# This years Rocket Stove developements



## Graham Orm (4 Jan 2015)

I changed the fire box completely this year and it's made a huge difference. If anyone wants any advice please ask, I've been through a huge learning curve with this.

It's advantages over a standard woodburner are :
Hugely increased temperature output from a small amount of fuel.
Goes through fuel more slowly.
Zero smoke from the flue, so not irritating neighbours.
Fun to build.
Toasty warm workshop. (Had to open the door a couple of times today).


*This is the highest temp I recorded today and as a matter of fact the highest ever. Prior to my improvements I think the top was getting to around 500 deg.*
















*Zero emissions, just a heat haze. All the smoke is re-burned in the rocket pipe.*


----------



## bugbear (5 Jan 2015)

I am slightly confused by Rocket Stoves. There are several people out in net-land
hymning their praises in fairly unambiguous terms.

But many of them seem a little ... eccentric. One site carries not
only rocket stove information, but promises wonderful healing things
from the "Balm of Gilead" complete with biblical references and
seminars on the "secret". This does not fill me with confidence.

Further, if the combustion mode were as massively superior as claimed,
surely (in this free market age) one of the many heat-mass boiler
manufacturers would have adopted it.

So I'm a little baffled as to what's going on.

BugBear


----------



## woodpig (5 Jan 2015)

I thought Rocket Stoves were for cooking on?


----------



## MIGNAL (5 Jan 2015)

They are, or for heating. I've no idea of the respective efficiences as I've no experience with Rocketstoves. I do know that my standard woodburner consumes a lot of wood. 
One thing I do know, your insurance company are going to have a great big fat get out if anything untowards happens.
So if you are to experiment make sure it's in an outbuilding that has no chance of affecting your house proper. 
Surely it can't be that difficult to test the efficiences of normally aspirated stoves and this type. I mean, it's hardly rocket science!


----------



## Ali (5 Jan 2015)

841 Degrees??! Wowzer!!! I wouldn't want to rest my hand on that.

Impressive, I don't know anything about this but congratulations on the hard work Grayorm, some impressive benchmark figures there! have a lovely toasty feeling in that workshop!


----------



## orchard (5 Jan 2015)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTnr8ua54Uw

Rocket stove technology is used a lot more elsewhere than here, especially where there's a limited supply of wood, although high-end manufacturers over here do provide expensive versions


----------



## bugbear (5 Jan 2015)

orchard":1nymuce6 said:


> Rocket stove technology is used a lot more elsewhere than here, especially where there's a limited supply of wood, although high-end manufacturers over here do provide expensive versions



Do you have a link to a manufactured room/house heating one? I can find lots of companies selling camping ones, but the
size seems to stop at "Yurt" scale. All the room/home size ones seem to be home made.

BugBear


----------



## MIGNAL (5 Jan 2015)

BB. I don't think they are legal. All the homemade Rockets mass heater flues seem to terminate horizontally. I don't see how they can comply with building regs.


----------



## bugbear (5 Jan 2015)

MIGNAL":3n35s9u2 said:


> BB. I don't think they are legal. All the homemade Rockets mass heater flues seem to terminate horizontally. I don't see how they can comply with building regs.



Aah - thanks for that. 

BugBear


----------



## orchard (5 Jan 2015)

bugbear":182k74rs said:


> orchard":182k74rs said:
> 
> 
> > Rocket stove technology is used a lot more elsewhere than here, especially where there's a limited supply of wood, although high-end manufacturers over here do provide expensive versions
> ...



OBVIOUSLY THIS ISN'T ONE (homer) :






http://www.stovedesign.com/rocket.html

I'm sure i've seen larger industrial manufacturer's doing versions whilst I was researching last year.
Like (I think) I said, they're not getting loads of attention here beyond micro-scale, whereas there's a lot out there internationally -- perhaps CE does have something to do with it, and also a lot of people who are into this currently, self-build, because from a permaculture perspective, it's advantageous to be integrated within the domestic system a lot more than a manufactured off-the-shelf solution IMO mate


----------



## Jacob (5 Jan 2015)

bugbear":1jsq7ad5 said:


> ...
> Further, if the combustion mode were as massively superior as claimed,
> surely (in this free market age) one of the many heat-mass boiler
> manufacturers would have adopted it.,,,,


The heat mass boiler makers have adopted it. Google "batch wood burner" or "gasification boiler".
The problem for heating is that either you stoke a small fire continuously or you do a big fast firing and store the heat - typically 1 to 2k litres of insulated water tank.


