jonathan byler on wed 8 sep 10
I was wondering why some folks build their chimney a brick or two's
width apart from the main chamber of their kiln, while some folks
build them directly attached to the back wall of the kiln... any
thoughts? seems like directly attached would save just a bit of
space, while set apart might make it easier for the two parts to
expand and contract on their own?
-jon
Doug Trott on thu 9 sep 10
My wood kiln is a cross-draft, and the back wall of the kiln is basically
part of the chimney. I noticed in the last firing that the chimney did
start to lean a little away from the kiln due to the expansion
differential. It's interesting how much hard bricks expand!
Doug
http://www.prairie-garden.com
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 6:46 PM, jonathan byler wrote:
> I was wondering why some folks build their chimney a brick or two's
> width apart from the main chamber of their kiln, while some folks
> build them directly attached to the back wall of the kiln... any
> thoughts? seems like directly attached would save just a bit of
> space, while set apart might make it easier for the two parts to
> expand and contract on their own?
>
> -jon
>
Rimas VisGirda on thu 9 sep 10
When I first built kilns, I butted the stack directly to the back of the ki=
ln. Later I figured out that I can save bricks by having the (lower part) o=
f the stack and back of the kiln be a common wall. Later I figured out how =
to engineer that and have it one brick (4 1/2 in.) thick rather than the 9"=
walls for the rest of the chamber. Later I figured that if I left a hole (=
4x4 -about 1/2 a brick) between the top of the chamber and the stack it was=
an automatic draft starter. My kilns were center trough downdrafts vs the =
hole-in-the-back-wall types that seemed to be popular and occasionally I us=
ed to get some back pressure at the burners before I thought of the automat=
ic draft starter. -Rimas
Jonathan Byler wrote:
I was wondering why some folks build their chimney a brick or two's
width apart from the main chamber of their kiln, while some folks
build them directly attached to the back wall of the kiln... any
thoughts? seems like directly attached would save just a bit of
space, while set apart might make it easier for the two parts to
expand and contract on their own?
Lee Love on thu 9 sep 10
I think Doug is right. The expansion of the kiln can make the chimney lea=
=3D
n.
--=3D20
--
=3DA0Lee, a Mashiko potter in Minneapolis
http://mingeisota.blogspot.com/
=3D93Observe the wonders as they occur around you. Don't claim them. Feel
the artistry moving through and be silent.=3D94 --Rumi
David Hendley on thu 9 sep 10
I learned 'the hard way' not to construct a chimney as part of
the back wall of the kiln.
I tried this with my previous kiln, a larger version of the fast-fire
wood kiln, and the bricks that were part of both the kiln and
the chimney were the first to fail. The same bricks, 2300 degree
insulating firebricks, in other parts of the kiln were still fine, but
the kiln had to be torn down because of the complete degradation
of the chimney bricks.
I don't know if expansion and contraction was the cause of
the failure. I think it was heat, pure and simple, attacking from
both sides.
David Hendley
david@farmpots.com
http://www.farmpots.com
http://www.thewahooligans.com
>I was wondering why some folks build their chimney a brick or two's
> width apart from the main chamber of their kiln, while some folks
> build them directly attached to the back wall of the kiln... any
> thoughts? seems like directly attached would save just a bit of
> space, while set apart might make it easier for the two parts to
> expand and contract on their own?
Bruce Girrell on thu 9 sep 10
I found that without the additional space, tension rods from my framing iro=
=3D
n collided with the stack.
It the current incarnation there is close to two feet between the kiln and =
=3D
the stack. Draft is still excellent.
Bruce G=3D
jonathan byler on thu 9 sep 10
that was my thought, and why I was concerned. with a 16ft chimney =3D20
stack, I don't want it to lean at all, even with a metal frame.
thanks for all the replies,
jon
On Sep 9, 2010, at 10:12 AM, Lee Love wrote:
> I think Doug is right. The expansion of the kiln can make the =3D20
> chimney lean.
>
> --=3D20
> --
> Lee, a Mashiko potter in Minneapolis
> http://mingeisota.blogspot.com/
>
> =3D93Observe the wonders as they occur around you. Don't claim them. =3D
Feel
> the artistry moving through and be silent.=3D94 --Rumi
Larry Kruzan on thu 9 sep 10
Ahhh pottery queries again...
I use hard bricks for the stack, because there is a slight difference in th=
e
heights of two types of bricks they don't stack well if linked.
I'm going to build another kiln soon that will use soft bricks except in
wear areas and in the bottom couple layers of the stack. This kiln will hav=
e
the stack woven into the back wall of the kiln.
Larry Kruzan
Lost Creek Pottery
www.lostcreekpottery.com
occasionally I used to get some back pressure at the burners before I
thought of the automatic draft starter. -Rimas
Jonathan Byler wrote:
I was wondering why some folks build their chimney a brick or two's
width apart from the main chamber of the kiln, while some folks
build them directly attached to the back wall of the kiln... any
thoughts? seems like directly attached would save just a bit of
space, while set apart might make it easier for the two parts to
expand and contract on their own?
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found.
(Email Guard: 7.0.0.18, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.15830)
http://www.pctools.com/
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
jonathan byler on fri 10 sep 10
vertical damper, as in it would sit vertically and pull the to side?
On Sep 10, 2010, at 10:53 AM, Doug Trott wrote:
> If the kiln design allows it, I would separate the chamber
> and chimney enough for a vertical damper in between.
>
Doug Trott on fri 10 sep 10
I don't think my chimney leans enough to be of any danger of collapsing, bu=
t
it does put pressure on the damper and makes it very difficult to move late
in the firing. If the kiln design allows it, I would separate the chamber
and chimney enough for a vertical damper in between.
Doug
http://www.prairie-garden.com
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 10:06 PM, Larry Kruzan wro=
te:
> ...
>
> I'm going to build another kiln soon that will use soft bricks except in
> wear areas and in the bottom couple layers of the stack. This kiln will
> have
> the stack woven into the back wall of the kiln.
>
> Larry Kruzan
> Lost Creek Pottery
> www.lostcreekpottery.com
>
>
Doug Trott on mon 13 sep 10
Yep, exactly. No more climbing on ladders, and easier (I think) to
construct.
Doug
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 11:06 PM, jonathan byler wrote=
:
> vertical damper, as in it would sit vertically and pull the to side?
>
>
>
> On Sep 10, 2010, at 10:53 AM, Doug Trott wrote:
>
> If the kiln design allows it, I would separate the chamber
>> and chimney enough for a vertical damper in between.
>>
>>
| |
|
