Tom Collins' Gasifier

[gasman]

Hi, Tom!
6.10.2018

I think there is a bit of a “jump-jerker” in every body, but
with a degree of discipline, we can fullfill one project at a time!

1. Good to include everything that is dependent of the condition
   of this central flangeing!

2. Calipers, pushing and pulling measure inner and outer
   diameters on holes, as well as bolts, shafts, tubes, etc…

   A cylindrical bore(shaft) is an excellent measurig devise too.

   Waiting, seeing, hoping,… pictures…

3. No speculation on my part, today.

[gasman]

Hi, Tom!
6.10.2018

The Ice-racerdriver built a MONORATOR!

[gasman]

Hi, Tom!
6.10.2018

There is a difference between a projection line connecting 3 points, and a physical bow!

I have not suggested building a physical bow through a lid-seat contact surface, or below it!

(957)

[gasman]

Hi, Tom!
9.10.2018

Concepts seem to de-rail again! (957)
Forget the physical bow for a moment.

The invisible connection line through 3 points:

End points are: The hinge- and the latchpoints.

The third, intermediate point is the hight-point where
the bow pressure will be applied to the lid periphery-plane,
where the gas-flattering is generated.

(This “hight point” can be in mid air under the lid!)

A. Now, if the invisible line goes under the lid-closing plane,
we get a selfstabilizing action for the lid.

B. If this line goes exactly through the lid-closing plane,
the closing “dynamic” is neutral vis a vis flattering.

C. The worst case: When this invisible line goes abowe the
lid periphery (closing) plane, we have a labil (unstable) setup!

The obvious flattering direction

is BROADSIDE to the invisible line!

The photos of your lid arrangement shows, that your

“invisible line” goes abowe the lid-closing plane!

You are bound to have flattering if no change…

The backdraw of flattering is wear of the lid-gasket!

This line-hight change can only be accomplished
by changeing the end-point heights
of the invisible line in ratio to the lid-closing plane!

[TomC]

Hello Max. I believe I understand the concept of the “line of the feather bow”. See picture. I don’t think you are understanding the concept of using the spring. Your method to change the pressure on the lid, you have to rebuild the hinge and lock-down or change the thickness of the father bow. I can change the pressure on mine by adding or subtraction shims from between the spring and feather bow, or spring and lid contact point TomC

[gasman]

Hi, Tom!
10.10.2018

We seem to be on opposite shores of the river!

In my writing, I did not at all deal with the flat-iron bow,
because there seems to be no major reason for it. (yet)

I even asked to disregard attending the bow until the flattering
properties were “investigated”… which I did, as far as possible.

I concentrated on stabilizing the lid-flattering, and the
properties regulating the lid’s across-stability. (broadside)

My stability “analysing” seems to have passed without any notice.

You are “setting” 3 pressure-levels on the lid-top (dome),
with the bow end points, if not compensating by
adjusting the valve-feather accordingly.

With all 3 level-planes be-ing above the lid-seat plane
(hinge- and latchpoints above the opening seat-plane level),
the lid will remain in a labil (unstable) condition,
flattering unchecked.

=============================================

While I am studying 3 stability planes along an invisible straight line,
near the opening seat-plane level.

3 cases: A, B, C.

Without changeing bow tension.
(Using the valve-spring compensation)

[TomC]

Hello Max; Yes we are on opposite shores of the river. I know you keep throwing a rope out to me but the current is too strong and I can’t get to the rope and the result is the current pushes me back to my original side.

Please define “flat-iron bow”.

I have been of the impression I knew what the term “flattering” meant but as the discussion goes on I don’t believe we have the same understanding.

Another is, “lid’s across-stability. ( broadside)” Is this a force, horizontally perpendicular to the length of the feather bow at the center point of the feather bow. ( Post 957 answered this)

Then about the “stability-line” of the feather boom:

Broadside, you can achieve a stabilizing line, only if a

line from the hinge-point to the latching point, is projecting

below the lid-closing plane.