----------



## bugbear (5 Jan 2015)

Jacob":2ekxtx8b said:


> The heat mass boiler makers have adopted it. Google "batch wood burner" or "gasification boiler".
> The problem for heating is that either you stoke a small fire continuously or you do a big fast firing and store the heat - typically 1 to 2k litres of insulated water tank.



The first search didn't give much (apart from a post by you back in 2012!!). The second one
is much better, and leads to some fancy high tech boilers.

But they look/function nothing like the "rocket stoves" being built by the permaculture crowd, which seems to work more by convection and carefully sized/angled pipes; the commercial ones are full of ducts and fans and special refractory materials.

Still can't see any commercial "rocket stoves".

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (5 Jan 2015)

bugbear":1rmntiez said:


> Jacob":1rmntiez said:
> 
> 
> > The heat mass boiler makers have adopted it. Google "batch wood burner" or "gasification boiler".
> ...


They are the same in that in both the whole point is to achieve a rapid high temperature burn, which is most efficient in terms of heat output and cleanness. Needs dry wood so the small stick size helps there too. 
As compared to say a heap of dryish logs smouldering away with the dampers closed in a normal log burner i.e. very inefficient.


----------



## Robbo3 (5 Jan 2015)

Yes please Grayorm. Would be very interested in the internal layout.

Presumably welding skills are required


----------



## Graham Orm (6 Jan 2015)

bugbear":1n95zrlq said:


> I am slightly confused by Rocket Stoves. There are several people out in net-land
> hymning their praises in fairly unambiguous terms.
> 
> But many of them seem a little ... eccentric. One site carries not
> ...



Yes they do bring wonderful healing powers. I was going to come onto that later, I'll be doing a thread about the "secret" as well. :mrgreen: 

I believe they are available commercially now BB. They are fed by pellet so large storage bins are required that will provide a constant feed so not really practical for domestic use. Possibly why you haven't seen them.


----------



## Graham Orm (6 Jan 2015)

Robbo3":2v4xy2hk said:


> Yes please Grayorm. Would be very interested in the internal layout.
> 
> Presumably welding skills are required



Yes, you'll need to do a lot of welding and cutting with a grinder. This guy has been developing them for a couple of years, this video shows the inside design pretty much how mine looks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhUpghEy1D8
The cylinder provides radiant heat as well as containing the open flame.

The fire box on mine is surrounded with this stuff http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/like/26149060 ... 108&ff19=0 It insulates it which helps it get hot. 

After a test I took the wood out mid burn and the firebox inside was glowing red!


----------



## Graham Orm (6 Jan 2015)

I've been playing with these for 2 years now on and off. I think I've had about 4 different fire box designs with varying results.

This was the first shape that I tried. It simply wouldn't work, no matter what i did. (Thanks to Orchard for his diagram).





There has to be a feed of air to the back of the fire box which then goes straight up the rocket pipe and burns with the exhaust gases. You'll notice on mine a plate held by mole grips at the bottom, the wood is put on top of this, so allowing air to pass underneath it to the back of the burn chamber.


----------



## Graham Orm (6 Jan 2015)

orchard":3186hrwa said:


> OBVIOUSLY THIS ISN'T ONE (homer) :
> 
> 
> 
> ...



My original search was for a smokeless log burner for the workshop as I live on an estate with small gardens and properties are close by. I knew nothing of Rocket stoves and have been fascinated ever since by the concept. Do you make them commercially? Did you make the one above? Lovely job!


----------



## Jacob (6 Jan 2015)

I think that stove above is just a normal wood-burner with "Rocket" in the name. Nothing to do with your rocket design.


----------



## orchard (6 Jan 2015)

Grayorm":lt0acaoj said:


> orchard":lt0acaoj said:
> 
> 
> > OBVIOUSLY THIS ISN'T ONE (homer) :
> ...




Hahaha, no, I was rushing to find a commercial rocket stove for Bugbear, and came across this and took the name a bit too literally, Bugbear rightly pointed it out, so I swiftly edited it with a 'Homer' mate.
Have you checked out the Youtube link I posted earlier ? Geoff Lawton has a few useful applied examples.


