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.