OBJECTIVE
I like the ULC style Caldera Cone. I prefer it over the Sidewinder (consumes more space inside the pot) and the regular Caldera Cone (cumbersome to store, heavier). The fuel efficiency and pot stability are excellent. However there are still some significant areas for improvement. The areas I've identified are:

1) I would like it simpler than 4 pieces (cone, 2 stakes, stove)
2) The 12-10 stove doesn't light that great in deep winter (ie. 15 F)
3) Could be lighter
4) Could pack even better

PHASE 1 - REPLACING THE 12-10 STOVE
A while ago I discovered Zelph's Starlyte stove and I was blown away. The Starlyte uses a wicking material inside the stove which makes it spill proof, but more importantly for me, it lights easily even on really cold winter days using fuel far below freezing temperature. Check out the Starlyte at -24 F here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kcyj_nYS1A

It's small size, extremely low height (just 1.8" from the ground to the pot) and light weight (14g) also really impressed me. When combined with a MYOG Ti windscreen that fits inside your pot, it's nearly the perfect system except for one big flaw. It's not very stable.



I set out to see if I could remedy the stability issue by using the Starlyte inside a ULC Cone for my 0.9L Evernew Deep Pot. I did a quite a few careful tests to see how well the Starlyte would fair inside the cone. Using the cone and the stakes to hold my pot at the normal cone position 3" off the ground, I averaged fuel economy 8% WORSE than using the 12-10 stove. However, the Starlyte is designed to have the pot on it's integrated (but unstable) pot support 1.8" inches of the ground, not 3". I removed the stakes and did more tests with the pot at the lower 1.8" height. Fuel efficiency increased nicely to 4.9% BETTER than the 12-10 stove with slightly slower (ie. +5%) boil times.



I knew I was onto something here, but I wasn't sure how to modify my cone to get the pot 1.8" off the ground. I could either cut 1.2" off the bottom of the cone, or I could just create new holes for the stakes 1.2' lower than the original bottom row of holes. I opted for the former since it would result in a lighter cone, even though I was nervous about cutting the cone and about the need that would arise to punch new air holes along the bottom as the original ones would be cut off.



I wiggled the pot support off the Starlyte stove, cut 1.2" off the bottom of the cone to lower the pot and then used a hole punched to create holes every 5/8" around the base perimeter of the cone. After a bunch of tests, I averaged 0.6% worse fuel economy than the 12-10....so virtually the same excellent fuel economy. I had succeeding in replacing the 12-10 stove with the Starlyte while preserving the fuel efficiency. I had also dropped the weight of my ULC cone from 29.9g to 20.1g - a one third reduction in weight. I also reduced the weight of the Starlyte stove by removing the pot stand to 12.1g (from 14.0g and vs. 14.5g for the 12-10).



As an added bonus, the whole thing now packs quite a bit smaller with the shorter cone and the smaller stove. The cone no longer protrudes up into the frying pan lid area, so I can now leave the fry pan lid (40g) at home and replace it with a MYOG one or ideally a carbon fiber one around 10g.

SUMMARY OF BENEFITS/CHANGES
1) Windscreen + Stove weight down to 32.2g from 44.4g
2) No significant loss in fuel efficiency
3) Lights much easier in cold winter
4) Easier lighting action since you can light the Starlyte from the side with a lighter (you could do this with a 12-10 too, but you'd have to spill/waste a bit of fuel on the outside and light that).
5) Consumes even less space inside your pot.
6) Lower, and thus even more stable than the original cone
7) Option to replace the frying pad lid and save a lot of weight

SUMMARY OF DRAWBACKS
1) Can't snuff and recover fuel from the Starlyte
2) Boil times average 0:20 longer

PHASE 2 - MODIFYING THE STAKES
In phase 1 I had improved 3 of the 4 areas I had set out to improve. Those areas were winter lighting ease, packability and weight. However, I hadn't significantly improved the simplicity of the system. I'm being a bit anal here, but I don't like using stakes in my cone. For me, they aren't multi-use because I often cook with both breakfast and dinner with my shelter setup and I only carry the minimum number of stakes I need to setup my shelter. Furthermore, the stakes are quite a bit beefier than you'd ever need to support a pot.



Trail Designs has changed the stakes they include over the years from the straight stake shown above left, to more of a traditional shepards hook shape like the one with the orange tip (not actual TD stake, but close). One small downside with these newer stakes, is that if you insert them too far, the one end of the stake droops down as the hook of the stake enters the cone wall. This gives you an off-balance pot, so it's just one more thing to watch. The original Trail Designs stakes didn't work quite as well as tent stakes, but they did work better when used with the cone, which what I (and likely a lot of people) only use them for.

I wanted to shave some weight, eliminate the drooping possibility and make the stakes more packable, so I bent my T.D. stakes as shown so it's impossible to insert them too far. I then snipped off the remaining head of the stake. Previously, the stakes wouldn't even fit in my 0.9L Evernew Deep Pot. Now they not only fit inside, they don't even enter the fry pan lid area so you don't even need to use the fry pan lid. The weight per stake dropped from 8.1g to 5.9g, for a combined savings of 4.4g.

SUMMARY OF BENEFITS/CHANGES
1) Stakes are 26% lighter
2) Stakes now store INSIDE pot
3) No risk of un-level stake surface for pot

SUMMARY OF DOWNSIDES
1) Less useable as tent stakes


PHASE 3 - MOVING BEYOND THE STAKES
I was happy with the changes made to the stakes, but I still hadn't met my original goal of reducing the complexity of the system. I would love to figure out a way to eliminate the stakes while retaining the stability of the cone, but the best I could come up with was reducing the number of pieces by 1.

This stage is still a work in progress, but I used a coat hanger to create this 'tuning fork' shape:



I punched two small holes in the cone 1" apart to use this. The 'tuning fork' needs to be squeezed while you insert it, which is a really good thing because once it's in, it can't move forward or backward. It's rock solid. You can throw the cone around, roll it down a hill - and the tuning fork will stay solidly in place and maintain the shape of the cone.

Unfortunately, coat hanger wire does not work well for this application because it's not very springy. When you squeeze this fork to insert it, it bends so you have to bend it back outwards again to fit into the far holes. What I have done is ordered a bit of 2mm titanium rod ($14 on eBay) which should be a lot more springy and capable of handling these demands without bending as it's squeezed. I should know in another week or two once it's arrived.

This coat hanger 'tuning fork' is 10.2 (vs. 11.8g for the two modified stakes). Titanium is about 45% lighter than steel, so hopefully V2 of the tuning fork will be around 6g, which is down well over half from the original 2 stake weight of 16.2g. If the springy-ness/insertion ease doesn't work out with the V2 tuning fork, then I'll have to widen the holes on the insertion side and narrow them on the opposite so that a wider fork is used that doesn't require bending to insert. I'll update this as I go.

Edited by dandydan on 02/03/2012 09:31:33 MST.

One more thing that I'm working on it finding a cap for the Starlyte stove. If I can find a plastic cap (think Pringles style) that perfectly wiggles onto the Starlyte stove then I'll be able to overfill the stove with fuel and then when I'm done cooking I can just snuff the stove with my fry pan lid (or whatever) and slip the lid on to prevent the fuel from evaporating until I want to use the stove again. This would truly be stove Nirvana :)

Edited by dandydan on 01/10/2012 11:02:20 MST.

I really like your tuning fork idea. It think it'll work great for a pot stand / windscreen combo I use for my beer can pot cook set. It's current biggest weakness is the "L" shaped 3/32" stainless steel rods I currently use. If you wiggle it too much, they will fall out causing a great deal of frustration. You know, once your stove is lit, and you are wasting fuel fiddling with your pot supports when you could be heating water...

BM

Nice post Dan,

It makes me smile when I see 26% lighter (4.4 grams savings).

While you're waiting for the titanium wire, you might try bicycle spokes instead. I've been using them as pot supports with good results for quite some time.

I'd love to experiment with bike spokes, I just figured they were maybe a bit too short. An MTB wheel is 26" and I figure the hub is maybe 2-3" diameter, so the spokes would be about 11.5-12" long, but likely a bit less with the nipple etc on the one end.

My v1 tuning fork is about 12" long. Maybe spokes are this long though...

I bought one of these....it's 2mm x 400mm (~16") for $14. If they're long enough then a bike spoke would be a cheaper/faster way to experiment though. I'd probably want Ti spokes though so see if the characteristics of the metal are going to work.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/2MM-TITANIUM-ROD-BAR-SHAFT-400MM-MODEL-MAKER-GRADE-5-/280671321562?pt=UK_BOI_Metalworking_Milling_Welding_Metalworking_Supplies_ET&hash=item4159507dda#ht_1182wt_922

Edited by dandydan on 01/05/2012 14:58:02 MST.

Dan,
You can emove the flattened area and simply fold the spoke. I think that will work OK.

I've tried spokes in the past, only to have them get red hot, soft, and then bend under the weight of a pot of water. Maybe my spokes were too thin. I have also tried 1/16" diameter ti wire, and it did the same thing. I'm now planning to order 6' of 1/8" grade 5 ti rod from McMaster ($25) and use the remainder to make some ti stakes. If I only get 8 stakes, that's still over $3/stake so I'm not really saving anything over a purchased stake, but I've got some ideas brewing. I'm not a big fan of shepard hook stakes anyway.