----------



## Graham Orm (6 Jan 2015)

orchard":28svrn6w said:


> Hahaha, no, I was rushing to find a commercial rocket stove for Bugbear, and came across this and took the name a bit too literally, Bugbear rightly pointed it out, so I swiftly edited it with a 'Homer' mate.
> Have you checked out the Youtube link I posted earlier ? Geoff Lawton has a few useful applied examples.



Yes I glanced, misleading then, using the 'Rocket' word in the name. That'll lead to some 'heated discussions' after purchase. Pun intended.


----------



## bugbear (6 Jan 2015)

Grayorm":19bx94ue said:


> orchard":19bx94ue said:
> 
> 
> > Hahaha, no, I was rushing to find a commercial rocket stove for Bugbear, and came across this and took the name a bit too literally, Bugbear rightly pointed it out, so I swiftly edited it with a 'Homer' mate.
> ...



The designer does claim some similar burning behaviour in his combustion design, although it's not identical.

I emailed him to check.  

BugBear


----------



## Graham Orm (6 Jan 2015)

Should be interesting. The stove needs a 4" rocket tube at least 2'6" long inside to burn the gases.


----------



## MIGNAL (6 Jan 2015)

I've heard some 'rockets' claim much less than half the amount of wood burnt over that of a conventional stove. That's a stove with the inclusion of the thermal mass. Quite a claim.


----------



## Graham Orm (6 Jan 2015)

MIGNAL":ysd9m5pq said:


> I've heard some 'rockets' claim much less than half the amount of wood burnt over that of a conventional stove. That's a stove with the inclusion of the thermal mass. Quite a claim.



It's a fact. They give an incredible amount of heat from a tiny amount of fuel.


----------



## Jacob (6 Jan 2015)

Grayorm":11qipypy said:


> MIGNAL":11qipypy said:
> 
> 
> > I've heard some 'rockets' claim much less than half the amount of wood burnt over that of a conventional stove. That's a stove with the inclusion of the thermal mass. Quite a claim.
> ...


Rocket stove, batch burner, gasification high tech stove and other variations - the whole idea is efficient max heat output per unit of fuel is from a fast hot burn. Inevitably this means fast frequent re-fuelling, or intermittent fast burning (a.k.a batch burning) but with heat storage for a steady supply.
Went into this in detail with our building project but decided it wasn't practical. Settled on a gas combi boiler plus a multi fuel stove space heater. 
It'd work in a small workshop however like Grayorms as long as you can keep refuelling - perfect for a busy woodworker with loads of dry offcuts.

A compromise is to have a small wood stove but run it hot.


----------



## MIGNAL (6 Jan 2015)

This one is commercial, but note that he states it is for outdoor use only. Presumably because it hasn't got the necessary approval for use within the home. It looks a lot more attractive than some of the other homemade affairs. 
Like the painted leaf pattern. May need redoing after a few weeks!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebGSAw2UKz0

I have a small 4.5Kw Charnwood. I think I go through around 4 - 5 cu. ft. per day - softwood burning around 10 hours per day. Not that I'm complaining, courtesy of a few builders I've had a whole years free burn. I've just received my first years energy bill and that free wood has paid for the price of the stove! Just the liner and installation to pay for now.


----------



## houtslager (6 Jan 2015)

as a semi green warrior  I've made a few of the RMH stoves, and can testify that depending on the size [ 4, 6, 8 or 10 inch ] they can be damn good heat source for a home or workshop. The larger the diameter means a larger burning area therefore more wood required - I am currently using a 6"in my home in Germany, and will be building a 125mm diameter system in either [ or maybe both  ] workshops - Amsterdam / Chippy

Go to the dreaded FB for loads more info or youtube and search for RMH


----------



## Graham Orm (6 Jan 2015)

Jacob":2361snvp said:


> Grayorm":2361snvp said:
> 
> 
> > MIGNAL":2361snvp said:
> ...



For an entire evening in the shop Jacob, to try and put it into perspective, after the initial kindling to get it going, I would imagine I would go through a 4ft length of 3 x 2. I have a lot of 3 x 2 off cuts, this is why I use this comparison. They go in end on and only the end burns and the wood slides in as it disintegrates. It can be run at a lower temp once the rocket is up and running properly (about 10 mins). This is done by reducing the air intake.

