loading

Big Mamma and Little Honey, thats what we called the two giant trash piles left behind by a seventy person party in the desert. This is an annual trip and leaving trash behind is not an option. In 2006 I took a swing at building an incinerator deal with the trash. It wasn't till two years later I had a working model. Not only did it work, it decimated the trash. If for some reason you have a trash problem a barrel incinerator might be for you.

Step 1: How Does It Work?

Incinerators are basically supercharged camp fires. By introducing a lot of extra air in a specific manner, it increases temperature and accelerates combustion. Air swirls around in the lid until it is forced down into the barrel along the edges. Air is introduced at the edge of the lid which gets it spinning. This rotation continues as the air is channeled into the combustion chamber. The rotation and input location are the key to efficient combustion and keeping the metal parts cool.

This design burns in cycles, the barrel is loaded up and burnt to completion. During a burn cycle, flames shoot several feet out the top and the barrel glows. What surprises people is that there is no extra fuel; no gasoline, kerosine or propane. All it needs is garbage and air.

The large volume of air makes it possible to burn garbage at considerably higher temperatures than those found in a burn pile or a traditional burn barrel. The down side of these high temperatures is that they accelerate the oxidation of the steel. My first successful incinerator got so hot, the barrel was paper thin after several uses.

Icons from the Noun Project: Fan by Murali Krishna, Spring by Adomas Tautkus and Fire by SuperAtic LABS

Step 2: Don't Wonder

If you are ever wondering what size that was, what direction that was facing or where something is, don't wonder. It's okay to double check and measure again.

Step 3: Materials

You are making a custom lid that should fit almost any 55 gallon drum. All the flat stock metal in this project is 1/8" thick mild steel. When finished, it's pretty heavy, but the weight is advantageous as it holds the lid down during the most aggressive burns. You will need an entry level metal shop (or a friend who has one) to pull off this build. All told this will cost less than $500.

Two donuts 23.6" OD and 8.75" hole (see below)

8"-12" length of 8" schedule forty pipe

6" flat stock 80" long (padded)

3" flat stock 80" long (padded)

3" diameter Walker Flex Hose (from the auto parts store)

2' of 2.5" OD straight pipe like this (from the auto parts store)

Enough grating to cover the 8" pipe (spark arrestor)

Some metal for handles, I used 1/2" tube stock

1' spare 2"x4" wood

One 55 gallon drum as thick as you can find

One leaf blower gas or electric with high CFM and variable speed

One length of 3" diameter dryer hookup tubing similar to this.

One 6' length of conduit or thick dowel for stirring ashes.

I sourced my steel from Bayshore Metals in San Fransisco. They offer plasma cutting for about $80. If your shop isn't set up to cut the two donuts, I highly suggest saving the time and calling it in. Its perfectly fine to cut your own donuts as well.

Lets do this!

Step 4: Handles

The incinerator is heavy, its nice to have handles. You can use anything you like for handles. The only thing to remember here is to make them deep enough so that if it's hot, you don't burn your knuckles on the lid.

My handles were made from 1/2" tube stock and were bent on the pipe bender.

Step 5: Spark Arrester

It's best not to light the neighborhood on fire so please install a spark arrester. Choose a heavy grade mesh/screen, the high temperatures of the exhaust will melt thinner materials. You should cut about 1/2" larger than you need to cover the schedule forty pipe.

Step 6: Down Tubes

These are the secret ingredient. The air spins around inside the lid until these guys channel the air down to the combustion chamber. Using a metal chop saw or an angle grinder with a cutting wheel. Cut two down tubes from your 2.5" OD pipe. Make two 45 degree cuts in each piece so they look like above.

You should try to make these as short as possible. I was trying to make them short and wound up cutting the forward edge. Cutting the forward edge isn't an problem nor is it necessary. Height is an issue so try to keep them short. They should not be more than 3.5" tall.

Once you have cut your two down tubes, clean them up on the grinding wheel and wire brush.

Step 7: Position the Down Tubes

This is when we decide which disk is the top and the bottom. On the disk that you deem bottom worthy, place your two down tubes. They need to be opposite each other, facing in opposite directions and far enough in so that all the air goes into barrel. An inch and a half is usually far enough from the edge, but please double check your measurements. Make sure the inlets wind up channeling air into the barrel. Once in position, trace your down tubes onto your bottom disk.