BM

Its possible the bike spokes could come out a bit lighter than your 2mm Ti rod. There are some pretty light spokes on the market. The lightest ones are generally butted (have varying thicknesses). Some 15/16 or 15/17 gauge double butted spokes would be 1.8mm at the ends, varying down to 1.6mm or 1.5mm (resp.) in the middle. Having less metal means mean that stainless comes out a similar weight. There are also aero bladed spokes out there, which are often stronger and lighter, such as the Sapim CX-Rays. You could use them with the blade running vertically.

There's these babies in titanium, the superlight ones I think are bladed. 2.6g for a 260mm spoke is crazy light, but I'm not sure exactly where you can buy them or the cost; that might be the prohibiting factor. For bikes, titanium spokes might not be a great idea, but for you use they would be fine:

http://www.biketaiwan.com/database/adshow.asp?t=tbs2011&p=0641

The lightest stainless spokes on the market, I'm pretty certain, are made by Sapim.

Sapim CX-Rays in 260mm are 4.34g each. Sapim Laser (very thin gauge round butted spokes, not as strong but might be easier to work with, and they are cheaper) are about the same weight as the CX-Rays. Sapim CX-Rays are available up to 304mm in length, Sapim Lasers to 303mm, you can buy them here:

http://www.wheelbuilder.com/store/sapim-cx-ray-spoke.html
http://www.wheelbuilder.com/store/sapim-laser-double-butted-spoke.html

My personal pick would be to buy a couple each of the Lasers and CX-Rays in the longest lengths, see what you can get to work, then buy a few more of that. They might not last as long as your Ti 2mm rod (fatigue), but at $1.10 a pop for Lasers, you can make up quite a few as spares and replace them periodically before they fail.

Hope this helps.

I love you work Dan! If I was a rich man I'd get you to build such a set-up for me :-)

Edit: I can see Ultra's point on the heating and then bending of bike spokes. It might depend a bit on exactly where the spokes are-if they are running right through the middle of the hottest part of the burn they could start to bend. On the other hand, if they are out of the direct flame and more to the side of your pot, then they might be ok...you can only give it a shot

Edited by oysters on 01/05/2012 17:45:55 MST.

Nice project Dan. Nice reduction in weight.

Here is how I used a modified version of the StarLyte. The pot is held up by the stove. Windscreen is held in close proximity of the pot preventing the pot from moving side to side, tipping over etc. The StarLyte is fine tuned just like the burner used in the Caldera.

<center>


</center>

Edited by zelph on 01/05/2012 20:40:28 MST.

Thanks for chiming in Dan. Does that modified Starlyte burn slower for better fuel economy/performance in a low oxygen environment? Is that the idea with the metal ring on top?

In my cone with the Starlyte, I typically burn a pint of cold water (ie. the coldest you can get out of the tap) in 9 min using 16g of fuel (2/3 oz) but that's using methanol (aka methyl hydrate) which is about 30% less efficient than ethanol/denatured spirits because you can't get ethanol in Canada.

I found some 2g Terra Nova stakes just now. I thought they would be too short, but they are actually a nice length and they support a full 0.9L pot of water with no significant flex. I didn't test it with the stove on, but I imagine Ti fairs quite a bit better than steel when it's hot, so I presume they'll work well. I'm still going to try the tuning fork idea with the 2mm Ti rod, but it's not going to be lighter than this. These stakes are 2.3mm in diameter and you can get them here individually for cheap. Anyone who doesn't use their cone stakes as tent stakes and who has a fairly small diameter cone should get these:
http://www.moontrail.com/terra-nova-ti-2g-skewer.php

With the 2g stakes, modified cone and modified Starlyte stove, I'm at 37.5g total compared to 61g for the original ULC cone/12-10 stove/8g stakes setup, and I think this one suits my needs much better too. It's way more compact and burns better in the winter.

Edited by dandydan on 01/05/2012 21:32:36 MST.

Problem solved, good find.

I know you mentioned that you don't use the stakes for your shelter, but having stakes rather than a piece of Ti rod/tuning fork does give you some backup in case of losing/bending one of your shelter stakes. I'm stating the obvious of course.

Noice :-)

Yes, the modification prevents it from "running away"

It took me a long time to find the right combination. I used a windscreen with a rectangle hole cut out and covered it with a sheet of "mica" so I could view the flame pattern while testing. I have it all documented on my blog. I should have all of you come over and we can pull up a seat and talk stoves. heh heh.HikinJim style.Just kidding.

I have a few samples of the modified burner only that I can send you to see how they work in your new arrangement. Give me some info in a message and I'll get them on the way to you.

I sent along a plastic cap for the StarLyte burners so you are one step closer to your goals. Wait a while before you put the cap on. The cap perfectly wiggles onto the burners. You should be able to fill with 1 ounce of fuel for your initial use. Have fun testing.

Dan --

Great modifications! Maybe you mentioned it earlier, but wonder if that ULC that you're modifying is titanium or aluminum?

A suggestion: If not too weak, using 1g Terra Nova stakes instead of the 2g version would cut your total stake weight in half (4g down to 2g). Specs provided on-line state that the 1g and 2g versions are both 12cm in length.

Moontrail shows "out of stock" for single Terra Nova 1g stakes, but here's Altrec listing a set of 6 for $19.95 (as does Amazon):

http://www.altrec.com/terra-nova-equipment/titanium-1g-skewer-pegs-set-of-6

That'd be about $10/gram to get the two stakes needed for your modified ULC.

But the 4 stakes left-over from the set might do duty elsewhere, maybe on pair would serve as shish-ka-bob skewers stuck through holes at the top of the Caldera Cone to roast chunks of fish or bake a string of dough into bread ;>)

Plus, one pair of the 1g Terra Novas might help secure the ULC in windy conditions by shoving the stakes through opposing holes at the bottom of the ULC and into the ground (if that's possible).

Edited by JRScruggs on 01/09/2012 11:37:28 MST.

"I sent along a plastic cap for the StarLyte...The cap perfectly wiggles onto the burners."

Amazing. I'm so excited about this. I spent several hours this week in a few different grocery stores looking for such a cap with no success. I'm really excited to try out the stoves you've mailed and the cap. The cap is going to be a nice fuel saver.


"If not too weak, using 1g Terra Nova stakes instead of the 2g version would cut your total stake weight in half (4g down to 2g)."

Hmm...yes it would cut my stake weight in half if they're not too soft, but the 2g ones seem to have an appropriate amount of strength for the weight of the pot. The 1g ones would likely work, but with a fair amount of flex. I'm also not sure the value is there since I'm in Canada and shipping is $17, so that's $37 to save 2 grams. Good suggestions on other uses for the remaining 4 stakes. If I'm placing an order anyways at a website that sells the 1g stakes I'd like to try them out sometime, but with the shipping costs to Canada, it's not worth placing an order just for these.

These 2g stakes are actually quite nice for non-essential shelter application if you're hiking in areas with decent soil. I've used these quite a bit to set up my dogs tent, and for non-essential stake outs like vestibules or extra fly guy lines.

"is that ULC that you're modifying is titanium or aluminum?"
Titanium. Do they make aluminum ULC's?

Edited by dandydan on 01/10/2012 00:36:47 MST.

Dan, re your question, "Do they make aluminum ULC's?"

Trail Designs used to make aluminum ULCs but stopped doing so because there were reports that ULC aluminum cones couldn't handle the heat.

Rand described the issue with aluminum ULCs in an earlier thread as follows:

"The Aluminum ULC did go away.....sorry. The issue was that the exhaust gasses didn't cool off enough before they escaped through the top vents, and caused a few cases in the field where the vents "disfigured" due to the heat. Titanium stands up to the heat much better."

http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/forums/thread_display.html?forum_thread_id=24196

I have one of those aluminum ULC cones (for Snow Peak Mini-Solo) that I purchased before the above issue ended production. Haven't experienced a problem with my aluminum ULC, but I haven't used it much either since I later purchased a titanium ULC for a similar pot (Snow Peak 700).

Enjoy reading about your ULC refinements. Look forward to next chapter!

Edited by JRScruggs on 01/10/2012 02:05:58 MST.

Anyone got any suggestions for what I could do for a pot lid?

My fry pan lid weighs 40 grams and I'm almost never going to use it as a fry pan. I only bought this pot because the fry pan lid was necessary to store the previously taller ULC cone. Now that the cone stores inside the main pot I really have no use for this lid so it's just adding weight and taking up space. There's easily an ounce to be saved here.

It's a pity I didn't know about the MLD 850 ml pot before I bought this setup, because Ruta Locura makes a 7 gram carbon fibre lid for that pot. That CF lid is too small for my pot though and they're not going to make other sizes (I asked). An MLD 850ml pot + CF lid + ULC cone modified in the manner described in this thread is my dream setup.

For the lid, I don't really want a aluminum foil lid, as I want something robust enough to handle life in my pack. Maybe I could cut a circle out of some thin titanium sheet (TiGoat or Suluk46), but how to attach a handle to get it off? Maybe a triangle out of some space 2mm Ti rod that I have coming?

This pot is 4.3" in diameter. I haven't been able to find any other Ti pots that are close enough to steal a lid from...and even then I'd have to buy the whole pot, so I'd end up just using the whole pot and selling the 0.9L Evernew.

Edited by dandydan on 01/10/2012 11:28:19 MST.

