Quick question 8mm microbore size?
Harry Bloomfield
2. What is the other measurement?
- Just thinking this might be suitable for use as the oil feed to my
waste oil burner, down from the tank.
--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk
Usenet Nutter
<harry...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>1. Is 8mm the internal or external measurement?
>
>2. What is the other measurement?
>
>- Just thinking this might be suitable for use as the oil feed to my
>waste oil burner, down from the tank.
Outside is 8mm . By other measurement I presume you mean the internal
bore . Not sure what that is .Not much less I'd think
If you want a sample e-mail me your details and I'll post a piece to
you
fred
Bloomfield <harry...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> writes
>1. Is 8mm the internal or external measurement?
>
>2. What is the other measurement?
>
>- Just thinking this might be suitable for use as the oil feed to my
>waste oil burner, down from the tank.
>
the rest is up to you :-)
--
fred
BBC3, ITV2/3/4, channels going to the DOGs
Harry Bloomfield
Thanks for the offer, but it sounds perfect for the job. Call it
(guess) 0.5mm wall - so around 7mm ID. They suggest 1/4" pipe, which is
OD which seems to small to allow gravity flow if the oil is thick and I
could not think where I might source fittings for it. By contrast,
Microbore seems to have a quite a good range of fittings.
Harry Bloomfield
> In article <mn.a46b7da1ea...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk>, Harry
> Bloomfield <harry...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> writes
>>1. Is 8mm the internal or external measurement?
>>
>>2. What is the other measurement?
>>
>>- Just thinking this might be suitable for use as the oil feed to my
>>waste oil burner, down from the tank.
>>
> That's external (same as for 15, 22 and so on), wall thickness is 0.7mm, the
> rest is up to you :-)
6.6mm ID then - TA!
Usenet Nutter
<harry...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>Usenet Nutter wrote :
>> On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 18:51:13 GMT, Harry Bloomfield
>> <harry...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> 1. Is 8mm the internal or external measurement?
>>>
>>> 2. What is the other measurement?
>>>
>>> - Just thinking this might be suitable for use as the oil feed to my
>>> waste oil burner, down from the tank.
>>
>> Outside is 8mm . By other measurement I presume you mean the internal
>> bore . Not sure what that is .Not much less I'd think
>> If you want a sample e-mail me your details and I'll post a piece to
>> you
>
>Thanks for the offer, but it sounds perfect for the job. Call it
>(guess) 0.5mm wall - so around 7mm ID. They suggest 1/4" pipe, which is
>OD which seems to small to allow gravity flow if the oil is thick and I
>could not think where I might source fittings for it. By contrast,
>Microbore seems to have a quite a good range of fittings.
If you change your mind let me know and of course you can get 10mm as
well...I can send a sample of that as well if you need it ....It's
plastic coated but that can be cut off. loads of fittings ..Try B.E.S.
Cicero
================================================
If you want smaller, copper brake pipe (slightly less than 5mm o.d) and
fittings are available.
Cic.
--
=================================================
Using Ubuntu Linux
Windows shown the door
=================================================
Harry Bloomfield
> If you want smaller, copper brake pipe (slightly less than 5mm o.d) and
> fittings are available.
Thanks - I have some, and I think it will be too small/easily blocked.
The microbore sounds about right for the job.
fred
>fred used his keyboard to write :
>> In article <mn.a46b7da1ea...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk>, Harry
>> Bloomfield <harry...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> writes
>>>1. Is 8mm the internal or external measurement?
>>>
>>>2. What is the other measurement?
>>>
>>>- Just thinking this might be suitable for use as the oil feed to my
>>>waste oil burner, down from the tank.
>>>
>> That's external (same as for 15, 22 and so on), wall thickness is 0.7mm, the
>> rest is up to you :-)
>
>6.6mm ID then - TA!
>
the tank.
Are you going to protect it in any way? I don't use oil so have no idea
what bore is right or if protection is required/recommended but it
sounds like a good idea.
Harry Bloomfield
> That's no use, you'll need to strain the chip fat before you put it in the
> tank.
