Mikey98118 Posted September 22, 2017 Author Share Posted September 22, 2017 I have now seen two different people manage to make single envelope neutral HOT flames come out of burners I would not have believed capable of producing them. The first example was a modified Oliver upwind design But the second guy's burner was a true example of this burner type, with multiple round air intake holes. So I am definitely shifting my burner 'rules' from rule of thumb status to mere "it works for me" suggestions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey98118 Posted September 22, 2017 Author Share Posted September 22, 2017 Also, in the last couple of months, photo after photo of burner flames have reinforced my impression that very minor changes to a burner can change a problem fame to a blue ribbon winner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey98118 Posted September 23, 2017 Author Share Posted September 23, 2017 Flame control Burner tuning, is the time when its every lack is brought to light; that includes the lack of built-in variables: (A) A flame retention nozzle can vary the flame widely; especially a stepped nozzle, by in effect, changing its length to width ratio (less so in tapered nozzles); this varies the speed of the air/gas mixture into the flame nozzle, while varying the mixture pressure. which helps to keep the flame from blowing right off the burner. (B) A sliding gas assembly (gas jet in a gas tube) can also fine-tune a flame by varying how close the gas column is to the mixing tube entrance; and therefore how much air is induced into the burner, by any given gas pressure. (C) A variable air choke is usually the best way to tune a burner's flame between fuel rich (reducing), and lean (oxidizing); on most burners, it is the only way to do so. (D) Using a gas jet of the right orifice size for the mixing tube's inside diameter induces enough--but not too much--air into the mixing tube, to match up properly with incoming gas pressure. In most burner sizes changing out MIG contact tips for smaller or larger orifice sizes is sufficient to control this. The process can be further tweaked by mounting of capillary tubes in the tips of small burners and/or drilling and filing the holes of available MIG tips in larger burners. In an inferior burner (with slow mixture flow), all of these controls may be insufficient to tune the burner for a really hot flame. Conversely, in strong burners ( with fast mixture flow), every control you can get may be needed to keep the flame stable. The smaller the burner the trickier fine flame control can be, and the more important it becomes to have as many variables built into the burner as possible. So, the best nozzle design possible on a larger burner may end up being too much of a good thing; thus, changing to a tapered flame nozzle may end up being the best way to smooth out performance in a small burner, which has proven to be just a little too much of a good thing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey98118 Posted September 30, 2017 Author Share Posted September 30, 2017 Everyone who succeeds in making a new high-end burner design tends to become narrow-minded about what is right or wrong about burner construction; this is an inevitable product of our journeys through the minefield of errors on the way to success. Our viewpoints only harden further, as we watch others deviate from our designs, and make a mess. No decent person enjoys the failure of others, any more than their own. Unfortunately, the same narrow-mindedness that protects from failure becomes a roadblock to further progress. Nearly two decades back, I saw a perfect single wavefront (AKA flame envelope) coming out of an air/fuel burner nozzle, and then wondered why it hadn't been achieved long before. After all, a simple adjustment of the oxygen flow on a torch will make such a flame. The answer is that such a flame has no value with an oxy-fuel torch, as it is used in industry. Therefore, the more knowledgeable us "experts" were the more hardened our minds were against it. For us, a soft neutral flame was the ultimate flame; and when you are gas welding steel, braze welding brass, or flame bending glass, this is true. So an old truth blinded us since the area of the Civil War, to a different truth, which is that in heating equipment secondary flames waist money; the bigger the secondary flame the bigger the waist. Rules of thumb make handy guides, right up until they don't; treating them like axioms is a trap, but all too often, that's what we do If you need dependable results, follow the rules. If you want discovery, then "D**n the torpedos! Full speed ahead." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey98118 Posted October 1, 2017 Author Share Posted October 1, 2017 Glenn, Please delete my nickname from this thread; you could leave that area blank, or replace it with something like IFI et al. It is time for the inventors of new burners to feel encouraged to post them here; also the fans of other burners, old and new Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Posted October 2, 2017 Share Posted October 2, 2017 But Mike the pic of that flame is in a vise! That's just wrong, WRONG I tell you! And and, those are ROUND air inlet ports! You want me to stop making burners completely? Joking aside that is a really nice looking flame and a hard to beat price to have someone else make one for you. Frosty The Lucky. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey98118 Posted October 2, 2017 Author Share Posted October 2, 2017 Yes, I know; it is hard for me to accept air holes, but"if it's dumb, but works, it ain't dumb." Larry Z told me that he has been playing around with those radically tapered flame nozzles himself. I ordered one of them so that I can figure out where they belong in the theme of things. Watching Blacksmith450's burners, it seems plain to me that there is more to be learned (even though he has chosen stepped flame nozzles in the end). I don't think their low prices will continue very much longer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey98118 Posted October 2, 2017 Author Share Posted October 2, 2017 Larry Zoeller's "Z" burner is dependable, hot running, and low priced; it's been around for years, and you can see it with a flame photo. I do not recomend buying any burner without seeing its flame. I have seen burners that can't even make neutral flames described by their sellers in glowing terms; no, I don't think they're crooks; just deluded (well, I think at least one of them is a crook!) \http://zoellerforge.com/forgeparts.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey98118 Posted October 2, 2017 Author Share Posted October 2, 2017 A word of caution about this burner; it shows a very good flame for very little money, BUT this design is cropping up all over the net, like mushrooms, because it is a simple design to build for sale. Do not expect this flame to come out of all of them, because it does not Above is a very similar burner with a weak flam. Below is a nearly identical burner with a great flame Look at each burner up close to find the reason for the difference; it's in their flame nozzles,. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandyScott Posted October 3, 2017 Share Posted October 3, 2017 I think the links are the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Posted October 3, 2017 Share Posted October 3, 2017 Ayup, same link Mike. Frosty The Lucky. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey98118 Posted October 4, 2017 Author Share Posted October 4, 2017 You're right guys. I stand corrected. Did you also notice that the flame nozzle in the photo is quite different than the one in the video; creating a way better flame on that burner? I can't recommend the video's burner, even at that low price. But I could recommend the burner in the photo at twice its price. Do you concur, or do you think it would be worthwhile for some folks? I think I've already ordered the bad nozzle design; but will keep looking for a supplier of the better nozzle, for those who don't want to make their own. Maybe Larry Zoeller will decide they are worth figuring out and pressing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coops1911 Posted October 4, 2017 Share Posted October 4, 2017 hey just put together this burner and being the first one ive made im not sure if its any good. was wondering if anyone could analyze the flame and give me some pointers maybe? thanks IMG_0081.MOV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey98118 Posted October 4, 2017 Author Share Posted October 4, 2017 (1) Even if we coax a perfect flame from your burner, you will need two that size to run this forge. (2) rotate the forge so that its burner is positioned at 11:00 o'clock; the position it's in would only work if it was aimed at a significant tangent to the shell. You want the flame to impinge closer to the near end of the eventual floor; not beyond its center, as it would if left where it is. (3) Your burner needs to be able to mount through a burner port. This is accomplished by trapping the burner within a pipe or tube with an inside diameter that is able to pass the burner, with flame arrestor nozzle in place, through the forge shell; it is captured there with three bolts threaded through its tube; I prefer six bolts arainged in two circles. At present your burner is protruding way too far into the forge. (4) The burner's air intake holes are too small; enlarge them as much as you can without over running each other, and then ground off the the burrs, inside and out. (5) Your nozzle needs more flare (more taper). (6 ) You need a right angle pipe fitting on the burner, to is the strain on your fuel hose, or a lngth of copper refrigenation tube between the burnr and fuel hose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey98118 Posted October 4, 2017 Author Share Posted October 4, 2017 The flame is lightly reducing. Lots of people prefer such a flame, but you will need to be careful to provide a box fan to blow any carbon monoxide outside your shop, when running such a flame; it will also cost between seven and ten percent of your forge's heat, waisted as "dragon's breath" that you also won't enjoy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coops1911 Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 (1) Even if we coax a perfect flame from your burner, you will need two that size to run this forge. (2) rotate the forge so that its burner is positioned at 11:00 o'clock; the position it's in would only work if it was aimed at a significant tangent to the shell. You want the flame to impinge closer to the near end of the eventual floor; not beyond its center, as it would if left where it is. (3) Your burner needs to be able to mount through a burner port. This is accomplished by trapping the burner within a pipe or tube with an inside diameter