Wood and Ti seem such a mix of old and new, but wood is nice for a little handle because you can grab without a potholder / glove / dirty sock.

You can JB Weld wood to Ti if you rough up the Ti first with some fine grit sandpaper. Not even a wooden drawer pull from Home Depot. Just a wooden bead from a craft shop. Or a curved branch, 1/4" diameter and 1 to 1.5" long epoxied to the lid at each end of the little branch.

Or maybe a binder clip, cut in bits, would let you have the lid handle lay flat for packing but click into place for use. Just tried it - it definitely would lie flat very nicely. And there a little indent causing the handle bit to stay vertical as well.

Thanks. The wood is a good idea. It wouldn't be too hard to find a nice little piece and then drill a small hole in the Ti lid and attach the wood with a small screw from the underside. For storage, I could flip the lid upside down so the knob is in the pot and not protruding.

I wonder if there's a source for Ti that's a little stiffer than the foil sold by TiGoat and Suluk46. That stuff would work, but something with a smidge more rigidity would be nice.

I imagine that if you could add a lip or ridge around the edge of the lid, either of those titanium foils would be rigid enough. The hard part is figuring out how to add a lip. A wooden press of some kind is the only thing I can think of.

Here's a way of making a reasonably robust but lightweight lid from drinks can sidewall. The edge is pretty rough, but if you had fancy edge-rolling tools, you could do a much better job. I only have simple tools and a thumb...

I've used a 'T'-shaped piece of flue tape to make a simple handle, a bit like Nick Larsen's HS fins on this recent thread.

Edited by captain_paranoia on 01/11/2012 11:06:43 MST.

I concur with James. And if you make the main area of the lid recessed relative to the rim, it will settle onto the pot instead of being prone to vibrate / boil off and fall.

For a, say, 5" pot, I'd make a 4.8" wooden disc out of 1/8" plywood and attached it to something substanial - a 2"x8" or a square of thick plywood. Then I'd router a 4.9" circle an 1/8" deep into a piece of wood or plywood.

Duct tape the Ti lid to the routered wood (female part). Duct tape the male part on top. Take it to a friend with a press or drive over it a few times.

Practice first on some aluminum flashing.

Sorry, I think I inadvertently moved your location on the Member Map

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF&msa=0&msid=217710768001213283190.0004ac9ffae6ae244e691

-Jesse

Yesterday I got that package from Dan (Zelph Stoveworks) with the lid and two prototype Starlyte stoves. It's super awesome stuff. I'm stoked.

The lid is amazing. It's something so simple yet effective. For 2.5g (0.1oz) I can save the unburnt fuel and no longer worry about putting the right amount of fuel in. It's brilliant....considering the fuel saved, it'll be easier and lighter than what I was doing before. It also turns one of the cons of a wicking stove (can't recover the fuel) into a pro, because saving the fuel in the stove is even better than sucking it back out. I snuff the stove with my fry pan lid.





Regarding the actual testing, it's been going well. I've got a few tests each with each prototype stove and I'm trying a few different setup configurations now. So far the prototype stoves have been roughly falling along the general relationship line (ie. slower with better fuel economy) but with some interesting results that I'll get into once I've gotten more confidence in the results.

So far I have whipped up a little graph with all the starlyte tests I've done so far (includes all three versions of the stove and a few different setups). You can easily see the relationship between time (vertical axis) and fuel economy (horizontal axis). There are a couple standout tests (bottom, left two data points), one of which I think was testing error on my part and the other was a neat idea that I'm going to explore further.

I was hesitate to show the axis's because I think comparing one persons data to another persons is a delicate thing. If you do look at the axis's to estimate the actual performance numbers, just keep in mind:

1) I'm using methanol, which is about 25% LESS energy dense than ethanol aka methylated spirits.
2) I'm using a fairly narrow pot (Evernew ECA265)
3) I'm using quite cold water (40F)
4) I'm bring it to a true boil. I stop the test when the first puff of steam comes out of the lid, which is probably 20 seconds after a light boil.



Once I get a better sense of the overall relationship line/curve between time and fuel economy, I'll look for ways to shift the curve (i.e.. more efficient overall) and once I've done that I'll decide where on the curve I want to be. I'm personally liking boil times in the 8-9 minute range, as they typically get a bit slower in the field. I think my testing is fairly realistic (ie. I'm not using 70F water) so hopefully the shift into real world conditions won't be that radical.

Edited by dandydan on 01/26/2012 17:01:05 MST.

I knew the plastic lid would be the highlight of your testing so far LOL

Thanks for the update, looks like you're having fun.

Just a heads up that the 2g Terra Nova stakes don't work after all.

They're plenty stiff at normal temps, but this one got too hot and bent under the shared weight of a pint.

I have now switched to use two homemade stakes from that Ti rod I ordered which is a bit thicker (ie. 2.0mm vs. 1.7mm). Weight is up from 1.9g each to 2.2g.

Edited by dandydan on 01/31/2012 00:01:54 MST.

Dan,

I know I'm a little late with this, but I had a Walmart pot that I didn't like the way the knob protruded on the top of the lid so I took it off, cut about a 2" long piece of 1/2"; webbing, folded it in half and pop revitted it thru the old screw hole. Makes a 1" loop to pick the lid up by.Lays flat for storage.

JJ

Edited by jimmyjam on 02/03/2012 06:47:52 MST.

I have essentially the same pot set up for my 2-man trips. I have never used the fry pan lid. Rather, I bought a piece of 3/32" thick Lexan (polycarbonate) at the Home Depot and cut a lid for it. The lid lifter was simply a piece of griptease tied in a loop through 2 small holes at the center of the lid.

Sooo...that lid melted (but did not deform otherwise) at the points that were in direct contact with the pot. Nonplussed, I cut another lid from the same sheet just a tad smaller. I stole one of my wife's silicone hot pads and cut a narrow ring out of it. I attached the ring to the polycarb lid where it contacts the pot. Problem solved.

Much lighter and more compact than the 'frying pan' lid, and my alcohol stove and conical windscreen still fit perfectly inside with an 8 oz water bottle of fuel and a lighter.

Thanks for the info guys.

The lid issue has been on my mind for a while. What I really wanted to do was replace the 40g fry pan lid with a 7g carbon fiber lid from Ruta Locura, but they don't make one big enough for my pot, which leaves me with the heavier and less elegant MYOG lids.

At that same time, I've been thinking how the large cut-out in my cone (designed for feeding in wood) is negatively affecting efficiency because a lot of heat is escaping. The handles on my pot are positioned quite high, so no cut out is needed (unlike most pots).

I mulled over what would characteristics would define the perfect pot for me. I established these criteria:

1) You can get a ULC style cone for it
2) The largest (#2) Ruta Locura carbon fiber lid will fit
3) Pot handles are positioned high enough that you don't need a cut out

Only one pot meets these 3 criteria. It's the Evernew ECA278 750ml. Ideally I'd like to stay around 850-900ml, but 750ml is do-able and it'll save even more weight and pack smaller.

So bottom line is that I contacted Trail Designs and ordered this pot plus a custom cut down down. My cone is going to be perfect for the Starlyte stove, short enough to use the CF lid and have no cut out for max efficiency. That should be here in 2 weeks or so. My adventures with the 900ml pot have been great, but this is going to be the next level in light weight, efficiency and elegance.

Edited by dandydan on 02/03/2012 10:15:59 MST.

The latest chapter in my adventures with ULC cones started today when a package from Trail Designs showed up.

I communicated with Rand and Russ at TD and got this custom ULC cone made from the 750ml Evernew pot as I described in my previous post.

This setup looks pretty normal in the pictures, but it's the details that make the difference. Notice the lack of a cut out for the pot handles, which means more efficiency. Also notice how the whole thing stores without using the lid space, so I was able to switch to the 7g carbon lid from Ruta Locura.

Going forward, I think I'm going to add a few holes to the bottom of this cone to boost up the air flow a little bit. It's a bit lower than my previous cone was, so the boil times are a bit slower. Hopefully I can get it dialled it without over-doing it.

Also, I'm looking to replace the stakes with a silicone band instead. The beauty of this is that the silicone band can permanently stay in place on the pot, so the number of pieces will effectively drop from 3 to 1. I think a silicone band is going to weigh 5-6g, so it should weigh about the same as the stakes.

Why not leave the pot support on the StarLyte and be rid of the stakes and band? Configure the cone to suite the StarLyte. The cone will prevent movement to the sides and give wind protection.

Dan - that's exactly what I've done with your Fancee Feest stove. I've cut down a cone to just the height needed to fit inside my Evernew Ultralight Ti pot (the wide 900ml version) and I'm using the pot support on the Fancee Feest stove to hold the pot. This has given me a nice compact light-weight cooking setup with a minimum of parts to lose. Everything fits inside the pot. So far it's working for me and, in side-by-side tests, I'm getting similar boil times and fuel efficiencies as my bulkier Caldera Cone and 12-10 stove setup.

Dan,

Why not get the TD Fissure and have a full cone that heats the entire pot?

I just got one for a .9L Deep Evernew and it all fits inside along with the inferno insert.

That also alleviates the need for the stakes.

I do like your setup. I have a ULC for an SP 700 I would like to do this with and love the starlight idea and being able to save your unused fuel.

Edited by ctracyverizon on 02/14/2012 07:59:53 MST.

