3D printed plastic burner experiments (photo heavy)

[Mikey98118]

On 6/13/2020 at 9:25 PM, Another FrankenBurner said:

The widest part of the burner is the ejection point which is 1.25" which is fairly large.  The throughput of this burner is high and because it is 3/8", it is short, so the fuel mix is racing out of the mix tube.  It required a large aggressive step up to slow it down enough.

Remember that your burner design creates  strong vortex action, and that means that the mixture flow's forward velocity is approximately one-half of its rotational speed. I strongly suspect that 1" long internal vanes in the forward end of the mixing tube can help with this problem as much as larger diameters on the step nozzle. You have no doubt already learned that there are limits on how much the nozzle can brake exit speeds. Just a thought.

Yes, the burner discussion in the middle of the forge thread is totally out of hand. Oh, well

At least your contribution included forges in the mix. Of course, this thing happens now and again; it goes the other way too.

A. F.,

I just noticed that this discussion is in the right thread after all. Obviously, I am in need of a second cup of coffee. Anyway; it's good to see your back in the saddle.

Mikey

[Frosty]

We are now Mike, I think we've been shuffle on overed!

Not going to try spinning one of Franks burners!

Frosty The Lucky.

[Mikey98118]

For those who aren't into 3D printing, just getting the design straight in their heads should open up doable ideas about what building technique, will work best for them. Otherwise, not.

[Mikey98118]

Perhaps we can get AnotherFrankenBurner to posts a drawing or two, to make his burner design easily understood by those who don't do 3D printing?

[Frosty]

I've seen the drawings and it's no help wrapping my head in 3D. I can visualize how it works and what's going on in general but that's zero help trying to adapt it to a 3D printer file. Just drawing in 3D is so counter intuitive I find myself needing an Ouija board to figure out how to draw a line ONLY as long as I want.

At this rate I'll never get my starship designed. <sigh>

Frosty The Lucky.

[Mikey98118]

Yes; just so for lots of us, and me too

This is why I'm suggesting drawings, to help us also-ran types to try building his design without resorting to 3D printing.

[Dr. Rusty]

1 hour ago, Mikey98118 said:

Yes; just so for lots of us, and me too

This is why I'm suggesting drawings, to help us also-ran types to try building his design without resorting to 3D printing.

Last winter I tried to gather a team of 3D printer hobbyists and we tried designing and testing a couple ideas based on the various pictures and discussions AFB et. al. posted over the last 30+ pages. It was a lot of fun being a hobby blacksmith (desk job by day) working with a couple IT folk over virtual meetings, but I didn’t have my own printer at the time and life ate my free time. so after several prototypes, a couple novelties, and much learning, I paused that effort. 

I also burned off my eyelashes one night with a prototype, and we all have evidence that not having AFB’s designs is more dangerous than having access to them

 

One cool novelty we explored was an interchangeable winged cage/barrel. Was great at fine tuning air intake and felt like a fidget toy. Burner intake was three printed components: threaded lid attached to mug tip assembly, the cage threaded on both sides (one side counter threaded) and a funnel. We could then fine tune individual segments and interchange the variables easily and analyze the results without printing an entire unit each time. I’ll try find the pictures and/or remains. 
 

[Frosty]

Eye lashes are over rated Dr. Rusty. I'd love to see what you've come up with and how you test, etc.

Frosty The Lucky.

[Irondragon Forge ClayWorks]

I found out that you can't dodge a propane fire ball when trying to light a propane fired kiln. Who needs a mustache, eye brows and crew cut anyway.

[Dr. Rusty]

52 minutes ago, Frosty said:

Eye lashes are over rated Dr. Rusty. I'd love to see what you've come up with and how you test, etc.

Frosty The Lucky.

I did a quick raid of my photo library and here’s some shots of the modular concept. One video I took a screen grab from, I heard myself saying “this shouldn’t be so easy” when it came to switching out the wing cage. 
for various reasons we started exploring a different system before things fizzled. With the team split between two neighboring states and doing this in our own time, the process was getting too painful. Someone with more dedication (time) could probably have gotten real successes out of this. I got my printer just this week. If I learn the design software maybe this will get another chance. 
 

but seriously, spinning the cage into and out of the housing was my fidget toy at my desk for ages

 

 

 

 

[Mikey98118]

To begin with, welcome Dr. Rusty.

I went from zero knowledge, right into advanced burner design on a short path, but had spent decades with various torches in my hands, previously. Without some guidance, fuel gases are likely to give any novice some serous scares--if he or she is very lucky--I don't even want to go into what comes up, otherwise. Guidance is good anywhere we can find it.