Put some tools away.

Step 8: Cut the Air Inlets

Using a torch, cut out the markings you make for your down tubes.

Step 9: Bottom Up

The bottom disk is the one with the inlet holes. Start by welding your exhaust pipe (the schedule forty), to the center of the bottom disk. Similar to the pattern with lug nuts, work your way around the pipe in a star fashion with tack welds. This will prevent welds from pulling your pipe out of alignment. Once the exhaust is welded in place its time to add the down tubes. Make sure the tubes are facing in opposite directions.

Step 10: Spacer Blocks

Take a measurement of the highest of your down tubes. Usually they are a little off and that is okay. Add a quarter inch to this measurement and cut three pieces from your 2x4 that length. These will be used to hold the top clear of the down tubes during welding. Mark the top of each block with an X.

Step 11: Add the Top

Now things are starting to take shape. Arrange the blocks evenly around the bottom disk and make sure their tops are all facing up. Slide the lid on over the exhaust pipe and rest it on the blocks. There may have been some warping during the inlet cutting so I like to clamp the lid down against the block before I tack it in place. Just as you did with the bottom disk and the exhaust pipe, use the star pattern and work your way around tacking as you go.

Step 12: Sanity Check

We should be looking at the same thing. If you haven't done so already, connect the dots with all your spot welds. These welds will need to be (for the most part) air tight so keep that in mind as you work your way around. Its time to take out those spacer blocks too, make sure you have three blocks sitting aside.

Step 13: Outer Wall

The outer wall is made from the 6" flat stock. Start by tacking the leading edge to the top and bottom donuts. The top should be flush and the bottom should have some 2" hanging below. Its important that the outer wall goes on and the top stays flush so be mindful when making those initial tacks.

Step 14: Work Your Way Around

As you make progress around the lid tack it every 2". If there is warping you can use a clamp to get your lid in order. As you finish the outer wall use one or two compression straps to force the ring onto the lid.

Put some tools way.

Step 15: Trim the End

In the materials list it called for an 80" length of steel. That extra bit was nice for bending but now it is in the way. Mark the extra and trim it off using an angle grinder with a cutting wheel.

Step 16: Inner Ring

The goal here is to make a groove that the barrel lip will fit in. The inner ring is made from the 3" flat stock. Since the outer wall is already in place you will need to pre-coil your inner ring. Its okay to be sloppy, the only important thing is that it fits inside the outer wall. Once in place, tack the ring just outside an inlet hole. The thickness of the 2x4 is kind of perfect for spacing so clamp the inner ring to your block and tack as you go. As you approach the end, you will have some leftover just as with the outer wall. Mark it and trim that too.

While we are here you can install the spark arrester to the underside of the lid.

Step 17: Inlet

The Walker Flex Hose is where this party starts. Cut one end of the hose to 45 degrees. The actual angle is steeper, but my saw tops out at 45. It's important to position this tube in the correct orientation to the down tubes. The correct position is inline with the down tube openings and just after a down tube. Hold your inlet against the lid and mark it. With a torch carve open the lid to make space for your inlet. The inlet will be stainless or galvanized. The fumes coming off this metal are not good for you and will compromise your weld if you aren't careful.

Call your Mom.

Step 18: Test It

Thats it! Wad up a piece of paper towel and put it in your barrel. Add the lid and put some air in there. You should see the paper towel swirling around. This is a good sign that your incinerator will work. The less turbulence in the barrel the better. If you pass the air test, you can add some fire. I tested mine with a small cardboard box, you can see it HERE.

For testing you can reverse a shop vac.

When you area ready to burn use the 3" dryer duct and attach it to your leaf blower. Start on low, you can turn it up later.

Step 19: Load Instructions

In order for your incinerator to work you need to load it properly. It will burn plastics and wet waste but it needs enough dry material to cut though the rough stuff.

Start slow and get a feel for what she can and can't do (do a few 1/2 burns).

Think of your loads as layers.

The top and bottom layers should always be cardboard or something easy to burn.

The next layer from the bottom can be something harder to burn like plastic or kitchen waste.

Then you need more cardboard.

Then another hard to burn layer.

Etc..

