Talk:Rocket mass heater

Rocket mass heater = Condensing boiler?

This section has been copied here from the Rocket stove article as it relates directly to this subject.

A friend saw my experimental rocket mass-heater and immediately commented that is was a condensing boiler for wood which does seem good sense. I haven't seen anyone making the same observation specifically so haven't added it yet to the article. Any thoughts on that? Should we add a reference? This only applies to the rocket mass heater, not the cooking stove. PeterEastern (talk) 08:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The friend also commented that a major challenge for designers of early gas condensing boilers was dealing with the sulfuric acid in the condensate (low ph is mentioned in the condensing boiler article on Wikipedia). I haven't heard people talking about this yet in relation to rocket stoves, but was advised that the copper water-cylinder that I was proposing to use would be probably be turned to powder in no time. Again, if we can get references for this it would be worth adding. PeterEastern (talk) 08:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, a rocket mass heater is NOT a condensing boiler, its a rocket stove with a thermal mass like cob (or bricks) to store heat instead of a cooking pot. At no point is steam condensed to extract heat. Since rocket stoves rely on a natural draft, extracting the remaining heat from the exhaust would require the addition of a fan and other complex electronics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.8.226.105 (talk) 04:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If one watches any of the videos of these things in operation, for example [1] where they measure the temperature of the flue gasses then they are very much less than 100c (in the example video they measure it at 130F or 54c). The water vapour as therefore definitely condensed and released the specific heat of evaporation. I realise that this is getting close to WP:OR and I will raise the discussion on the appropriate forum, however I have added a brief reference to condensation and condensing boilers in the Rocket mass heater article in the mean time. PeterEastern (talk) 13:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection I have removed the following statement from the lead that I added earlier today as there is other evidence that flue gasses are too high for gases to condense in the flues. Their efficiency is as result of an efficient and complete burn and also the extensive heat-exchanger which reduces the exhaust gas temperature to a low temperature (well below 100c) recovering the latent heat of evaporation of evaporation of any water as well as more heat from the flue gases in general with some design similarities to (gas) condensing boilers. PeterEastern (talk) 17:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flue corrosion from nitric acid

I have removed the following statementConcerns have been raised about corrosion to the heat exchanger and ducting caused by this acidic condensate which includes nitric acid.^[1] I did this because the claim is taken from a discussion entry in an internet forum on permaculture. I don't think this meets the requirement for reliable sources in wikipedia entries. Also because I feel that if this claim is true then it should be easy to find a more reliable source. So please feel free to add the claim again if you can find a better source. --duncan.lithgow (talk) 05:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contribution. I do agree that a forum is not an ideal source, however I have struggled to find any more authoritative source for the claim. There is no mention in this issue in the Rocket Mass Heater book and I can find no professional or academic research relating to these devices yet. As such I felt that the the combination of the forums, personal experience and also a conversation with a designer of condensing boilers (which are known to have acidic condensate) was sufficient evidence to include the content. Would you object to the statement appearing without a reference with an associated 'fact' tag? I am certainly not going to fight for this content to be included if you object, but I do think it is helpful for people to at least be aware of the possibility of an issue of condensation and corrosion. PeterEastern (talk) 07:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter. I'm still not comfortable adding it - I just don't don't think it's encyclopaedic. I could make loose references to all sorts of potentially inflated claims about the insulation value of straw bales - but it's not appropriate to do that here. While the issue may be genuine, until it gets more widespread coverage I don't think it should be included. This is an encyclopedia entry about rocket mass heaters, not an encyclopedia about rocket mass heaters. It is only meant to give readers a general understanding of the subject. Like you I don't think this is worth fighting over, but I am a bit sensitive to how easy it is for people to add loose claims against all sorts of do-it-yourself technologies. Hope that helps you decide what you think. --duncan.lithgow (talk) 06:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think your stance if very reasonable. Lets leave the issue of corrosion out unless/until there is a better reference and ideally also a reference to how to avoid it being a problem. I built my first rocket mass heater out of an old copper hot-water cylinder which was definitely the wrong material to use with acid around! PeterEastern (talk) 10:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "rocket mass heater uses less wood than a wood stove". permies. Any time you get a stove with >83% efficiency, you will have condensation of the water vapour in the flue gas. This condensate is quite acidic and will eat through regular vent pipe in probably a couple of years (probably less for the rocket stove since the condensate would sit at the bottom for long periods).

POV?