I did plan to strain what ever oil I could get hold of, at the moment
all I have got is a local source for used cooking oil. Basically it
will be some sort of tank on the roof, pipe down and inside, on/off
valve, needle valve, then finally down into the stove. It is suggested
to put a restriction/jet on the pipe end. The smallest passage will be
through the needle valve/flow control.
>
> Are you going to protect it in any way? I don't use oil so have no idea what
> bore is right or if protection is required/recommended but it sounds like a
> good idea.
Protect it from what?
As a alternative fuel I was thinking timber off-cuts, but the local
joiners shops seem to burn these, but have lots of free wood shavings
and sawdust. I was thinking it might be possible to perhaps compact
these into a sort of log, using pressure and a little water.
Cicero
> Cicero presented the following explanation :
>> If you want smaller, copper brake pipe (slightly less than 5mm o.d) and
>> fittings are available.
>
> Thanks - I have some, and I think it will be too small/easily blocked. The
> microbore sounds about right for the job.
================================================
It looks as if the 1/4" o.d is really only needed for the pre-heater so
any larger size pipe connected to the 1/4" with a reducer will do for the
main feed pipe in which case the larger the better. Larger will make
filtering easier but anything larger than 1/4" close to the burner might
need a flow controller of some kind once the preheater has warmed up.
fred
Bloomfield <harry...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> writes
>fred formulated the question :
>> That's no use, you'll need to strain the chip fat before you put it in the
>> tank.
>
>I did plan to strain what ever oil I could get hold of, at the moment
>all I have got is a local source for used cooking oil. Basically it
>will be some sort of tank on the roof, pipe down and inside, on/off
>valve, needle valve, then finally down into the stove. It is suggested
>to put a restriction/jet on the pipe end. The smallest passage will be
>through the needle valve/flow control.
>
>> Are you going to protect it in any way? I don't use oil so have no idea what
>> bore is right or if protection is required/recommended but it sounds like a
>> good idea.
>
>Protect it from what?
>
Impact really, with a gravity tank it would be at least messy if the
pipe was damaged without noticing it, at worst there are fire or soil
contamination issues. Just a thought.
Harry Bloomfield
> It looks as if the 1/4" o.d is really only needed for the pre-heater so
> any larger size pipe connected to the 1/4" with a reducer will do for the
> main feed pipe in which case the larger the better. Larger will make
> filtering easier but anything larger than 1/4" close to the burner might
> need a flow controller of some kind once the preheater has warmed up.
Another version (linked to from the Mother Earth site), which is
supposed to improve on the original - suggests that pre-warming is not
necessary and does cause control problems. The hotter the oil gets the
more freely it runs, you turn it down and then it turns down too far.
Without the pre-heating, room temperature supplied oil means there is
no positive feedback into the control.
The improvement also suggests an alternative design for the actual
burner dish, an aluminium disc which is dished saucer shape - so the
oil pools in the centre if turned down and expands out when turned up.
That version also used an in-line filter for crud and water.
I could always drop down to copper brake pipe where it enters the
burner.
8mm might also mean an 8mm radiator TRV could be used to control the
oil flow, providing it could be prevented from cutting the oil supply
completely off. Someone else has used a solenoid valve, connected to a
room thermostat to control the heat output.
Cicero
=================================================
It looks as if you've got plenty of scope for experiment. I think the
whole thing could become dangerous unless there is some positive means of
restricting the oil flow, whether or not you use the pre-heater idea. I
guess the pre-heater will only have very limited effect in any case as it
won't seriously affect the main flow from the tank. The original article
seems to suggest that the main benefit is to give a clean burn.
I'm not sure how well the TRV would work - it might not be sensitive
enough to give any real control because of the variation in the oil
viscosity. You could have a manually set valve to give a measured flow at
average temperatures; the article suggests burning two pints an hour so
you could set that as maximum at the highest expected temperature.
Cic.
Harry Bloomfield
> It looks as if you've got plenty of scope for experiment. I think the
> whole thing could become dangerous unless there is some positive means of
> restricting the oil flow, whether or not you use the pre-heater idea.
Perhaps a disk with a hole drilled in it to limit the max flow rate.
> I
> guess the pre-heater will only have very limited effect in any case as it
> won't seriously affect the main flow from the tank. The original article
> seems to suggest that the main benefit is to give a clean burn.