One of the smartest things I ever heard was a line from a sitcom, which goes: "When you do what you don't understand; that's when you suffer."

If you add an internal bevel to the rear edge of the forward plastic burner section, your flame will perk right up. The bevel's knife edge should be on the part's outer surface.

 

The bevel should be at least 45 degrees; sixty would be even better.

[DonB82]

I've made a couple attempts myself at designing one of the vortex burners. I've gotten some results I "think" are similar to the original design, but I'm still learning what is considered a good hot flame. 

I didn't take very good notes when I was experimenting with designs, but I think I was running a mig tip that had an orifice that gage pinned @ .041". First image is almost completely chocked off in order to keep the velocity low enough to keep the flame lit. I just wanted to see if there was any swirl.

Other images were attempts to take pictures of the flame to get some advice, I just never got around to posting it. Again still reading and learning.

If I can get the results AFB was achieving, I can share drawings to help those still looking to make one.

 

[Mikey98118]

First off, you are doing SPLENDIDLY with your new burner design. Secondly you do have a perfectly good design to create superior vortex motion. But, you shouldn't call it a "V" burner (easier handle than writing out vortex all the time, and it is inevitable that people will start using it anyway). So, why should I object? Your burner is just too could to not take credit for; that's why

If you wish to call it a vortex burner, that's fine with me, but I think you deserve more credit than that. At least tack your name on it.

The next thing is, as I would expect, it has a unique flame; this is not bad, but very good. You will probably need to do some experimenting with the burner, and possible (but not necessarily), increase the diameter of its flame retention nozzle just a little more; I've found that V burners can handle larger nozzles.

Congratulations; your burner wins the blue ribbon. Now, how are you going to top it?

Suggestion: Use a slide-over step nozzle for flame retention, and I think you will get just that little more out of it, to make people rave about it.

[Another FrankenBurner]

On 12/2/2022 at 2:29 PM, Mikey98118 said:

Perhaps we can get AnotherFrankenBurner to posts a drawing or two, to make his burner design easily understood by those who don't do 3D printing?

There are many drawings posted throughout this thread.  A person could search through the thread and link to them.  I don't want to make it too easy. 

The closest I can think of without 3D printing would be a hybrid burner with air inlets cut diagonally.  On the previous page, I posted an image of the parallelograms I envisioned as cutouts.

On 12/2/2022 at 5:27 PM, Dr. Rusty said:

I also burned off my eyelashes one night with a prototype

You are making progress.  Science is fun.  How many times science has smelled of burnt hair.

On 12/2/2022 at 5:27 PM, Dr. Rusty said:

we all have evidence that not having AFB’s designs is more dangerous than having access to them

We also have evidence that not having direct easy access leads to more experimenting and from different minds.  A fantastic situation.  Look at what you all have done.  Something quite different.  Thank you for posting what you have done.

Even those wishing to clone them will come up with something a bit different.  More data is good.

A person could comb through this thread to get all the details and get very close to what I have done.  What's the fun in that?  

18 hours ago, DonB82 said:

I've gotten some results I "think" are similar to the original design

Similar but different.  Thank you for posting what you have done.  It is looking good.  A cousin maybe.  Do post more.  Images, observations, questions.  They are all wonderful.  Keep up the good work.

18 hours ago, DonB82 said:

but I'm still learning what is considered a good hot flame. 

Me too.  My definition has changed along the way. 

[Mikey98118]

Yes, and many of the new designs will have their own unique flames. What constitutes a really hot flame from any given burner design is likely to be somewhat different from the flames from other burners. Other things about the flames will be the same.

    This burner for instance has a flame that is quite large for the burner size; it is also very soft for a hot flame. Furthermore the flame's color shows it is ever so slightly reducing, but apparently without any any secondary flame. Frosty would probably love how your burner works steel in a forge.

    However, picky-butt Mikey sees that you can get more heat from that flame with minor changes in the other end of the burner. For now, you should leave the air chamber alone, and fiddle with the flame retention nozzle. Also, I would like to see what lengthening the mixing tube one or two more inches would do for the flame.

[DonB82]

On 12/14/2022 at 8:21 PM, Mikey98118 said:

increase the diameter of its flame retention nozzle just a little more; I've found that V burners can handle larger nozzles.

I had a Zoeller flare I took off another burner and tried it real quick. It's a little bigger and I noticed the flame had a more distinct cone. This was around 11 psi. Sorry for the dark background. With the lights on I can't get a good picture. Plus it hides my messy workbench.