Provided, that this line touches the lid and seat line, you

achieve just neutrality.

Sorry; I admit this passed by me without proper interpretation. I was concentrating on pressure and in a vertical cross section of the lid. You have been talking about stability and equal pressure around the entire periphery of the lid or in a horizontal section. In the top part of the sketch, the line labeled “Pressure applied” would be just that PRESSURE but NOT stability. Stability would not come until the line was dropped down BELOW the line of contact of the lid and the hopper.

Even though I have been talking about “pressure” using the spring, could I not gain stability by increasing the spacers between the lid and spring to the point where my theoretical feather boom (? or bow) is below the seating line of the lid and hopper?TomC

[gasman]

Hi,Tom!
10.10.2018

Definition: “flat-iron bow” = Your normal lid-bow (of flat iron?)

Flattering: When the lid goes “fast-wobbling” by
the gaspressure / feather-power cycling.

“Dynamic side-swing”.

The
letting lid-opening can be rotating around the lid-edge too
…irregular!

A lot of patterns can develop, as the
"down-pressing" point is above the supporting surface!

Lid stability: Wobbling or not, perpendicular to the feather-bow.

You are like a cat walking around a plate of hot porridge!

The lid instability resambles that of a parachute!

The weight = spring power has to be pulling the lid down against the flow!

In the streaming flow direction: Weight = feather power first and then
the “parachute” = lid surface.

The feather bow is “grounded” longitudially
on the invisible line: Hinge—lid-lock.

If this invisible line goes below the lid-seat-center,
the "parachute-stipulations are “fulfilled”!

The stability applies in other horizontal directions too!

===========================================

Whatever you do with the “grand” feather-bow,
above the invisible line Hinge—lid-lock, it does not affect the geometry:

Only the distance between the lid-seat-level AND
the invisible line HINGE—LIDLOCK affect the stability!

No mainipulations on the lid-dome affect or contribute to the stability!

The final adjustment is to set the hinge and lidlock on the right level
relative to the lid-seat-plane.

[TomC]

Sorry Max; Yesterday I thought I had hold of the your you were throwing me, but I think it might have been a sea-weed. I have been studying this, even to the point you are still adding to your comments. I have to get up early to get my wife to a plane to the West Coast, so will get back into this deeper tomorrow.

In the mean time the thought comes to me; why don’t we use a flat disk for a lid, that has two flat flanges on opposite sides of the disk for a hinge attachment and a hold down?

Forget the physical bow for a moment.

The invisible connection line through 3 points:

End points are: The hinge- and the latchpoints.

The third, intermediate point is the hight-point where

the bow pressure will be applied to the lid periphery-plane,

where the gas-flattering is generated.

(This “hight point” can be in mid air under the lid!)

“The invisible connection line through 3 points”-- can this be a curve??
If we do use a curve, to contact the surface of the lid, the “LOW point” would contact the lid??
Good night TomC

[gasman]

Hi, Tom!
11.10.2018

I hope you can arrange your wife’s travel and departure elegantly!

The invisible straight, aiming line is a helping line for defining
a geometric location.

It is horizontal, its endpoints are the hinge-center-tap and
the the other end is in the feather-boom lock.

The “midpoint” (third point) shall cross the vertical centerline
of the lid-opening below the lid opening plane.
(Both lines are invisible!)

==============================================

Obviously, you have to shorten the “hinge-foot” a bit and
that goes for the fether-boom-lock aswell.

Just to get their invisible, straight connection line a bit
below the filling-lid seat-plane.

==============================================

There seems to be no reason for any new “distractions”!

The working geometry in order and a good cilicone gasket!

Thumbs up!

[gasman]

Hi, Tom!
11.10.2018

In a normal system with a filling lid and feathering bow, the bow acts both as a movement (directing) gide and suspension.
The centerpoint of the feather is attatced to the lid-centerpoint with a tight hinge, which allowes movement (bending) only longitudially in the direction of the bow.
This arrangement is effectively damping lid flattering sideways.