I have an idea to add a twisted strip of steel in the air intake tube.
The idea being to cause the burning gases to swirl around inside the
stove, improve the gas/air mixing and improve the burn that way.
Certain commercial operations burning things which produce lots of
smoke, sometimes use a secondary chamber burning a small amount of a
cleaner fuel, to clean up the burn. Very effective they are, I know of
such a system within spitting distance of the Houses of Parliament.
I think the biggest concern might be that of flame failure, where the
oil keeps on flowing and makes a mess.
>
> I'm not sure how well the TRV would work - it might not be sensitive
> enough to give any real control because of the variation in the oil
> viscosity.
Definitely worth a trial though :-)
> You could have a manually set valve to give a measured flow at
> average temperatures; the article suggests burning two pints an hour so
> you could set that as maximum at the highest expected temperature.
Maybe three valves in the line then?
1. Max flow limiter
2. On/off
3. Needle flow control valve
All good interesting fun :-)
Harry Bloomfield
> Impact really, with a gravity tank it would be at least messy if the pipe was
> damaged without noticing it, at worst there are fire or soil contamination
> issues. Just a thought.
I have in mind a small 'header' tank, maybe one or two gallons. I fancy
that even that small amount would keep me going for months.
Steve Walker
Fittings for 1/4" are easily available. It is used a lot for instrument and
air lines for industrial/chemical plant control systems. Available in
copper (brass fittings) or horrendously expensive stainless-steel (think
�20 for a compression elbow - but it will be suitable for 10,000 psi!).
SteveW
Cicero
================================================
Plenty to think about. It occurred to me that the operation of the TRV
might suffer from some hydraulic effect if the oil viscosity is much
higher than plain water. Still worth a try and it's the only real way to
find out.
Flame failure and resultant possible oil spillage might be overcome by a
drain hole at the lowest point of the burner with a pipe leading to an
outside sump to collect the oil for re-use.
Have you worked out how you're going to light, and re-light the burner
automatically? It might be safer (and much easier) to consider the burner
as an 'attended' heater which you only switch on and off at specific
times.
Cic.
--
Harry Bloomfield
> automatically? It might be safer (and much easier) to consider the burner
> as an 'attended' heater which you only switch on and off at specific
> times.
It is only intended as an attended unit. It takes a some effort to
light them I understand. The burner tray (of whatever design) needs to
be got hot enough first, so that the dripping oil almost vaporises.
Quick update...
I managed to get some 8mm microbore copper from Plumb Center, some neat
handle operated valves from Thorite (PC had none at all) and a ready
made 3" diameter length of steel tube from a scrap yard - for the air
down to the burner tube.
Cicero
================================================
You're a brave man visiting scrap yards in this weather but getting the
various bits and pieces together is likely to be the most difficult part
of your project.
If you need any fittings for your microbore check out Toolstation as they
seem to have the best range of fittings in all sizes and types.
Best of luck with the project - I'll look out for pictures when it's
finished.
Grimly Curmudgeon
drugs began to take hold. I remember Harry Bloomfield
<harry...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> saying something like:
>Certain commercial operations burning things which produce lots of
>smoke, sometimes use a secondary chamber burning a small amount of a
>cleaner fuel, to clean up the burn. Very effective they are, I know of
>such a system within spitting distance of the Houses of Parliament.
If you have a tall burning chamber and have a foot of headroom above the
firepot, secondary combustion will take place there. Air can be injected
into that region, but it will take a bit of experimentation.
>I think the biggest concern might be that of flame failure, where the
>oil keeps on flowing and makes a mess.
Don't re-invent the wheel - use a Riello or Danfoss control box,
suitably modified.
Harry Bloomfield
> Don't re-invent the wheel - use a Riello or Danfoss control box,
> suitably modified.
I'm trying avoid the need for an electrical supply.
Grimly Curmudgeon
drugs began to take hold. I remember Harry Bloomfield
<harry...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> saying something like:
>Grimly Curmudgeon formulated on Saturday :
>> Don't re-invent the wheel - use a Riello or Danfoss control box,
>> suitably modified.
>
>I'm trying avoid the need for an electrical supply.
www.legalandgeneralinsurancecompany.