In addition to this recipe, I like to throw a small piece of wood in with the hard to burn layers. A piece like the blocks you used to hold the lid during welding.

Icon: Pyramid by Benni from The Noun Project

Step 20: Burn Instructions

Before your start make sure you are good to go. Don't wonder, double check the gas tank for your generator or your leaf blower. If the air supply is cut during a burn cycle the barrel turns into a gasifier. This is a bit sketchy because when you start it up again all that available fuel ignites and sometimes lifts the lid off the barrel.

Place a fire extinguisher about 15' from your barrel.

Start the leaf blower and keep it on low.

Light a small fire on the top of the barrel.

Put the lid on and wait till you see the fire is going.

Turn the leaf blower to medium.

Enjoy the show.

When things get boring, about half way through, turn the blower to high.

When the barrel starts to smoke, you are done with this cycle.

Run the blower another 5-10 minutes and turn it off.

When cool, take the lid off and stir the ashes (this is surprisingly important).

Rinse and repeat.

You said your first working model didn't last very long. How long do barrels last with this design?
<p>The more you heat the barrel, the thinner the metal gets. Add in the fact the metal oxidizes over time.</p><p>We've been using the same burn barrel for at least the past 7 years (that's 7 weeks of cumulative use for 1 hour each day), but it's time we replace it. You can tell by the sheer glow.</p>
<p>Thanks for wanting to get rid of the trash. There is little more that I hate then going out into a non-populated area and finding where 6-pack Charlie left his trash. Charlie and his kind should stay where they belong until he becomes responsible like you. I applaud your concern and your great intructible for solving the problem.</p><p>One other thing I am glad (and shocked) to see is no one scolding you for adding to (the IPP-data-compilation-proven-lie) global warming. Maybe we are finally able to distinguish between science and political farces?</p>
<p>While I fully agree with &quot;taking care of trash&quot; by either proper disposal or taking it with you when you leave an area, I am laughing at your naivete on the last paragraph...</p><p>Pray tell, which &quot;IPP&quot; data collection are you referring to? The Internet Printer Protocol? Highly unlikely... The Integrated Product Policy? well, there is the disposal of the product aspect but only indirect correlation to global warming, not enough to &quot;prove anything... How about Industrial Practice Programs? Nope, although industry does play a role, the term does not refer to pollution... Integrated Performance Primitives? naw, that's for computing... Invoice Processing Platform? Not even close...</p><p>How about Independent Power Producer? This is getting warmer... but it is like asking cigarette companies if tobacco is safe... their opinions and &quot;studies&quot; are just as likely to be biased and the data &quot;Cherry picked&quot; to support their conclusion...</p><p>Bottom line here? You did NOT cite a specific source, nor a reliable one in spouting your political based views... nor do you seem to even understand what TRUE science is about... true science is peer reviewed and tested as repeatable from multiple sources... something that has been done again, and again, and again with global warming... it has become as provable as gravity. But of course you would have to be over a hundred years old to have the span of input needed to make an informed opinion...</p><p>This instructable is great because it utilizes high temperature incineration to fight the dirty low temp combustion of a typical burn barrel... it burns &quot;cleaner&quot;... therefore it is more environmentally friendly... Science is facts and provability... Politics, by nature, is appealing to the 'comfort' of the masses... whether through &quot;putting the right spin&quot; on information or downright lying, the goal is to achieve ones own goals via manipulation of reality.</p>
Please look up there term ad hominem. I will answer your response in the hopes of being able to carry on a legitimate conversation despite the fact your method of reply (by definition) has invalidated your credibility. It seems most people nowadays fall into this trap when they are much more capable, as I am sure you are.<br><br>SNIP<br>Bottom line here? You did NOT cite a specific source,<br>SNIP<br>I assumed anyone wanting to know more of what I had said would simply used a search engine. BUT...<br><br>I am sorry I made a typo with IPP which should have been IPCC :^(<br><br> But I even just googled &quot;IPP global warming&quot; and the first link brought up the IPCC (hit the link and you find &quot;The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific intergovernmental body under the auspices of the United Nations&quot;).<br>Again, sorry. I should not have assumed.