"Why not leave the pot support on the StarLyte and be rid of the stakes and band?"
This was originally what I was going to do about 5 months ago, but Rand (from Trail Designs) explained this wouldn't be nearly as stable as using the stakes. He explained that when the weight is resting on the cone, the pot and cone essentially act as one stable piece. It can't tip unless the entire thing tips. Conversely, when the weight is resting on the stove, the cone doesn't add much stability because if the pot starts tipping, the cone can just slide with it and the pot can tip inside the cone or slide off the stove. Having the cone trying to keep the pot on the stove is better than a traditional windscreen, but still not nearly as stable as having the pot resting on the cone.

Rand's explanation is longer and makes more sense:
http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/forums/thread_display.html?forum_thread_id=53228&skip_to_post=448765#448765

Also, then I couldn't use the amazing lid you sent me :)

Also, replacing the stakes with a silicone band seems like it's going to work extremely well. The silicone band weighs 6 grams, compared to 5 grams for the two stakes I was using.

"Why not get the TD Fissure and have a full cone that heats the entire pot?"
The Fissures are nice, but I believe this setup is lighter, simpler and arguably just as efficient.

With this cone, 450ml of the 750ml capacity sits inside the cone. Since I'm pretty much always boiling 500ml, there shouldn't be a significant difference in efficiency when boiling this volume. I've also got the bonus of no handle cutout, although you could do that with a Fissure as well.

In terms of weight, simplicity and ease of use, the ULC cone is superior...especially when using a silicone band instead of the stakes. There's just one dovetail enclosure to put together instead of two and you don't need to snap two cones together, so it's just as simple as the original Caldera Cone, but with the storage issue solved. The band always stays on the pot, so there's no hassle there. Super simple and easy, which has been one of my main goals.

I've ordered a skinnier black silicone band, which should be a little lighter and easier on the eyes than this one:

Edited by dandydan on 02/14/2012 11:35:03 MST.

Yep - Have to admit that's pretty sweet.

Well - Thanks a lot ... now you got me going down that road.

Did you ever find out what the plastic stove lid was from?

No. I got from it Dan/Zelph. Maybe he can tell us. I've been worried about losing mine and not being able to get another. A clear lid is easy to lose.

This is a cool project Dan! I may have missed it but what are the component weights of your current system? I love the simplicity of it.

LOL. Dan/Zelph probably regrets sending Dan that plastic lid! I imagine everyone is pestering him .... or at least I know I have. Sorry Dan. It's just good old fashioned "simple-smart".

Dan where did you get the silicone band? I've only seen them sized for beer cans (or is that what you have ... just super stretched around your pot). Again the simple solutions wins, particularly where you can reduce the number of moving pieces.

Nice work. Like Craig, I am basically following your lead here and converting my system to same.

lol ... me too about a month ago. I wanted to buy the stove with a lid but he did not have one he could part with yet.

I imagine he is trying to source them right now : )

Don't loose that lid Dan!

"What are the component weights of your current system?
Evernew 750ml Pot (ECA278) - 75.4g
Ruta Locura Carbon Fiber Lid #2 - 7.2g
Starlyte Stove w/o Pot Support - 12.4g
Cap for Starlyte Stove - 2.5g
Custom ULC Cone - 25.3g
MYOG Ti Stakes - 4.5g
Silicone Band - 5.8g

TOTAL: 127.3g or 128.6 with silicone band

For comparison, my 900ml Evernew Pot with the frying pan lid, 12-10 stove, standard ULC cone and regular stakes was 186.4g. So I've shaved off 49g and only 12 of those grams saved came from the pot switch.

"Where did you get the silicone band? I've only seen them sized for beer cans."
It's a wrist band, as opposed to a beer band. $0.99 shipped on eBay. This yellow one was a 'thick wristband' that I cut in half, but now I've ordered a regular width band since more width wasn't needed and yellow is hideous. You could probably even cut a regular one in half to pinch another 2-3 grams. Get em here:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/270704494233?ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1497.l2649#ht_3707wt_922

I sure hope it's silicone...it's supposed to be but I haven't tried it yet. I'll try it later today. I'm not sure how big the beer bands are. Maybe they're the same thing, but intuitively they seem smaller.

One neat thing with the silicone band strategy is that you can also vary the gap between the stove and the pot. So it's another variable to geek out over.

Edited by dandydan on 02/14/2012 18:20:24 MST.

"Conversely, when the weight is resting on the stove, the cone doesn't add much stability because if the pot starts tipping, the cone can just slide with it and the pot can tip inside the cone or slide off the stove. Having the cone trying to keep the pot on the stove is better than a traditional windscreen, but still not nearly as stable as having the pot resting on the cone".

Dan, I think you gave up too soon. You should have tested the stability of the pot on the StarLyte while inside the cone. Having the cone right next to the pot will give it plenty of stability. I seriously doubt if you could tip it over any easier than having the pot rest on the cone. Rand talked you out of it. Now you have extra parts and that includes the lid. Once you’ve determined how much fuel to use, that amount will be consistant from one boil to the next. inside the cone. Measure your fuel (1/2oz) and there is no need to put a cover on the Stove, just let it burn out.

I’ve had a few ask where to get the lid. It comes with a can de-solder wick. 10 rolls of de-solder wick per can. Use one roll at a time and cover the remainder to prevent drying out of resin. I have not tried to source them out as of today. I'm playing with stove/pot assembly :-)

<center>

</center>

Edited by zelph on 02/14/2012 18:17:40 MST.

I do still have the Starlyte pot support. I just slipped it back in to play with.

I can see a pretty good argument being made for using the Starlyte pot stand instead of the original Trail Designs stakes. It's a whole lot lighter (2g vs. 16g) and one could argue that it's sufficiently stable and quite a bit simpler. My MYOG 2g Ti stakes erase most of the weight difference, but the pot stand is still much simpler.

Compared to the silicone band though, I don't see an advantage gained by using the integrated pot support. The simplicity is the same since the band always stays on the pot, the weight is within a few grams (2g vs. 5g, maybe less) and without the pot support, the stove leaves more space inside my pot for other stuff.

Regarding the lid, using the silicone band (or stakes) gives me the option to use the lid or measure my fuel. So I'm not necessarily needing the lid. I could leave the lid at home and measure, but then I would need something to measure my fuel with, so I'd still have the same number of pieces. I could leave the measuring piece at home and use a fuel bottle with markings, but that's less accurate and I'd likely burn off more fuel than the lid weighs. So this decision comes down to simplicity (measurement marks) vs. lighter weight (lid). Using the silicone band lets me go either route.

Edited by dandydan on 02/15/2012 17:53:22 MST.

If your cone is not completely round at the top your silicone band is going to melt and stink. My cone is not round and will allow a lot of heat to attack the silicone band. I have pliable measuring cups that I include with all stoves. I can send you a life supply at no charge. They are 1oz capacity graduated in oz and ml.

The cone right up against the pot while sitting on the StarLyte pot support will prevent the pot from spilling your precious water/dinner. The set-up I made with the Kmart grease pot and StarLyte stove could not be tipped over or spill the contents. The pot sides was 1/8 inch from the top of the cone teepee angular windscreen.

I'm the kinda guy who likes life to be as simple as can be. I like as few pieces as possible. No one really likes stoves that have to be primed in one way or another. The StarLyte is a champion when it comes to "user friendly" absolutely no priming necessary in cold weather. The burner that comes with the Caldera requires priming. I just recently tested mine, I know for a surety. Requires matches, not a bic type lighter to ignite it.

Thanks for the offer Dan. I actually have a few of those 1oz measuring cups around (they come with the TD cones), although I've never tried them. I should give them a chance. I've always assumed that fuel usage would vary quite a bit depending on water temperature and wind, so I've preferred to over fill, snuff and recover using the vacuum nozzle from Packafeather.

Once I get this cone dialed in, and I'm confident of how much fuel a pint will take then I'll try using the measuring cup. I'm having some awesome results right now.

Packafeather fuel sucker cap: http://packafeather.com/fuelbottle.html

Last night I spent way too much time playing with the variable of 'pot height'. The results are really interesting. I did multiple (2) tests at each height and averaged the results (although both tests were always very close because I've been diligent with controlling the conditions).

The stove is 0.8" tall, so the gap between the stove and pot (which is what I'm really playing with here) is 0.8" less than these absolute pot height figures.



Important: These tests were done with very cold water (40F), 500ml of water (6% more than a pint) and methanol fuel (less hot and energy dense than ethanol), so much better results would be achieved using ethanol and a pint of 60-70F water, which seems to be more of the norm.

We can see that fuel economy improves the lower the pot is inside the cone. Pretty straight forward, but good to confirm with actual tests. This makes sense because more of the pot in inside the warm cone, plus the stove is burning slower (due to having the pot really close) which improves fuel economy. Ultimately you could probably get the pot too close and mess up the combustion so much that it burns poorly and thus fuel use increases.

The boil time results are more interesting. We can see that if the pot is too low (ie. 1.4", or a 0.6" gap) then the stove is really getting stifled and a boil takes forever (~13 min) even if we do get great fuel economy. As you raise the pot up, the boil times get faster since the stove has more room to burn. This is true until you reach the point where performance diminishes because the stove is already burning as hot as it can, and the pot is just getting further away. The fastest boil times occur in the 2.0 - 2.3" pot height range (1.2 - 1.5" gap).

