Mikey98118

Burners 101

Recommended Posts

Perhaps we can get you to change your handle from AnotherCurtis to AnotherFrankenbuerner? I am quit serious. You are as good an inovator as I was at my peak. No, I don't think the flame from your latest burner is perfect; it is nevertheless, very impressive. And getting that far with  an easily available MIG tip in a 3/8" is equally important. I'm also pleased to see you experimenting on wasp-waist burners. Let no stone go unturned :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a good thing that we can move back to the previous page now, because you guys don't want to miss what at the bottom of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MikeyI created a thread so as to not hijack this one with all my crazy ideas.  

 

Mikey: I would change my name but AnotherFrankenburner is pretty long to type.  I do like the mad scientist stuff though.  Patching together other concepts to see what works.

Frosty: I like the idea of the aquarium, I feel I could learn a lot from that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't type, "Frosty The Lucky." every time I sign a post you know. 

AnotherFrankenburner is just too tempting a straight line for me to allow myself to get started playing with potential abbreviations. I don't want to get myself moderated. 

Remember, cut and paste or signature file. May the good handle be yours! ;)

Frosty The Lucky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Curis,

It has been nearly two decades since I was known as Dr.  Frankenburner, and it was a different crowd. It would please me if you carried on the handle. Frankenburner should be short enough, if you like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3000 posts for Mikey, nice.  Thank you for helping us all that much.  (We won't look at frosty's post count) I changed my handle to AnotherFrankenBurner but it was so long, it wasn't all visible on the left side of the posts so I shortened it to FrankenBurner.  

I figured it out thanks to Irondragon Forge & Clay's handle.  Just needed a space.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't the amount of posts, but their content. Frosty has been contributing here for many more years than Mikey has. I have been a fan of choices; specifically burner choices; it is something you both are contributing heavily to. Now if only I could lure Lattisino down to the deep end of the pool... :)

Welcome to the deep end, Frankenburner :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On occasion it gets down right hot (like I just noticed Mikey the junk head misspelled Latticino's name) :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's probably used to it Mike, I have "Latticino" on a postit so I don't have to go hunting to get it right.

Frosty The Lucky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rules of thumb about air openings

There is an interesting discussion about burner design going on in a new thread about 3D printing of complicated burner parts, which readers don't want to miss.

Frosty made the comment on that thread that their air entrances could do with becoming shorter, and that is true. In their original burner designs, I deliberately used longer narrower air openings as a safety measure, and avoided patterns of three air openings for the same reason. I was deliberately sand bagging the designs somewhat, to keep them running smoother, and therefore safer. Why? Because I expected them to be used out in the open air as torches a lot; something that never happened. Burners in equipment run more smoothly, and so those safety concerns became irrelevant.

So, as rules of thumb, consider three air openings as best, and air openings over two inches in length as wasted space, if you're looking for maximum performance in burners. Why? because maximum spin at their air openings trump most other deign considerations in air/LPG; especially with propane fuel. These rules of thumb will also apply to burners that have a cross pipe attached on the end of a mixing tube opening; this creates swirl in incoming air as it is forced around the pipe. Linear burners that have the gas tube attached to a reducer fitting or cone shape by short pieces of flat bar will benefit from the addition of a third strap, over the more convenient two flat bar design. And you will find that most of the tuning of such a burner, by variance in the distance allowed through use of a disc choke, between it and a reducer's opening, happens in less than two inches; sometimes a lot less. 

As to reducer or cone proportions on linear burners; try to stick close to a three to one reduction in opening to mixing tube diameters. The larger the amount of reduction the more spin the burner's opening will impart to incoming air. The matter rests on the rules of vortical flow. I have recommended no more than three to one for Vortex burners, but that is a safety measure involving back pressure against their fan interface; not a general rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting.  Iv read through this thread.  I remember most of the important stuff.  Since i started reading it from page one i also started making some burners. I went through a few different designs and have one that works well now. So thank you to the peeps of this thread.

 

Downside is that the latest burners are not really where i want them just yet and i have a few questions.

I made two of these. Sorta looks like a hybridburner t-rex style.

20190112_090459.thumb.jpg.688a00af1fb3f9da1c524f2b2ea7ed83.jpg

I used 3/4inch mixing tube.  1 1/4 schedule40 for the air intakes that i forge reduced to mate with the 3/4. forged the nozzle from 1 inch pipe and made it  12 degrees then welded a 3/4 npt  weld-o-let which is about 1.5" OD to the back of the 1 1/4 pipe air intake

20190113_173730.thumb.jpg.8d762cb55eb260a12ae630ddcc847167.jpg

 

 

20190109_061745.thumb.jpg.ee0301179ad1db624842def56f897aad.jpg

In the last pic here the ports were not done yet.

