This schematic differs from my design on a few components, #9, #16, #4b (Mine has 3 set screws, M5 size, spaced evenly around Part #4b to adjust accelorator aim down the barrel. Having a linear accelorator connection in line with the gas line will reduce turbulance from tight 90 degree turns. 2) Use set screws to lock any adjustable sliding components, like the 1/8"accelorator which slides through the bored 1/2" Brass Hex Numbered Part #19.
I am currently at Burner generation #5, each 'Gen' up represented a major revision/design shift that drastically improved usability, function, or uniform production of highly modified/self manufactured parts. But i was benchmarking efficiency, stability, & combustion BTUs neck and neck with one of the hybrid burner models (and my burners are made using no lathe processes, no milling, mostly un-modified plumbing cast iron. compare that to the hybrid burners all out machining procedures in burner production. Thats the jist of why things got competitive
good times),
I almost surpassed, ok, match their 3/4" burner in terms of efficiency, but their design eeked out the win with flame stability 0.2 psi under my 1 psi minimum flame stability. But that level of efficiency & perfection is stupid elite, literally. By using the established dimensional metrics of the burner components anyone caan acheive a functional, self regulating air to fuel ratio, venturi burner, but to elevate a burners caliber from functional to efficient and extremely stable (refering to flame holding ability w/o popping etc), it takes more than having the basic dimensional metrics worked out. . .
(An Aside defining what is meant by 'burner form metrics': Since the ventury effect is physics based there is therefore a relational connection between the dimensions of a burners components. By holding a burners structural design closer to the known relational calculated/theoretical form, the burner is more likely to perform better as a system; with each component performing to support the systems function & stability, aka burn stability. And thus allowing for the burner to perform with effortless functionality and broad versatility.)
. . . The relation b/t component dimensions provides a great spring-board to get some raw functionality of a burner design locked in. This will give the burner enough usability to function, but it will be maximum 70% to 80% dialed-in (So it will be still pretty twitchy/temperamental). But as modifications are made to correct design flaws, the methods for producing those modified components must be able to produce identical component, modified or otherwise, any time.
Because no matter how few burners a person builds, without the ability to duplicate components (especially improved components) there can be no testing of better or worse function, due to un-mitigated variations in form factor, that more or less will cause a lack of control and obscured perception in a side by side comparison of old vs modified burner function.
Duplicate-ability! A cornerstone of the scientific method. Variables that are controlled, uniform, and the modifications, or manipulated variables. Wavering from this strict rule can domino quickly, until minute discrepancies compound to cause catastrophic effects, and the only solution then is back-tracking and re-manufacturing. To build upon any modification based improvement of an assemblies design, a 'form factor standard' & performance standard must be maintained, before and after each improvement or upgrade, so the subjects, in this case the burners, are prepped and comparable, for testing the next mod or improvement.
