Psi Posted August 25, 2018 Share Posted August 25, 2018 I took into account a lot of the feedback and post on my previous topic and am revisiting to get a few things clarified before I go ahead. 1. Took the advice and found a plan that I like over at Hybridburner's page for a box style forge but with arched ceilings. The one thing I was curious about was that it only has one burner and has a inner volume of about 380 inches or so. I'm going to be making something very similar to the older version of the 3/4" T-Rex, with the screw choke instead of slide, as I just prefer it. I do know it is fussier, but its something I just rather. The question I have was the simple one of will one burner be enough? I remember seeing that even extremely efficient setups can do 300-350, but am worried about the ability at that size, and even more so when I know I may be making it a bit longer. Should I consider going to two, maybe making them smaller to compensate? 2. I will be using 2x 1" Layers of Wool, with rigidizer, 3/8-1/2" layer of Kast-O-Lite, and a layer or two of ITC-100 / HYB-UV / Metrikote. I was lucky enough to get some wool free, but it is not what I was looking for. Its 2300 degree grade. Is it safe to use? I know that my forge will get past that temp, and I know that there is a formula which could do all the work to tell me the exact temps, but I am neither knowing of that formula, or good enough at math to work through it. The main thing I need to know is if I can safely use it, or if I should look into buying some 2600 degree one. Once more, thanks a ton for all the comments and help that I got, and look forwards to being able to post my work soon-ish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey98118 Posted August 25, 2018 Share Posted August 25, 2018 The answer is probably, but it all depends. To begin with the 350 cubic inches that is the maximum recommended size for forges with a 3/4" burner dates clear back before the best modern forge burners came online, so it is on the small side for one of them. On the other hand, you are proposing to change the construction of one of those modern designs, so this fact may not apply in your case. If you achieve full combustion in a single flame envelope, your in the clear. If you have a secondary flame envelope, your on the ropes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psi Posted August 25, 2018 Author Share Posted August 25, 2018 Yea. The forge itself looks really nice and it must work decently well for it to be featured there. The only thing that has me unsure of it is the depth, as I was intending for something a little deeper. I may just go with 2 of the burners, and see if I can find some happy medium, like cutting one once the forge is up to temp or something. I don't understand the second thing you said though. Are you referring to having a fairly neutral enviroment inside, versus an oxygen rich or Poor one, which could cause flame to leave the inner chamber? I'm sorry about my lack of knowledge on that part, but that is the only thing I could think you meant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey98118 Posted August 25, 2018 Share Posted August 25, 2018 What I meant was that the Hybrid burner, like my own burner, is a high speed flame design, which can achieve complete combustion in the primary flame envelope. What this produces in a forge is the maximum exchange of energy from the flame to the forge interior before the spent gases are exhausted out its opening. The result is higher forge temperature. When you alter a successful burner design, you are "rolling the dice." Maybe you will achieve the same flame, but more likely you will not. You may still end up with a very nice burner, but it may not be nice enough to sufficiently heat an oversize forge. In other words you are gambling on two fronts; not a prescription for success... I'm not trying to discourage you. For about every hundred guys who try something different on a burner, we get a winner; we LOVE that here! But when asked an honest question we try to give an honest answer. Personally, it suits if you ignore mine, and tell us the result; I'm just not going to happy-talk you to get that result. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psi Posted August 25, 2018 Author Share Posted August 25, 2018 Oh. That makes a ton more sense. Now I understand what you meant. The change with the burner though is the least of my worries though. I’m going to be getting the peices to change to a sliding choke if needed, but the “change” I’m making is one the he “patched” for lack of a better term. In the previous models of the trex it had the revolving style choke that was adjustable at the top. It was more fussy and tended to take a lot more finesse to dial in, so to speak. I just like the design of it and the small difference in efficiency that may be lost doesn’t bother me too much, as he still offers them to buy in that style just as custom requests since he no longer carries the parts. The big thing that worries me right now though is the heat that the wool will be under. I can stand having to remake a part of the burner or switch to a different product, but the thought of the wool degrading and failing critically scares the hell out of me. I should have probably changed it to the first topic, instead of second to indicate that though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzzkill Posted August 25, 2018 Share Posted August 25, 2018 If you wool is protected by 3/8" to 1/2" of Kastolite it is not likely to get close to 2300 degrees. Repeated heating and cooling will still make it degrade over time, but you will not pass the operating threshold of the blanket. If it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling to use the 2600 degree version, then by all means do so, but it's not necessary with a good flame face like