If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Hi Mike. As Jack pointed out, many of us have controllers that are
sophisticated enough to allow percentage-wise control of the output signal. This can be used for various purposes, notably in our case, to reduce watt-loading of elements. For example if your heater draws 60a, you might set your output signal at 50% so that the elements are not taxed at their maximum. Simply, a way of current limiting from the controller. I don't use that feature however, because my scr has a built in current limiter that can be set. The analog clock will work with a mechanical relay or a mercury relay. I would be very skeptical about it working with a burst-fire ssr under any circumstances, but wtfdik. I really have to avoid a very complicated system, Mike. If it is as you say, and a particular type of current meter won't work, I'll just run the furnace and know it is very efficient but not quantifiable. Because, I don't build furnaces for a living, and I'm not writing a dissertation. I have to make glass for a living. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
PS. Errata in reference to the clock I meant an *SSR or a burst fire
SCR.* |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
The analog clock will work with a mechanical relay or a mercury relay.
I would be very skeptical about it working with a burst-fire ssr under any circumstances, but wtfdik. Works fine on my rig. The signal coming off an SSR with zero crossing (not phase control) is exactly what goes in. If the not too radical assumption is made that it starts pretty quick at power on and only coasts a bit on power off, then it records the length of the on-time. My controller tends to stay on till the controller sees how the power affects the temp (it "learns") and then at temp, it stays off for many seconds and on for a few seconds, so the analog clock works. At one time, I stood there with a stop watch and timed the indicator light and found the watch and the clock were matched close enough for my purposes. -- Mike Firth No more levees Bury old Orleans Raise New Orleans up if it is worth saving -- wrote in message oups.com... Hi Mike. As Jack pointed out, many of us have controllers that are sophisticated enough to allow percentage-wise control of the output signal. This can be used for various purposes, notably in our case, to reduce watt-loading of elements. For example if your heater draws 60a, you might set your output signal at 50% so that the elements are not taxed at their maximum. Simply, a way of current limiting from the controller. I don't use that feature however, because my scr has a built in current limiter that can be set. The analog clock will work with a mechanical relay or a mercury relay. I would be very skeptical about it working with a burst-fire ssr under any circumstances, but wtfdik. I really have to avoid a very complicated system, Mike. If it is as you say, and a particular type of current meter won't work, I'll just run the furnace and know it is very efficient but not quantifiable. Because, I don't build furnaces for a living, and I'm not writing a dissertation. I have to make glass for a living. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
If your goal is to develop a kiln that holds the heat more efficiently,
I suspect you'll find only the hobbyists are interested. Production kilnformers usually want kilns that lose heat faster. Many build kilns with fibreboard instead of bricks for specifically that reason. The objective is to get the heat out as quickly as is safely possible so you can fire the kiln more frequently. Most existing glass kilns lose heat too slowly. Why would somebody want one that's even slower? The cost of electricity is too small to be of consequence. My calculations are it's about 1% of the value of each load. I'd be happy to pay for 10 times as much electricity if I could cool the kiln twice as fast. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message oups.com... I'd be happy to pay for 10 times as much electricity if I could cool the kiln twice as fast. Ummmm....that's what fans are made for. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
This is a glass furnace Dennis. Its a completely different animal than
a kiln. But, In a world of runaway fuel costs even kiln formers should be looking at ways ways to increase efficiency. There are ways to increase efficiency vastly in kilnforming. Heating up and cooling down for a few pieces is why most kilnformers will never make it pay. And beyond that you'll have to figure out the secret yourself. By way of background, glass blowers are generally told that furnace efficiency has a defined limit. You can only insulate so much, beyond which you start progressing backward in efficiency, due to the increased radiant surface area of the furnace. I have always had a problem with that fatalism. It has seemed to me very uninspired thinking. My new furnace takes advantage of technology my brother (He's a phd in materials science) and I have discussed over the years. It has to do with strategizing to limit both conductive and radiant heat loss, and emmissivity of metal surfaces. Beyond that... Also, I have been very interested in cogeneration from glass furnaces. Some of our learned scholars in the glass world believe profit in this regard violates the second law of thermodynamics; I plan to grow lucious avocados in Oregon in January AND have a super efficient furnace--which is proof enough for me. My new furnace will lend itself to co-generation, when I have time to do it. Or when gas hits six bucks. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Well, your reason most people think adding more insulation not cost