With those results, we can choose a pot height that strikes the right balance between speed and fuel efficiency. There's not much point in going lower than 1.8" (1" gap), because the fuel savings are tiny and the boils get a lot slower. In the context of my cone setup, 1.8" is a good height that's biased a bit more towards fuel economy. Going up to 2.0" shaves a full minute while increasing fuel use by 9%. This is a good option for people who don't mind burning an extra 1.5 grams in exchange for a minute saved. Any pot height that's higher than 2.0 isn't going to be much faster (eventually it gets slower) and it's going to burn a lot more fuel.

So the conclusion is that the reasonable range of pot heights is 1.8 - 2.0", with 1.8" being fuel economy oriented, 2.0" being speed oriented and 1.9" likely being a nice all around compromise with boil times in the 9 min range for this ice cold water.

For comparison, my original ULC cone with the wider 0.9L pot and the Trail Designs 12-10 stove averaged 16.5g of fuel with a 8.25 minute boil time in the same conditions. This is very close to the performance I'd get with a 1.9" pot height. At that height, my setup would probably do 16.4g with a 9 minute boil, which is a wee bit worse overall, but I think most of that is attributable to the narrower pot, which is fundamentally less efficient.

------------------------------------

Prior to all the testing last night, I did add 8 holes to the bottom of my cone with a hole punch, as I felt it needed a bit more flow. That had a big positive effect (30 second faster boils using nearly 2g less fuel) and I believe I've pretty much nailed the cone design now, so I doubt I'll make further modifications.

I also trimmed the silicone band is half (again) last night. It's still working great and now weighs just 2.5g. Awesome.

Going forward, I've got the cone design and pot height figured out, so most of the work is done. I'm going to play around with different amounts of water and different water temps to get a better understanding of how the performance will vary. As well, I'm going to get out in the field and do some tests in windier conditions and with cooler ambient air.

Edited by dandydan on 02/15/2012 23:15:37 MST.

Hi Dan, pretty interesting.

I'm not too familiar with the stove you are using. Does it have a large single open chimney flame similar to the 12-10 stove?

Your results are interesting. Efficiency and time aside, for me the real interesting result is that the lower distance between the stove and pot bottom will allow for an overall smaller cone, which means that it will be easier to have a cone that fits inside your pot and possibly an overall lighter weight.

In my non-rigorous testing, initial water temperature is the parameter that seems to overall have the largest affect on time/efficiency for me. When I am out and about I will often try to pre-heat my meal water in my pack next to my back, or if I am camping next to a cold lake or stream, I will leave a pot full of water to "warm up" by itself on the bank.

Edited by eatSleepFish on 02/15/2012 10:33:01 MST.

> The cone right up against the pot while sitting on the StarLyte pot support will prevent the pot from spilling your precious water/dinner.

Not really.....the pot sitting on the pot stand is not connected to the cone. It can slide off the stand pushing the cone sideways. The most stable scenario is to have the pot sitting on the wide base of the cone....not some disconnected tiny base.

> Ultimately you could get the pot too close and fuel use would increase, because a boil would simply be taking so long that you're losing heat to the ambient air and past the peak of efficiency.

Actually....the issue of getting too close to the stove is that you can choke off the ability for the alcohol coming off the stove to fully burn....and that will be the source of the inefficiency.....alcohol goes away but doesn't provide heat. In fact, the slower you burn, the more efficient you make it. The most efficient stove we ever made didn't achieve boil until 37 minutes.....and used almost no alcohol to get there. Slow = efficient....almost always....unless you're in a blizzard.

Rand :-)

Dan, I'm interested in your improved draught through the cone. What is the total area of air holes you have now ?

Thanks for posting the component weights Dan. With your new half band the total drops to 125.3g (a 61g savings over your previous system). Pretty sweet!

"...for me the real interesting result is that the lower distance between the stove and pot bottom will allow for an overall smaller cone, which means that it will be easier to have a cone that fits inside your pot and possibly an overall lighter weight."

Yeah the possibilities this opens up was the main draw for me too. With this stove and the pot positioned 1.8 - 2.0" off the ground, you free up 1.0 to 1.2" of height (3.0" is standard height) which enables either more efficiency (cone comes up higher on the pot) or you can chop 1.2" off the cone and save weight plus be able to use ULC style cones in pots that were previously a bit short, or needed to use a fry pan lid to get the cone in there. With my first 0.9L pot, the cone went from about 30g to 20g when I chopped off 1.2 from the bottom.

"initial water temperature is the parameter that seems to overall have the largest affect on time/efficiency for me."
I'm not sure if it's quite this simple, but in my tests I've been going from 40F to 210F (boiling temp at 2000') which is a 170F degree rise. Starting with 70F water would drop that rise to 140F, which is only about 80% as much of a temp rise.

"...the issue of getting too close to the stove is that you can choke off the ability for the alcohol coming off the stove to fully burn"
Thanks Rand. It makes sense that it's more about ineffective combustion that losing heat to the ambient air. I wonder if you'd get higher carbon monoxide with the pot too low as well.

Hehehehe

Dandydan and I submitted comments at the same time and my comment came up short end of the stick.........oh well

Edited by zelph on 02/15/2012 16:02:35 MST.

"I'm interested in your improved draught through the cone. What is the total area of air holes you have now ?"

The picture below shows the 8 standard sized hole punch holes that I added in addition to the 5 larger ones that were original.

Adding these holes definitely increased air flow and improved the combustion efficiency, since before the boils were both slower (10:07 average) and fuel hungry (17.25g average). With the 8 added holes, boil time average went to 9:45 and fuel economy improved a lot to 15.65g. It's clear that combustion wasn't very efficient in the original setup.

However, it's possible that simply lifting up the pot a bit would have had the same air flow increasing effect as adding the holes. I did some quick pot height tests prior to modifying the cone, and raising the pot up 0.2" gave nearly the same results as adding the extra holes. So you've got two factors to play with here to get the combustion dialed in. The nice thing with not adding extra holes is that it might perform better in windier conditions. I didn't add too many holes though, so I don't think windy day performance will be too bad. I could easily set a rock or two in front of a couple holes on the wind ward side if it was really gusting.



BTW, this silicone band is now down to 2.5g and 1/4 of its original width, but it was a 'thick' wrist band that was about twice as wide as a normal wrist band. Even cut down this skinny, it seems to hold very well. I can pile at least 5 lbs on my pot without the band slipping, and a full 750ml pot would only weigh about 1.5 lbs so there seems to be no danger of that. I'm really happy with it.

I've ordered two normal wrist bands off of eBay ($0.99 shipped each) to experiment more with.

One thing to mention is that if you have a pot with lower handles, that could cause interference with the silicone band. The Evernew ECA278 750ml pot is the ultimate because it's high handles allow you to both use a silicone band and eliminate the handle cut out. Other pots could work with the band too, but you need a pot with removable handles so you can remove them to get the band on.

Edited by dandydan on 02/15/2012 16:15:23 MST.

Hey Dan, I love that you dive head first into modifying every piece of gear you get. A thought about the air holes: I think fewer holes might be beneficial in the sense that you can achieve higher air velocities and can get a chimney effect. Of course, too few might suffocate it, but "less is more" might be the case here. Of course, I think at a certain point it is splitting hairs.

Forgive me if I am being obtuse. I just received my StarLyte (awesome by the way Dan/Zelph) and I am debating whether or not to mod the stainless stand.

DandyDan's StarLyte data shows bringing 500ml (2.1 cups) of 60-70degree water to boil in 13 minutes with a 1.4" gap (minus stove height = about a 1" gap) between stove top and pot bottom ... target range would be 2" (1.5" not including stove height) for best all around by DandyDan's account.

Dan/Zelph's StarLyte data states bringing 2 cups of 69 degree water to boil in 6.5 minutes with a built-in pot stand that provides 1" gap between stove and pot bottom height.

Why are these data sets so different? Is the variable air? Fuel?

Dan/Zelph, I have read through most of your original posts as to how you developed the StarLyte, but I never really saw how you determined a 1" pot stand to be the right height.

Chris, I made a mistake in my previous posts when I was talking about the gap. I was mistakenly thinking the Starlyte was 0.5" tall, so when I had the pot at 1.8" I was saying my gap was 1.3". In reality, the stove is 0.8" tall so my stated gaps were off. My conclusion still stands that 1.8 to 2.0" pot height is ideal for my cone, but this corresponds to a 1 to 1.2" gap, not a 1.3 to 1.5" gap. So this is consistent with Dan/Zelph's findings that a 1" gap is ideal, and the slight difference is likely because of my cone environment needing a little more space to mix in the air. 1.0" is probably ideal with a windscreen, and 1.1" may be ideal in a cone, but it depends on the specifics of your cone. I'll correct my earlier posts.

The reason my testing results at 1" gap are worse than Dan/Zelph's with a 1" gap are:
1) I'm using 40F water, not 60-70 as you mention, so much colder than Dan's/Zelphs 69F water.
2) I'm using methanol, which is about 25% less energy dense and hot than denatured alcohol.
3) I'm boiling 6% more water (500ml vs. 473ml) as you mention.

For a better apples to apples comparison, I just boiled 2 cups (473ml) of 69F water with a 1.8" pot height (1" gap), so the only difference in the fuel being used (methanol vs. ethanol) and that I'm using a cone.

It took 8:10 and burned just 11.4g (0.53 fluid oz) of methanol, which frankly is unbelievable. If I was using ethanol/denatured alcohol, it would be have around 9g or ~0.4 fl oz of fuel (25% better). That's just one test though. Small sample size.

