Jump to content
I Forge Iron

Burners 101


Mikey98118

Recommended Posts

Don't sweat it even a little bit Matt, it was a good one I loved it. 

My Grandfathers had pretty normal names, Guy Beede on Mother's side and John Frost on Dad's. For a brief time there was a step grandfather on Dad's side but Grammy Frost booted the abusive lout and his name is long forgotten. John Frost died in the flu pandemic that ended WWI.

Frosty The Lucky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 3.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Beveling gas capillary tube

One of the things that help simple MIG contact tips to make excellent gas jets (without capillary tubes) in larger burners are the beveling on their orifice’s entrance; this keeps gas flowing smoothly into the orifice.

    You may not always be able to find capillary tube with exactly the right orifice diameter. Varying the tube's length may not be quite enough to provide all the efficiency you desire. That last bit of desired performance can be provided by beveling the entrance on the capillary tube, just as it is on a MIG tip.

    If you have bought a rotary drill and set of collet chucks, you can use ordinary sowing needles dipped in lapping paste to bevel the smallest orifice, or to begin the beveling on heavy wall capillary tube, and alternate the beveling with a diamond coated rotary file. Remember to use a set of torch tip cleaners to clean out the debris from the orifice and to deburr the beveled hole.

 

Lapping paste: http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2386202.m570.l2632.R2.TR6.TRC2.A0.H1.Xlapping+com.TRS0&_nkw=lapping+compound&_sacat=164352

 

Diamond coated rotary files (AKA burrs (not to be confused with the metal burrs left on metal by drilling grinding and sanding): http://www.ebay.com/itm/Diamond-Coated-Bur-Burr-Bit-for-Carving-Grinding-Drilling-1-8-Inch-Shank-SET-20-/151214639541?hash=item23351849b5:g:SQ8AAOxylh1SKtPX  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm looking at welding temperatures near the mouth of your forge; and at a very low gas input pressure to your burner. Congratulations; you have arrived at everything you need. Is there more you can get? Yes, but why would you care? Go bash iron, and learn about scrolls and such:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zinc coated parts

You don't need to remove the zinc coating from everything on a burner; not even from the whole length of the burner's mixing tube. You only need to remove the coating from the last 4" or so, that heats up enough to produce metal fumes. I used to employ 'galvanized' pipe for spacer rings within the flame nozzles in some of my first pipe burners, because, once the zinc was burned off they fit between the the nozzle and mixing tubes with minimal sanding. I didn't know about vinegar removing zinc in those days; so I just tossed the parts in the barbecue with a few pieces of coke.

Gas leaks in burner parts

Very minor gas leaks can turn into  major problems. Also, the tiniest gas leaks around the gas jet can completely destabilize some burners. For some reason gas leaks around the jets in linear burners aren't as serious as in jet ejector designs. The best policy is to just use gas rated tape or goop to seal all  gas joints in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hoke torch tips versus MIG contact tips

Hoke torch tips are by far the smallest and most economical torch tips made (between $2 and $3 from most vendors); unlike most torch tips, they are made of brass; a material much easier to drill tiny holes for capillary tube gas jets in than copper.

There are eleven different standard Hoke torch tips made, although most sellers only give you a choice between the three most common propane sizes; each one has a different size orifice diameter:

Their 114.130 is the (#1A) fine flame tip for oxy-propane

Their 114.131 is the (#2A) small flame tip for oxy-propane

Their 114.132 is the (#3) medium flame tip for oxy/propane

Their 114.133 is the (#5) large flame tip for oxy-propane

Their 114.136 is the (#01) Fine flame Tip for oxyacetylene

Their 114.137 is the (#02) small flame tip for oxyacetylene

 Their 114.138 is the (#03) medium flame tip for oxyacetylene

 Their 114.139 is the (#04) large flame tip for oxyacetylene

 Their114.142 is the (#1) small tip for oxy-natural gas

 Their 114.143 is the ( #2) medium flame tip for oxy-natural gas

 Their 114.144 is the (#35-3) large flame tip for oxy-natural gas

 

Individual Hoke tips are offered on both eBay and Amazon.com, but their prices run from very high to outrageous from these sources.