<br><br>The compilation of th IPCC data can be downloaded here:<br>http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/game_over_the_ipcc_quietly_concedes_defeat.html<br><br>Reading it shows the scientific data collected shows the theory is debunked. In fact the last time someone was debating me over this, they sent me a link to their &quot;go to&quot; Pro- GW (Global Warming) website, that the IPCC data compilation was scientifically accurate enough to declare what they called a fifteen year hiatus in GW.<br><br>A person needs to take more than the media's word for the claims they make. The famous Hockey Stick chart has been totally, scientifically shown as inaccurate (the originator has even refused to share his data and sources - now how scientific is that?). <br><br>A year ago during the Christmas season (or was it two?) when the media reported a bunch of &quot;scientists were trapped by ice in the Antarctic.&quot; The facts of the matter was the majority were not scientists by trade, but were pro-GW people who were going down there to PROVE GW by taking pictures of the lack of ice &ndash; then give their &quot;proof&quot; to the press. I find it interesting they were going down there in the South Pole's warmest part of the year to find &quot;proof&quot; of less ice (yes - normally summertime even in the arctic means less ice), nit instead were trapped by record ice amounts since the year 2001! <br><br>The famous &quot;97 of scientists support GW&quot; statement is a media misquotation of what the (John Cooke) report recorded. The actual data from the report shows 97% f scientists believe there is overall climate change... join context of the report they said they know over periods of time that climate does not remain constant (possibly even going through cycles). And yes, I read the whole report b/c I heard it had been mis-represented in the media and wanted to know the truth .<br><br>And even when investigating the media-made-buzz word of &quot;Climate Gate&quot;(please google if you are unaware of this term) by actually reading the hacked/disclosed emails. Especially damning was their computer programmer's code. As most programmers do, the programmers left REM statements (reminders to themselves) in the code. One of the reminders said to exclude certain parts of the data or else the output form the computer would not yield results favorable to global warming! <br><br>One year after the first &quot;Climate Gate&quot; the same hackers released yet another batch of emails they hacked. In these were emails messages form the same Dr. Carl who was caught the year before in Climate Gate . This time Dr. Carl's emails mention him saying he has to get rid of information that would show their fraud before he is forced to turn it over (FOIA).<br><br>I find the worst enemy for finding truth is when I do research to PROVE a point. Proving a point is not the goal of any TRULY SCIENTIFIC research and only produces falsehoods. <br><br>I personally am more interested in knowing the facts than worrying about whether or not my personal opinions (and what I have been taught) is fact. And I hate when my emotional desires get in the way, so I actively check my emotions and desires when researching. <br><br>I can &quot;prove&quot; about anything if I set out to do so. But I can only find fact if I emotionally do not care about what the data actually shows. I have spent ~30 years, since the inception of the GW theory researching the &quot;scientific claims&quot; that are presented, rather than just taking a teacher, politician, or the media's word. Every time the offered &quot;fact&quot; have shown to be fudged data or outright lies. Sad, but the money made by this non-scientific farce keeps it alive.
<p>D@mn! Did you have to bring your global-warming-conspiracy-all-scientists-are-in-on-it BS?</p><p>This guy invented a really decent (not super-clean like fluidized bed combustion) incinerator for use in remote areas and you had to poison it with your conspiracy-theory B.S. Global warming by humans is a scientific fact, if you can't deal with it go back to watching Faux News and eat from the Exxon-Mobile kool-aid jar.</p>
<p>There is a difference between someone who wants to know what science is/says/does, and someone who has not done the research on both sides of an issue for themselves - in a legitimate study.</p><p>The scientist will be open to everything to find the truth. And specifically, will be aware that emotional ties will always cloud ability to know truth (such as name calling, insults etc. are direct ties to emotional influence) </p><p>So a true scientist who wants to know fact does not have to resort to ad hominem statements, which by definition, totally eliminate the validity of the person making the statement, and very likely are non-representative of the better potential the individual making them has. Anyone understanding this concept will also find themselves better able to have legitimate discussions and cut through the emotional baggage that so typicaly clouds scientific fact from being revealed.</p><p>If you will follow some of the leads I have mentioned above, you will find the actual science behind the theory has now been revealed by its main proponents as showing what they refer to as at least a 15 year hiatus in AGW. And it is using IPCC data - the UN's own &quot;go to&quot; source for the data.</p><p>I am TOTALLY open to ANY data that will show AGW is fact. However, after 30 years of searching, I have yet to have anyone present one piece of data that is not either fudged. altered, or totally misrepresented to support the theory. I don't care as much about being known as &quot;right&quot; as I do about what the actual science dictates. And presently, the IPCC data, when compiled, is now also pointing to this being a lie.</p>
