Thanks again for all of the feedback. I wasn't prepared, I guess, for so enthusiastic a response. In light of the arguments many of you have made for intellectual property protection and small-scale production, I have reconsidered my intitial position a bit.
I sent in a provisional application for a utility patent this morning (which is limited in legal fortitude in that it does not include a detailed report on prior patents, but establishes a first claim to a described "novelty"), and this entitles me to one year of protection in which to complete and submit the more rigorous full patent application (with all of the substantial associated fees). The provisional patent application is essentially like buying an option. It creates a paper trail and guarantees that I have first dibs on obtaining a full patent for one year.
Also, I found a Sketchup plugin that will allow me to export .skp files as .dxf CAD files, which would be required for laser-cutting. I've contacted several laser-cutting shops here in the Central Valley and in the Bay Area (CA), and I'll try to compute per-unit materials costs (including cutting) some time this week.
However, I'm not promising anything. I'd rather not take any money beforehand, and, at this point, I'm not committing to any delivery date or update schedule. My principal obligation is graduate school, and this project will have to take a backseat to that. I appreciate all of the interest in this stove, and I'll do my best to find a way to produce a batch that I can distribute to the readers of this forum, but it may be a slow-moving project.
Also, I'd like to mention some of the shortcomings of this design before anyone vows to obtain one. I'm really pleased with how it turned out, on the whole, but I just want everyone to be familiar with the imperfections.
Assembly isn't confusing or complicated, but it is a little tedious, especially the first few times one tries it. Once you're accustomed to it, it's not difficult. It can be slow going with cold fingers, though. It's like setting up a tiny model of a tent.
Also, as I mentioned in an earlier post, the 15-3-3-3 alloy foil becomes brittle after the beta transition, and can crack at the edges. The pictured prototype has a small crack. This isn't likely to affect the function, but you might find it unsightly, and it creates a new sharp edge. There may not be a way to remedy this.
Lastly, the screen is a store-bought stainless steel screen, in a circular stainless steel frame. The frame is just pressed onto the edges of the wire, and, over time, some of the wires will inevitably slip out, I think. So, keep in mind that the screen might need occasional replacement.
As long as the limitations are clear, I'm interested in hearing design feedback. Does everyone who expressed an interest see nothing about the first version that could be improved? Any ideas about the aforementioned shortcomings? I'm personally interested in trying 0.003" CP4 foil, but I won't be using it on versions that I might hypothetically distribute, because I'm afraid the thinner and softer foil might warp or bulge when red-hot. I plan to replace the ceramic-fiber twine on the door with a wire, for durability, and I plan to shorten the "crook" part of the tent stakes and enlarge the triangle in the pot stand (to make the stakes more functional as stakes). Any other ideas? What would you like to see if you were to receive one, hypothetically?
Derek, I think the top ring could have fewer tabs, and the upper part of the foil could have fewer slots. The main three might be enough. I doubt that it will be possible, with a good fit, to insert the top ring during assembly with the bottom ring already "locked in", even with a reduced number of tabs/slots. This would require a looser fit, which, for stability, I'd rather avoid. It has to be assembled bottom-ring first with the body tabs in the slots, then the screen, then the top ring, then cinching up, then the pot stand.