 

Otto Fie keeps all eleven tips in stock: http://www.ottofrei.com/Hoke-Torch-Tips

 

Kengsleynorth always has the three standard propane tips in stock: https://www.kingsleynorth.com/skshop/product.php?id=88473&catID=219

 

Gesswein has the lowest price tips: http://www.gesswein.com/p-10910-tips-for-hoke-jewel-torch.aspx?gclid=Cj0KEQjw5sHHBRDg5IK6k938j_IBEiQARZBJWjXuFHc-6I94No7SfNkL-lDZKwuzGZLAXtr-1wfhiJsaAutX8P8HAQ

 

Tips can also be found on sale at this site: https://www.jewelerstoystore.com/X_FINE_TIP_FOR_PROPANE_HOKE_TORCH_p/t85-1.htm

Small wire gauge and fractional drill bit sizes: A #80 bit is .0135”; A #79 bit is .0145”;  A 1/64 bit is .0156; A #78 bit is .016”; A #77 bit is .018”; A #76 bit is .020”; A #75 bit is .021”; A # 74 bit is .0225”;  A #73 bit is .024”; A #72 bit is .025”; A #71 bit is .026”; A #70 bit is .026”; A #69 bit is .0292”; A #68 bit is .031”; A 1/32” bit is .0313”; A #67 bit is .032”; A #66 bit is .033”; A #65 bit is .035”; A #64 bit is .036”; A #63 bit is .037”; A #62 bit is .038”; A #61 bit is .039”; A #60 bit is .040”; A #59 bit is .041”; A #58 bit is .042”; A #57 bit is .043”; A #66 bit is .035”; A #57 bit is .043”; A #56 bit is .0465; A 3/64” bit is .0469”; A #55 bit is .052; A #54 bit is .055; A #53 bit is .0595; A 1/16” bit is .0625”; A #52 bit is .0635”; A #51 bit is .067; A #50 bit is .070”;  A #49 bit is .073”; A #48 bit is .076”; A 5/64” bit is .0781”; A #47 bit is .0785””; A #46 bit is .081”; A #45 bit is .082”; A #44 bit is .086”; A #43 bit is .089”; A #42 bit is .0935”; A 3/32” bit is .0938”; A #41 bit is .0936”; A #40 bit is .0938”; A #39 bit is .0995”; A #38 bit is .1015”; A #37 bit is .104”; A #36 bit is .1065”; A 7/64” bit is .1094”;  #35 bit is .110”; A #34 bit is .111”; A #33 bit is .113”; A #32 bit is .116”; A #31 bit is .120”; A 1/8” bit is .125”.

These small diameter drill bits can be used in a micro size rotary drill and chuck set do drill gas jet orifices in Hoke torch tips directly, or to drill holes for capillary tube, and insert them in the tips, to form very small gas jets in these miniature brass torch tips (they are much easier than copper to drill); such miniature tips can be used more effectively than MIG contact tips in small diameter tubing to create gas jets for miniature burners.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" Am looking forward to seeing what kind of difference narrowing the intakes might make in settling down the flame just enough to make this burner easier to start. Making a screaming hot burner is easy; making it turn-key smooth gets trickier. Some burner sizes are that way; others aren't. I'm sure the difference is due to the jet orifice sizes available for each burner. I am loath to use hypodermic needles in these little burners, in order to be able to find orifices that differ one to three thousandths of an inch; the obvious answer to dialing in performance; this answer is spoiled because hypodermic needles can vary that much in tolerances; which can turn all those greater orifice choices into a wasted effort."
 
That is part of an email I wrote to a friend concerning my 3/8" jet ejector style burners. Recently I've posted quite a lot about capillary tubes for gas jets in small burners. Some of it will seem like nitpicking details, to novices. But people who are looking for perfect performance will probably snatch them up, and put them in their notebooks. The difference isn't in the people making those choices, but where they are in their efforts. Beginners usually look for quick and easy answers. Once their problems get solved, it is natural for them to move on. A few of you will want to know the whole story; others will decide to build burners and forges for profit. Some are tinkerers, who won't be satisfied for anything less than the best (welcome my brother mad scientists).
 
A manufacturer would solve the problem of hypodermic needle tolereances by ordering several thousand of them cut at a time from a part supplier. obviously that would be a rediculous choice for a hobbyist. If this thread was a book such details would end up in a separate chapter called Advanced Methods. As it is, they get scattered all over these pages. So, here are a last few last thoughts on the matter.
 
