1. The Impossibly Weak Gas/Diesel Power (The Electrical vs. Thermal Trap)
The Problem: The sheet lists Gas or Diesel Power as 1.2 kW to 5.5 kW. For an industrial oven baking up to 64 trays of bread at \circ\text{C}\text{ kW} of heat is completely impossible—that is barely enough power to run two household hair dryers.
The Reality: A massive rotary oven requires roughly the same amount of heating energy whether it runs on electricity or gas. Since the electric version uses 50 kW to 92 kW, a gas/diesel burner needs to output an equivalent thermal energy (roughly\text{ to }80,000\text{ kcal/h} or \sim 150,000\text{ to }300,000\text{ BTU/hr}).
The Fix: The 1.2 kW to 5.5 kW figure is actually the electrical power required to spin the rack and run the exhaust fans on the gas/diesel models. Relabel that row to Electrical Consumption (for Gas/Diesel Models): 1.2–5.5 kW. Then, add a new row for Thermal Heat Output (Gas/Diesel): 50–95 kW (or 43,000–81,000 kcal/h) to match the performance of the Riello burner.
2. High-Heat Material Risk (201 Stainless Steel)
The Problem: The sheet lists the material as 1.5 mm Thick 201 Stainless Steel.
The Metallurgy: While 201 stainless steel is perfectly fine and cost-effective for the outer shell of the oven, it should never be used inside the baking chamber or the heat exchanger. Grade 201 steel contains less nickel and will oxidize, warp, and scale rapidly when exposed to continuous heat cycling up to ^\circ\text{C}.
The Fix: Clarify the specifications by splitting the material requirements:
Chamber & Heat Exchanger Material: 1.5–2.0 mm High-Grade 304 Stainless Steel (or 430 Stainless Steel)
Outer Shell Material: 1.5 mm 201 Stainless Steel
3. The 64-Tray Shrinking Depth Anomaly
The Problem: Look closely at the dimensions for the two models:
32-Tray Model: text{ m (L)} \times \mathbf{2.055\text{ m (W)}} \times 2.4\text{ m (H)}$
64-Tray Model:
The Geometry: The 64-tray model is significantly longer because it accommodates a double-width rack. However, its width (or depth) mysteriously . A larger rack requires more clearance to rotate inside the chamber, meaning the width/depth should stay the same or increase, not get smaller.
The Fix: Re-verify the blueprint width of the 64-tray model. It is highly likely the width should be around to allow the double-rack to safely spin without scraping the internal walls.