The air intakes are 2 inch long and about 11/16s wide.  The jet size is currently a 0.030. Id like to see it be able to do 0.035 tips before im done with them. Currently the gas jet is 1/4 copper pipe with a brazed in 0.030.  Iv got some schedule 80 1/8th nipples and 1.5 long tapered tweco tips on the way in both 0.030 and 0.035.  They will be nicer and threaded.  The current jets are filed down to a nice taper for testing.

They run anywhere between 2 and 30psi.  Just depends how hot the flare gets.  They also melt face.  But i need them to hit an oxidizing atmosphere a little harder with the 0.030 jet so that i can move to a 0.035

I learned quite a bit working on these burners but still have questions that someone may be able to help with.

The state of these burners in my forge isnt bad.  With the air choke wide open i have almost no flame coming out of the forge.  Just a few inches of yellow tips on a 0.030 tip and it is even throughout the gas pressure range.  Other than that they make stuff yellow. Pyrometer sows up tomorrow.

 

One thing i noticed is the burner flare.  These run in or out of the forge just fine but i was tuning it out of the forge and noticed that sliding the nozzle up and down the pipe had about the same effect as sliding the choke up and down and that this burner is very picky about burner nozzle specs.  20190106_190307.thumb.jpg.c06e74f5063c4820b6ca197528d7f8be.jpg

So i used a grinder and ground out a ward coupling to 12 degrees and it worked very well. Suddenly i had a functional burner.  So i cut the burner tube threads off which left my 3/4 mixing tube at 6.5 long and started forging flares from 1 inch pipe to test.

These burners do not work at all with a coupling or thread protector on the end which is what i tried first. Currently they are set at only 1 inch beyond the end of the pipe @ 12 degrees of flare.  As i slide it outward the flame dies down and the flame peaks around 1 inch out and then gets worse as it gets shorter.  Iv tried step flares using 1 1/4 as well with a similar result.   Any ideas about this burner flare? Could its adjustment get me what i need?  Once its final ill make them from stainless steel.

Or is it the port shapes and how they are beveled? Perhaps too many ports or just too big?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is some nice work on your version of a Hybrid burner design. If is hard to judge the burner accurately without a flame photo, but two points jump out at me:

First is that this size and type of burner normally runs best with a .023" MIG contact tip that is enlarged about .004" of an inch further with a wire file from a set of torch tip cleaners. .023" contact tips are just a little small for this burner, while .030" tends to be a little bit large. The actual orifice diameters are .031" and .038" respectively. The ideal orofice diameter should be about .035"

Second is that tapered tips are tricky to get just right. I would suggest using the next size up schedule #40 pipe as your  new flame nozzle's spacer ring, and the next larger pipe than that in stainless steel, or an equivalent in stainless steel tubing as the flame nozzle. Go for an overall length of 2". Use three stainless steel socket sets screws through the nozzle and spacer ring, so that your flame retention nozzle operates properly as a slide-over type, for flame tuning.

I think you have done well so far, and if you'll hang in there, we can help get your burner running at maximum efficiency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ill have some time to tinker with it this weekend.  I have some 0.023s an plenty of torch tip file sets so ill see how that goes.    

I have the new jets setup with the 1/8 nipple threaded for mig tips. They need a little more clean up and run a polish on the ports.  Works for engines. Why not burners!Screenshot_20190117-115354_Gallery.thumb.jpg.0dabc23ad7f09e116a743be35b392301.jpg

Ill be pulling them out to try some flare adjustment. I will get some pics of the flames and different nozzle options.

I found a perfect 12 degree mandrel in the scrap yard  that is 3 inches wide at the base.  Makes nice flares easily.

 

Thanks for any assistance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tinkered with it a bit this weekend.  I oversized the 0.023s using my torch tip cleaners without oblonging it.  

Made a step nozzle using a 1 inch sch.40  ring and a piece of  1 1/4 sch.40.  

The burner runs from super rich to oxidizing inside or out of the forge at any pressure from 3 to 30.  

20190120_094144.thumb.jpg.0f96fc0245807c94145d0a19fe7c3b38.jpg

Random pic but i know that the cone is 2 inches past the end of the mixing tube in this pic.  I was trying to get the choke to open up.