<p>&quot;I am TOTALLY open to ANY data that will show AGW is fact. However, after 30 years of searching, I have yet to have anyone present one piece of data that is not either fudged. altered, or totally misrepresented&quot;</p><p>Apparently you are either ignoring NASA data or NOAA data, as you appear to have standards much different than actual scientists. I strongly doubt that you could have spent &quot;30 years of searching&quot; and not see the obvious correlation between CO2 and global warming, or even not know the correct name for the IPCC (IPP? Really?).</p><p> <a href="http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/" rel="nofollow">http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/</a></p><p><a href="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/" rel="nofollow">http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq...</a></p><p>Why keep claiming there is no consensus? That myth has been thoroughly refuted for at least a decade. If you truly studied science you would already know this!</p><p><a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-sci...</a></p><p>If you truly struggle to find legitimate data as opposed to corporate-sponsored sound bites, all I can say is get away from Rupert Murdoch publications (Fox News and WSJ) and any media outlet owned by powerful industrialists. You won't find any birds if you keep looking under rocks.</p>
<p>You may believe what you want about how long I have been involved with this subject. Since you know absolutely nothing about me, except that I don't agree with your position, it is a very non-scientific approach to reaching your conclusion. Herein may be some evidence as to what you believe science can include. </p><p>First you use an ad hominem approach, and then you make a statement of what you believe to be true based upon nothing other than the fact I disagree with AGW! This is the very basis of faulty &quot;science&quot; today, and your responses evidence an affinity in this direction.</p><p> I have been teaching science (among other disciplines) since the 80s. The biggest battle nowadays is getting students to understand that science is OBSERVATION of collected data in order to find a hypothesis to test. If desires to find a &quot;truth&quot; are involved, then the &quot;truth&quot; will be found - no matter how ludicrous. </p><p>You also assumptions that I get data from &quot;corporate sound bytes.&quot; I was also around when the biggest, daily &quot;scare&quot; all the time was how the ozone hole was opening up and would cause such global warming by the year 2000 that palm trees would be growing on the shores of the Great Lakes. It was an obsession with the news media and was daily pushed as absolute fact. We got so tired of hearing about it b/c it was attached to anything and anything it could be remotely attached to in a news story. Until... in 2000 the hole disappeared and all of a sudden the subject was no longer the primary thing coming over the airwaves. In fact, compared to the overwhelming concern shoved on society, the falsehood fizzled out </p><p>and died.</p><p>If you really are after fact, you look into the sources I originally listed. I have been in many scientific debates over this politically motivated sham over through the years and have been able to show people what science is, how it works, and just how non-scientific this whole sham has been. </p><p>The fact of the matter is that even the pro-ADW crowd at the highest levels has talked about the fact of the &quot;haitus.&quot; All the time they were absolutely positive the science was undeniable for al these years, now they have had to admit it is not. Yet they keep on pushing it.</p><p>Please do the legwork, from the sites you list it is rather obvious you may have scratched the surface. The problem is that when political entities push for an agenda, weeding out the actual science from the fudged data takes time and legwork.</p><p>And to the &quot;consensus&quot; - if you have never read the actual Cooke papers this came from, you have been accepting popular pro-AGW opinions as fact. The same thing happened with the polar bears and supposed increasing cannilbalism amongst them. due to AGW 0- exaggerated and totally false information was built upon by the media using this theory. The same thing with the Climate Gate emails and info when released. Yes, I DID read them to see what was in them instead of taking someone else's word for it. And I read the information the second round also. Both are more or less ridiculed by places like Wikipedia, but the papers, which no one is willing to read for themselves, show the facts. </p><p>You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink... especially if it has been informed there is none, wholeheartedly believes it without using the actual scientific method, and will not take the time to check the &quot;facts&quot; to see if there is water.</p>
