Jump to content
I Forge Iron

Ribbon Burner vs tube burner efficiency


Jdub2

Recommended Posts

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

  • 2 weeks later...
On 10/13/2021 at 9:25 AM, Buzzkill said:

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.     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.

This is good enough for me! I always thought the main advantage of a ribbon burner was that you could spread out your hot spot to as wide as you want it to be. I have seen videos of people running ribbon burners and it appears to me (although I could easily be wrong), that all of the tiny flames that come out of each hole in a ribbon burner consolidate back into one larger flame that is the shape of the ribbon burner. Ribbon burners for me seems like it would be ideal for heat treating longer stuff since you could spread out the hot spot out to match the entire length of the forge. 

Edited by Mod30
Trim quote.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I've observed with the ribbon burners I've made/used is that each hole produces a separate flame cone.  Especially if the burner is running fuel rich then there is a secondary flame envelope that does tend to merge with those produced by the other nozzles.  However, I don't think that's a particularly hot flame.  As far as I can tell it's best to have as close to complete combustion as possible in the primary flame cones for getting the most heat out of the least amount of fuel.  If the flames are on the oxidizing side of neutral they can still be quite hot, but scale will form on the stock while it's still in the forge.  That's less than ideal for general forging and can make forge welding significantly more difficult.

When it comes to heat treating, it depends on which part of the heat treatment you are referring to. Normalizing and preparing for quench require significantly different temperatures than tempering cycles.  The even heat there can be beneficial.  My forge is only about 10 inches deep though, so anything beyond that length still has to be moved in and out of the forge at both ends to achieve even heat on the whole piece.

The noise reduction compared to single port burners sold me on the ribbon burners as much as anything.   One other thing I forgot to mention earlier is that for the naturally aspirated (sometimes referred to as venturi) ribbon burners, they are much less susceptible to disruption from breezes than single port burners seem to be.  I forge outside a fair amount of the time so some days this can be a significant factor for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes folks use the term heat treat very sloppily; many are surprised to find out that extreme cooling of the metal from room temp is a heat treat process!  On IFI we prefer people to use the exact process they mean so as to not confuse folks. So: annealing, normalizing, hardening, tempering, cryo quenching, etc.  Many of these may be done multiple times to affect the end outcome. Some are NOT done for certain alloys or do not do much for certain alloys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When most blacksmiths refer to heat treating in the context of talking about how well a specific burner performs in a forge they are more than likely referring to the hardening & tempering process. Just stating how well a certain forge works for heat treating is not, "sloppy", in the context of talking about a forge. What else could I have been referring to in regards to a ribbon burner in a forge, cryogenic treatment?

Edited by Mod30
Remove excessive quote.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the difference in temps between Quenching temperature and Tempering temperature is generally HUGE.  I'm glad you know about "most blacksmiths" as I certainly don't. I've only been smithing 40 years now and coming to the dark side through knife making and training under a professional sword maker whose Father was a research metallurgist  we tended to specify and the folks we hung out with tended to specify.  Probably an artifact of self selection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, localsmith said:

more than likely referring to the hardening & tempering process.

Even in that case there is frequently a difference of about 1200 degrees F between those two processes.  Not many forges can use the same burner setup for both hardening heat and tempering cycles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Most blacksmiths and Most likely", assuming other people know what you're talking about is the kind of vague use of the language that craft  jargon is there to protect the craft from. This level of terminology is right up there with: everybody knows and it's a well known fact, as red flag BS warnings.

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...