 

9 hours ago, Another FrankenBurner said:

There are many drawings posted throughout this thread.  A person could search through the thread and link to them.  I don't want to make it too easy. 

This is precisely what I did. I had to make a few educated guesses but there is ample information there. Something I want to improve for next time is removing the step from the plastic to the pipe. The image below shows a step that I want to make into a smooth transition. I am also going to use a seamless tube instead of the welded pipe. I'm curious if removing the weld seam makes a difference.

 

On 12/14/2022 at 8:21 PM, Mikey98118 said:

Suggestion: Use a slide-over step nozzle for flame retention, and I think you will get just that little more out of it, to make people rave about it.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by a slide-over step nozzle. Below is what I'm imagining. 

 

 

[Mikey98118]

That is one way, and it is a good enough way too. Someone else on IfI came up with the term "slide-over" to describes flame retention nozzles that are built to slide back and forth on the burner's mixing tube to, in effect, adjust the length to width ratio of the nozzle somewhat. What you are suggesting will do the same trick.

Before I came up with step nozzles, spacer slide-over tapered flame retention nozzles did the something similar, but to a lessor extent. However, you can see, by looking at your drawing that spacer rings make a more abrupt change in width, and provide more breaking power to the gas/air mixture as a consequence.

[Mikey98118]

They are also, lets face it, simpler to build right, than tapered nozzles

[Mikey98118]

47 minutes ago, Mikey98118 said:

Before I came up with step nozzles, spacer slide-over tapered flame retention nozzles did

should read "...slide-over tapered flame retention nozzles did..."

[Frosty]

NICE burner Don! You can clearly see the flame-vortex and it's shape makes me smile. Mike is right I do like a slightly rich flame but not quite that rich.

Being as this is a vortex burner I'd say yes, broach the weld seam smooth and see what happens. It didn't make a noticeable change when I tried it in a T burner but they don't generate a significant vortex for the weld seam to interfere with. 

Your burner excites me, I like it.

Frosty The Lucky.

[Another FrankenBurner]

11 hours ago, DonB82 said:

I am also going to use a seamless tube instead of the welded pipe.

I prefer this. I ditched the pipe threads for a slip connection as the threads were often not concentric. Once the threads are out, why use iron pipe that is often not actually round and has a welded seam?  You can also go to thinner wall to make a lighter weight burner and go to stainless if you want to get fancy.

12 hours ago, DonB82 said:

I'm curious if removing the weld seam makes a difference.

I removed the seam in an earlier pipe burner I made. It made a difference but it was a smaller difference than I expected.  It’s still worth trying on your burner though.

 If you go to thinner walled tubing with the same OD as the pipe you are using, you will see big changes. This would be increasing the throat diameter. Throat diameter is important enough that several of my dimensions are ratios of it.

[Mikey98118]

As to weld seams interfering with burner performance; yes they sure do, but how much varies wildly. How interfering they become, depends first on how great the vortex action is--which can go both ways. In other words, the burner design can create such a strong vortex that a weld seam's breaking action becomes a positive force. But at that point we are speaking of fan-induced  V burners (with axial computer fans mounted, which have impeller type blades).

On naturally aspirated V burners, weld seams are always going to be a negative factor. The question becomes just how negative. The thing is that I have seen internal weld seams like mountain peaks in some imported pipe, and weld seams that were barely relevant in others. So, how bad depends on how much

On less you can inspect the pipe or tube before purchase, seamless should be your watchword.

[Mikey98118]

On less? This should read unless; I would be appalled at my typos, if I only had the energy

[DonB82]

7 hours ago, Frosty said:

but not quite that rich.

Do you think I can tune it like a T burner?  I can shorten the spike up that the mig tip sits inside to help lean it out. I have been placing the tip right at the opening of the spike.

[Mikey98118]

No! The air flow with Frosty T burners is a little different from linear burners, which all of the vortex burners are, so far. T burners are tuned to harder flames by shortening the length of their gas orifice. Only small burner sizes of linear, or tube (Mikey) burners, are tuned this way, and this is only because their gas orifices are so small that friction becomes an important factor. For these kinds of burners, of 1/2" are larger, longer MIG tips are used, and are not shortened.

So why are T burners different? Because the two incoming air streams meet at the third opening in the pipe fitting's center, become a whirlpool ext. The gas orifice is at right angles to them, and so its main impact is to the whirlpool, rather than directly on the incoming air streams.

With linear burners, the incoming air moves past the gas orifice--not at right angles; a whole different deal.