<p>There is a difference between someone who wants to know what science is/says/does, and someone who has not done the research on both sides of an issue for themselves - in a legitimate study.</p><p>The scientist will be open to everything to find the truth. And specifically, will be aware that emotional ties will always cloud ability to know truth (such as name calling, insults etc. are direct ties to emotional influence) </p><p>So a true scientist who wants to know fact does not have to resort to ad hominem statements, which by definition, totally eliminate the validity of the person making the statement, and very likely are non-representative of the better potential the individual making them has. Anyone understanding this concept will also find themselves better able to have legitimate discussions and cut through the emotional baggage that so typicaly clouds scientific fact from being revealed.</p><p>If you will follow some of the leads I have mentioned above, you will find the actual science behind the theory has now been revealed by its main proponents as showing what they refer to as at least a 15 year hiatus in AGW. And it is using IPCC data - the UN's own &quot;go to&quot; source for the data.</p><p>I am TOTALLY open to ANY data that will show AGW is fact. However, after 30 years of searching, I have yet to have anyone present one piece of data that is not either fudged. altered, or totally misrepresented to support the theory. I don't care as much about being known as &quot;right&quot; as I do about what the actual science dictates. And presently, the IPCC data, when compiled, is now also pointing to this being a lie.</p>
<p>There is a difference between someone who wants to know what science is/says/does, and someone who has not done the research on both sides of an issue for themselves - in a legitimate study.</p><p>The scientist will be open to everything to find the truth. And specifically, will be aware that emotional ties will always cloud ability to know truth (such as name calling, insults etc. are direct ties to emotional influence) </p><p>So a true scientist who wants to know fact does not have to resort to ad hominem statements, which by definition, totally eliminate the validity of the person making the statement, and very likely are non-representative of the better potential the individual making them has. Anyone understanding this concept will also find themselves better able to have legitimate discussions and cut through the emotional baggage that so typicaly clouds scientific fact from being revealed.</p><p>If you will follow some of the leads I have mentioned above, you will find the actual science behind the theory has now been revealed by its main proponents as showing what they refer to as at least a 15 year hiatus in AGW. And it is using IPCC data - the UN's own &quot;go to&quot; source for the data.</p><p>I am TOTALLY open to ANY data that will show AGW is fact. However, after 30 years of searching, I have yet to have anyone present one piece of data that is not either fudged. altered, or totally misrepresented to support the theory. I don't care as much about being known as &quot;right&quot; as I do about what the actual science dictates. And presently, the IPCC data, when compiled, is now also pointing to this being a lie.</p>
<p>That's awesome, dude.</p><p>~/Lee</p>
<p>I have a similar setup, but not quite as complex and permanently located. <br><br>My barrel is open bottom on the bottom and sits on a couple of 7 x 15 partition cinder blocks laid on their side. I then troweled a concrete base that has a trough down the center running parallel to the blocks. Air is drawn through the trough and the holes in the block to super oxygenate the fire. <br><br>The top is cut nearly all around, leaving only a hinge to twist and regulate the flow - and has a handle added. I slide the same kind of stretched steel you used under the top before burning. I *can* direct more air through any of the holes with a leaf blower if needed, but generally this sucks so much air that I don't need to. When I am done burning I simply wait for the barrel to cool, roll it off the base, and collect the ashes for use in compost. The top covers the barrel when not in use and that slows the rusting. I generally get a year and a half out of one barrel. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.instructables.com/member/cyberpigue/" rel="nofollow">cyberpigue</a> , I would love more details on your setup, and some photos of your concrete base, burn area..... </p>
<p>Sorry, wrong link - https://www.instructables.com/id/Easy-efficient-burn-barrel/</p>
<p>https://www.instructables.com/id/Barrel-Incinerator/?comments=all#CUH4AZJI35RF2RR</p>
<p>(Plus - total cost is two blocks and a bag of concrete. $15 for a barrel occasionally)</p>
