Jump to content
I Forge Iron

R.B. v tube burner efficiency


Jdub2

Recommended Posts

Hi all

Can anyone explain how a ribbon burner is more efficient than a tube burner given the same volume of air and gas. The only thing that I can think of is flame distribution. Others it just doesn't make sense

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Thomas, velocity makes sense but shouldn't the total volume of the ribbon burner equal the volume of the supply tube? But velocity also depends on supply pressure so if the total volume of the orfices of the ribbon burner is less than the volume of the supply tube and the supply pressure is constant then that would increase the velocity.  if I'm not mistaken and I probably am. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an oversimplification, but think of the difference of a single water hose with a specified amount of pressure shooting into a mostly enclosed area.  Now think of the same supply hose having the stream divided into smaller streams shooting into the same mostly enclosed space.   Which one do you think will result in more water staying in the space for more time?  We're not talking about a difference of twice as long or anything like that.  Just slightly longer. 

It is more complicated than that in reality.  Typically the total area of all the individual holes (or nozzlettes as we sometimes call them) in a ribbon burner is greater than the area of the mixing tube that feeds it.  There is friction between the fuel air mixture and the walls of whatever it passes through.  The surface area causing friction in a ribbon burner is not inconsequential.  The result is that complete combustion can occur in a shorter distance and with slower flames in a ribbon burner compared to a single port burner.

My personal observation is that a ribbon burner is slightly more efficient and definitely provides more even heating within a forge compared to a single port burner.  Another major issue for me is that ribbon burners tend to be significantly quieter than single port burners.  Even if there was not any gain in efficiency, that factor alone would be enough for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Buzzkill said:

.  The surface area causing friction in a ribbon burner is not inconsequential.  The result is that complete combustion can occur in a shorter distance and with slower flames in a ribbon burner compared to a single port burner

Thanks Buzzkill that's what I needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does one Candy Bar, taste any different to another Candy Bar. If you don't try it, you will never appreciate the 'Fine' differences. A Forge is a Forge, except the Forge that you built, that is the best one. I can prove it too!! Too many people have a thought/wish "Does it get to Welding Heat?", which means to me "Can it be turned down, so I can get some Forging done?". What colour is the best choice when you are painting your Anvil? Does it NEED to have Flames on it's side? There will be Flames on it's top, why not the sides too?

So many questions, so little time for answers. but, Is your way always the Best Way? or sometimes "Can I Have it MY WAY??

Neil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, swedefiddle said:

How does one Candy Bar, taste any different to another Candy Bar. If you don't try it, you will never appreciate the 'Fine' differences. A Forge is a Forge, except the Forge that you built, that is the best one.

Humorous :D. I see your point. I just think that it's interesting that nobody has posted any hard numbers showing that a ribbon burner is more efficient than any of the other burners out there. I don't have a ribbon burner so can't test for efficiency but one could weigh a tank of propane before a set period of forge operation using a ribbon burner and then do the same thing the following day using any other burner and the burner that used less gas would be considered by most, to be more efficient. The main advantage that I see in a ribbon burner is that you get a wider/longer hot spot, which is useful for certain things but could end up using more gas (needs to be tested). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, localsmith said:

one could weigh a tank of propane before a set period of forge operation using a ribbon burner and then do the same thing the following day using any other burner and the burner that used less gas would be considered by most, to be more efficient.

I have used a single port T burner in a forge and then used the same T burner attached to a ribbon burner in the same forge afterwards.  Of course I had to cut a hole in the forge to accommodate the ribbon burner, so that resulted in a change to the forge interior (and the ribbon burner was top-mounted while the single port was side-mounted), but otherwise it's apples to apples.   I didn't take temperatures, use a stopwatch, or weigh propane tanks.   What I can tell you is that I could achieve the same heat (by my eye) using lower pressure in the same T burner set up when using the ribbon burner. That is an indication of requiring less fuel to accomplish the same thing - i.e. greater efficiency.

I'm not out to prove or disprove anything to anyone.  I'm sharing my personal experience/observations.  For me the ribbon burner overall wins hands down.  The factors for me are 1) it's MUCH quieter than a single port burner, 2) it provides a MUCH more even heat distribution within the forge, and 3) It appears to require slightly less fuel than the same single port burner in the same forge.

Someone may want to take the time and trouble to collect and compile all the necessary data to prove things in a quantifiable way.  I'd rather spend my time heating and beating on steel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did the same as Buzz,

With my first IFB forge I used a 3/4" AMAL injector as a single burner into the side of the forge. 

Later I built a Ribbon burner based on half an IFB, and connected it to the same 3/4" AMAL injector and fed it in through the roof of the IFB forge.

I agree with Buzz's results.  The single burner was louder and fiercer to reach the same colour temperature. It seemed to blow more heat and dragons breath out of the door, compared to the Ribbon burner, which had lots of softer flames and brought the inside of the forge to a more even colour.  I also noticed that once up to the same colour temp, the Ribbon burner used a lower PSI than the single burner at the same heat.  And it is so much quieter to work with. You loose the high frequency scream.

I use the 3/4" AMAL burner as a single for localised heating as a hand torch, and just put it back into the Ribbon burner plenum port when I want to forge.

These are just my observations, but as a engineer and a hobby-smith, I save money on gas with a Ribbon burner, so I'm never going back to a single burner in my forge.

Just my £0.02 worth.

Tink!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you interested in efficiency or effectiveness? They are two different things and both depend on what you want or need. 

I believe Mike hit on the most probably cause of a multiple orifice (ribbon) burner's greater effectiveness with his observations of flame velocity and "hang" time. The longer a flame remains in the chamber the more time it has to transfer energy to the liner which heats the work with IR radiation. 

I like NARB forge because it's hot enough and quiet.

Frosty The Lucky.

Link to comment
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.

×
×
  • Create New...