According to the guy in Mignals video burning wood on an open fire only uses 8-10% of the potential fuel. A Rocket stove burns up to 95%.


----------



## MIGNAL (6 Jan 2015)

A 4 ft length of 3 x 2 would last not much more than 1 hour in my Charnwood, 1 1/2 hours at the very most and that's with the air intake set to medium burn. Perhaps 2 hours on low air intake, although at that setting it won't be pumping out much heat. They quote around 78% efficiency for the Charnwood, although I've heard it stated that these types of wood burners are a lot less than the quoted figures. Who knows. If Grayorm's rocket is anywhere near 4 Kw I think he is using around one third the amount of wood fuel that I'm using. Lot's of assumptions but an amazing difference if true.


----------



## Jacob (7 Jan 2015)

Grayorm":1heuq7ox said:


> Jacob":1heuq7ox said:
> 
> 
> > .....
> ...


Sounds good.
We were looking at this stove here which is the same idea but at the other end of the scale i.e. for central heating a large building but utilising the fast efficient burn idea. Too expensive for us - huge tanks involved, concrete footings etc.
So we are having a simple multi fuel for the big rooms. On the small size according to heat calcs, the idea being to run it hot, with extra heat from a long flue pipe


----------



## bugbear (7 Jan 2015)

MIGNAL":30ubmnkf said:


> A 4 ft length of 3 x 2 would last not much more than 1 hour in my Charnwood, 1 1/2 hours at the very most and that's with the air intake set to medium burn. Perhaps 2 hours on low air intake, although at that setting it won't be pumping out much heat. They quote around 78% efficiency for the Charnwood, although I've heard it stated that these types of wood burners are a lot less than the quoted figures. Who knows. If Grayorm's rocket is anywhere near 4 Kw I think he is using around one third the amount of wood fuel that I'm using. Lot's of assumptions but an amazing difference if true.



I worry (a little) about this. Measuring efficiency, especially when burning such a variable fuel as wood, is really rather tricky (or interesting, depending on your mind set  )

I wonder how some of these claimed efficiency figures are being arrived at.

BugBear


----------



## Graham Orm (7 Jan 2015)

Jacob":3e3cda1g said:


> Grayorm":3e3cda1g said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob":3e3cda1g said:
> ...



Also with a wood burning boiler you have to keep feeding it unless you make it a pellet feeder which takes up even more space.


----------



## Graham Orm (7 Jan 2015)

bugbear":1q1i2u77 said:


> MIGNAL":1q1i2u77 said:
> 
> 
> > A 4 ft length of 3 x 2 would last not much more than 1 hour in my Charnwood, 1 1/2 hours at the very most and that's with the air intake set to medium burn. Perhaps 2 hours on low air intake, although at that setting it won't be pumping out much heat. They quote around 78% efficiency for the Charnwood, although I've heard it stated that these types of wood burners are a lot less than the quoted figures. Who knows. If Grayorm's rocket is anywhere near 4 Kw I think he is using around one third the amount of wood fuel that I'm using. Lot's of assumptions but an amazing difference if true.
> ...



The guy in the video that Mignal posted claimed 1500 deg inside. That's almost double the highest reading I've ever seen. Mine and any other I've seen peak at around 800, even open topped with a thermometer probe suspended in the rocket tube. But then he is selling them!


----------



## Benchwayze (7 Jan 2015)

What does it matter which way a chimney exits a building, so long as passers-by can't burn themselves on the exhaust? Heat goes upwards dunnit? Or does this mean you can't put a cowl over the top of a vertical chimbley? 
H&E gone mad with power again?


----------



## bugbear (7 Jan 2015)

Grayorm":lelefcrj said:


> bugbear":lelefcrj said:
> 
> 
> > MIGNAL":lelefcrj said:
> ...



Yes, but that's just a _temperature_ at a point in time. Impressive, in its way, but only very indirectly related to overall efficiency.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (7 Jan 2015)

bugbear":1ii8b3ke said:


> .....
> Yes, but that's just a _temperature_ at a point in time. Impressive, in its way, but only very indirectly related to overall efficiency.
> 
> BugBear


Higher temperature is very closely related to efficiency with wood burning. That's the whole point of the rocket et al. 
It's also the problem as it would be convenient to burn slowly with steadier output and less frequent stoking but still have high efficiency, but this is not possible.