Luer lock needles and adapters remain the easy way to create gas jets in small burners, but I find them to be a sloppy method, compared to the harder to build capillary tube in a MIG tip (or Hoke torch tip) gas jet. If you use the Luer lock needle, it helps to smear a little gook on the adapter to better seal it from minor gas leaks. How minor? Only enough to sometimes create small flames around this part for a few seconds as the burner is started or stopped; nothing serious, but quite irritating to see. End of subject.
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike: I think you might be to the point of diminishing returns for practical applications. The smaller the machine the greater the requirements for precision. A few thousandths difference in jet dia. in a 1" burner is hardly noticeable, a few in a 1/2" burner is more than 4x the difference and is significant. In a 3/8" burner? What 16x the difference? It turns into a game stopper.

I don't really have good suggestions regarding building small burners. What I'd really like to get out in the light is how these pieces of machinery are ruled by geometric change rather linear. twice as big isn't twice as powerful it's 4x or more. The same rules apply when you go smaller. 1/2 the size is 1/4 the power and at least 4x as sensitive to changes.

I think trying to get a consistent list of components and build techniques below 1/2" is sort of a challenge for the sake of meeting challenges. That isn't a criticism if I were really invested in results over process I certainly wouldn't be a blacksmith in today's industrial age.

I just can't help thinking about these things. B)

Frosty The Lucky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frosty,

I want you to go right on thinking these things! If two people agree about everything, one of them isn't needed.

I am at the point of diminishing returns--mechanically; or rather at the point where the hill gets a lot harder to climb. But if you're talking about usefulness, than not with the 3/8" burner, which  can be turned down enough to run a coffee-can forge, or up enough to rock in a two gallon forge; they also make awesome hand torches. I don't see my audience as traditional blacksmiths. Is there a traditional anything left anymore; amd should there be?

From the first, I was dealing with beginners. My book was dedicated to "the innovative tool makers and multimedia artists still to come." It had in mind the poor suckers our school system has turned out with bachelors degrees in fine art, who were never given any tools skills to use it with. This system is especially pernicious for those who want to do multimedia.

Getting back to blacksmiths, I see tomorrow's workman as a smith of all trades; or at least of several trades. When you start thinking of other metals, let alone glass and wood--all of which go wondrous well with iron-- the blacksmith who wants to make a buck needs to handle a larger variety of tools.

Sixty years ago, I started learning ornamental ironwork in my father's shop. The first thing I learned was how to handle tools, but the next thing was how to make them.  Clear back them, most of the  tools we needed had to be made; they weren't available any other way. The most important lesson I learned was that, for a craftsman, the tools make the man. The extent of an artist's reach isn't his his hand, but what he holds in it. So, viva la jewelers, silversmiths, casters, and, wood carvers; you all have a place in my vision of blacksmiths:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am new to blacksmithing and am about to start building my first forge, I figure I would start here after several YouTube videos pointed me to IForgeIron.  The area I live in does not take too kindly to a lot of smoke, so gas forge it is. Thankfully I saved the hot water heater i replaced a few months ago so it gives me a tank to start with that i can cut down to pretty much any size i want. I wanted to build a medium sized forge to start so I don't have to try and build another one in a few months because its too small for the work i want to do. The tank is currently 14" in dia. and i was hoping to have it also be 14" in length. After an inch of Kast-o-lite and an inch of kaowool, it would leave me with a little over     1000cu in of volume to heat. My question is would it be possible to use 3 of Mikey's mini burners(3/8) angled to follow the contours of the inside to the forge along its length, one at a low angle one mid and one high, and still be able to hit welding temp. I was thinking it might be more efficient in gas usage compared to 2 or 3 larger burners used in a standard way.  I was thinking the placement might add a turbine effect inside the forge which should give it even heat through out and enough force to expel any bad gases from being trapped within. I added a 3 minutes crude drawing just so you might be able to picture what i had in mind.  Any advice would be most welcome, Thanks.

miniburner.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You say your tank is 14" diameter; is that the steel tank inside of all the insulation and the thin sheet metal skin? If so, its diameter is about the same size as a five gallon propane cylinder. One 3/4" burner of any competent design is sufficient to heat a 14" by 14" competantly designed forge up to welding temperature. Three of my3/8" burners, angled at a tageant to the forge contours would be awesome, but two 1/2" burners would do more than well enough, and would be a lot less work to make.