The hindge point and the locking point are on the lid-opening level, or lower.

==============================================

But, you have introduced an extra component to the system:

A pin between the lid and the feather-bow!
And a valve-spiral-feather…

Pushed the hinge- and lock-point up above the lid seat level!

Hard work on the menu!

[TomC]

Hello Max and others who may be following and learning from Max;
I have noticed that you never answer any direct questions. I will try one more. Are you, or have you been a college professor or teacher?
I have gathered from our conversation that your side of that river referred to is the “theoretical” side. On the other side, I am on the “practical” ( or building ) side. When I drew my sketch above, I included a pictorial view of the lid / hopper. I have to view the positioning of the feather bow in respect to the gasifier. You on the other hand, for strictly a theoretical depiction, could draw a horizontal line and label it something like, " lid / hopper contact plane". Then draw three horizontal lines— one above the horizontal line; one on the original horizontal line; one below the original horizontal line. Then label these last three lines, from top to bottom, " unstable ": " flattering ": " stable ".
On your side of ‘the river’, you can operate strictly in the " theoretical ", but you will get nothing accomplished. On my side of ‘the river’, I can " build " without knowing the " theoretical ", but I will have many failures.
Thank you for being patient with me. I am my own worst enemy when it comes to me understanding theories — I am always thinking ahead, " how can I use what Max is saying in my design/build.TomC

[kmrland]

yes a pic would be nice, i may want too fix my wobble thrashing lid too, too keep a good seal tight for better vac after flash burp.

[gasman]

Hi, Tom!
12.10.2018

Until someone teaches me teleportation, I cannot put my fingers on your workpeaces!

You have to accept a description of aiming between two identifiable points and (estimated) measures.
Using a suitably long ruler helps aiming.

And when called for, you can define a centerline in a tube?
And defining the centerline in and through a lid-seat?

That makes nobody a theoretic? Workshop practices!

You can aim from one defined point to another defined point,
whithout becomming a theorethic?
Eaven measure the distance?

Got it?

I dislike to be called a “theoretic” just because I have to use words and measures to convey a “deed”!

Re-read 964! There the 3 cases are described!
Based on your photographs!

[SteveUnruh]

Ahh. Let me intrude a little bit.
MaxG is/was a very practical working Engineer. Think “Scotty” from Star Trek. NOT Doc Brown from Back-to-the-Future.
Working engineers of all stripes MUST use maths projections and proofs to get the Bosses approval/funding for their proposed works; and current working.
To the north of me I had a retired Mechanical Engineer, RodgerM. He did home shop wood working to keep his build-it/do-it itch, scratched. Very precise, pre-drawn out, planned, cabinetry wood working. No free-hand artist him!
To the south of me I have other working Production Engineer, MikeB. He oversees the conversion and operations of wood products mills from old-form, many-men to computer controlled, few men/woman. He MUST by-the-numbers proof and justify production changes, for assured results. Get his “maths” wrong. Let someones better-idea enthusiasm’s take hold . . . and “system failed” he will be out on his ass, jobless. For himself, his wife and their two teenage boys.

Ha! These two guys have helped me out with my woodgas maths a lot. And I, with their understandings of the always human elements in their works difficulties. The hard to math out area.

Keep it up MaxG. I need my old-man naps now, more and more.
Tree-farmer Steve unruh

[gasman]

Hi, Steve!
12.10.2018

Thank You!

Well earned naps! And inspiration!

[TomC]

Hello Max; I do apologize If the word “theoretic” offends you and possibly that is not quite true. I looked the word up in the dictionary and they did not come out and definitively state what the word means, but rather used it in several sentences. My interpretation is; " A theoretic is someone who expounds on ideas, or methods that they have not physically proven or done." This discussion has been all about what “theoretically” would make a good lid, but there have been no definite suggested for making my lid better or a design that would incorporate these theories and make a more perfect lid.

