Hi David, I take that as a nice compliment. While I did teach Art after my real job and the one I retired from, 28 years as a US Army Infantryman. I spent many a year wondering why I had to carry so much heavy stuff on my back and the backs of my men. The real answer was it had to take the worst treatment anyone could imange such as falling out of an airplane and be dragged behind some airborne troop while he/she is trying to sort things out, etc, etc. Anyway it was a truly great 28 years and I got to see it from both ends of the rank thing having started out as one of those RA inlisted guys.

If we learn to ask ourselfs a few questions about our gear like "how is it made" "why is it this way" "what if I try it like this" then anyone can improve what they are using and come up with good ideas. OR if they only come up with the good ideas someone will be able to made it happen.

The nice part of this web site is the free flow of ideas.

Edited by bfornshell on 12/05/2005 18:28:38 MST.

Sorry David, I guess I have been eating to much "Mag" dust. That is a joke. I am very careful and use a dust mask, safety glasses, ear plugs etc, etc as I mill the weight off my Xtreme Stove.

I have finished the "mag" casting and it weighs .99oz. Down from 1.7oz. The Mag alloy polishes up just like chrome

Anymore thoughts about the stove stand/pot stand setup?

Obviously, the work of art that you are working on is probably not going to be emulated by RJ anytime soon. Any chance you would lend him your Xtreme for the Winter SUL trip?
If not (and that's understandable), what aspects of your Xtreme mod could be achieved w/o recourse to a metal shop and specialty milling equipment?

Ok, so I got a shiny new Windpro today...and took it apart. :-)

The Windpro valve assembly weighs 30g.
The stock Xtreme valve assembly weighs 103g.

The difference is 73g or 2.6oz.

In spite of the engineering effort Coleman went through with the extra parts in the Xtreme fuel line, I expect mating the Xtreme valve to a Windpro would work just fine for full-throttle snow melting. But, IMHO, it's not worth the weight. You recover some of that 2.6oz when you figure in the canister weight. But it doesn't seem worth it unless you are carrying enough fuel for an Arctic expedition.

FWIW, a stock windpro and single 220g canister combination would weigh:

6.8oz (stove)
7.8oz (fuel)
5.3oz (empty can)
-----------------
19.9oz

Assuming the windpro can be operated smoothly with an inverted canister, and would produce similar fuel efficiency to the Xtreme (untested!), we might have (yet!) another option for Ryan's SUL challange.

This option might boil around 6.5L of water (untested!). This would require some innovative water conservation techniques and/or supplemental cook fires for Ryan to make it work. But, it's *really* light!

Cheers,

-Mike

You da engineer, Michael.
It's hard correlating RJ's and Roger Caffin's fuel consumption figures. If you take Roger's, RJ will be taking fuel back home. With Ryan's, he may need more than one canister. This was specific to the Powermax cartridges, though.

Are you going to execute full surgery on your new Wind Pro?

Edited by kdesign on 12/05/2005 23:20:47 MST.

KD writes:

>> Are you going to execute full surgery on your new Wind Pro?

Nah, it's not worth the weight. Plus, I'd have to irreversibly cut the Windpro fuel line.

On another note, it's probably too late to consider this option with our deadline two days from now and no testing done. But, I like tinkering with this stuff for the sheer fun of it -- even if it doesn't make the final gearlist cut.

Also, Bill's stunningly beautiful Ti Stand for his Xtreme might be sturdier in a "Windpro" configuration because the legs attach to the burner in two places rather than the Xtreme single attachment point. Hey, with Ti legs, a Windpro could come in around 5.2oz!

Finally, we have cold temps and snow right now. So, I plan to do some snowmelt tests with the "inverted" windpro, attempting to duplicate Ryan J's test conditions.