effective is wrong. Most people who have done measurements feel that the gain in efficiency after a certain point (about 11") is not worth the money spent on the insulation. Why spend $100 on insulation that saves 1% over the previous savings? And you have to live with a really bulky furnance with a hole in the side that is really deep to get into the glass. I have asked the question: Since Ceramic Fiber's special insulation mechanism basically works at higher temps (according to the makers) and it works by air entrainment at lower temps, why not use ceramic fiber ($$$) at inner walls and when you get the inside the wall temp down below glass melting temp, use cheap fluffy fiberglass insulation? And Henry Havens has mentioned publicly online that he uses a stainless steel tube with holes drilled in it and low pressure air to increase the evenness of heat in a kiln during annealling but if too much air is put in, it cools the kiln, which is sometimes desireable. -- Mike Firth No more levees Bury old Orleans Raise New Orleans up if it is worth saving -- wrote in message ups.com... This is a glass furnace Dennis. Its a completely different animal than a kiln. But, In a world of runaway fuel costs even kiln formers should be looking at ways ways to increase efficiency. There are ways to increase efficiency vastly in kilnforming. Heating up and cooling down for a few pieces is why most kilnformers will never make it pay. And beyond that you'll have to figure out the secret yourself. By way of background, glass blowers are generally told that furnace efficiency has a defined limit. You can only insulate so much, beyond which you start progressing backward in efficiency, due to the increased radiant surface area of the furnace. I have always had a problem with that fatalism. It has seemed to me very uninspired thinking. My new furnace takes advantage of technology my brother (He's a phd in materials science) and I have discussed over the years. It has to do with strategizing to limit both conductive and radiant heat loss, and emmissivity of metal surfaces. Beyond that... Also, I have been very interested in cogeneration from glass furnaces. Some of our learned scholars in the glass world believe profit in this regard violates the second law of thermodynamics; I plan to grow lucious avocados in Oregon in January AND have a super efficient furnace--which is proof enough for me. My new furnace will lend itself to co-generation, when I have time to do it. Or when gas hits six bucks. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Right Mike,,, Henry Havens? You're drunk, right?
At a given thickness (generally agreed to be 7-8" by longtime furnace builders and engineers) Conductive heat loss through packed fiber is not reduced in proportion to the radiant heat loss from the surface. Efficiency proceeds in reverse. That's the theoretical point.The practical point is, yes at some point additional fiber cost begins to outweigh energy savings. But even if fiber were free, it still wouldn't make sense. Remember that fiber is an insulator, but it also conducts heat energy. In general conductive heat transfer is the most efficient form of heat transfer. But don't get the wrong idea, obviously the sheer volume of radiant heat loss per unit area of surface surpasses the conductive heat loss of an insulating material, at some minimum level. Ask a guy with an under-insulated furnace. So, you see we aren't dealing with absolutes, but defined equations. Too much either way, and efficiency is reduced. My point is, the fact that you can't insulate further with a conductive material is not the end of the story. Efficiency can and has been increased by engineering techniques that are used outside the studio glass arena.The trick is to limit heat transfer via conduction, while also limiting the corresponding increase in radiant heat loss per unit area. A hint, air is one of our best insulators, and it is free. It insulates well because of its low heat conductivity. However, it is a great medium for radiant heat loss. Which also fiber is not... and so on, and so on... As a side note, efficiency can also be increased by investing some additional energy in stopping loss from the system.So that, while the overall energy used by the system is increased, the proportion of energy within the system put to work, not lost to the surroundings, has increased. This activity can take different forms. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Firth wrote:
Well, your reason most people think adding more insulation not cost effective is wrong. Most people who have done measurements feel that the gain in efficiency after a certain point (about 11") is not worth the money spent on the insulation. Why spend $100 on insulation that saves 1% over the previous savings? And you have to live with a really bulky furnance with a hole in the side that is really deep to get into the glass. I have asked the question: Since Ceramic Fiber's special insulation mechanism basically works at higher temps (according to the makers) and it works by air entrainment at lower temps, why not use ceramic fiber ($$$) at inner walls and when you get the inside the wall temp down below glass melting temp, use cheap fluffy fiberglass insulation? And Henry Havens has mentioned publicly online that he uses a stainless steel tube with holes drilled in it and low pressure air to increase the evenness of heat in a kiln during annealling but if too much air is put in, it cools the kiln, which is sometimes desireable. That's Henry Halem. Henry Havens was that guy that sang at Woodstock. -- Jack Plonked by Native American bobo1148atxmissiondotcom http://photos.yahoo.com/bc/xmissionbobo/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Hurricane Charley | Fred | Needlework | 270 | September 5th 04 07:24 PM |