Edited by dandydan on 02/15/2012 23:25:45 MST.

I misread your water temperature, where you were talking about how it would be even better if the water was 60-70 degrees.

Thanks for clarifying.

I think this also intuitively answers my other question as well ... Dan/Zelph must have tested his way methodically to get to the 1 inch stand height ... which I probably never should have questioned considering his well honed reputation as a stove-wizard.

Hmmmm .... to cut or not to cut.

With a cone, height beyond a standard between stove and pot doesn't hurt that much. Many years ago when I first tested the cone, I did some tests with the 12/10 stove and found that the cones were generally spaced a bit close to the pot bottom.
Betwen 1-1.5" there was little change. From 1.5 - 2" there was a sligt change, about 5-10%. Between 2" and 3" there was only a 25% change in boil times (2cups of 40F water heated to 200F.) This is likely due to the cone trapping so much heat to begin with. However, dropping it from standard to 3/4" dropped output 25%.

Just some aditional data to work on. I had a chart of about 80 runs but it was lost when the old computer died. I have some old backup tapes...no interface to the tape drive (older SCSI) on modern machines.

n/m - double post

Edited by dandydan on 02/16/2012 16:51:15 MST.

"With your new half band the total drops to 125.3g (a 61g savings over your previous system). Pretty sweet!""

The main way to save weight at this point would be to ditch the pot handles, which weigh a combined 17.9g. Due to the low thermal conductivity of Ti, I could easily ditch the handles and just lift the pot up by the rim as I do with my 1.3L Evernew pot. However, I'm going to be eating/drinking out of this pot a lot when it's filled with really hot food/drinks (ie. mashed potatoes) so the handles are worth the 17.9g to me.

One possible avenue to explore would be the use of a neoprene cozy that would both protect me from the hot pot, and act as a cozy to keep the food/drink warm. If this could be the same or less weight, it would be an improvement.

Besides the handles, there's virtually no weight left to be saved. A 2.5g silicone band doesn't leave much room to shave weight, the 25g cone can't be made lighter, the only lighter pots are either smaller or fragile (beer cans) and the 7g carbon fiber lid is as light as it gets. I could save a few grams switching to a micro-Starlyte stove (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VT1gU7BUcF8)

I've basically accomplished all of my original goals as I laid out in my first post:
1) Simpler than 4 pieces (cone, 2 stakes, stove)
Now down to two functional pieces (cone, stove) and one static piece (silicone band)
2) Lights better in winter than 12-10 stove
Accomplished by Starlyte
3) Lighter
Now 125.3g instead of 186.4, a one third reduction.
4) Packs better
Everything (cone, stove, my spoon) now stores in a 750ml pot with no fry pan lid needed and lots of volume left over.

Edited by dandydan on 02/16/2012 17:09:14 MST.

"The main way to save weight at this point would be to ditch the pot holes, which weigh a combined 17.9g. "

Please clarify. Holes don't have weight.

--B.G.--

Better make that 'handles'.

That makes much better sense. For a second there I thought you were going to repeal the Laws of Physics, and Roger Caffin really hates that.

--B.G.--

The most efficient stove we ever made didn't achieve boil until 37 minutes.....and used almost no alcohol to get there. Slow = efficient....almost always....

Good One Rand Good belly laugh on that one.

Here is how I determined rough pot support to pot. Used a pyrex pot. I would view the flame pattern through the water from above.

<center>

</center>

Edited by zelph on 02/16/2012 20:05:24 MST.

>The most efficient stove we ever made didn't achieve boil until 37 minutes.....and used almost no alcohol to get there. Slow = efficient....almost always....
>
>Good One Rand Good belly laugh on that one.

I'm serious....and it's true.

I'm serious.....it's true.

No photos, no videos, it didn't happen

Tony would have had a good laugh also.

Dan :-)

Well, interestingly enough, Rand recently sent me a sort of choke device to beta test. Using the choke, I got a boil at about 30 minutes and a run time of about 45 minutes about 3 or 4 weeks ago in Monrovia Canyon using 0.75 fluid ounces of alcohol.

This is totally experimental beta gear, so don't anybody bug Rand for one. I'm just saying that what Rand posted above is for real.


Flame without choke:


Flame with choke:


HJ
Adventures In Stoving

I got a simmer ring too from Rand last month : )

He sent it with the ULC/Inferno set I got.

I have been using it to heat up thick soups and it works well. I have a mini fry pan with a copper bottom that it works great with to cook eggs.

It does work well. Omelet:


HJ
Adventures In Stoving

Ok ... that looks good!

Edit: back to thread : )

Edited by ctracyverizon on 02/17/2012 13:58:49 MST.

Rand's choke looks like the same concept as the Featherfire choke. Only at a fixed setting (can't tell from the photos).

I've played with a variable choke on a chimney stove before; actually, it happened by accident when making a dual-wall chimney burner for my vaned kelly kettle...



I made the burner using techniques used in the 'Pepsi can burner'; i.e. a fuel cup base into which is inserted another can. Since I wanted to make a chimney burner, I punched holes in the outer can, and then punched mating holes in the inner can before assembling the two. Assembly proved to be tricky, so I ended up opening up the inner holes (since I didn't need a good seal, unlike in a jetted burner). This meant that the inner can was relatively loose, and could be rotated. Thus, the alignment of the two sets of holes could be changed, and, in doing so, the cross-section of the holes could be changed.

I can't remember the results...

I've suggested the same overlapping circles method for air control for wood stoves (to allow experimenting with primary and secondary airflows, and to 'bank' the primary air flow to reduce the heat output).

> Rand's choke looks like the same concept as the Featherfire choke. Only at a fixed setting (can't tell from the photos).

Nope....it's variable....we'll be releasing it soon. Here are some pictures in the mean time:

> Nope....it's variable....we'll be releasing it soon.

Ah, so it's practically identical to the FeatherFire adjustment then? A band surrounding the air intakes that can be constricted to reduce the airflow into the burner.

Nice pictures of the FeatherFire at Hikin' Jim's blog

I notice a lot of these home built stoves have the chimney port made in the same way as the 12-10: the bottom bulge of the can is punched upwards, then the can inverted to make the top of the stove (you know what I mean!). The results are really neat. Is there some nifty trick for doing this, or is it a closely guarded secret?
Matt

>Ah, so it's practically identical to the FeatherFire adjustment then? A band surrounding the air intakes that can be constricted to reduce the airflow into the burner.

Nope....not at all....it does not constrict. We tried a few prototypes in the field similar to the FeatherFire and couldn't get the reliability we wanted. We went a different direction.

Re the 12-10 simmer control/choke---

a remote control option would be nice: e.g. a rod with knob rotatable from outside the cone and another static rod/strip to counter that rotation:

then, with 1 to 100% simmer control, the caldera cone would be "cooking on gas", in a (metaphorical) sense.

Nothing new to really add here...I just wanted to follow up on this thread and say how I continue to be extremely impressed by this setup. A bunch of small changes have added up into a system that is lighter, simpler, more space efficient and quicker to use than other cones.

Pros (over most other cones):
- stove lights easily in winter
- fuel can be stored in stove via lid, no wasting
- cone stores easily in the pot without consuming any volume (like the Sidewinder does)
- no fry pan lid required for cone storing inside pot (a la ULC)
- lighter due to carbon lid, lack of stakes etc.
- extremely quick to setup with no stakes
- efficient due to depth of pot + short stove enabling good (high) cone coverage around pot

I can store a small fuel bottle, stove, spoon and mug all inside this pot in addition to the cone. Simple + efficient = elegant.

Weight is down to 124.8g all in:

Pot + Carbon Lid: 82.6g (2.9oz) - lid not shown
Cone: 25g
Starlyte Stove w Lid: 15g
Silicone Band: 2g.

Edited by dandydan on 06/12/2012 23:59:35 MDT.

Hi Dan,

I wonder if you might have similar functionality by ditching the handles, and going back to your full width silicone band? The wider band would/should give you a decent grip, and be about 10g lighter than the handles.

Rod

Sweet set-up Dan. Trial and error really worked well for you.

Some good news. I have located a source for caps/lids for the StarLyte burner. I've increased the height of the burner so it can now hold 1.5 ounces of fuel.

I just completed testing some sheet cork on an experimental set-up yesterday. Cork is light weight and very insulative. Much better than silicone bands. In my video I show large pieces used for the experiment. I will reduce the cork pieces to tabs of the appropriate size for the next phase of testing.

You can ditch your handles and replace with cork tabs or band to make your set-up a little lighter. I can send you some sheet cork to experiment with and will also include some new lids for the starlyte. Send me your address and I can get them in the mail today or tomorrow.

This is the video I loaded to youtube yesterday:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5m7ul-zaCqw

You've done a fantastic modification. Keep it going, add the cork, nothing ventured, nothing gained :-)

.

.

Hi Dan,

Still no concerns about melting the silicone band?

If not (Zelph's cork idea shakes things up a bit) then I think I like your setup more and more as time has passed.

Like I NEED another Caldera!!!!!!!!

"I wonder if you might have similar functionality by ditching the handles, and going back to your full width silicone band? The wider band would/should give you a decent grip, and be about 10g lighter than the handles."