Kastolite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psi Posted August 25, 2018 Author Share Posted August 25, 2018 20 minutes ago, Buzzkill said: If you wool is protected by 3/8" to 1/2" of Kastolite it is not likely to get close to 2300 degrees. Repeated heating and cooling will still make it degrade over time, but you will not pass the operating threshold of the blanket. If it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling to use the 2600 degree version, then by all means do so, but it's not necessary with a good flame face like Kastolite. Ok cool. I was just really worried. The first time I ever messed with big boy heat was when me and a friend made a melting furnace. We got things too hot and were a few inches from a very bad day. Since then I always try to make sure that my bases on thermals are covered. I know people use itc100 but have many people here tried the one hybridburners sells, the hyb-uv stuff? I can’t seem to find info on it anywhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey98118 Posted August 25, 2018 Share Posted August 25, 2018 Yes, your right. The rotating choke is a bad idea; it only works correctly in the fully open or fully closed positions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psi Posted August 25, 2018 Author Share Posted August 25, 2018 I took the advice that you gave and started fresh, and have been looking at a few different style designs. I did find some plans for a Modified Side Arm, and it looks very nice, and looks to be a great burner from the btu/psi charts. Does anyone have experience with it? Ideally in the future, I will have a ribbon burner, but for now at least this seems like a good one to start with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevomiller Posted August 25, 2018 Share Posted August 25, 2018 No advice on the the modified side arm burner, but Zoeller even now has moved past that design. I don’t follow your thought processes: Hybrid got rid of rotatating chokes, but you want it for some aesthetic reason, now you move to another makers burners, and drop to something he has moved past for PERFORMANCE reasons. Copy exactly the best, or buy it, especially if you have concerns on performance. Asfor the Hybrid UV coating, I have a container of it but haven’t used it, and I might not. The paperwork that came with it is very nebulous on content other than saying silicates and talk (no claim) of some other minerals (i don’t have it handy): the data sheet/instructions aren’t much, I can post them next week if folks would like. I don’t really want mostly silicates as a coating due to possible air born health risks and the fact that borax flux is going to eat it for lunch. My conclusion on forge top coats is you get what you pay for, or at least they surely aren’t all made the same. Plistix is mostly alumina, Matrikote is a mix of alumina and silicate if I remember correctly. ITC won’t tell you what’s in theirs but it’s obviously different because the working temperature is MUCH higher than Plistix or Matrikote, making one assume that it is zirconium or some other ultra high temp refractory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psi Posted August 25, 2018 Author Share Posted August 25, 2018 Ahh. Thank you for the info on HYB. I couldn't find any info on it anywhere, and was rather dubious. I've had cancer once already and don't wanna roll the dice again. Hell, I would rather try some of the "homebrew"-styled ITC mixes that I have seen posted here and there, than fiddle with something that has a large number of unknowns that have potential health risks. As for the design of the burner, your correct about the first part, with the rotational chokes. The Z-Burner vs Side-Arm is a different matter though, and its something that I don't feel is as simple as saying A is better than B, at least not right now. The BTU is higher on the Side-Arm, while the flame appears to be hotter on the Wye-Pipe based design. The idea of entrainment makes sense, but even Zoeller says he can't say why it is. I have an idea, but am not sure how to go about fixing it just right away, thus why I am deciding on the side-arm instead of the Wye base. In the side arm, the MIG tip is not perfectly centered, since the Ward reducer tie itself is just a bit off center due to its design. I have no idea if I can fix it, but I definitely want to try, and being that the only large difference between the two is that single piece, even if I decide to switch, it will not be a difficult task. I enjoy learning and experimenting when there is merit. With all of Mikey's comments, it became evident that there would be no way to make any form of progression in that design and attempting it would just be silly. I feel it may not be that simple with the very small differential in the other two. I would love to look over any other info on them and definitely think that there is more to learn, in reference to the abilities of the two burners in question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevomiller Posted August 26, 2018 Share Posted August 26, 2018 If you are rather confident the issue is the gas inlet isn’t on axis with the side arm burner, it’s an easy fix- even without a lathe (although that is the best and quickest). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psi Posted August 26, 2018 Author Share Posted August 26, 2018 It could be that, as the T that I have is slightly off. It could also be some other simpler things, like needing a bit of a different burn chamber, as it is longer than Frosty lays out in his document. It may be something larger, but no way to know until I start fiddling. The thing that made me really question it is looking at the burn slopes. The slope for the Z-Burner is not as steeped as that of the side arm, leaving me to think that there is room for tweaking either of them. 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.