips were a completely different length and diameter from the ones I recommended then and now; but they were expensive and hard to find. Readers just don't need the grief.

Kintan, Assuming that you are employing a schedule #80 1/8" pipe nipple, you would probably end up cutting it in half, internally threading the cut ends, and screwing hose fittings or needle valves unto the remaining threaded ends. But, but, but, what if the two halves of that nipple end up to short?!? The change to schedule #80 pipe improves internal flow so much that you can use a pipe only two-thirds the length recommended in the book, and it will still work just fine. I do recommend beveling the cut ends of the nipple after they are threaded for the MIG tips. Yup; this is done to keep maximum flow of incoming air past that point. However, anyone could tell you that I am a notorious picky-but. Loads of people ignore this advice without any harm. Nevertheless I is right and they is wrong...so wrong. You believes me don't you?

Yes, Frosty. I prefer three air intakes. In the book I used more intakes on the larger burners, but never two, or four, or six intakes, the point of odd, rather than even numbers is to insure that incoming are will spin the maximum amount, because no intakes end up opposite each other. You want the spin from each air intake adding to the others; not slowing the other's spin. Post book I came to see that three air intakes is optimal, because this number gives maximum spin and maximum use of space; the more ribs that are needed between increased numbers of air intakes the less room left for either intakes or ribs; a lose, lose situation Is there ever a time when even numbers of intakes makes good sense? Yup, indeedy so. 1/4" Mikey burners are both far more difficult for people to build, and way to strong! The main thing they need is some de-tuning. Two air entrances actually work out better than three; only in this burner size. I built a 1/4" Mikey burner with three air entrances, and it created perfect flames...with very little turn-down range. Two different guys on IFI built the same burner with two air intakes, with perfectly acceptable flames, and good turn-down ranges (with a lot less work) We must understand the reason why in a design; then we can make intelligent changes to that design. Otherwise, we crash and burn. Note: It has also been shown that diagonal air intakes are superior to rectangles. However, only enthusiasts will make that kind of effort.

The point of using schedule #80 1/8" pipe for the gas tube, is not about ease of build; that is a very nice side benefit. The point of using schedule #80 1/8" pipe is that its inside diameter is approximately 3/16". After you run threads for your MIG tip into that pipe, rather than a schedule #40 1/8" pipe, you end up with a smoother transition of gas between the pipe and MIG tip. In the book I called the gas pipe and MIG tip an accelerator, for very good reason. HINT, HINT! The point of brass pipe, rather then steel pipe, is not that it is easier to thread; once again, that is merely a nice side benefit. The point is that brass schedule #80 1/8" pipe is easier for people to find online, because it costs more money; charging more is near and dear to sellers black little hearts. If you can find the right steel pipe, fine and dandy. Since you have the book, it should be easy enough for you to rebuild your burners to conform to my design, starting with reshaping those rounded ends of the burners air slots, that the other guy used. I made the point repeatedly that that was a none starter!!! If you want to spend the time, after you understand the burner's design principles, to change and test these burners, good for you. Several people on IFI have done so, quite successfully. Two different commercial burners used my design with some changes, for commercial reasons; both were highly successful; I applaud that. It is possible to use a reducer as the burner's flame retention nozzle. It is also possible to use no nozzle at all; both method works...kind of. However, the nozzle I designed for this burner is one of the factors used to tune it for its promised superior flame. Finally, in the book I told the reader how to use three set screws to position the accelerator dead center; do so, and good luck. The author.

So why all this blah, blah, blah about slick light filters for torch goggles anyway, huh? Well, being a major picky-butt, I prefer silver brazing exterior parts unto forges, to screw mounting them. After all, you have already built or bought what you need to do the heating with. Silver brazing is not about being a master torch mechanic. Its about setting the work up very carefully, and then strolling through your task; and part of that means being able to easily see what you're doing. People have been using various colored ANSI rated lenses to sneak a superior peak at their work for about four decades now. Yup, it's true. However those superior torch views can cost as much as two hundred bucks...I totally object to that! Did I mention being a cheap-butt, too? Okay, Frosty. I sgave ya with two straight lines. I wanna good dig ought yous.

