Permsteading.com

http://www.tamizsolutions.com/2012/09/1 ... et-rocket/ I posted this on the Donkey site... Could be a viable solution for some on here.....especially with a little tweaking....

It seems that this guy is using the rocks inside the barrel for his mass. He does not have a bench or any other kind of mass to use as a flywheel. I do not know where he is from but apparently people who live around there like small light metal stoves and that is what he is using for his comparison. The rock mass has the advantage of not taking up much extra room because it is located inside the stove. It traps and continues to radiate heat for some time after the fire goes out. It is cheap to build. That seems to me to be its advantages in a nut shell. The disadvantage compared to a traditional rocket mass heater is the lack of a large bench that retains a lot of heat and acts like a flywheel after the fire goes out. In places where space is very limited, or a large mass of cobb and rocks won't work because of weight concerns this might be a cheap viable alternative for your heating needs. I wonder what the advantages this unit has over a traditional two barrel stove where the fire is kept in the lower barrel and the 2nd barrel located above it acts like a radiator or heat robber before the smoke exits to the chimney.

I would have to say that the rockbucket has mass, where the double barrel is cold when the fire is out, and after the thing got hot, no smoke was visible It was suggested by "peterberg" on the Donkey site ,that if it had a chamber above the rocks and one below the rocks it would be better. In the little blurb on the "Tamiz" [sp.?] site the maker of it states that it is just a concept, combining a few different stoves. I think if you some how separated the burn chamber from the rocks with insulation it would be better . Seems cheap to build...... compact....might fill some ones needs. And to be clear, it is not a rocket stove.... sort of.