Until someone teaches me teleportation, I cannot put my fingers on your workpeaces!

I do not ask for anyone to give me a hand in building anything, I am just looking for changes that can incorporate to improve my build.

You have to accept a description of aiming between two identifiable points and (estimated) measures

Yes many years ago it was stated and proven in my class that “two points determine a line” and “three points can define a circle”.

And when called for, you can define a centerline in a tube?

And defining the centerline in and through a lid-seat?

Yes, with the tube, I could say find the center of the circle on each end of the tube, and draw a line through these two points and you have the center line of the tube. That would be a simple answer
How ever I could give you a theoretical answer which I have never done ( to prove), but based on other geometric practices, I feel I could combine them and they would give me the "center line " of the tube. “Looking at the left end view of the tube, draw two cords and then bisect the two cords and the two bisections will cross at the the center point of the left end circle. Do the same thing on the right end tube circle, giving you a second point. Transfer these two points to the broadside view of the tube and connect the two points with a line which will be the “tube centerline””.
Defining the centerline in and through a lid-seat: something like "a line perpendicularly to the plane of the lid-seat, passing through the center point of the circle defining the periphery of the lid-sesat.“
A theoretical answer which I don’t recall ever laying out would be " a line determined by any two or all points that individually are equal distant from the circle determining the lid closing surface.”

I dislike to be called a “theoretic” just because I have to use words and measures to convey a “deed”!

I have suggested before that maybe skezzs would suit you better than words. I get a lot more comments from my visual descriptions than I do my verbal.

You on the other hand, for strictly a theoretical depiction, could draw a horizontal line and label it something like, " lid / hopper contact plane". Then draw three horizontal lines— one above the horizontal line; one on the original horizontal line; one below the original horizontal line. Then label these last three lines, from top to bottom, " unstable ": " flattering ": " stable ".

I believe this is the same as your post 964 showing I do understand what you were saying. My drawing is in error because the three lines are in perspective to the hopper lid top ( as my lid is built) and they should have been in perspective to the contact plane between the lid and hopper —Sorry.

Anyway, I have to ask-- after all this discussion are we going to come up with a more perfect design lid or preferable a way to modify my present lid to make it better? TomC

[Bobmac]

I would like to make a comment here, I have been following all the way on this hopper lid. I have learned a lot in this discussion. Question:
Tom, when your lid burps or flattering action happens, does it seal back down 100 % of the time? If it does then there is no problem on your deign, right. If it doesn’t then there needs to be a modification done to make it seal 100 % when a burp or flattering action happens. Like adding springs on the edges of the lid. WK style.
Bob

[gasman]

Hi, Bob!
13.10.2018

You are getting the essence! Pushing from above the seat, and

pulling from below!

The pulling from below the seat seems to be hard to get accepted in this thread!
Repeatedly describing pulling from below the seat is like axing a mountain!

The feather bow gets stability if “anchored” below
the seat-plane!

Thank you Bob!

[gasman]

Hi, Tom!
13.10.2018

A sign of relief!

Perhaps you have come to the insight that the “feet” of the hindge and the corresponding boom-lock on the other side of the lid-seat
have to be shortened to achieve a lowering of the feather-bow
attatchments below the lid-seat plane.

Getting the invisible connecting line between these two “anchoring points” for the feather-boom down below
the lid-seat-plane is essential. (ruler)

If the feather boom is too sturdy and not functioning as the name says, you are dependent on the “extra pin application”.
In that case, reserv a minimum movement space for it!
1/2" covers most puff releases…

This is the cheapest way to get new experiances… never slash useful things just for “pride”!

Yes, and rework the lid seal! It has to be included in the adjustments!

Be aware of, that the “extra pin application” may not wobble in relation to the boom!
The lid stabilisation is dependent of the guidance from the bow attatchment points below the lid-seat.

Remember the original design broadside stiff hinge!