clenceo Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 I hate asking the same questions over and over. I do my best to find answers by doing my research, but I'm stumped on this. I have to different flames. The closest to the front is a purple/blue. The flame in the rear is a teal color. I removed the rear burner (teal flame) and performed a bench test. Flame color is still the same. I thought maybe the nozzle is not centered (I drilled a #57 hole in 1/8in brass nipple). I double checked my work, reassembled and still the same. Before I decide to reconstruct my burner, I need opinions from professionals. Both burners run off a tee. I have no regulator (using a needle valve) and both burners are about 1in away from the bottom edge of the brick. (Sorry...I tried orienting the pics upright) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frozenforge Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 The rear burner appears to be fairly close to neutral and the front one is lean or oxidizing (too much air). A picture of rest of the setup might be helpful. The mig tip improved burner eliminates slight variations of the oriface that can happen when drilling by hand. You can block the air inlet gradually to richen the mixture to see how the color changes. As you block more off the richer the flame will get. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clenceo Posted January 25, 2016 Author Share Posted January 25, 2016 Thank you. I blocked off some of the air flow and sure enough, it turned more to teal color. I'll be making a mig tip burner soon. As much as I like experimenting, I find my self messing with the burner more than forging anything now. Thanks again for your help. Here is my set up... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey98118 Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 Actually the front flame is a perfect example of a high speed neutral burning flame, while the back flame is a slightly reducing flame. However, barbecue these flames come so close to to the work area, the neutral flame is likely to cause scaling, while the reducing flame won't. That would be "because" not." barbecue." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frozenforge Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 Mike, What defines high speed? Does the gas velocity alter the colors? Am I seeing those shades slightly different? I do know that when my wife is painting the house she shows me color samples and I often see no difference, especially in the purple shades. I don't want to provide any misinformation and most of my experience prior to propane burners is with oxy acetylene flame. Sorry if I mislead anyone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey98118 Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 What a perfect question, Frozenforge. Mixture feed speed,and amount of drop in mixture pressure in the flame nozzle or burner block area, are both factors which contribute to high flame speeds...or fail to do so. One very clear indicator for whether or not you've built a high speed burner is how far incoming fuel gas pressure can be turned up. I rated the burners in my first book at a maximum of thirty PSI, but I tested every one of them for stable flame production at sixty PSI, and deliberately under rated the burners to maintain a high margin of safety for readers (whom I knew would tend not to build the burners EXACTLY as instructed). Riel burners are not high speed burners, unless the MIG tip modification is added. The only way I can believe clenceo achieved that perfect forward flame is by nestling his burner in a burner block, instead of employing a stainless steel tapered nozzle. If he replaced the side hole with an .030" MIG contact tip he could achieve it on the back flame too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frozenforge Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Thank you Mike. I find tuning the homemade burners very interesting because they function over a wide range of tuning level and I like to tinker! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey98118 Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 I also noticed that, while the back flame is well aimed, the forward flame (the best one) is tilted a little off-center; that could make the difference between them. It's good that you like to tinker and are interested by tuning. If there was one single major failure I spotted in my readers, time and again it was an unwillingness to put forth a little extra effort and learn how to tune their own burners! But tuning isn't just about performance; learning to tune a burner is necessary for anyone who wishes to learn anything about designing and/or operating burners. I got that backwards; it's the back flame that looks to be slithtly canted. No; it IS the forward flame that is tilted slightly off-center. Obviously, a cup of coffee is way overdue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey98118 Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 And to report evenhandedly, the overall effect of the flame differences between these two burners seems to be very good for clenceo's forge; this becomes obvious when looking at the exhausted gas, in the third photo (no slightest trace of blue exhaust flames); although this may well change after he controls the size of the forward opening with a brick stack close to the front of the forge, or a cut down internal baffle to shrink the opening's size; that will cause an increase in back pressure, which will, in turn, change burner performance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frozenforge Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Sorry Clenceo