droesse Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 Hi folks! I have been reading this forum for a little while now and thought I would show you what I have created with all the great info here! I am starting a build of a 2 burner forge which I will document to the best of my ability and share with you in the hope of being able to contribute something back to the community. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey98118 Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 You got most of the burner's details right. Unfortunately the mixing area; that section between the forward end of the air openings and the end of the tube, looks to be considerably shorter than the recommended nine times the inside diameter of the tube. Still, the burner would probably work okay in a forge. Or you could cut the mixing tube section down the the next smaller burner, with 1-1/4" of overlap to trap the smaller tube in, secure the smaller tube in place with set screws through the larger tube, and bevel the rear edge of the mixing tube, so as to prevent flow problems from occurring, and end up with all the performance you are hoping for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
droesse Posted February 9, 2017 Author Share Posted February 9, 2017 Hi Mike! Thanks for the reply, you have been a massive source if inspiration for me! I don't think it is too short though... I am using 3/4 inch sch 40 pipe so .75 x 9 = 6.75 inches. From the forward end of the air openings to the end of the tube is actually 7.25" so it is really a little too long. The air openings are exactly 2.75" and the nozzle is set to overhang 1.25". The nozzle itself is a sch80 1" pipe coupler that I machined to 1 5/16" on the lathe. Do you think it is worth the bother to shorten it 1/2" ? Or am I missing some detail somewhere? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey98118 Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 Sorry for the slow reply, 3/4" is the call-out size of the pipe. The rule of thumb is nine times the inside diameter of the pipe (or tube). The nominal inside diameter of a 3/4" schedule #40 pipe, ends up being 7/8" because pipe sizes were set back in the eighteen hundreds, before the age of steel dawned; back when pipe walls had to be thick. On the other hand, the difference of 1-1/8" shouldn't be that bad. Have you shortened the amount of over hang of your flame nozzle beyond the end of the mixing tube down to the minimum the burner will take, and then moved it back forward 1/16" for flame stability? I looked as carefully as I could at the area of the air openings, and did not see any bevels on their rear and forward edges; did I just miss seeing them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
droesse Posted February 12, 2017 Author Share Posted February 12, 2017 I do have the bevels on the front and rear of the openings. I did play with the nozzle overhang a bit but I am sure that it could be better. Is that the optimal setting, 1/16" ahead of the point the burner will take? Just curious though, what is it that you see when looking at that flame that makes you think that it should be better? I just want to be able to see what you see so that I can better understand the process... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey98118 Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 First, please remember that your burner isn't doing bad as is. Sometimes it only takes a small change to get everything you are looking for from a particular burner design, so hang in there. You asked "Is that the optimal setting, 1/16" ahead of the point the burner will take?" Generally, yes. You want to run the flame nozzle back and forth to establish where the best amount of overhang is for the hottest flame, without destabilizing it; usually there is only 1/16" difference between best steady flame, and an unstable flame. I don't try to measure the difference; I just use a hex wrench in one of the set screws as a handle, as I run the nozzle back and forth on a lit burner, and then tighten it in place when satisfied. Why not give a particular amount of overhang? These torches are hand crafted products; no two are precisely alike. I have been building them for years, and no two of mine are exactly alike. The first thing off with this burner's flame is the amount of secondary flames showing; they are too large for this design. Secondly, there is white showing in the primary flame; it should only show a blue color. I can't see which size burner it is, but if it is the 3/4" version, you will find that the MIG contact tip chart on page 22 shows two different tip sizes for it, instead of recommending a particular tip; the .023" tip, and the .030" tip. One tip is a touch small, and the other is a touch large. In the book I recommend increasing the orifice diameter of the smaller tip a few thousandths of an inch with a set of torch tip cleaners, to reach an orifice size between the two of them. But, using the smaller tip to jump performance on a burner that just isn't coming up to scratch is also a smart move Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
droesse Posted February 13, 2017 Author Share Posted February 13, 2017 Very interesting. I have obviously got some more experimenting and learning to do... Thank you so much for sharing your knowledge and experience! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey98118 Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 I've seen a lot of guys get discouraged when they where only an adjustment or small detail short of complete success. Keep going, and win it all. 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.