Hmm...I have an Evernew 1.3L Sidewinder too but it requires stakes. Maybe Jim is just cheating a bit on the gap between the stove and the pot.

Edit: I just checked and the 1.3L Evernew is about 3/4" away from the rim when using the sidewinder properly with the stakes. I imagine it burns okay without the stakes, but the gap between the pot and stove is cut in half so it wouldn't burn as well. A shorter stove might be a better option.

Edited by dandydan on 01/31/2012 00:10:09 MST.

Quick answer on a few questions here:

1) Sidewinder sitting all the way down in the cone - That is actually an approved configuration for esbit mode.....the first stake holes up are for alcohol.....top holes for wood burning.

2) Wood burning efficiency - All titanium cones (ULC/Sidewinder/Classic) are designed to support the pot all the way at the top of the cone in wood burning mode. This is for several reasons.....larger wood box.....opens it up for airflow.....and clears the handle cutout as a wood feed. Now, with the pot all the way outside the cone, the only surface area that "sees" the wood fire, is just the bottom of the pot. Consequently, the wider pots will always be more efficient in wood burning mode....narrower pots like those supported with the ULC will always be less efficient. As noted, efficiency may not be as important with wood because the fuel is so plentiful. Now....as to alcohol/esbit efficiency....

3) Alcohol/esbit efficiency - With the pot down inside the cone, the heat coming off the stove/esbit not only hits the bottom of the pot, but is held next to the sides of the pot very well....and you get really good heat transfer. So, wider pots have a larger bottom, but short sides.....taller pots smaller bottoms but larger side wall surface area. For full size cones, where the whole pot is down inside the cone, pot geometry doesn't make that much difference. The Sidewinder up on stakes in alcohol mode exposes very little of the pot to the outside and essentially all of the water is down inside the cone, so we haven't seen any difference with a sidewinder over a full cone. The ULC however, exposes so much of the pot outside and so little of it inside the cone, that it is less efficient in alcohol/esbit.....and much worse in severe weather (cold/wind) where it can really suck the heat out of the exposed pot.

Hope that helps!

Rand :-)

Edited by randlindsly on 01/31/2012 00:37:10 MST.

Dan Durston wrote: >What sidewinder pot is that, where you don't need the stakes? That's awesome.

Edited by hikin_jim on 01/31/2012 08:58:28 MST.

Rand Lindsly wrote: Hope that helps!

Rand :-)

How much does pot height above the burner matter in a Caldera Cone set up? I assume it is not as important since both the sides and bottom are heated within the Cone.

May or may not be a factor affecting heating performance but it IS a factor affecting carbon monoxide production.

Jim Colten wrote: > [Pot height] may or may not be a factor affecting heating performance but it IS a factor affecting carbon monoxide production.

The put is supposed to be 3" off the ground when using the alcohol burner. I believe the stove is about 1.5" tall and then the optimum gap is 1.5". If you don't use the stakes, you cut that 1.5" gap between the burner and the pot down in half to 0.75". I imagine at the least, it's slowing your boils down but some testing will answer this. At worst, it's hurting your boil times, fuel efficiency and emissions (monoxide et al).

Dan,

I didn't see any change in boil time or efficiency when I put the the pot in the handle slot instead of using stakes with alcohol, but I was just experimenting that particular time, and I only did it once. Maybe I'll run some more quick tests.

HJ
Adventures In Stoving

I have had a Al Classic for a some time, and get on fine with an AGG 710 ml pan, but am considering getting a Sidewinder Inferno with the Evernew 600 ml pan for solo use to save an ounce or so and less pack space. Is a 600 pan going to be large enough for 2 cup brews and meals when considering stirring and the times when the cone is not sitting level?

Edited by jhansford on 02/05/2012 07:59:13 MST.

John,

I haven't used a 600ml pot, but I've used a 500ml. The 500ml works and is very light, but it boils over when I do two cup boils, and it's a water boiler only; there's no room for stirring and such. I find myself using my 850ml pot much more frequently. It's nice to have a bit of extra capacity every once in a while if a friend comes along. Again, I haven't used a 600ml pot, but just speaking for myself, I might stick with the 710ml pot for the very reasons you've mentioned.

HJ
Adventures In Stoving

Dan Durston wrote: > The put is supposed to be 3" off the ground when using the alcohol burner. I believe the stove is about 1.5" tall and then the optimum gap is 1.5". If you don't use the stakes, you cut that 1.5" gap between the burner and the pot down in half to 0.75". I imagine at the least, it's slowing your boils down but some testing will answer this. At worst, it's hurting your boil times, fuel efficiency and emissions (monoxide et al).

"Is a 600 pan going to be large enough for 2 cup brews and meals when considering stirring and the times when the cone is not sitting level?"

I use a tri-ti and the 600ml pot - in answer to your question in one interpretation; I doubt it. I tend towards freeze-dried rehydration and that is about 450ml (usually for me)....if two cups of coffee can be got out of the 150mls left then they'd be pretty small cups....

But I suspect (?) you are talking about doing the two separately? Then yes; easily.

I should have said " I need the pan for a 2-cup brew OR a meal ". Having just gone and measured what I do, 1 brew vol = 1 meal vol, and this is nearer 3/4 pint = 425 ml, so that would make the EV600 a little more viable.

So here's an idea - I'm sure its all been discussed all already but I'm still reading & learning.

Put aside the weight advantages of wood-burning for long trips for now.

GAS on a per-weight basis wins over Alcohol in ~5 days type trip, but the Cone has a good weight story of windshield+stand plus keeping heat near the pot.

So what about a GAS-powered-Cone? A little hole or notch in the base of the cone, a tube through, stove on the ground under the pot and your canister to the side with an adjuster. Think like a much lighter version the GAS conversion kit of the Trangia?

I guess would need more/larger holes at the base and near the top due to much more oxygen being required?

Nigel,

I've seen photos here on BPL of a WindPro used under a Caldera Cone. I think a remote canister stove like a WindPro is the way to go since the fuel and the valve will be outside the Cone making the stove a) safer and b) easy to adjust. The problem though is that the Windpro is hardly a lightweight stove.

I can see using the Cone and a WindPro for colder weather but not to save weight.

HJ
Adventures In Stoving

Nigel Healy wrote: > So here's an idea - I'm sure its all been discussed all already but I'm still reading & learning.

So what about a GAS-powered-Cone? A little hole or notch in the base of the cone, a tube through, stove on the ground under the pot and your canister to the side with an adjuster. Think like a much lighter version the GAS conversion kit of the Trangia?