<p>I like it. It appears that this is a simple, elegant design that would work well for wood fires, but it appears that you also use it for trash. Are you able to get good combustion (enough to remove the smell of burning plastic or treated (slick/colored) papers?</p>
<p>It gets very hot, but I haven't burned plastic in it. I have burned all kinds of paper and cardboard in it and it barely smokes or smells. I'd say from previous experience with burn barrels, it would make quick work of plastic with minimal smoke and smell as it has a strong draught. I did an Instructable on it below:<br><br>https://www.instructables.com/id/Barrel-Incinerator/?comments=all#CUH4AZJI35RF2RR</p>
<p>Oops, wrong link - https://www.instructables.com/id/Easy-efficient-burn-barrel/</p>
<p>Nice work! I see you put a lot of thought and work into this.</p><p>It's so much nicer than what KBR would do in Baghdad... burn trash in an open field so everyone could get a whiff (very generous of them)!</p><p>Later, they &quot;built&quot; an incinerator for the whole camp that turned out to be nothing more than two giant steel tubes stacked on each other. When they first started using it everyone thought there was a permanent oil fire! The smoke was black and thick. I'm ashamed to say the government paid for them to build that junk and burn it, poisoning everything for miles around.</p>
<p>Very good project. I remember burning trash in a drum at my grandparents farm when I was a kid. Something like this would have made that task more fun. Also a good idea is to check the local ordinances, as the burning of garbage is some locales is strictly forbidden. This is part of the &quot;measure twice, cut once&quot; mindset.</p>
<p>Trash-burning is illegal in our entire county, but that doesn't stop the illiterates from burning plastic in their fireplaces and burn barrels (no, they don't even bother to use forced air to make it burn cleaner)! They do this despite the fact that they could walk to any empty garbage can and dispose of the waste properly, without creating carcinogenic furans, dioxins, and god knows what else!</p>
<p>OOh Yeh Gotta get that in somewhere . Tell people what they can't do</p>
<p>alsp using a baffle as well. so you can cook on top as well.</p>
<p>Or a crucible for casting.</p>
<p>Any thought to lining it with Fire Brick or cement so the barrel doesn't burn through?</p>
Originally I wanted to line the barrel with fire bricks like a kiln. When the ashes build up, about 1/4 full, the barrel needs to be emptied into a garbage bag. I figured the bricks might move or be too heavy to dump. I think a stainless barrel would do the trick but fear the cost.
<p>I LOVE the use of a pulley on your bender!!!!! *runs out to tsc and buys a collection of them*</p>
<p>Thanks, it was a long shot and worked out great. The pulleys work great for small stuff. If your stock is too touch it will rip the sides out of your pulley.</p>
Thank you for all the comments and discussion. Incineration if done right, I believe is a good alternative for small applications. Too much wet or hard to burn lowers the temperature and the combustion is incomplete. It would be great to pre mix all the fuel and run it through a mulcher instead of using my layering technique. I figure a stainless barrel might last longer since it won't rust but it will add some expense. Plastic has gone through our incinerator, and it burns surprisingly hot.
<p>Any warning on combustion fumes or toxic fumes from plastic ect?</p>
<p>Хорошо работает!</p><p>Это важно для меня, я сжигаю мусор в простой бочке!</p>
<p>Pretty sure I saw this running - you were at the Rubber Duck camp or thereabouts? It looked awesome.</p>
<p>very nice job. higher temps are a much better cleaner burn. I am pretty sure a fire place/stove catalytic converter would even work. One question what is the usual make up of the trash you burn in it?</p>
<p>Could this be scaled down? Something more portable and appropriate for a smaller camp like mine, with less waste and less transport capacity.</p>
<p>Great Idea and an easy build. I have a hand crank forge blower my grandfather used for black smithing on the ranch. It would give minimally adequate air volume for areas without power for my blower. Keith PhD</p>
<p>hmmm donuts!!!!!!! ill take 1/2 doz please.</p>
nice job. burning trash can be so nasty. ive heard that highheat makes a cleaner burn.
It was fun playing in your shop on this project Joe. Let me know next time you need any torch cutting help.
<p>Oh man, this is so cool. It's stuff like this that really tells me it's time to learn to weld!</p>
<p>On the ranch, we always burned our trash. Once a month, it smelled really nasty! </p>
Very nice. Leave no trace.
<p>I've always wanted to build one of these, I've just never had a reason to. Great build and great 'ible!</p>
Fantastic idea. just what you need at burning man. I for one can't wait to go home again.

About This Instructable

149,781views

556favorites

License:

More by joe.andolina:Floating Lemonade Stand Flaming Thor Helmet Laser Cutter Crosshair 
Add instructable to: