Vortex Burners: Re: [Stoves] Patent Protection or the Lack of It

[ksmith46 at frontiernet.net]

Kevin and List,
I did not metion the vortex for a patent. I have designed several items 
in electronics and never patent one of them. Personally I don't believe 
in patents. I think its another scam to get money from the inventor.
On the other hand, Inventors think they can get rich by making a patent.
The patent here that was stolen, should have been stopeed by the patent 
search that was performed. Either the person did not do the search and 
just collected the money or did not care. Again down to money.
About the vortex. I found one that was suppost to help the air 
circulate into a engine. I built one based upon the picture I was 
looking at. It seemed to work after inserting it into the air duct of 
the engine. It seemed to have a little more horsepower but because of 
no test equipment available at the time, I can't prove anything.
I then started think about putting one in the chimmey of a stove to 
increase draft. I am going to build a manometer to measure WC for the 
little stove that I am woking with and I will try and see if it does 
work.
My web site is www.kandpprogressive.com
On it I give away several calculations and plans for some on the things 
I am woking on.

Ken Smith



Quoting Kevin Chisholm <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>:

> Dear Ken
>
> The use of the vortex concept is very common in burner design. Indeed it is
> difficult to find a well designed commercial burner that does not employ a
> vortex or swirl effect to promote mixing of gases. One of the essential
> features of a Patent is that it "provides an improvement that is not obvious
> to someone skilled in the trade." Since a vortex is so obvious to someone
> "skilled in the trade" of burner design, it would appear to me that a vortex
> burner concept would not be patentable.
>
> Similarly, introducing air into an insulated chimney directly above the
> fuel bed, in a manner to induce vortex mixing,  is so obvious to someone
> skilled in the trade, and so fundamentally necessary,  that it should 
> not be patentable either.
>
> It surprises me that the vortex principle does not seem to be used more
> often in wood and charcoal stove and burner design because of its ease of
> implementation and obvious potential benefits.
>
> A stack of a given height creates a given draft with a given temperature
> difference, all other things being equal. A vortex would not create draft,
> but rather, it only permits better utilization of the given draft to promote
> better mixing of air with gases for combustion.
>
> Concerning the "idea registry", I would suggest that this would do 
> more harm than good. Ideas cost nothing to publish, but they cost a 
> lot to prove and refine to a workable level. Ideas only have value 
> when they are good, and they are only "good" after they are proven to 
> be workable. A raw idea is simply a "Hot Flash". There is probably 
> nobody on the entire Stove List, or even the entire set of Bioenergy 
> Lists, who had a raw idea that proved out, without significant 
> modification and refinement along the way.
>
> I'm going to take a whack at building a "Vortex Stove" over the 
> summer. I'll call it "The Tornado Stove". It will have a large clay 
> component, and minimize use of consumable metal, to permit 
> construction with local materials at minimum cost. It will employ 
> preheated air,  to recover heat losses from the system. It will have 
> fixed porting to control the ratio of primary and secondary air, and 
> adjustable control of total air, to give a decent turn-down ratio. It 
> will not require an electric fan. It will be intended for stationary 
> use. It will be intended for inside use with an exhaust hood to vent 
> fumes, particulate matter, and cooking residues outside the living 
> space. Other specifications will be added as appropriate.
>
> Then, when I get it working, someone else can build an improved 
> Tornado, and call it a Hurricane. :-)
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Kevin
>