----------



## bugbear (7 Jan 2015)

Stove efficiency is simply the ratio of the amount of energy in the wood to the amount of energy delivered by the stove.

To measure efficiency you need to measure energy, not heat, and certainly not temperature.

BugBear


----------



## defsdoor (7 Jan 2015)

A stove delivers the energy in the form heat. What else can you measure ?


----------



## Racers (7 Jan 2015)

1500 degrees, dosen't steel melt at 1500 degrees?

Pete


----------



## MIGNAL (7 Jan 2015)

Benchwayze":1rlvvzo5 said:


> What does it matter which way a chimney exits a building, so long as passers-by can't burn themselves on the exhaust? Heat goes upwards dunnit? Or does this mean you can't put a cowl over the top of a vertical chimbley?
> H&E gone mad with power again?



Chimney/flue, all the same. They do exit in a number of ways, vertically or horizontally. Virtually all Combis have a flue that is horizontal, even though they are fan powered. Some are balanced flues, without a fan. 
Stoves certainly do need to be safe. Not only from carbon monoxide but from the ever present danger of fire spreading throughout a building. The consequences can be too severe to ignore.


----------



## bugbear (7 Jan 2015)

defsdoor":1s1vbtcm said:


> A stove delivers the energy in the form heat. What else can you measure ?



Sorry, you're quite right  . Heat _is_ a form of energy, although a bügger to measure. As is
the energy in wood.

BugBear


----------



## Benchwayze (7 Jan 2015)

MIGNAL":1kozbstt said:


> Benchwayze":1kozbstt said:
> 
> 
> > What does it matter which way a chimney exits a building, so long as passers-by can't burn themselves on the exhaust? Heat goes upwards dunnit? Or does this mean you can't put a cowl over the top of a vertical chimbley?
> ...



Yes MIG. 

I see your point, and appreciate a flue can set fire to a building if certain safety factors are absent. However, I was wondering what difference a horizontal or vertical exhaust makes. As long as it's far enough from the fabric of the building, and people, then the exhaust gasses are hot and go upwards. Just like some lorries have vertical exhausts (With cute little 'flippy-tinkly' lids on them! :lol: ) and most cars horizontal. The fumes still find their way upwards.


----------



## MIGNAL (7 Jan 2015)

I don't think they are too worried about fumes once it exits a building. Combi flues have certain clearances but I'm fairly certain that they can be within arms reach, just protected by a small cage which is required by the regulations. 
Given the amount of smoke (or rather lack of) and the miniscule amount of Ash that rockets stoves produce all suggests that they are extremely clean burning. They may even have higher efficiency than an A rated combi.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3TwEhjTwb4

5 months of ash! My wood burner produces that amount in 2 or 3 days.


----------



## Jacob (7 Jan 2015)

bugbear":2hkgin6b said:


> defsdoor":2hkgin6b said:
> 
> 
> > A stove delivers the energy in the form heat. What else can you measure ?
> ...


Yep heat is energy. And it isn't difficult to measure - you need to know the temperature change and the specific heat of the material being heated.
The specific heat of dry air is about 1.006 kJ/kg.K.
You can get approx calorific value of wood from tables

Or if you wanted to rate a stoves output you could get the room up to a sustained steady air temp and calculate the room's heat losses (knowing k values of the structure, temps in adjacent rooms / outside etc etc). This'd give you the output at that point.


----------



## bugbear (7 Jan 2015)

[Heat] it isn't difficult to measure - you need to know the temperature change and the specific heat of the material being heated.
The specific heat of dry air is about 1.006 kJ/kg.K.
You can get approx calorific value of wood from tables
[/quote]

That approach works nicely for measuring something like this:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Relags-travel-i ... B000KBEWQW

Dump it in a insulated jug of water, turn it on for a measured time, and see how much hotter the water has got. Bit of maths later,
you know what heat came out of your heater. Easy.

But a wood stove can't be switched on and off like that, and the stove isn't burning "properly" during run up and run down, where it's still onsufming wood. So it's all a bit tricky. Worse, what object is the fire heating? The stove? The room? The air in the room? The flue? Not a good experimental set up.