Cheers,

-Mike

Edited by MikeMartin on 12/05/2005 23:27:39 MST.

it snowed a few inches last night so I decided to test my windpro.
I have never meled snow before so I think my results could have been better with more experience, but I tried to use RJs method as best I could.
I twisted the canister upside down and used it on a foam pad
the stove was also on the pad with a metal base base between the stove and pad
24degrees outside (I had the canister in the freezer for 3+ hours)
light wind
I used my MSR 2L duralite pot with lid(heavy)
I melted/boiled all 2 liters at once.
it used about 2.0 - 2.1oz of fuel
it began to boil at about 16min, but came to a rolling boil at 17

melt time: 10min
boil time: 17min

even if Ryan J dosent use it on his SUL adventure,at 5.7oz, this is definately my winter stove for now on, I guess I will never use white gas again. (this may not be so bad :-))

Ok, I had a chance to test the Coleman Xtreme against a MSR Windpro using an inverted canister tonight. I attempted to reproduce Ryan J.'s recent test as closely as possible. Here are the results:

Setup:

Ambient Temp: 16 deg F
1-3 mph breeze
2300 ft Elevation
Open Country 2L pot
6" tall aluminum foil windscreen w/ .25" perforations along bottom edge
Begin with 8 fl oz seed water at 48 degrees
Boil 2L (including seed water) of water from snow
I would decant 1L of boiling water half way through and use the remaining boiling water as seed water to boil the remaining snow to produce 2L total.

Results:

Xtreme: 30 minutes using 55g (1.9 oz) fuel
Windpro: 30 minutes using 64g (2.3 oz) fuel

Notes:

1) The windpro lights and runs smoothly with an inverted canister at all throttle settings. Judging by the "roar level" of the stove, there is no detectable difference between upright and inverted canister operation.

2) I did make the mistake of unscrewing the canister from the Windpro in the inverted position -- I got a nice liquid propane freezer burn on my finger. I recommend attaching/detaching the canister in the upright position.

3) By tightening or loosening the fitting on the windpro valve 180 degrees, it can be oriented so the default position is inverted. Upright operation is still possible by twisting the hose as Ryan F has shown in his pictures. Note that the twist to make the inverted hose operate upright puts less torque on the stove than the twist to make the stock upright hose operate inverted. With the hose adjusted 180 degrees from stock, the stove can be setup in either orientation without tipping an unweighted stove over. The Windpro hose is considerably more flexible than the Xtreme hose.

4) I began both tests with a partial canister and observed constant output on both stoves (again, just judging from the "roar level"). The windpro stove output finally fell off with about 10g of fuel left. I stopped the timer, and switched to another canister, relit the stove and restarted the watch. 7g of fuel remained in the first canister. I used 6g in the second canister.

5) Using an infrared thermometer, I monitored the temperatures of both stoves' canisters and valves during operation. All temperatures were within 5 deg F of ambient air temp. This suggests that the fuel did not vaporize in either stove until reaching the pre-heat tube near the burners.

6) The snow to water volume was approximately 5:1. I.e., 5L unpacked snow would melt down to 1L water.

7) My boil time for the Xtreme stove was considerably longer than Ryan J.'s recent test. Speculation....

a) I'm not as nimble as Ryan in moving the snow around -- I had to remove the lid 4-5 times per 2L boil to add snow.

b) My test elevation was 2300ft rather than the Bozeman stratosphere.

c) Snow water content varies.

d) Variation in stove output.

e) I began my test with a partial Powermax Canister.

8) As it was difficult to determine exactly how much water would be made from a given volume of snow, I actually produced 1900ml of boiling water during the Windpro test and 2050ml during the Xtreme test. The test times and fuel consumption above have been normalized as if each test had produced 2L of boiling water.

9) Both stoves were operated at maximum output. However, no "flame spillage" was observed beyond the bottom of the pot.

10) Only 1 trial was performed on each stove. Plus, I switched canisters halfway through the windpro test. So, don't jump to the conclusion that the Xtreme is 12% more fuel efficient than the Windpro. The repeatability of the experiment is unknown.

Cheers,

-Mike

Edited by MikeMartin on 12/06/2005 22:27:54 MST.

> Roger Caffin suggests not running the Xtreme flat out for max. fuel efficiency. I wonder if this could apply to this stove as well.
Sure does. In fact, you should not make a big thing out of which stove you are using. They all have a round burner which produces a flame, and it's the flame which heats the pot. All the ones we are considering have large diameter burners.

> it's possible that the fuel consumption rate of the Wind Pro could neutralize the weight savings in the stove.
It makes very little difference which gas stove you use as far as efficiency is concerned. But it DOES matter how much heat you waste up the side of the pot by running it flat out. All the stoves being considered can be turned down enough to run at good efficiency.

