eko primary air outlet

[leaddog]

Hansson posted this in the fine tuning thread but I thought it deserved and other thread.
The Orlan 40 one guy in Sweden order from kottly.com have the primary air intake in the lower part of the fireroom.
Not in the top like the old one.The max temp in the controll are 97C
Just a note
http://www.perhot.eu/bilder/

I'm wondering if having the primary air enter low is an advantage and if so how. I've been trying to see what difference it would make. If it would it would be very easy to modify as all you would have to do is take the plasma torch and cut the passage in the bottem and plug the top.
It seems to me that it might be harder to get an even air flow to the back nozzel but might make a better burn on the bottem.
I thought with all the minds here I just might get enlightened.
leaddog

 

[Hydronics]

I would think that higher is preferred as it would induce turbulence in the smoke/gasses at the top of the firebox & help to move them through the nozzle(s). Less apt to collect as creosote on the firebox walls.

 

[Duetech]

Hansson posted this in the fine tuning thread but I thought it deserved and other thread.
The Orlan 40 one guy in Sweden order from kottly.com have the primary air intake in the lower part of the fireroom.
Not in the top like the old one.The max temp in the controll are 97C
Just a note
http://www.perhot.eu/bilder/

I'm wondering if having the primary air enter low is an advantage and if so how. I've been trying to see what difference it would make. If it would it would be very easy to modify as all you would have to do is take the plasma torch and cut the passage in the bottom and plug the top.
It seems to me that it might be harder to get an even air flow to the back nozzel but might make a better burn on the bottom.
I thought with all the minds here I just might get enlightened.
leaddog

I am inclined to agree with Hydronics except where there would be an opportunity by design to help control bridging with the lower positioned air feed IF that is what it does (???). Not seeing the lay out it would be difficult to ferret out but in addition to Hydronics likely perceptions a lower placed outlet would be more prone to obstruction by falling wood and ash build up. In the case with my boiler being in an unheated building it would also add cooler air mix at the flame. In principle I thought the longer air channels in the older 40's helped to heat the air going into the primary chamber and that was a plus because you wanted to heat the wood as soon as possible. But I also know too much air in the primary chamber can cause mini explosions and that air fed from the top will feed an upward trending fire if you idle a lot and that may be another reason for the lower position especially since many buy the EKO with the intent to add storage later.
With lower outlets you might prevent some of the condensation that occurs on "cold wood" and possibly reduce creosote in the upper chamber but it would also seem to cause more of a one sided fire unless routed so it doesn't blow directly into the fire. The older setup with caps on the channels and side outlets seems the best way to go and maybe the new setup does not blow directly into the fire but up to the top of the primary chamber. If it does blow upward and not outward then it is achieving the total chamber downward flow concept and is just cutting mfg costs and I wouldn't mod my boiler until there are more results known. Have the primary air channels been removed from the newer setup?
I would like to have the 97c (206.6f) though in my current set up but later it would force me to change the setting or change my plans for storage if I did. Choices, choices, choices.