that is able to pass the burner, with flame arrestor nozzle in place, through the forge shell; it is captured there with three bolts threaded through its tube; I prefer six bolts arainged in two circles. At present your burner is protruding way too far into the forge. (4) The burner's air intake holes are too small; enlarge them as much as you can without over running each other, and then ground off the the burrs, inside and out. (5) Your nozzle needs more flare (more taper). (6 ) You need a right angle pipe fitting on the burner, to is the strain on your fuel hose, or a lngth of copper refrigenation tube between the burnr and fuel hose. really appreciate the pointers, its nice to have some feedback as i'm kinda just doing educated guesses. regarding #3 the burner is secure via the 3/4 stainless coupler and a 1 inch brass collar over the 3/4 inch mixing tube.....sort of a thru hull adapter style. also there is going to be 2" of ceramic wool which then will be covered with 1/4-1/2" Vesuvius super 300 cement. then washes of some type of infrared reflective type coating, maybe itc-100 or something else....hard to get in Canada. About how far should they burner flare protrude from the ceramic wool/cement? I Will make the other adjustments and report back. thanks again, Jake from Vancouver island Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thidwick Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 Frosty I noticed in the PDF that the ratio specified for the air intake is 2*D. Why does the reference design use a 1"x1"x3/4" reducing tee if the pipe is 3/4"? I'm missing something. Edit: I meant to post this to the T burner directions thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles R. Stevens Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 My educated guess is that 3/4 pipe is close to 7/8ID and ID threads and the pipe to "T" transition induce friction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey98118 Posted October 8, 2017 Author Share Posted October 8, 2017 Frosty, It's not my business to talk about your "T" burners on this thread or any other; that shouldn't slow you down one bit in doing so here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ede Posted October 8, 2017 Share Posted October 8, 2017 I'm looking for a source of capillary tubing, where do you get yours from and are there assortments available? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Posted October 8, 2017 Share Posted October 8, 2017 Welcome aboard Thidwick, glad to have you. If you'll put your general location in the header you might be surprised how many of the gang live within visiting distance. I don't recall why I specified some things, a 1" x 3/4" T clearly has 4x the intake area in relation to the tube dia. where a 3/4" x 3/4" T is 2x. I'm a greedy sort and I tinkered till I could get the most fuel and air in the right ratio into the forge at once. The 1" x 3/4" T let me use the largest gas jet I could tune to a good burn. Using a 3/4" x 3/4" The most propane I could get in the fire was with a 0.030" mig contact tip which equates to just over 1/2 as much fire and much higher flame velocity so the fire doesn't stay in the forge as long. My main concern with the T design was to be effective and build with minimal tools and shop experience. It's not a super burner by a long shot it just works well and is easy. The 1" x 3/4" T is the easiest and most effective way to squeeze max performance and still keep it simple and easy. Unfortunately the 1" x 3'4" T is more susceptible to back pressure and breezes because the fuel air mix is going slower but that's the main draw back. Don't worry Mike I'm not bashful. I haven't been saying much here because most of what I'm seeing is contrary to what I thought was right a while ago so I'm watching, thinking and reevaluating. I jump in when I actually have something to say. Frosty The Lucky. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey98118 Posted October 12, 2017 Author Share Posted October 12, 2017 EDE, Sorry for the slow reply. The information is on the Web, but it takes a lot of winnowing. I will gather what I have from old files, and post here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey98118 Posted October 13, 2017 Author Share Posted October 13, 2017 If you have the choice, I recommend heavy wall capillary tube (AKA gauge tubes) over thin wall hypodermic tube, if you can find them in the orifice diameters desired (as they are far less inclined to be partially dissolved by flux, should you be a little slow in your braze work). Different companies have various orifice sizes available; one of them well stock tube in .020” inside diameter, and another will stock .023” instead Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ede Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 Mikey, I have often tried to visualize the swaging process for the capillary tubes. Is it just a top and bottom die that matches the contour of the MIG tip that is lightly tapped around the circumference? Thanks for taking the time to post this resource list and no problem regarding the delay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey98118 Posted October 13, 2017 Author Share Posted October 13, 2017 You pretty much have it. But tapping the capillary tube into a hole in the MIG tip that is the same I.D. as the tube's O.D. works equally well for small numbers of parts. 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.