[TheForge] Chip forge - two approaches

[Mike Porter]

Hi Rich,
Mikey will comment. I have debated for my viewpoint, but not to win; just to 
keep it on the table and being looked at. My personal opinion is that the 
ceramic ball forge I've described will be a fairly low cost and powerful 
forge. BUT, I can be wrong; in any case, I don't believe in "one shoe for 
all" solutions, and as I've stated before, ceramic chip hearths are actually 
of more interest to me personally than ceramic ball forges.

The difference between a debate and an argument is supposed to be that 
debate enlightens. I am glad to see at least one strongly opposing view, 
which is where I think your are going with this. I say VERY GOOD! Your 
safety point between balls and chips could also become important. Nothing 
would make me sadder than seeing my design preference push others off the 
table; choice is always good. There is nothing wrong with blown gas systems 
in stationary equipment. Having combustion within the chip pile instead of 
under it, or just within its lower reaches, can be a handy thing too. Again 
we come back to choices are good.

Mikey
Besides, we both know that I secretly think my dog's bigger than yours :-)




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rich Maynard" <rich at maynard.org.uk>
To: "'Sponsored by ABANA'" <theforge at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 11:50 AM
Subject: [TheForge] Chip forge - two approaches


It seems to me that there are two approaches to building a chip forge. Mikey
is suggesting (as I understand it) a 'firebox' or combustion chamber into
which one of his superb burners is inserted, and above which sits a grate
supporting a pile of ceramic chips (which would be of whatever shape you
believe to be the best - personally my 'broken gravel' alumina seems to work
just fine!)

Option two is like the Flamefast chip forge that I use - which is blown, and
uses natural gas (although propane versions are avaliable, presumably
re-jetted). The combustion in this happens in the ceramic chip media itself
- there are no 'flames' as such when the forge is at temperature. This is
quite interesting, as there would be no need to have any hot stuff anywhere
near the relatively vulnerable metal parts of the burner.

Of course, the difference here is naturally aspirated versus blown burner,
and if Mikey doesn't think that the 'Flamefast approach' would work with a
venturi type burner he's probably right.

Would he care to comment?

;-)

Rich M.

_______________________________________________
Manage membership or unsubscribe at:
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/theforge
theforge mail list group photo site is
http://www.photoaccess.com
Login:  blacksmithblacksmith at hotmail.com
password:  anvil
___________