to have hijacked the thread! Mike, I recall from somewhere about putting a compression type spring that fits against the I.D. of the mixing tube to promote mixing and a swirl effect. Any thoughts? I have built Ron Reil style, improved with mig tips and a stainless flare and adjustable choke and when I have them tuned they induce too much air to run neutral with the chokes wide open (though I will have to double check my flame colors now).I am in the process of making a 3/4 burner of your design but was wondering if yours do the same thing. Here is the first one I built using the 1.5x.75 reducer. Later ones I used te 2x.75 reducer. The choke is in the position that provides the best stable flame from 1-2 psi to 45 psi. There is about 5/16 opening between the ball and pipe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 If you can't even choke it enough to run neutral, use a larger dia. mig tip it needs more fuel. Larger jet dial will provide more fuel at lower psi (velocity) so the burner will induce less air and run richer. Occasionally you build the golden bullet, everything hits just right and it approaches commercial performance. This is why yours induces more air than the numbers "say it should" so give it more fuel. Mike's designs tend to routinely approach maybe exceed commercial efficiency IF you can build precisely enough. I haven't commented about the burners in the OP because I don't have any experience with Ron's burners. I don't see anything wrong with them as they're running in the pics. I'd have to see something wrong to suggest tuning changes say scale forming in the forge or similar. Frosty The Lucky. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frozenforge Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 Is a lower velocity flame preferable over a higher velocity assuming the same amount of btu input into the forge? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 28 minutes ago, Frozenforge said: Is a lower velocity flame preferable over a higher velocity assuming the same amount of btu input into the forge? Ooooooh a basic exercise in logic! Think about it, both burners have the exact same output in BTUs. One produces a low velocity flame the other a high velocity flame. Right so far? Okay, what happens to the combustion products after we're done heating the forge with them? They're still forge ambient but they have to go somewhere they're being FORCED out of the forge. The exhaust gasses are HOT and LEAVING the forge high velocity. The other burner's HOT exhaust is leaving the forge too but SLOWLY. So, which do you think is better, heat leaving the forge FAST or SLOW? Hmmmmm? You get one guess, one guess only. Frosty The Lucky. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frozenforge Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 I had assumed that and it made sense that the longer the heat was in the forge the better. Sometimes all the nonsense and lack of common sense in the world rubs off when the shields are at less than 100%! I only typed and erased the question 3 times before posting! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey98118 Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 Frosty, Yes, IF YOU CAN GET COMPLETE COMBUSTION IN THE SHORTEST POSSIBLE DISTANCE (which requires a single wave envelope AKA wave front) slower velocity is best, because it gives more "hang time" for combustion products to transfer heat to the hot-face surface of your forge; this can be accomplished by deliberately turning down one of my burners in the T-D-C position or by building two smaller burners instead of a single larger burner. The major advantage of ribbon burners is short low velocity flames, so if hang time were the only criteria, they would win hands down; it's not. But, suppose someone is building a vertical forge or casting furnace; or suppose he/she is building a rotating forge/furnace. Then low velocity flames equal LESS hang-time when the equipment is in the vertical position Why is longer hang-time a desirable factor, but not the central factor? Because of radiant heat from equipment walls. Hang-time would be the trump card if combustion heat transference to the work was mainly accomplished by contact with super heated combustion products, but this just ain't so, above 1600 degrees; the hotter your furnnace the greater the percentage of heat transfer happens through radiation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey98118 Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 Frozen Forge asks, "Mike, I recall from somewhere about putting a compression type spring that fits against the I.D. of the mixing tube to promote mixing and a swirl effect. Any thoughts?" Another good question; right to the point. Turbulence is what creates efficient propane and air mixing; you cannot create a stable air/propane flame without it. That said, there are many ways to create turbulence in a burner; some good and most of them bad. The difference comes from how much interference with laminar flow you create in order to accomplish good mixing. Most forms of turbulence are the equivalent of driving your car with the handbrake engaged. Swirling the fuel and air together is the least costly method for mixture flow speed. So, anything you put inside the mixing tube is going to be harmful to flow speed. the only device I've ever seen in oxy-fuel torches that works well is internal fins to create spin in the mixing chamber, or fins in the goose neck to reduce spin in the output flame; I would not use either in an air-fuel burner. BTW, an internal spring in a burner's mixing tube will interfere with the swirl effect; not promote it. I harp on about mixture flow speed, because high flow speed allows a more radical flame nozzle shape, which reduces mixture pressure in the flame nozzle two or three times that achieved in a typical tapered flame nozzle; this shape is easier to build and far more easily tuned than a tapered nozzle; it wil also support a much larger harder flame. Frosty is right about increasing the orifice diameter on the MIG tip; it's the only possible reason this burner design could run lean. BTW, nice work on that burner. where did you order the threaded stainless steel reducer from? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey98118 Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 The flame nozzle design is everything; EVERYTHING!!! All the other construction changes on all of my burner designs are meant to assist the right flame nozzle design to work at peak efficiency; that said, a mere tapered flame nozzle built from refractory can do almost as well as one of my stainless steel flame nozzles when fed from an older burner design; I fully expect the same improvement with one of my flame nozzles built from refractory. Hybrid stainless steel, refractory lined flame nozzles are the wave of the future for burners employed as hand torches, or in small equipment, and refractory burner blocks for brick pile forges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frozenforge Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 %#^*%%^ disappearing posts!!! Thanks. The reducer is a standard one sanded and polished. My wife is an early to bed early to rise and I'm a night owl so I have 3-4 hours of quiet time in the garage in the evening and I end up tinkering or improving the aesthetics of projects. People probably think I have OCD! So a high velocity burner requires a more radical nozzle, is this a step type with a larger diameter change or steeper taper type say like 6:1? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey98118 Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 NO TAPER; the instant you put taper in a step nozzle is the instant you lose all its advantages. A tapered nozzle has very little ability to help tune a burner for best performance, becuase the amount of its overhang beyond the mixing tube does very little to change ithe internal shape of its opening. A tapered nozzle has the least ability to super-heat and form a secondary ignition source for the wave front; a taoered nozzle is a lot more work to construct. The only reason for employing a tapered nozzle is that the burner design has too weak a fuel/air mixture flow to support a step nozzle. If you correctly follow the MIG tip change I wrote for Ron Riel's burner, even one of them can successfully feed a stepped burner nozzle, so why on earth would you opt for a tapered type??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clenceo Posted February 3, 2016 Author Share Posted February 3, 2016 Hmmm...I thought I commented here. Thanks again for taking a look and offering insight on my forge. This is a project that not too long ago I decided to jump into. Tuning this forge is not only a fun and learning experience for me, but also has been challenging me in a positive way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Yeah, tuning a gas forge gets me tuned into fire and I'm a pyrophile. I love fire but I'm not crazy about it. Tuning burners is enjoyable and satisfying. Frosty The Lucky. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianinsa Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 12 hours ago, Frosty said: and I'm a pyrophile. Frosty The Lucky. Looking at the 'way' you're standing in your profile picture you look like a bit of a homo Sapien as well. is it curable? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clenceo Posted February 4, 2016 Author Share Posted February 4, 2016 Here's an update on my forge. I made some changes to the rear "burner in question" I bought and drilled a new brass 1/8th nipple with a #57 drill bit. The first photo, is the burner after start up. Second: as it warms, has a "halo" on the sides of the center cone. Third: both burners going (burner in question in the rear) Not sure what happened, but the rear burner cone is far more shorter. Unfortunately, the colors are still the same. Fourth: I made this little door in an attempt to maintain the heat. "Burner in question" is closest to this door. Fifth: Same picture as the fourth, just no flash. Last: 1/4in leaf spring about 8 inches long. It took about 5-6 minutes to get it as pictured. I'm not sure what else to do. I don't want to scrap the whole project, I may just leave as is and just practice on my skills. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 10 hours ago, ianinsa said: Looking at the 'way' you're standing in your profile picture you look like a bit of a homo Sapien as well. is it curable? You mean like a ham? Frosty The Lucky. Clenceo: The close burner in the 3rd. pic down is running rich now as can be seen by the orange in the dragon's breath. I don't recall what size was the orifice before you drilled it #57? Maybe I wasn't clear earlier. I agree with Mike I didn't see anything particularly wrong with the way it was burning before. At most fiddly little tweaks maybe might could've helped a BIT. It's unlikely you'll ever get both burners running just alike, I have 4 in mine and none are just alike but any will weld. Frosty The Lucky. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clenceo Posted February 4, 2016 Author Share Posted February 4, 2016 Thank you. I did drill the orifice with a #57 in all the burners previously and currently. I leave the burners as is and have some fun! Thanks again!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.