AxL Posted September 1, 2017 Author Share Posted September 1, 2017 Put a 60 degree bevel in the tube, and the transition between the reducer and tube is near perfectly seamless. I'll weld it up next week, and then it's just a "simple matter" of making a saddle and gas tube... Have a great weekend everybody! PS. Sorry for the lack of pictures, my phone got smashed last weekend and the loaner phone's camera isn't working. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey98118 Posted September 1, 2017 Share Posted September 1, 2017 Just as long as a final photo of the completed burner, with flame, ends up in the Burners 101 thread, where it belongs. I believe this design will bcome the burner of choice for most people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AxL Posted September 4, 2017 Author Share Posted September 4, 2017 Update: I've welded the tube to the reducer, and it seems straight and true. As far as I can tell anyway. Here's hoping... I also beveled the top of the reducer and made the saddle. I'll get to welding the saddle tomorrow hopefully. Getting close. Need to find a suitable pipe for the gas tube, or just turn something on the lathe... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey98118 Posted September 4, 2017 Share Posted September 4, 2017 Their are two ways to guaranty that a gas runs axially true and central down the mixing tube. The older method is to use something like set screws to alter the jet's aim as needed; the other way is to very carefully set up the gas jet assembly to run dead center to the mixing tube. This burner is designed to take easy advantage of the second method. Method two can still be modified afterward to change the jet's aim, by the use of flat washers, which can be deliberately filed or sanded into wedge shapes, so that the gas assembly can be re-aimed by turning the washer, before clamping down on a locking nut. That should read "...to guaranty that a column of gas runs axially true..." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AxL Posted September 6, 2017 Author Share Posted September 6, 2017 On 8/11/2017 at 8:37 PM, Mikey98118 said: The gas pipe is one-half of a 6" long schedule #80 1/8" pipe nipple I'm gonna keep on asking stupid questions, as the sizes of the pipes and nipples aren't obvious to me. I checked the McMaster catalog, and if I understand correctly, the tube needs to be 3" long and basically accomodate for inside thread for a 0.8 mm MIG tip and enough wall thickness to make threads to fit the saddle? I think I'll put a ball valve at the end and a 90 degree elbow off that to fit the gas supply to. Does this sound good? Edit: Or an elbow before the valve maybe... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey98118 Posted September 6, 2017 Share Posted September 6, 2017 yes; schedule 80 1/8" pipe nipple, that is cut in half, is the most convenient form of gas pipe in the USA, because of the pipe thread left ready for use at one end for mounting such parts to. If you have British or European parts available, you would simply recalculate the inside and outside diameters needed on the gas pipe. Also, by stopping the outside thread short of the end with the MIG tip, you gain more leeway in gas pipe diameters. There are some European MIG tips available, with small threaded ends. Finally, by silver braze alloys common solders, and thread locker, can all be used to seal threaded parts together, so pipe parts need not me used at all. What parts you use is only a matter of convenience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AxL Posted September 15, 2017 Author Share Posted September 15, 2017 Almost finished (I hope). Couldn't find a suitable bolt of alumunium to make the choke plate, so I'll figure something out next week. I'm not sure if the gas tube is long enough though, at it's lowest point It gets the tip of the MIG to the narrowest point in the reducer, but not down into the actual mixing tube. As far as I understand that might be long enough, hope you can weigh in on that Mikey. Gotta find som parts for the gas too... I'm cautiously optimistic for lighting it next week! Have a good weekend! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey98118 Posted September 17, 2017 Share Posted September 17, 2017 The burner is looking good, but you need to move the gas jet deeper into the burner; its tip should rest between 1/4" and 3/8" away from the opening of the mixing tube. You also want to bevel the end of the gas tube. Nothing prevents you from running the burner while you are waiting to finish the choke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AxL Posted September 18, 2017 Author Share Posted September 18, 2017 The burner is looking good, but you need to move the gas jet deeper into the burner; its tip should rest between 1/4" and 3/8" away from the opening of the mixing tube. You also want to bevel the end of the gas tube. Nothing prevents you from running the burner while you are waiting to finish the choke. It can be moved deeper, like I said in the previous post, it can be moved as deep as the opening of the mixing tube. When you say bevel the end of the gas tube, you mean the end where the nozzle sits, yes? The business end? The end that's attached to the reducer is already beveled. Is 60 degrees the correct bevel? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey98118 Posted September 19, 2017 Share Posted September 19, 2017 The business end, which end with a MIG tip coming out of it. You do this for streamlining. Otherwise the incoming air will be slowed and weakened, as it passes by the threaded end of the gas tube. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AxL Posted September 19, 2017 Author Share Posted September 19, 2017 The business end, which end with a MIG tip coming out of it. You do this for streamlining. Otherwise the incoming air will be slowed and weakened, as it passes by the threaded end of the gas tube. I read it all wrong, i was thinking of the mixing tube! Gonna get it done today and test fire it this evening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AxL Posted September 19, 2017 Author Share Posted September 19, 2017 It works! That was the best flame I could get by adjusting the nozzle. I might have to redo the gas tube, it should probably be longer. But not bad for a first try! Thanks for all your help and input Mikey! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey98118 Posted September 19, 2017 Share Posted September 19, 2017 As is so very common at this stage, you have a disappointing flame But, what every photo show me is how to put it right Pay close attention to how the flame is actually touching the nozzle; that shows that the nozzle's diameter is insufficient. Cut off a section of of this nozzle, and use it as a ring inside a tube or pipe with an inside diameter that matches the ring's outside diameter. The new flame will suddenly double in power. The second clue is the off center flame tip in every photo; that is made by either a nozzle out of axial alignment with the mixing tube (unlikely with such a gentle flame angle); or it can made by a misaligned gas jet (the much more likely culprit). Even if you perfectly centered the gas assembly in the the burner, its gas jet is made of soft copper. It is a common problem for the MIG tip to be bent out of alignment. Fortunately, soft copper parts can be bent back into alignment quite easily Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Posted September 19, 2017 Share Posted September 19, 2017 All that weight being carried by the jet mount makes it almost impossible to keep the jet aligned. Were it me tuning it I'd just move the jet back farther to increase air induction. That's just me though. Frosty The Lucky. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AxL Posted September 20, 2017 Author Share Posted September 20, 2017 I would by no means call it disappointing, I expected nothing like this. I expected to have made som critical error at some point and the burner not working! I'll get started on a new nozzle and try to tweak the misaligned parts back into alignement. I'll try to move the gas tube back a little too, play around and see what happens. Thanks guys, updates to come! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey98118 Posted September 20, 2017 Share Posted September 20, 2017 Keep your photos; when it is perfectly adjusted, you'll want a record of the journey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AxL Posted September 22, 2017 Author Share Posted September 22, 2017 I made a new nozzle and did my best to align the parts. As far as I can tell (measured with a laser) it's straight and true. I honestly can't see much of a difference in the flames, so either my eyes aren't tuned for this or I have made no difference. Thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey98118 Posted September 22, 2017 Share Posted September 22, 2017 But I see plenty of difference. The flame is now running straight. So what? No big deal? that's right; it's no big deal, at present. But, once we get your flame properly tuned, it would have reduced the flame's stability, and that is a real big deal; one you don't want to deal with while trying to finish tuning your burner. I think the new nozzle is right, and will assume you varied the amount of overhang, to tune it for a hard flame. If that is the case, I would also assume you are using a MIG contact tip with an over large orifice; what wire size is it rated for? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey98118 Posted September 22, 2017 Share Posted September 22, 2017 The smallest MIG contact tip available is for .023" welding wire; it has a .031" orifice; this is actually a little bit large for a 1/2" pipe burner. 1/2" schedule #40 pipe has a nominal inside diameter of .622"; if your mixing tube has a larger inside diameter, we well have to insert a short length of capillary tube (probably about 5/8" long) in a MIG tip, to compensate. What is your mixing tube's inside diameter? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AxL Posted September 22, 2017 Author Share Posted September 22, 2017 Mig tip is rated for 0.8 mm wire. Mixing tube ID is 15.5 mm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey98118 Posted September 23, 2017 Share Posted September 23, 2017 I have some good news and some better news. First, your mixing tube inside diameter is a few thousandths smaller than a pipe would be, so that isn't your problem. The better news is that your MIG tip is one size too large; trade it out for a .6 mm tip, and your problem will vanish. Then, you can finally fine tune your burner for the flame you deserve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AxL Posted September 23, 2017 Author Share Posted September 23, 2017 I got a 0.6 mm mig tip and tried it on. The flames blue bell seemed a little different. The outer layer of flame turned red after a while, it seemed to coincide with the nozzle heating up. What does this mean? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey98118 Posted September 23, 2017 Share Posted September 23, 2017 You're closer, but not quite there. I can't prove the red secondary flame is from oxidation of the flame nozzle, but the fact that it started after your burner's flame got hotter is a strong indication of it. Is your flame nozzle made of mild steel, rather than #316 stainless? Stop reducing the amount of overhang on your flame nozzle (past the end of the mixing tube), only after the flame snuffs out, and then add only 1/16" to 3/32" back to the overhang length, to stabilize the flame. You are very close now; your burner only needs a little further nudge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AxL Posted September 23, 2017 Author Share Posted September 23, 2017 It is stainless, but maybe not 316. It might some residue from grease/WD40 or whatever was in the tube when it was used. I pulled it from the scrap bin at work. I'll give the adjusting another go later today or tomorrow. I tested it today on a small piece of steele and it had no trouble heating it to hardening temperature. This is fun! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AxL Posted October 2, 2017 Author Share Posted October 2, 2017 Been gone for a week, so didn't get to this before this weekend. Got the nozzle tuned, and the red flames are gone. 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.