A couple of pellet burners, for use in the charcoal lighter can/stove, or with a simple h.c. pot stand + wind shield; they do require some elevation if used on a solid, flat surface.
This is the beginning of some experiments about (relatively) small jets ~ 1/4" or smaller compared to
fewer, larger holes, ~ 1/2", I'll try some larger ones, too.
So far, just a few burns, seems like the 4X1/2" holes behave better, are more consistent in performance thru the burn, maintain the pattern of flame tips at a more constant height below the pot.
But, I'm intrigued by the 'many jets' approach. Some of the time, esp. early in burn, and again v.late, there is a radial 'spoke pattern, that stays mostly horizontal - TA DA: the pot is heated by radiant heat, not so much soot, (I think). But in the middle of the burn, when it gets more vigorous, the "hub" of the radial pattern erupts into a spout.
A problem with all these simple wood and/or wood pellet burners is, the best flame pattern and quality requires specific conditions, and these simple stoves/burners don't easily provide controlled, constant conditions. Hey, whadaya want? We're trying to keep it simple and use minimal materials, right?
Now, I'm speculating the fewer, larger holes sort of dump in the 'so called' secondary air, a larger hole = lower speed, but higher pressure, (right?) so I'm thinking, a number of smaller jets with the same cross section area will produce jets with higher speed, but lower pressure; seems to me that would make the jets potentially better performers, at the moment of optimal performance conditions; but the fewer, larger air holes will perform more consistently throughout the changing conditions inherent to a batch burn, to say nothing of external, constantly changing conditions of wind.
Now, something I noticed, but didn't keep careful enough notes, is - the smaller jets, when 'canted' to the side, did seem to burn more blue, but it looked like the flame was starved for air. So, I'll probably knock more bottom air intake holes in that model, "just to see".
I'm thinking, for more reliable and more consistent results, the fewer, larger top holes are best.
But then, I'm headed for putting together something with a more complex structure. Pics to follow, of course, but it may take time...
Maybe more pictures and fewer words, but at least now there are some pictures!