THIS IS AN OLD POST. WE MOVED THE UNIT TO A DIFFERENT INTERIOR WALL SO THAT WE COULD ACCESS THE EXISTING BRICK CHIMNEY. STILL USING THE SAME BRICKS BUT NO FOAM BOARD UNDER OR AROUND THE UNIT.
Got our bricks.
Thank you to Shawn and Amanda for taking a drive to Eugene to pick these up
These are not the dense heavy firebricks that I was expecting, but the lighter insulating firebrick. These are supposed to be easy to cut with chisel or hacksaw. I am going to need to do a little research and make sure the characteristics of these bricks are suitable for the rocket stove. It seems like they should work, they will allow the heat to build inside the chamber and they should not absorb much of that heat. I think that works because I want the heat to travel through the j-tube, build to high temperature in the riser/barrel and then I want the heat to transfer to the thermal mass before the exhaust exits the building.
I started laying out the bricks and thinking about brick count, how to construct the J tube, the heat riser, the support for the barrel and the ash cleanout. Here are some pictures:
I don’t think that’s going to work. The weight is going to deform the foam board. All of the foam board ideas are gone.
I was mainly just laying out the burn chambers and stacking brick to see how the rocket stove will fit in the space. I really wanted to light up some paper and see if the rocket stove would draw as it is set up here, but I resisted the impulse. I don’t think we are ready for that step yet.
The picture above shows the heat riser extended up a bit so that the top of the heat riser would be about 2 inches below the top of the barrel. I also played around a bit creating an ash cleanout pit. That is the the rectangular space in the foreground of the picture above. The ducting would then come out of the ash cleanout cavity, run forward toward the position of the photographer in this picture (thanks for camera work, Marylea) then it will turn 180, run back and end in a stack that will rise and go out the “window” space just above the rocket stove. I am going with the stack up and out of the mass heater in close proximity to the heat riser as Ernie and Erica have suggested.
Here is a picture of the rocket stove with the barrel lifted and in place over the heat riser. (pretty barrel, right? need to spray that down with some bbq high temperature paint)
I think I will have to bring the whole rocket stove forward at least a foot so that I can get 2 feet of clearance between the barrel (that is going to get very hot) and the frame wall behind the stove and the ceiling above the barrel.
I think I will end up with a fireproof material on the walls near the barrel and on the ceiling above the barrel. I am thinking about durock board, then maybe I end up with tile on wall behind or maybe just a cob type plaster.
Question for today:
- Am I going to need to “glue” the bricks together with a firebrick mortar or cement or will I be able to mix a cement/cob material with vermiculite and seal the burn chamber, the j tube, the heat riser and the ash cleanout?
Going slow. Having fun laying out this project. We have been thinking about this for a long time.
It will be a few days before I can get back to this project. I get my first day of jury duty tomorrow and also need to get back to the office grind for a reasonable number of hours. Words need processing, phones need answering.
We want to keep as much heat from the mass heater in the house as possible. One of the ideas with the rocket stove is that we will be able to dispose of trash wood, prunings, etc more easily than we can now, but another idea is that we want to extract the heat from the wood and let it help heat the house. This place is amazingly easy to heat with gas-fired radiators throughout, but what’s the harm in improving and adding options for heat?
So, the concrete slab and foundation are almost certainly not insulated from ground. The basement is about 3 feet below grade. So even though heat rises I am trying to design and build mass heater that radiates most heat up and out into the basement space and then up through the house from there. I am trying to avoid losing heat through concrete walls or floors into the ground. So, we picked up some polyiso foam board off craigslist. Some of it is a little rough, but I think it will still work fine. The foam board is 2 inch. Here is where the design question start to arise:
- Should we place the foam board right on the concrete or float it above the floor with 2 inch space between concrete and foam board?
Looking out on the internet is not real helpful. There are not a lot of people using foam board on top of concrete in a rocket mass heater project. The consensus view appears to be that there is no problem with putting the foam board right on the concrete. I think that makes sense because this same kind of faced foam board in put under concrete slabs, so it must be pretty moisture-tolerant.
Here I am just laying out the foam board and starting to think about the footprint of the rocket mass heater. I am going to follow a standard Ernie and Erica layout – rocket stove in the corner, barrel/manifold right behind that, stove pipe and mass heater to the left, then back to the corner and up and out behind the barrel and out through the glass block “window.”
