PDA

View Full Version : Please comment on flue pan design 2x4 mason style



tuolumne
03-10-2012, 07:59 AM
I would like to make my own pans over the next few years, and this Mason style flue pan seems much more manageable than a drop flue style. I will list some pros and cons as I see them, I would appreciate any input from those who have boiled on both styles. I am considering copper pipes for better heat transfer and I have some on hand. Compared to a drop tube style this horizontal tube pan would have less welds, easier to clean, no end caps to buy, and easier to drain. On the other side it has more length of pipe (cost but more surface area) and could not use recycled pipe as readily (48" lengths vs. 7").

Here are some numbers to compare this to a typical (easy to find around here) flue pan: 7 flues at 7-1/2" deep. Running sap at 1" above the channels, I figure about 6192 square inches of surface area to 4320 cubic inches of sap. For the horizontal tube style I show (using 24 total tubes at 1-1/4 diameter as shown on the right) would have 7488 square inches of surface area to 6096 cubic inches of sap at 1" deep. The ratio of surface area to sap volume is slightly better (1.43 vs. 1.23) for the drop flues, but mine would have the advantage of copper heat transfer over 2/3 of the surface area. Also, I could do it with 40 copper tubes like the layout on the left which would be significantly more area.

This is where I have some questions. How close is too close for the tubes based on the way sap behaves when boiling? In the 40 tube scheme, there is a bit under 1/2" between the tubes. In the 24 tube scheme there is an inch between the tubes. I could also do something in between, or stagger the tubes, but I felt that it would be easier to clean with them lined up vertically. Would it be better to leave the big spaces horizontally or vertically...opinions please. Modifying the scheme on the left, I could do 30 flues (bigger vertical spaces) or 32 flues (bigger horizontal spaces. I could also change the overall depth of the two drops up or down. I could also change to 1-1/2" or 2" copper pipe if that made sense, although I don't have as much of that on hand.

With the 24 flue version I would have about 56 square inches of flue area if I brick to within 1/2" on bottom and sides. This seems like plenty with forced AOF/AUF setup. Any comment? I'll leave a door on the rear to easily brush out the tube flues mid season if needed.

Lastly, I am trying to make the most of a 4x8 sheet, so I made some rims at the top. What is a good geometry for these? The pan shown is 2' wide overall, with 7" deep main channels, a 1" flue in the center, and 2" on either side to clear the brick where it projects beyond the rails. The sides are 18" high and the center divider is 15" high. Do these seem like good numbers?

Lastly, where should the hole be located to pass sap from one side to the other? Yes, I know in the rear, but should it be at the bottom of the 2 channels, somewhere higher, or most of the depth at one end?

Thank your for input....I have never seen, let alone boiled on a horizontal tube flue pan.

5619

wiam
03-10-2012, 01:43 PM
I do not know where in VT you are but you are more than welcome to come and see mine boil. I tried AOF last year on mine and it DID NOT WORK. My opinion is that the tube design is not compatible with aof. Mine boils like crazy with a lot of auf. Mason uses 2" stainless. I talked to a guy that built a tube pan a long time ago when he worked for Leader. I believe he used it for quite a while, but had leak issues with copper tubes in a stainless pan because of expansion difference in different metals. I do not believe you will ever get a tube pan "showroom clean". I soak mine with acid for a couple days and then pressure wash with hot water. This gets most of it out. I do not think you need the flue in the middle.

I would buy the same evaporator today that I did 3 years ago.

tuolumne
03-10-2012, 06:06 PM
William, It makes some sense that AOF would not be as effective due to the tubes projecting beyond the ramp. What is the geometry of this like on yours? Does your design do away with a ramp altogether so that gasses won't get trapped under the pan? Now I'm picturing 2' syrup pan, 2' of drop flues, and 2' of horizontal tubes. I'm in Danby by the way.

Also, I ran some more numbers today and there are some new top contendors for number of welds/tubes versus area etc. A pan with 24 1-1/2" tubes has a ratio of S.A. to sap volume of 1.63. A pan with 18 2" tubes would be 1.57. This would require an 8" drop to accomodate the larger tubes. the 2" version would have about 0.8" of space between the tubes.