2” x 4.25” auto-darken filters with shade #3 clear states can be dropped into torch goggles; the oldest models (lens face looks magenta (red-violet) in photos) provide a green view equal to a shade #3 athermal green welding lens, for between $8 and $10 through Amazon.com. Tru-color auto-darken filters (lens face looks gray or blue in photos) cost as little as $11. These filters can be coupled with colored theatrical films to create any desired color view in shade #4 and darker. Aiming matching colored LED dimmable floodlights at the work, can raise this view back up to shade #3. But how do you darken it? By starting with an ADF with a shade #4, or shade #5 clear state. Thus, you can fine tune your views between shade #3 and shade #6. This simple system gives complete eye safety with little bother. While the small window of a 2” x 4-1/4” ADF is perfectly adequate for shop work, a larger window is desirable for overhead work and working in confined spaces, in the field. Ambitious people can get a larger window by cutting apart a larger ADF and removing its three-part glass sandwich sheet (which contains a UV/IR interference layer); this is what you look through in its clear state (when the middle and rear polarization layers are not active). ADF clear state shades of #1.5, #2, #2.5, #3, #4, and #5, are available. Although any ADF with a clear state below shade #3 is only found in more expensive filters, at present (the lower the clear state the more expensive the ADF). Prices on ADFs are constantly reducing as “the latest thing” becomes an older model. Prices for 2” x 4.25” true-color ADFs started at sixty dollars, in 2024; they dropped down as low as $11at Amazon.com in 2025. The viewing area on a 2” x 4-1/4” ADF is only 1-1/4” x 3-7/8” (its three-part glass sandwich measures 1.376” high by 3.976” long by 0.125” thick). The second most common ADF size is now 4-1/2” x 5-1/4”; it was 3.54” high by 4.25” wide (or slightly different plastic body (cartridge) dimensions that would still fit in helmet openings meant for this ADF). This size is now an old design, which can be purchased through Amazon.com for as little as $5 in 3-11 green view filters, and as little as $11 for true-color 4-13 filters, because this size is considered dated. Some ADF cartridges can be easily popped open at their seams. Otherwise, the easiest way to free its UV/IR interference layer is to cut away its top section (where the all the electrical parts are)and pry the rear face of the plastic body away. All the inner workings are attached to the glass sandwich with soldered wire and nestled within a pocket on the front face; two or three gentle bends will break the solder, parting the glass away from all these electrical parts; its dimensions are 1.885” wide by 3.784” long. The plastic bodies are meant to fit within welding helmets designed to accept an ADF with approximate dimensions of 3.54” x 4.25”. My first ADF had a plastic body that was 4.314” long, and the second ADF’s body was 4.332” long. The glass sandwich is too small to work in 2” x 4-1/4” torch goggles, and the plastic body too wide and too long. You will need to cut the front face of the plastic down to just over width 2” wide and then hand sand it down to exactly 2”. Sanding off the ridge on the opposite edge will help in getting the part down to 2”. Sanding the ridges on its two ends will help reduce its length down to 4-1/4”. Next, place this spacer into the goggle’s recessed pocket. The glass sandwich will be set within this part, and trapped in proper position by it, only after it is placed within the goggles. You will end up with a smaller view than is provided by a standard 2” x4-1/4” lens, but far larger than you would get by simply dropping a 2” x 4-1/4” ADF into the goggles.

Update: Oubit Auto Darkening Welding Goggles are available through Amazon.com for $11; they are garbage, but they come with a 3-11 true-color auto-darken filter. I never recommend using an imported ADF for arc welding; for that, only trust your eyes to a very top of the line American made ADF. However a shade #3 clear state in a true-color ADF can be coupled with any color of acrylic sheet desired to make successful shade #4 or darker torch lenses.

Florida Man, I don't completely agree with all of your views, nor do I disagree with them. Your insights come from doing the work, and things you have seen first hand. I totally respect that. I spent a quarter century involved with hobby casting groups, both online and in person. And the bottom line I saw with newbies, was their desire to cut costs by cutting corners. I'm confident that my crack about "beer cans and wheelium" did not slip by you. I don't think that the lower pour temperatures makes aluminum safer than brass; it just seems so to novices. It is the lack of fumes from the scrap pile that those novices want to use, which reduces risks; anyway, that is how it looks to me. If you can show me how my deduces went wild, I will only thank you for it. Speaking of insight, your advice on mixing copper scrap and tin, to make real bronze, instead of all the junk they lable 'bronze' these days, was sharp; it was so obvious I can hardly believe that I never thought of it... Please, say on. I know there is more good stuff where that came from Mikey