Ernie and Erica think that the heat from barrel radiating to the cooler exhaust pipe helps the heater draw well and I think they are right about that.
I am contacting Ernie and Erica to see if they want to function as consultants on this project.
Found a good deal on fire bricks in Eugene, so our daughter is down visiting friends, family and picking up bricks for us. Bricks are supposed to arrive tomorrow, Sunday, March 8, 2015.
Questions that I am considering:
- should I put air spaces under and around the mass heater so that the heat can scoot under from down in front and then rise up and out from the space between the frame walls and the masonry mass?
I think yes on this question. I don’t see a downside to attempting to create a radiator-like air pattern around the stove. I think we may get more air movement with this plan and not have to rely quite as much on the radiant heat from the masonry mass. I am doing some checking on that. Here is an example of that kind of approach from Ernie and Erica.
Ernie and Erica are my “go to” experts on rocket stoves.
- Will the foam board be crushed or damaged by the weight of the firebrick, the manifold, the mass heater?
- How much heat protection am I going to need between the rocket stove, the barrel manifold and the framing?
- Can I build a plywood floor above the foam board, then put the stove pipes in on top of the plywood? How much cob, gravel, or rubble fill will I need on top of the plywood or foam so that the material under the mass heater does not get over-heated.
More soon on this project.
Ok, time to build the rocket stove mass heater. We have been thinking about it long enough. These things look amazing and they don’t look like they are too hard to build, but we will find out about that.
Here is the setup:
Took out the two windows. Sills were rotting out. Reframed those for replacement with glass blocks that we picked up last year. We are on a glass block kick. Old windows were single pane, 100 yrs plus old. Most of the windows on the house are still original with storm windows added in the 70s or 80s. We framed up a wall behind the washer and dryer. Pressure treated 2×4 on the concrete, the rest just 2 and better doug fir. Lovely wood to work with. Strong and forgiving. We plan to sheetrock over the 2x wall. The wall cavity is about 7 inches deep, going to fill that with blow in insulation, so this should be a decent upgrade in the thermal characteristics of that wall.
cleaning up the wall a little bit. It’s an interior wall, load bearing, storage room on the other side.
Living in close proximity to friends and family is a wonderful thing. What if you could design and build a complete community with a very small footprint? Would you do it? What are the challenges and the payoffs?
and we will need some video and audio to run and talk over.
Here is 14 minutes of video from Professor Peter Ward from UW
TED talk by Peter Ward
Ok, jumping back in on the Port of Olympia. If you want to start at the beginning, go here for Part I.
If you want to start with Part II and not look back, the story is that former finance director Kevin Ferguson has sued the Port of Olympia and Edward Galligan for wrongful discharge, violation of whistleblower law and other tortious conduct.
So, working from the lawsuit Ferguson v. Port of Olympia again, I note/quote from the lawsuit:
- “In approximately late June/early July, 2011, plaintiff (Ferguson) met with two Commissioners to alert them to what plaintiff considered to be some of the serious issues that he had reported to Galligan (Port Executive Director Edward Galligan) , and advised them that Galligan had failed to take any remedial action. The issues that plaintiff reported at that time included the failure of Galligan to follow Port personnel policies, and the apparent nepotism and increased technology expenses in a potentially unlawful awarding of a technology contract.”
- “on August 16, 2011, plaintiff was compelled to submit a written report via email to Port Commissioner Jeff Davis, which laid out plaintiff’s reasonable belief about violations of law or policy and waste of Port funds, most of which implicated Galligan. The written report identified a variety of matters with details information, including but not limited to the following:
(a.) Nepotism in the award of the Port’s IT contract to the brother-in-law of Galligan’s former secretary and the Port’s HR Manager, who was directly responsible for all information technology at the Port, which appeared in conflict with Port Policy 108.
(b.) Change of the IT award/oversight from the HR Manager to a staff person, who was nevertheless supervised by the HR Manager, continuing to appear in conflict with Port Policy 108.
(c.) Waste of Port funds in paying an excessive amount of $10,000 per month to maintain the IT system, and payment of such amounts with lack of adequate service by the IT consultants – one who resided in Vermont most of the year and the other who left the Port without local technology support while out of the area.
(d.) Award of the IT contract to an entity which has a statutory two year ban from public work due to previously operating without a license
(e.) Payment to the IT contractor after the contract expired, and renewal of an expired contract without first requesting new proposals for qualifications or bids.”