Very interesting idea. I never thought of making the silicone band serve double duty as the handle/grip as well. The pot handles weigh 17.9g, so there's quite a bit of room to come up with something lighter and possibly better. I wonder if two thin (ie. 1g ea) silicone bands (very grippy) sandwiching a thicker (ie. 1") cork band would be about ideal to create a light but usable grip. This could save weight and slightly increase efficiency by acting as sort of a pot cozy for the portion of the pot that protrudes above the cone.

"I just completed testing some sheet cork on an experimental set-up yesterday. Cork is light weight and very insulative. Much better than silicone bands."
Wow the neat ideas never stop coming. Unfortunately I can't view that video right now because I'm away for the next 2.5 weeks working a remote geological camp with super slow internet (and YouTube blocked). Accordingly, I'm not quite understanding how the cork is used. Can the cork withstand the heat like silicone can and thus replace the silicones role? Or is it used in addition as a handle/gripping surface? How are you attaching the cork tabs to your pot? And how do you join the cork to form a band? Sorry for the barrage of questions. Address is sent.

"Still no concerns about melting the silicone band?"
Nope....no signs of any trouble thus far. I've got about 25 boils on the band and I've used it with ethanol now which burns even a bit hotter. I don't know for sure I won't hit trouble down the road, but if I'm on the trail when it happens I can easily use tent stakes for the duration of the trip. Nice to have that backup.

My cone does fit quite snugly around the pot and then the band basically seals the top of the cone to the pot, so I don't get any flames or even hot air sneaking out of here. The silicone doesn't even seem that warm. If I did have a cutout for a pot handle then it's possible I would get hotter air/direct flame touching the band which might then pose problems. Ultimately though, I think the silicone is a successful solution because I have ample cone coverage up the sides of the pot that keeps the silcone higher than the flames ever reach. My tall/narrow pot + short stove gives me several inches of cone coverage up the sides of the pot. If someone tried to do basically what I've done but with a shorter cone (ie. using a shorter/wider pot) then the silcone band would be lower and thus more likely to get too hot. The ECA278 pot seems to be an awesome shape, although other pots would work as well or better (ie. MLD/Ti Goat 850ml) if you commit to the ditching the handles and order a custom cone with no cutout.

Edited by dandydan on 06/13/2012 21:19:53 MDT.

.... having the cone, mug, spoon, fuel, possibly a light load towel (or part thereof) and stove all inside.....

....whoa! I have ULC cook-system envy.

....my wife is going to kill me, here comes another order.

Edited by jase on 06/19/2012 05:59:13 MDT.

Or you could just get a Trail Designs ti Gram Cracker ESBIT tablet holder, use ESBIT or FireLite tabs and forget all about fussy alky stoves. Works great for me with my Sidewinder cone stove.

Just sayin'...

Last time I checked, wide silicone bands get as hot as the contents of the pot. If you got boiling water, you got 212 degree silicone rubber to grab onto, right? thats too hot for my fingers. In my video you see the water boiling and I'm able to hold onto the unit.

The cork I sent you has a natural curve from being rolled up a few years. cut a band 2/3 the length of your pot diameter as wide as needed to fit your 2 pick up fingers. Use high quality silicone caulk as your glue.

Cork insulates. It will char when exposed to direct flame but does not ignite redily. Cork/bark insulates some trees from prairie fires, creating savanna type areas. Mostly the Burr Oaks survive.

The cork may work for you, maybe not. Try it.

Thanks Dan for sending that. I'll give it a shot for sure.

Hi Dandydan

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I really liked this concept, so I followed your lead and tried to apply this to my own gear before breaking the piggy for another purchase.

I turns out that the Evernew 600ml short & wide pot that I purchased with my sidewinder Ti-Tri kit sits almost perfectly at the same height (under normal Esbit set up) as it does if it were placed on the Starlyte stove with pot stand. If I recall from my own measurements, I think the height from stove differed by approximately 1 to 2 mm, or 0.08 inches….close enough for me. With the sidewinder cone rolled up inside my Evernew 600, I can still get the stove and a Bic lighter, along with the cone inside the pot without modifying a single thing. Plus, I have the benefit of nesting the stove all the way down into the cone as per the original intention, maximising efficiency.

So, in line with your goals, I now have a stove that requires no priming, fits inside the pot, which also fits the cone…awesome.



So I tried to take this a step further, and see if I could fit some fuel in the pot also. After looking at every plastic bottle in every isle in my supermarket, I managed to find and purchase a small Listerine bottle (80 or 100ml I think…I’ve forgotten…however it is the same shape as the large bottles with a safety cap) up inside the cone. This worked….perfect…just enough fuel for either a quick overnighter/two day adventure. The measuring cup can also sit upside down on the cap of the fuel bottle too, inside the peak of the cone.






So...the approx. weight at this stage for pot with original lid, cone, Starlyte stove with lid = 135 grams.

Excellent…good enough for me! Although…my lid weighs approx. 30g, so if I could find someone to make a carbon fibre lid in place of the original, I reckon I too could knock off a little more.

The last challenge was to find a cup that could fit in the pot also. Well, I stumbled across one of my daughters sippy cups (she is 1…and I don’t think she was that attached to it anyways ☺), which fit well after having to cut it down a little (besides, I love being reminded of my kids when out camping...and can't wait for them to join me one day soon). I can still obtain a 1 cup measure (Australian cup = 250ml) after the cut down, which equals a normal cuppa tea or coffee for me. However, I did this with ONE slight modification…I had to take an approx. 1-2 mm shaving off the top of the cone. I had to do this to compensate for the greater circumference of the cone with fuel inside and base of the cup to fit inside the pot. This slight modification brought the height of the pot above the Starlyte stove to the same height as the Starlyte pot stand anyway…so it worked in my favour!





Done.

I also made up a cozy base and lid to fit the pot



So, now, I have an original sidewinder caldera Ti-Tri from TD made for the Evernew 600 (current base weight of 135 grams), which retains its original efficiency by sitting completely inside the cone. Plus, it is a wider pot with good surface area for heat exchange. I am obtaining similar burn/boil times as you, however I think, like yourself, have to add a few holes around the base to improve combustion.

Plus, having the Ti-Tri, I still have the option of esbit (which worked awesome in the Aussie Alps with a 40 knot wind the other day, or wood burning if I wish.

Anyways, just thought I’d share. Thanks for being ‘open source’ with your idea Dan.

Jase in Australia

Edited by jase on 07/11/2012 02:42:57 MDT.

Wow that's some excellent work. I never thought about applying this short stove idea to the Sidewinder concept. That's awesome that you've managed to ditch the pot support altogether (even simpler and lighter than my silicone band) and still get everything to fit inside the pot. Plus you get max efficiency with the whole pot in the cone and you get max stability with a setup this wide and low. It's perhaps the perfect setup in the 600ml size class. For me 600ml is a bit small (750ml is already a bit of hassle and I'd prefer 900ml) but it all depends on your individual cooking style.

It seems like there might be some more pot options out there that this would work for as well....basically any pot where the width is at least 2" greater than the height would allow for a cone that stores in the Sidewinder fashion, and sits directly on the cone at a height ~1.8" off the ground.

What is the silicone band around the cup for? Just a way of holding it with hot fluids?

So I guess the big question left is: How does it burn? If your pot sits slightly low then you may need some supplementary holes to get proper air/fuel mixing. Did you find you get good boil times and fuel efficiency? Or do you think you'll need to add a few holes around the bottom perimeter?

--------------------------------------------------

I got the cork from Dan/Zelph a couple days ago and I agree with him that's a promising concept. It appears that quite a nice pot grip/support could be fashioned that is lighter and nicer to use that the original handles while increasing efficiency due to its insulating properties.

I don't have any silicone caulk on hand, but I do have some SilNet silicone tent sealer that I think will function similarly. I'm going to see what I can come up with in the next few days.

One idea I had is that perforating the band of cork with hole punch sided holes may allow for a generously wide band that keeps the users hand off the bare metal while reducing weight and perhaps allowing better adhesion.

Edited by dandydan on 07/12/2012 18:35:28 MDT.

Hey Dan

That's for sure, a neat discovery. :-)

You're right, the silicone band is merely to hold the cup...it gets quite hot. Unnecessary though, and adds weight. By the way, I can fit my folding spoon in the pot too. I've always used a long handled titanium spoon, but purchased a folding titanium spoon yesterday...fits like a charm!

My only concern when I shaved a couple of mm off the top of the cone was not so much about the height above the stove, as I knew I had a few mm leeway/buffer (in my favour) in the first place. It was more to do with the fit of my stove around the cone. Taking any of the top of the cone would inevitably increase the diameter, so I was concerned that it would become too large. However, it fits well. It is not super snug, however it never was...it still locks in really well around the rim of the pot.

As for the burn figures...still more testing to do. I must put in a disclaimer though, my measurements are not as accurate as yours, so all of my figures are as close as I can get at this stage.

I did some testing yesterday....

TEST BATCH 1:
Ambient temperature of 13C/55F
500ml of water (2 Aussie cups)
Water temp of 13C/55F

3 test times below:
1. 9:15, 2. 9:13, 3, 9:05.

TEST BATCH 2:
Ambient temperature of 13C/55F
500ml of water
Water temp of 15C/60F

3 test times below:
1. 8:08, 2. 8:00, 3. 8:10

For the warmer water testing (test batch 2), I managed to use no more than 20ml of Ethanol (95% Ethanol) each time. On two of these tests I used approx. 17ml of fuel. As long as they don't exceed 20ml under those conditions then I'm happy.