> Or if you wanted to rate a stoves output you could get the room up to a sustained steady air temp and calculate the room's heat losses (knowing k values of the structure, temps in adjacent rooms / outside etc etc). This'd give you the output at that point.



That's better (not saying much, the first option is awful), but the errors involved in estimating the rate of heat loss are very large, leading to a very inaccurate measurement of power/heat/efficiency. A real house in the a real world with varying weather, night/day etc is a complex thing.

All these issues can be, and have been (designing proper experiements is fun!) solved, but it's far from easy,

My concern (that I stated earlier) is that some of the proponents may have come by their efficiency figures in very imprecise (to be polite) ways.

BugBear

(for those who want to see how careful you have to be to do even a "simple" experiment properly, take a look
at Joule's original heat experiments)


----------



## Graham Orm (7 Jan 2015)

Racers":w1cb1fpi said:


> 1500 degrees, dosen't steel melt at 1500 degrees?
> 
> Pete



Lower actually according to a quick search 1350c. Some of the guys I've discussed it with on YT reckon that a year is the max for a steel fire box and stainless 2 years. They simply disintegrate because of the heat. The next option is to build the rocket tube and firebox from fire bricks or high temp concrete, which has already been done by one of the guys so I'm following his developments this year.


----------



## DMF (8 Jan 2015)

Grayorm":2j2021kj said:


> The next option is to build the rocket tube and firebox from fire bricks or high temp concrete, which has already been done by one of the guys so I'm following his developments this year.



Hi Grayorm,

there is a huge amount spent globally on concrete research programmes for the obvious reasons, many requirements for it in a lot of industry's and of course fire safety where the are primarily concerned with structural integrity and stability when exposed to high temperature changes (not a all encompassing statement), think the industrial studies are the applicable one's primarily focused on transmission and cycling (hot /cold) and the stresses evident there after, not least in this very application mentioned. I'm sure I remember reading a paper regarding a partnership between a university and a commercial incinerator but I can't for the life of me find it again! A Quick google on concrete research will give a clue as to how he will do though but last few years lots more info gleaned, even the Americans had a good go at it and with the budgets they have for research when they want it's well it's worth reading some. Seems a interesting subject and one on my list to explore when I have somewhere for a rocket stove to play with!

Anyway point was just to say interesting thread and if you fancied a go you don't have to wait for him! There's lots of info out there somewhere lol!

Dean


----------



## Graham Orm (8 Jan 2015)

Thanks Dean. I've just about come to the end of my development phase with the steel version so I'll be seeing how many seasons I get out of this, I'm hoping to at least get this year and next out of it. This is his video of the casting process. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yK93KkFT7sE


----------



## DMF (9 Jan 2015)

Thanks for that link, had a proper go at it hasn't he! Obviously a clever bloke and I'm sure I could learn many things from him but he does need a shuttering lesson from me! From what he used though for the shuttering and the fact its quite a complex shape I think it was a sterling effort, as he acknowledged I'm sure there's a better mix out there and I don't see why he went so thin with the walls, I think that was half his problems with casting, but I don't know all about rocket stoves so who am I to say anything!

The most important thing is he has a prototype to test and observe and that's the route to success when trying anything like that surely? I hope he hasn't got any large fissures within the structure to de rail that process though and it might take a mark2 or 3 but this is a complex structure under a range of stresses so to even achieve a working stove first time is proper impressive and hats off to him.

Like wise your efforts, you must be chuffed to be where you are with yours and thanks for posting your adventures up, lots of interesting little tangents with something like this and the more I see the more drive I get to crack on 

Thanks for that,

Dean


----------



## Graham Orm (9 Jan 2015)

Thanks dean. Yes he's well ahead of me with development. He was trying to set one up to heat the house last year, I don't know where he's up to with it. If you look at his channel you'll find some excellent Damascus knife making vids using his own forge. 
















He's done a few like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwsAn7zrLwg


----------



## DMF (9 Jan 2015)

Grayorm":7f6eosbn said:


> If you look at his channel you'll find some excellent Damascus knife making vids using his own forge.




Don't please, forge is banned from the wants list for now! I've just got past the bench drill stage so I have a few steps yet and I have many points to score before I can mention such things, def best if I don't start telling her about forges. Especially as she knows that wouldn't be allowed at the folks place so it'll be in our kitchen :lol: 

Cheers,

Dean


----------