In reading through the 17 page Ferguson complaint, it becomes clear that the IT contract is a somewhat central thread that should be subject to public scrutiny for the purposes of deciding if the Port is operating in an ethical and forthright manner.
So, how would we start to get to the heart of this story? Why not start with a quick look at the contracting entity and the contract?
Sorry, need to go to work, will be back with a look at the contracting entity and the contract in a day or two.
The Daily Olympian carried a story on May 21, 2013 about a lawsuit filed by the Port’s former finance director, Kevin Ferguson, against the Port and the Port’s Exec Director, Edward Galligan. . Among other things, Ferguson’s lawsuit alleges that the Port’s contract for IT services is not quite right.
That’s an interesting allegation and one that might be easy to sort out.
Here are specific passages and allegations from the Ferguson lawsuit:
- “In approximately January, 2011, Galligan directed plaintiff (Ferguson) to write a leter or recommendation to the Port Commissioners in support of a pay raise for Galligan. Although he was not comfortable with this directive, plaintiff was compelled to follow Galligan’s instruction. Plaintiff wrote the letter, but only after informing two commissioners in advance as to the directive he had been given.”
A little bit of context for this bit: Galligan was Ferguson’s direct supervisor at the time and the commissioners are charged with supervising the executive director. Is there a cause of action here? Probably not, but I think lots of us understand that this type of request from a direct supervisor would feel coercive and manipulative.
- “Throughout plaintiff’s employment he observed and discovered a variety of matters which adversely impacted the financial status of the Port and which he reasonabley believed to constitute mismanagement, waste or violations of law… Many of the items plaintiff was discovering and observing included acts or omissions by the office of the Executive Director, Galligan.”
A little bit of context for this item: The Port belongs to all of us. The Port holds title to property with a value in the range of 300 million dollars. The management of these holdings require that the tax payers of Thurston County ante up 4.8 million dollars per year to keep the Port afloat. These simple facts do raise questions about the financial management at the Port. Couldn’t we simply hire a property management firm and get a better return on investment?
The Port likes to tout its role in job creation, but I think a hard look at the jobs that would actually disappear if the port property was operated by a property management firm instead of a quasi-public agency would reveal that the public is buying very few good local jobs with the investment of 4.8 million per year.
That’s enough for today, back in a few days with more from the Port on questions about the IT contract and the Port’s environmental record.
The Port of Olympia continues to move fracking materials from China to the Bakken Formation in North Dakota. I think that makes the Port an accessory to murder of the planet.
We have some work to do with the Port of Olympia Commissioners. We continue to talk to the three commissioners. The next opportunity to speak to them is April 22nd at 5:30 pm at the LOTT Building. If you want to sign a petition to ask the Commissoners to stop importing fracking materials, click on this link.
If you want to reach the commissioners by email or phone, click on the links below:
The Port of Olympia could be a cornerstone of sustainable South Sound economics, but it appears at this time that we have only one commissioner willing to vote for sustainable projects over simple economic projects. That commissioner is George Barner.
We have another commissioner, Jeff Davis, talking a good game about the environment and actively engaged with Oly Enviro Activists, but so far refusing to commit to any changes in Port policy that would change the facts on the ground.
The last commissioner, Bill McGregor, appears to be tone-deaf to concerns about the environment. From what I have heard from Bill, I think he is hopeless on the environment and we should simply work to replace him.
It takes a lot of energy to develop and sustain a Port action as activists who remember the 2007 Olympia Port Militarization Resistance may tell you, but there are times when it is necessary. We may be in one of those times.
But we can take a shortcut to Port Revolution later this year through the election process. Commissioners Davis and McGregor are both up for re-election later this year and replacing either or both of them with a Commissioner who is committed to a sustainable economy and environment would bring significant change.
Commissioner Jeff Davis represents District 3 which is the west third of Thurston County. Dave Peeler has run for that position in the past and would bring strong environmental sensibilities to the Board. I am not aware that Dave Peeler has expressed any interest in running this year, but somebody should talk to him about that. I have heard rumors that other folks are considering a run, but nothing solid yet.
Commissioner McGregor represents District Two which is the eastern third of the County. You have to live in the District to be an elected commissioner. Can we find a good environmental candidate in District Two for this election?
April 29th is the first day the Auditor’s Office can accept filings by mail. Filing week is May 13 to May 17.
We need a couple of folks to step in to the big shoes and help Thurston County reduce its carbon footprint.