Nor do you need to position the burners for maximum acceleration in the swirl hot gases within the forge. It's a question of balance; not enough swirl is bad, but a fast swirl is not needed. 

A two inches thick layer of insulation over the wall and both ends of this forge should end up at about 350 cubic inches of interior space to heat.

It is just inevitable that, after you build the forge, you will have gained much more knowledge than any amount of reading will supply ahead of time. So, don't try to overthink the designs you read about here. This is one time that hindsight is 20/20 and foresight can only grope in the dark. This is one of the long list of reasons that a two gallon mini-forge is recommended--by old hands--for a beginner's first try.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mikey thanks for the info, it is greatly appreciated.  With you recommending 2 1/2" in burners i started rereading some of your posts on that size and remembered that you have run into an issue with welding tips being not quite the right size to work perfectly for them.  I remembered that years ago when i worked in a machine shop we made fuel nozzles for some helicopter parts, one of those was a pain in the ass to make which is why it stuck with me. It involved taking a 440f stainless ball bearing and drilling a .005" hole thru it, not an easy task, if the bits did not break they tended to have a lot of run out(drifting). But i think it might solve the problem here if we change materials and use a larger bit which is what is needed anyway.  If we use a standard .177 copper BB, file one side flat and drill a .028 hole using a #70 bit, then take that and put it into a piece of tube that has a slight flare in to hold it( maybe braze in place). would that work better than a slightly oversized tip?  its just a thought i figured i would bounce off of you before I spend too much time trying to make it work.

Edited by rboughton3rd
listed wrong type of tubing
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No; the slightly oversized MIG tip's hole is 1-1/2" long. A .028" size hole, or capillary tube, would likely need to be some shorter; probably 1" long. I would suggest swaging or silver brazing a little bit longer capillary tube into a MIG tip (with some of it left hanging out beyond the tip's end), and sanding it shorter a bit at a time with #400 grit paper, until you encounter the exact length that is optional. So, if longer is better, why would I suggest a shorter capillary tube length than 1-1/2"? Because this orifice diameter is where friction starts to really effect gas acceleration within the orifice. By the time you get down to a .020" orifice is a 3/8" burner, the tube should be about .400" long, with 1/32" of length having a profound effect on performance. With a machining background, going through such lengths probably doesn't seem a stretch for you. Most guys would just employ the oversized MIG tips. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome aboard 3rd. guy, glad to have you. Think two layers of 1" 8lb. refractory blanket and a 1/2" layer of Kastolite or equivalent high alumina refractory flame face. I write "Kaowool" most of the time but it's more habit on my part, it's what I have available. An inch of blanket bleeds significant heat through to the shell, two is a significant improvement. Fuel use will go way up and the absolute temperature on the chamber will be higher. An inch of hard refractory is a heat sink to no good purpose. The only place that much strength is reasonable is the floor. 

I don't get your alignment plan for the burners. It might be the drawing but at least one pair seem to be opposing. I've considered aligning burners to reinforce the vortex, say one on top aimed to the right and one on the bottom aimed to the left or say clockwise top and bottom. However it'd more be for a square or rectangular chamber where corners tend to disrupt the flow.

Frosty The Lucky.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a probable source of confusion with gas jets in these burners are the  shape of liquid jets. A liquid has a lot of mass, compared to gas, and needs to be spread to make a flammable vapor. Gas has little mass and, for the purposes of these burners, an unfortunate tendency to spread into a cloud with no help needed. That doesn't militate that all gas burners need a tubular orifice. There are numerous butane and propane torches that use tiny holes, which are for all practical purposes two dimensional, to achieve a variety of flame effects. However, this is the road we are presently on, and its has its own rules. Unless we wish to design a completely unique burner from scratch, we need to at least understand the "rules of the road."

If someone takes on the task of redesigning a burner along the other path, he or she might discover the way to construct a very compact tool. Unfortunately, any would-be inventor faces a wall of obfuscation for his or her only help on the journey:wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a good point. Fancy pants language is just one more way to obfuscate. That is unless no simpler word will due. But this word has been very much on my mind for decades. My hatred for the practice was a big factor in motivateingme to write the burner book in the first place. It is a long standing practice for military manuals to be written strictly to inform less than stellar minds, yet our so called educators write wordy drivel to confuse their students (victims would be a better term). Well, it's best to stop short of raging, again...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's been a favorite word of mine since high school I think, I've always been widely and eclectically read, etymology has always been an interest. Really messed up some of my college . . . . instructors when it turned out the high D average student was more widely read and had a better vocabulary.