Since you asked: (1) Frosty was right as far as he took it, but collage classes are just one avenue. There is quite likely to be at least one hobby casting group in your area. Go on line, and look up home casting sites, to inquire about such a local group; it is likely to consist mainly of guys who retired out of various trades, and took up hobby casting for something to do; they will have learned quite a bit about safety over the years, and learned how to keep safe in their hobby as well. (2) The level of danger in casting has to do with three things: Melt size; pour temperature; and particular fumes given off by various metal oxides. This is the particular danger of using metal scraps. When it comes to brass in general, and imported brass parts in particular, you will be clueless to what oxides you are dealing with. This is why casting aluminum is the path most people take, to get into metal casting. There are metals with lower pour temperatures, but all of them have much more serious fumes, including zinc. Aluminum scrap, from beer cans to wheelium, produce little in the way of fumes. How come? Well, aluminum alloys contain mostly...aluminum, and its oxides do not even melt, let alone boil at the flame temperatures that air-fuel burners reach. In fact, you must add some zinc into the charge, to get the melting process started. Then, those oxidized particles are chemically converted, to liquefy, rather than be directly melted. (3) Aluminum and most other liquefied metals (with the exception of some white metals) will cause concrete to explode upon contact; this will then fling liquid metal all over your shop, and all over yourself. Crucibles can eventually crack, spilling their contents into your furnace, and then right out of the emergency spill hole at its bottom. This is why hobby furnaces are set in steel tubes with three or four inches of dry sand; it will contain the overflow, keeping it off that concrete floor. But what about the pour area. You could have an accident, and spill a little bit, or a lot, between the furnace and the molds. The pour area can be contained in a square made of two by fours, filled with sand, ending the need for a tub. The furnace, molds, and the shop space in between, all rest on a layer of sand; it can be swept up into a container between pours, and the wooden square leaned against a convenient wall. (4) The next steps are all about larger, more efficient, and way safer equipment. I would suggest that you hunt up a PDF of Gas Burners for Forges, Furnaces, & Kilns to see how to build your next burner and casting furnace. There is probably still a couple of pirate site giving away free copies of the book; I seem to remember eight sites at on point Or you can buy a used copy through Amazon.com, learn what you need to know, and then resell it through Amazon.com; dozens of people have. Thousands more won't let go of their copy (just a bunch of hoarders, I say).

Is this appropriate for the task at hand? If so, at what ratio should I mix it with water? PS. If anyone knows where I could get brass for casting in small quantities that... The more you mix into water the thicker the solution gets; if it is thin enough to be used in a spritzer bottle, it is fine. If you mix it too thin, the food coloring that you put into the water, will alert you. This is one of those tasks hat you can do sloppy, but you can't get wrong. Start off with aluminum castings; it is a lot less serious, when you make mistakes. When you must get serious, employ silicon bronze. You can remelt it over and over, with reasonable safety. Use the correct safety gear, with the correct fume filters. Work outside; especially while you are learning what to do. I hope you also purchased a stainless steel, sand filled, container to set the furnace on. When, a crucible breaks, you want a safe container for its contents to run into.

Assuming that he plans to remelt used brass parts, I would worry more about the lead content than the zinc content Maybe you can get your bronze casting friend to jump into the conversation, Frosty.

No. You will get an upgrade in structural quality, and a downgrade in performance. I suggest Diamondback forges to newbies, because they are well put together, reasonably efficient, and cost effective. However, the forge you already have has one of the best burner designs available. If you stick the two Mister Volcano burners in the Diamondback forge, then you will have an upgrade in performance. And did I mention not to let anything happen to those two irreplaceable burners?

Well, we have both drifted pretty far afield; I enjoyed quite a bit

My goal is just the opposite of your example. I want to use forges, to preheat parts for oxy-fuel brazing, to drastically reduce oxygen consumption. The bottom line with oxy-fuel heating, is scale, because the bottom line of oxygen enrichment for gas heating equipment is amount; the more you use the cheaper it gets. But the price break only begins with huge refrigerated cylinders, where the liquid oxygen is cooled enough by use that thick walls aren't needed to keep it liquefied by compression. Small businesses and hobbyists, are limited to compression cylinders, with nice high prices, on top of cylinder rental charges. For industrial consumers, oxygen is so cheap that fuel price, is the deciding factor; for the little guy, the opposite is true. So, our thinking must be opposed to that of industry; for them it has always been "bigger is better." For us it should always be "less is more."

I try not to let "the practical" catch up to me and spoil the fun; at least not until the dogs get to run wild for a while MOBs are the next place I'm going to; it may take two or three more years before I have time to do more than think ahead on this subject, but it fits nicely into advance torch work, which is what I have wanted to investigate for years. So what do multiple flame burner heads have to do with torch brazing, and welding? The more effectively the work can be preheated with air-fuel burner systems, the less heating needs to be done with oxy-fuel torches; therefore, the smaller those torches can be, and the less hideously expensive oxygen they consume.

Thanks, Frosty. It is good to have something new to look up

Okay, that makes two terms that got by me MOB makes sense, but what is a button burner, Frosty?