Unfortunately, almost nothing in this article is cited from any source except a book about how YOU can build one of these things TODAY! (POV much?) This whole article reads like a promotion tract. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.225.195.224 (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images

I think we should now source some good photo of rocket mass heaters for this article. Ideally we would have a completed stove for the lead and then some more images of units under construction and a cross-section through the system in the rest of the article. There is not much available with a suitable license that I can find. Does anyone have something suitable? If not then it might be worth putting some requests out for people with good photos to release them ccbysa. PeterEastern (talk) 10:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Rocket stove

The two articles are much closer, in their distinctive aspect of combustion, than they are in the differences between a stove and a space heater. Many stoves are multi-purpose anyway. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. These products have very different demographic and geographic usage and are at very different stages of development. Rocket stoves appear to be moving rapidly into a mass production phase (I saw one that had been manufactures in China in use at a recent event in the UK for example). Rocket Mass Heaters seem appear to be in the domain of the enthusiast and tinkerer and there seem to be some serious design issues to resolve (re acidic condensates as above). For the above reasons I would prefer that they arasoe kept separate. PeterEastern (talk) 10:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The rocket mass heater has two very important features the rocket stove does not have. One is the drum, which provides a downdraft that increases the power of the draft and makes it possible to run the remainder of the flue horizontally. The other is a horizontal flue system that captures the heat of the stove in a thermal mass. The fact that a somewhat adapted rocket stove is the first stage of operation relates the two, but they are very different in function and utility. I think combining these in a single article would tend to confuse both. ghh 16:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by George H. Harvey (talk • contribs)

Oppose. Because of the reasons given by G. H. Harvey & P. Eastern. Merging with Russian Masonry Stoves would be more apt, if any merge was to take place. Archolman User talk:Archolman 02:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly written "Benefits" section

Benefits section is just a pile of quotes. Needs rewritten with proper in-line citation. I'mma look up how to cite a book in-line, but as that may take some time, someone else should feel free to fix that section in the meantime. 216.82.142.13 (talk) 03:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the formatting of the section, with the exception of an errant line-break between the quote and the reference citation. However, the quotes are not particularly appropriate. They are from what appears to be a self-published source, and the quotes either anecdotal endorsements or are making scientific claims without much evidence of proper testing or methods. -Verdatum (talk) 17:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links

Can someone help please? I can't for the life of me understand the syntax for inserting this link, (or any other, of course.) www.ernieanderica.info/rocketstoves

In "Preview" or when "Saved", it appears as a reference, & I copied one of the other links, then edited it to read what I wanted to insert, & it turned into a reference again.... Archolman User talk:Archolman 03:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it for you. When you put in a link by itself, you get a reference. If you add a space afterward and some text, it turns that text into the link. I just moved the ending bracket to after the 'Ernie and Erica's site' text. You can also use the small 'chain' icon at the top of the edit window to enter links more easily. --StarChaser Tyger (talk) 09:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Combustion air

There should be some explanation of why combustion air is drawn from the heated space rather than from outdoors. The issue of smoke-back would not exist if the intake was external to the living space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.210.70.228 (talk) 06:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

When I discuss heating houses with my english speakers, usually constructing an insulated mass under the house comes up. The heater that heats this 'rock mass' is a 'rock mass heater'. So, is there some confusion here. Did someone just heat this thermal battery with a rocket stove and the name caught on. I had a friend that said 'maanjärjestys' instead of 'maanjäristys' in his 30's(order of the earth instead of earthquake) and another that said 'fuusikokoloavain' instead of 'kuusiokoloavain' (fusion nook key instead of hexnut key orsth) So. Is the article name accurate, and indeed the whole spelling of the thing accurate for the thing being described. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.124.125 (talk) 11:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC) This is the first I have ever heard of such confusion. I believe the term was coined by Ianto Evans and his associates, working closely on the development of rocket stoves, and the first application specifically to space heating would have been in conjunction with his work on cob housing, using clay and not stone. Gjh42 (talk) 01:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamentals vs. design details

Rocket Mass Heater Profile

The lead for the article dove straight into describing a particular style of RMH without specifying what makes a heater an RMH. I added a fundamentals statement and some description of the most basic variations. I would welcome elaboration or better statements of these, and reference links. Gjh42 (talk) 02:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Issues section

Its just a big block of issues like, carbon monoxide might end up in your house and kill you this could happen if you left the door of a conventional fire open or if it was not properly built. Its not well articulated and difficult to read. 203.97.113.11 (talk) 15:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. That section seems to be full of WP:OR without references. Datapass (talk) 14:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Use in Developing Countries

Hi All,

I've had a few students research these as alternatives to traditional wood burning stoves, so I thought the article could use a section on Use in Developing Countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James SWVA (talk • contribs) 18:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AH, I just realized that this belongs in the Rocket STOVE article, not the heater article. My apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James SWVA (talk • contribs) 11:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lot of unsourced content

It seems that a lot of content in this article fall within WP:OR most of which lack inline citations. I added a refimprove template for now, and will try clean up the article within the next few days. Datapass (talk) 18:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I made a lot of improvements, added some sections, and entirely rewrote some sections. No more WP:OR content. Datapass (talk) 12:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "rocket mass heater uses less wood than a wood stove". permies. Any time you get a stove with >83% efficiency, you will have condensation of the water vapour in the flue gas. This condensate is quite acidic and will eat through regular vent pipe in probably a couple of years (probably less for the rocket stove since the condensate would sit at the bottom for long periods).

[1]