I can never remember who said it "maybe" originally I remember it from R.A. Heinlein, "Never attribute to malice what can be explained by ignorance." During my brief college stint I discovered most of the lofty sounding language wasn't to cloud issues but to attempt to sound learned. They're instructors after all they SHOULD sound learned. 

Like anybody speaking above their education they tend to generate more confusion than information transfer. Reading scientific publications from the academic community is an exercise in filtering lofty sounding BS, often half a dozen pages only contain a couple paragraphs of useful info. If that. I have a few texts that after wading through 400+/- pgs. have said nothing at all.

I don't think they're trying to hide anything but their own lack of self esteem. I have a sure cure for low self esteem and it's NOT telling yourself you're a good person, worthy, etc. whatever. Teach kids to take care of themselves. If you can take care of yourself you feel confident in your own abilities to cope with whatever comes down the lane.

ARGH!!! I'm off on THAT rant again. sorry I'll go make something now.

Frosty The Lucky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thanks for the tips Frosty, it helps me continue to plan. I am one of those guys  that tries to live by the rule of measure twice cut once(it has gotten expensive for me by not doing this). Not to mention that when moving a few years ago a lot of my tools were stolen so I will be buying what I need as I go through this build, but still trying to do it as cheaply as possible. That in mind is why I wanted to use the smallest burners possible, thinking that they would use the least amount of gas, and then trying to harness the most I could out of the heat they produce by creating a heat vortex inside the forge. As for the burner placement in  the drawing I said it was a crude 3 minute drawing, but it is basically the same concept that you describing for a square or rectangular forge but taken to the extreme to try and take advantage of every BTU that I could and prevent any cold spots.

Although now I seem to be having a problem with my math, Mikey has the calculations coming out at 350cu in with 2" of insulation on each wall, now with 2½" on each wall I am coming up with 572.56 cu in.  I am trying to figure out if I calculated it using the wrong formula( V= π r² h), or If I missed a step in reading the building process.

Also wondering if it would make more sense to leave the bottom of the tank intact and use the existing exhaust hole(2 3/4") for exhaust and material pass thru, I don't foresee a need for a  9" wide rear outlet for any of the projects I have planned, and keeping it intact would increase the insulation on the inside to keep everything more efficient. I am adding a pic below, it may not be clearly visible but the bottom of this tank is concave not convex like most pressure tanks, not sure if that will help or hurt the design. Thanks in Advance.

20170424_151152.thumb.jpg.a11f09f57db20fb03a91e560b5533d3f.jpg

P.S. Thanks Frosty for the insight into Alaskan supply chains, my wife and I plan on buying a piece of land in central Alaska within the next few years and building our own place, its one of the reasons I am getting into blacksmithing, much cheaper and easier to make most of the things I will need rather than spending time and money running back and forth to the closest store to get supplies and tools.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zero math. I have simply accepted what numerous builders before me stated. Have you subtracted four inches by fourteen inches of area for the end walls? Have you also subtracted the flat area of the floor, which takes another slice out of your cylinder? Finally, the equation was meant to apply to the very first burners (ex. unmodified Reil burners), which were nowhere near as hot as any of the many competent burner design around nowadays. I usually don't mention this last fact, because of the few people who, despite everything we say, manage to end up with Frankenburners:P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With Frosty's insulation recommendations each wall is now at 2"of blanket and ½" of kastolite, so 5" total off length and 5" off the diameter would leave me with 9"x9", which should come out to 572.56cu in. I was using the formula for volume of a normal cylinder, not sure if there is another out there for use with forges. I know there are tried and true methods in almost everything we do, was just not sure if there was one that i was ignorant of in this case.

As for confusing gas jets and liquid jets it was my attempt at tinkering, using my basic understanding of fluid dynamics, I know in some cases fluids and gases act the same way based on physics, but that may be me getting into the realm of "engineers" and physicists, I probably need a better understanding of the principals at work here before i start to tinker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...