Owing to my not having read this thread first, I have just posted essentially the same weight figures over on the SUL Forum channel. The one thing I will emphasise is that a 100 g canister is enough for two nights for one person, IF the stove is run efficiently. So Ryan J could get away with 400 g (14.1 oz) for stove and fuel for the trip.

Cheers

> 3) By tightening or loosening the fitting on the windpro valve 180 degrees, it can be oriented so the default position is inverted.

Old Woman time...
Please, be very careful if you do this. Yes, I have done it myself :-)
Make sure there are NO gas leaks, PLEASE!
If you want to be sure, you can add a drop of threadlock on the thread after you have done it up to where you want it. This won't prevent you from undoing it again, but it should help seal the connection. Don't add the threadlock before you do it up: it might get into the valve mech - bad news then.

Otherwise, a good test Mike.
Cheers
Roger

Well, it's not a Fornshellesque work of art, but it does weigh 5.1oz! When cold, it's plenty sturdy enough to support a 2L pot full of water. But, I still need to test fire it to make sure the legs don't soften into wet noodles when they get hot.



The supports are made from BPL Ti ultrarods. I cut them each to 25.5cm, then bent them in thirds. One leg is secured to the pre-heat tube with several wraps of stainless steel wire.

Note the valve is setup for inverted canister operation, making this a really light snow melting machine. :-)

A special thanks to Ryan Faulkner for providing the inspiration for this project.

Cheers,

-Mike

PS -- I thought I remembered seeing a post about the Ti rods weakening when they got hot, but I can't seem to find it. If anyone can locate that thread, please let me know. [thanks.]

PPS -- this stove is experimental. Use this design at your own risk!

Edited by MikeMartin on 12/10/2005 00:59:37 MST.

Excellent Job Mike,

5.1oz. Wow! Looks Very professional like a production item.

Best of Luck with the heat test.

Can someone email this pic to MSR and tell them to get off their collective rears and build it; we will come!

nice job.
a little more "purdy" than my stand.

??? how did you invert the fuel line ???

if you have snow, try testing it out.


a little of topic, but I would just like to mention that I added more holes to the sides of my stand, and now it works much better than before.

Edited by ryanf on 12/10/2005 08:19:32 MST.

Great stuff, Michael. It's something anyone could do to their Windpros w/o recourse to specialized tools.

Hope the Ultrarod stock works in long term exposure to heat tests. I seem to recall an earlier post on another thread raising some issues concerning this, too.

Would cutting down the length of the fuel line offer any weight saving rewards? Sorry, Ryan, about the confusion from the previous unedited post

Edited by kdesign on 12/10/2005 11:16:50 MST.

KD how do you cut and reconnect the fuel line?

Thank you all for your kind remarks. After seeing Bill F's beautiful work on the Xtreme, I was hesitant to post a photo. ;-)

RF writes:

>> ??? how did you invert the fuel line ???

I put the valve in a vise and unscrewed the fitting with a wrench. I cleaned the threads. Then I applied some Propane-safe teflon pipe thread compound, making sure not to get any inside the fuel line. Then I just screwed it back on until it was in the orientation I wanted. Note that the brass fitting is soft -- don't apply too much torque or you'll round off the nut. (Don't ask me how I know this....)

KD writes:

>> Would cutting down the length of the fuel line offer any weight saving rewards?

I'm sure it would, but I don't have the tools needed to crimp the threaded fitting on the hose. Also, the long hose still allows easily using the stove with an upright canister, should lighting or simmering prove problematic with the inverted canister.

Cheers,

-Mike

PS -- I found that heat weakening post. It was hidden in "Reviews", not "Forums".

Edited by MikeMartin on 12/10/2005 11:22:53 MST.

Mike,

Not everyone has access to a Mill or wants to invest in one.

What you did was very creative and doesn’t require a full-on machine shop. Bottom line the results speak for themselves.

So don’t ever hesitate on posting those pictures or ideas…

Regards

So I guess that's the only question re. operating this stove w/ inverted canisters--Will there be lighting or simmering issues?

Also, I noticed on the Z stand thread, when using Ultrarod stock that it had to have an additional element added to provide support. This is spindly stuff.

And it would appear based on the "heat weakening post" that a heavier gauge of Ti rod would make this mod structurally perfect.

Edited by kdesign on 12/10/2005 12:03:48 MST.