The flue in the middle would be difficult to fabricate without making a special brake (big eddy style) but it seemed to make sense with a divider there anyway.

tuolumne
03-10-2012, 06:36 PM
Regarding the differential expansion...what was the length of that pan. I'm wondering how much a 4' pan would be impacted, or a 2' pan for that matter.

sandman6921
03-10-2012, 08:52 PM
I built a version of this type of pan myself this year. My "drop" area was 25" wide and the pan was 36" long. I sectioned the pan into three's and installed 12 - 2 5/16" SS tubes. So each section got 4 tubes. The SS was 18 ga. --kind of disappointed in my boil, I only had a boil in the rear pan about a foot long. My second boil I reduced the space under the rear pan to about 3/4" and it seemed to boil a bit better. I think I will try reducing the space down to 1/4" and try and force the heat through the tubes. One additional note, I am firing with a hard coal stoker, so my BTU's are locked in at 300k. My pan calculates out to 34 ft2 of surface area, but I only got about 18gph , so I have work to do to increase the boil rate. The coal burner runs like a forge, and was hot as h#ll, so ?? .

jmp
03-10-2012, 09:22 PM
I looked at this design a few years ago but after really looking into the fabrication I decided to skip it. Cleaning was also another factor that turned me off with this design. Your 40 tube design would be difficult to thoroughly clean in my opinion. I like to scrub every surface, but that's just me. Plus, and what I think is most important, is that you can easily get more surface area from raised or drop flues. I prefer raised but that's a Ford Chevy thing :). For example (and I know you ran your numbers already) compare a 2' x 4' pan with 24 2" pipes to a 2' x 4' pan with 10 7.5" x1" flues. I did not include surface area of sides of pan in these calcs. 2 x 3.14 x 1" (radius) x 48" = 152.72 square inches of surface area per tube. 152.72 x 24 tubes = 3,665.28 square inches (25.45 square feet) of total surface area for tubes. Compared to a flue 7.5" x 1" = 408 square inches per flue. 408 square inches x 10 flues = 4,080 square inches (28.3 square feet) of total surface area on the flues. A gain of 2.88 square feet of surface area. Almost three square feet or roughly 6 gallons per hour increase. Regarding heat transfer, I don't see how this would increase your boiling rate. Although copper is more efficient at conductive heat transfer, in this context I belive you simply need more surface area to boil quicker. Please correct me if I am wrong (very likely). So, easier to fabricate, much easier to clean, and more surface area. Seemed like a good choice for me.

wiam
03-10-2012, 10:08 PM
Regarding the differential expansion...what was the length of that pan. I'm wondering how much a 4' pan would be impacted, or a 2' pan for that matter.


I do not know.

RileySugarbush
03-10-2012, 11:20 PM
There is almost no difference in thermal expansion between 304 stainless and copper. The difference is .0000003 inches for every inch for every degree F. For a 48 inch pan and 142 °F (212-70) change, the differential expansion = .0000003*48*142=.002 inches...Less than the thickness of a dollar bill! The actual total expansion of the 48" pan is about 1/16" when boiling.

I was considering building a pan like that as well, as a third pan to stretch my 2x6 to a 2x8. I think it could work well, but it does seem to be critical to get the flow to go through the tubes, so the gaps around the outside of the pan make a huge difference. I didn't build anything yet, but if I do, I have concluded a true drop tube, with vertical copper tubes soldered into a flat stainless pan is a better choice for me. Much easier to clean and not so sensitive to the geometry. I have built several of these (using steam table pans) for myself and others and they work very well. Warners Point built one that boils as fast as my drop flue. If I build one, I plan on skipping the caps and just crimping flat on the ends and soldering. Simple and cheap.

jmp
03-11-2012, 08:35 AM
RileySugarbush, I have heard that drop tube setups tend to "geyser" and "pop" the sap. Is that true? I have never seen a setup like this.

RileySugarbush
03-11-2012, 11:12 AM
They might shoot the sap up a little higher than a normal drop flue, but very usable. It helps to use it at least 1 inch tubes.

jmp
03-11-2012, 07:46 PM
Very cool! Hope you are having a great season John!