...yes...small sample sizes, and perhaps the figures are not as efficient as they could be...but for all intents and purposes, I am happy at this stage. Like you, the benefits to modifying the set up was not all about burn times, but convenience and weight as well. Plus, these test burn times are similar (actually better) to what I was getting prior to the mods anyway.

Side thought....I wonder if Ruta Locura do custom CF lids?

That's about the extent of it thus far. I double checked my pot heights & levels, and my pot sits approx. 2mm (0.08") higher than the post stand provided with the Starlyte. For me, this difference is negligible. Despite this, I still believe I will have to place some supplementary holes in the cone to improve air/fuel mix. I may start with 4 holes....then move to 6 perhaps. I think this will make a big difference, just like you found.

Nice use & idea regarding the cork. I think the handles become more important with the short/wider pots when I consider the actual manual handling of the pot/ability to safely grip/hold the pot. The narrower taller pots would suit being sans handle much more.

I have one random question Dan, just curious as to why you prefer 900ml pots? ...just like to learn more about your cooking/eating MO while I am here/perhaps I'll put it in a PM instead.

Cheers mate
Jase

Edited by jase on 07/13/2012 18:09:26 MDT.

Your results sound good to me. Before you go ahead and punch extra holes, you can somewhat simulate the outcome by creating an air gap under the cone to allow a bit more flow. Putting some tent stakes flat on the ground and setting your cone on that creates a gap that allows more air flow (and raises your pot a bit higher off the stove), so if it burns better like that then you know you need more air holes and/or more height above the stove.

Ruta Locura won't do custom CF lids. I asked a few months ago and the answer was no. That's why I choose my pot with their lids fitting as one of the criteria.

Good point on the narrower pots being more suited to a cork handle than the wide ones. It also doesn't seem possible with the wide pots as none of your pot is exposed above the cone.

just curious as to why you prefer 900ml pots?
For breakfast it doesn't matter, I usually boil ~2 cups to make coffee and oatmeal (minute oats + brown sugar + nuts or dried fruit). I grab a few oatmeal add ons in the bulk section (dried blueberries, dried cranberries, almonds, currents etc) and then add a different one each day to keep things interesting. Lunch I almost never cook.

For dinner though, I cook quite a few meals where 500ml of boiling water is required, so when you add the food to the boiling water you end up pretty close to the rim on a 750ml pot. Not a big deal, but a little more capacity would be nice to make stirring foods and bubbling chili a bit easier to contain.

Also, when I cook dinner I like to boil 3 cups (750ml) and then pour off one cup for a hot drink before adding the food. With a 750ml pot, I end up boiling about 700ml and then struggling a bit to pour off one cup without spilling too much. So it's not a big deal, but an extra 1/2oz for 900ml capacity would be weight well spent.

Hey Dan, thanks for the tip re. ventilation testing.

Shame about Ruta Locura and custom lids, although I totally understand. I guess the other option is for me to custom my own out of a heavier duty foil, although this could lead to issues associated with fragility…which is why I prefer the stronger Ti pots in the first place. Never mind. ☺

I do like your eating/food plan. For me, I prefer to not eat hot drinks with my meal – I prefer to boil/heat some water a little while after dinner for a cuppa. I say heat as opposed to boil as I find that the water only needs to reach 70’ish degrees C/160F for a nice hot cuppa…it doesn’t have to boil. I recall reading a thread somewhere years ago (I actually think it was on this forum…written by Roger Caffin! ...writing to a thread about gas canister use in snow), which spoke of the exponential leap in energy required for heating when water changes state…. whether it be from frozen to liquid, or liquid to gas. Anyways, that said, the cuppa that I have after dinner would only really require no more than 10ml of fuel to get up to 70’is degrees C/160F (my last testing brought 1 cup of water to a boil even in just under 4 minutes with a fraction under 10ml…so I reckon even less could be used to get to 160F/70C.

But I totally get what you are saying, spills and mess created from an overflowing pot full of tasty awesomeness is annoying… I’d go as far to say it’s on par with peak hour traffic and finding car parks.

Sorry, I digress. ☺

I took your advice on how to determine whether it was just the fuel/air mix, or whether it needed to be higher off the stove too. So I did some more testing. I lifted the base of the cone AND the stove by 4-5mm (ventilation’s sake).

Almost identical conditions as previous test batch 2 from my other previous post…

Ambient temperature of 13C/55F
500ml water
Water temperature of 14C/60F.

Wow…boil times came right down. They went from averaging 8:06, to averaging about 7:30. This occurred over 4 test boils, and I was comfortably using down to 17ml fuel each time. On one occasion, I managed to hold the boil for another 1:45 seconds before flame out and loss of boil. The other ‘post boil’ times were less, averaging 50 seconds to 1:20 until flame out. All of these were done with approx. 17ml of fuel.

I then left the stove at bench height, and just raised the cone/pot for ventilation and increasing pot height. Boil times were even quicker (averaging about 7 minute mark over three test boils), however the fuel burned less efficiently as the time til flame out came much sooner after reaching boil, which may concern me in real world, colder climes.

So, I can semi-confirm now that the pot could do with some extra holes. Whilst it did burn faster when I increased the pot height, it was less efficient (which is what you determined in your comprehensive testing) plus, I’d have to modify my set up to make this happen…and it’s just not worth it for those very reasons.

So I will punch out some holes. I didn’t calculate any surface area equivalents (to determine how many holes), so I’ll just do it in stages I think….I just need to go buy a single hole punch now, can’t trust a double for accuracy. ☺

Nice research. I just removed a single hole punch from my triple hole punch to create individual holes. They're normally easily removable and then you can use just the single punch with the tap of a hammer.

Good idea with the 70 degree water. I'll give that a shot sometime.

Edited by dandydan on 07/14/2012 10:16:41 MDT.

I like my new one with the "booster cone" Same efficiency as the full size one in a ULC package. Rock on TD!





This is the set up I have been waiting for. I have been a very happy canister stove user up until now. This works great for me.

Wow. I see a BPL sticker on the Garcia bear canister. I wonder how much weight that added.

--B.G.--

It's a Bareboxer, so lighter built in.

I really should not advertise BPL. I'll go take it off right now.

Edited by kthompson on 07/23/2012 17:49:51 MDT.

You're absolutely right. I should have recognized it by the latch hardware.

--B.G.--

Dan, Did you try putting felt in the 12-10 burner?


No real weight savings without the sticker.



Nice compact kitchen.

Edited by kthompson on 07/23/2012 18:40:52 MDT.

You can switch the scale over to milligrams.

Your sticker is black on white. It might be lighter in weight if it was white on black, or maybe a cut-out decal.

--B.G.--

jason quick said: (Excellent…good enough for me! Although…my lid weighs approx. 30g, so if I could find someone to make a carbon fibre lid in place of the original, I reckon I too could knock off a little more.)

That got me to doing a little research and I came up with a way to make a pretty good lid by using some ridgelines for strength. I used tempered, anodized aluminum. The lid in the video link is 4 inches in diameter and weighs in at 4 grams with the lid knob which is most of the weight. It was hard getting my electronic scale to register a weight prior to adding the knob. Your lid weighs in at approx. 30 grams.

Give me the outside dimension of your lid and I'll make you a sample lid at no charge. You can do an evaluation for me on it's construction and useability for your needs. Give me all the pros and cons about it. Maybe I can furnish others with the service of custom, very lightweight pot lids.

This video link is private for this thread only.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYBMNYRX9qM

If you agree, send me your address in a PM.

Hey Dan,

That is slick!

I'll shoot you a pm with an idea.

Rod

Thanks Rod. I'll give your idea a try.

Eric Blumensaadt said:
"Or you could just get a Trail Designs ti Gram Cracker ESBIT tablet holder, use ESBIT or FireLite tabs and forget all about fussy alky stoves. Works great for me with my Sidewinder cone stove."

Oh My!!! Eric needs to try the StarLyte alcohol stove........nuttin fussy about that one. ;-)

I knocked off some grams on my kit today.

2 cup Foster potwith lid. New edition of the StarLyte burner that holds 1.5 ounces of fuel suspended and a stainless steel pot support windscreen that has the supports welded to the wall of the windscreen. As it stands it weighs 2 ounces.

Windscreen is welded in complete circle and folds easily in the middle to fit into the pot. When removed it pops back to a nice circular form. My Suluck screen stays in a kidney shape so I tried my hand at making one out of stainless steel. The Suluck pot support also stays irregular in shape so I eliminated a separate pot support and did the integrated thing by welding to the wall of the windscreen.

Edited by zelph on 07/24/2012 17:56:39 MDT.

I used a prototype over Spring break, and it was perfect for baking with a Caldera Cone and an Outback Oven. Review on my blog: http://backpackingtechnology.com/food-and-cooking/traildesigns-simmer-ring/

Whoa! Pizza while hiking? You've just combined my two favourite things :)

Edited by dandydan on 07/31/2012 22:48:43 MDT.

Using the Outback Oven and the Caldera Cone, I make biscuits, pizza, popcorn (don't need the oven for that), cornbread, cobbler.

Edited by rshaver on 08/01/2012 10:02:42 MDT.

You could try the ovenbag oven:

http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/ul_baking.html

You're my hero, Bob!