 With any type of step flare or  a flare made from 1in sch.40   that is longer than 1.5 inch.  i cannot get it to really roar.  My choke must remain 90+ percent closed.   There is less heat and it  feels a little short on gas.

Running the step nozzle at shorter lengths didn't seem to work.  I ran it at 1/4inch intervals starting at 2 and worked downward to 1 inch.  All had the same effect.  Nice flame and fully adjustable...  but quiet and my choke was only 10% open.  This could be good or bad.

So far almost nothing beats that ward coupling that i ground out into a flare.  It turns into a screamer.    I will do some experiments with it and see if i can figure something out.

Because i was having no luck and every nozzle seemed to work the same (except the short non-step ones) i made a big flare for fun.  Same effect with the choke.20190120_083259.thumb.jpg.1d57687e096014f67115e018c04140a4.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recommend trying it with the choke closing from the opposite direction you have it now.  

In my experiments, a choke which closes like yours acts more like an on/off.  Slide the choke toward the flame end and have it close toward the gas inlet end.  In this configuration, it did much better at linear regulation for me.

Hopefully it helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That actually does help. Thanks.  I previously made a set of burners that had to be configured that way and it made a difference.  I totally forgot!  Thanks for the reminder.

More tests to run.  /runs off excited!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if it is turbulent air because of the distance between the bottom of the air slots and the beginning  of the reducer..

 

Also i haven't seen any but has anyone tried lightly rifling the mixing tube in the correct direction?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kandar said:

With any type of step flare or  a flare made from 1in sch.40   that is longer than 1.5 inch.  i cannot get it to really roar.  My choke must remain 90+ percent closed.   There is less heat and it  feels a little short on gas.

Congratulations. In your first photo, using a stepped flame nozzle, we see a perfect flame, with 100% fuel combustion in a single primary flame envelope. There is zero secondary flame. Also the blue is a light shade ;without the typical darkening which is the first indication of excess oxygen seen in a lean flame. The raged ends are typical of a very high speed air/fuel burner flame.

As to the the muted the flame roar; it has been typical of every burner I built. For a long time, I just thought over people were exaggerating about flame noise out of their burners. Bottom line is; I don't know why mine aren't as loud :wacko:

Reverse the choke direction, and it will work properly. I went through the same discovery process in the beginning. The needed direction is why you must use a thin slot and screw to hold the choke in place :)

The second photo, employing a flame retention nozzle with  radical flare design, shows one of the many ways a flame can go wrong; it has a three flame envelopes. The primary flame envelope is white; I think this is due to heavy burning of carbon. The thin blue-green secondary flame envelope is a reducing flame; I presume of heavy carbon monoxide combustion. The large tertiary purple envelope is oxygen rich exhaust gases. And I believe the red streak of flame in the outer envelope, is presumably caused by a bit of oxidized metal from the flare.

58 minutes ago, Kandar said:

I wonder if it is turbulent air because of the distance between the bottom of the air slots and the beginning  of the reducer..

You are right; it is a question of distance to the forward end of the air opening. The amount of air drawn into the opening increases as it nears the opening's forward  end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that did it.  They run through the full range from green to dark blue  Just had to relocate the choke screw.  Silly that i learned that before but failed to apply it.

I feel like the mixing quality was slightly better with the choke slipped around the other direction.  Ill make another air intake body and increase the distance  from the bottom of the air intake slot to the start of the reducer and see how it goes when i can.

They run great right now. Ill get them in the forge and test the heat soon.  

Pics at 10psi on the .023 tips bored .004 over

20190121_185510_030_01.thumb.jpg.b2ba791a5174c1555485a5be7c4dec64.jpg20190121_191848.thumb.jpg.165513e426860a106bedfe65b3458c1c.jpg20190121_192217.thumb.jpg.744a361ca2e60e5308ea5e24ac8125a1.jpg

thank you both mikey and frankenburner for your assistance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're welcome, Kandar. Good job, both in the build, and in understanding what the flame you're seeing means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're welcome, from me as well, sir.  Though, the advice I gave you, IIRC, I was first made aware of from Mikey's book.  Maybe you just need to thank him twice.  

It's a good looking and running burner.  Nice job.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeing someone make "the magic flame" their first time is all the thanks needed; it never gets old :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That IS a SWEET flame. Well done. Can't wait to see it in a forge.

Frosty The Lucky.

Share this post


Link to post
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.