"Based on the Clikstand specs, the distance from SkyLyte's burner to the pot's bottom might be as litte as half an inch given the SkyLyte's 1" height and the Clikstand's overall height of about 3". "

What in the devil is a SkyLyte burner?

--B.G.--

"SkyLyte" is my way of misspelling "StarLyte" by mistake.

On the other hand, there really is a "SkyLyte" -- a female half-elf ranger, originally from the Filitir Forest:

http://wiki.ardrana.net/index.php?title=SkyLyte

Ain't the internet great!!! But that's a digression . . .

Edited by JRScruggs on 01/15/2013 22:06:47 MST.

Dan

In past when tested my Starlyte managed 500ml (2.1 cups) on 20ml (2/3 ounce) with a little burn time to spare.

Your mod sounds a bit more efficient, so look forward to resumption of International orders! ;)

(glitches when attempting to post lead to multiple posts with no info- site or my phone?!)

Edited by MoleJ on 01/16/2013 01:22:44 MST.

Edited by MoleJ on 01/16/2013 01:17:35 MST.

Edited by MoleJ on 01/16/2013 01:13:08 MST.

For those of you that want to use a Clickstand, I could send along an empty burner container that weighs 2 grams to be used as a shim. Total height of the two would be 2". The Clickstand is 3" so that would give you the 1" spacing needed to the bottom of the pot. Place the shim on the ground and then the burner on top of it.

Sometime today I'll calculate what an average cost will be to ship International and then include the paypal button. The same evening I listed the modified burner I received 3 International orders and then I had to send emails to them asking for additional money to cover the postage. I then had to put up the notice of no Internationl orders. I shipped those orders yesterday over the counter at the post office. Customs forms have to be filled out. I have to drive 8 miles round trip in foul weather...boohoo, boohoo, sniffle sniffle :)

<center>


</center>

Side note:

In all of my testing I use a 2.5 cup capacity aluminum pot that is 5.5 inches in diameter. It has a bail handle for lifting. I use denatured alcohol as my fuel. I test in ideal conditions.

Edited by zelph on 01/16/2013 08:30:44 MST.

"boohoo, boohoo, sniffle sniffle..."
But we really appreciate it, Dan.

WilliamC3, Thank You. Guys like you are the reason I continue to ship International. Your burner went all the way to Turkey, the other 2 went to the UK. I watch Downton Abbey every Sunday. I keep informed on British history that way;) I'm still waiting to see them doing some backpacking :) (other than the military) I have friends all over the world because of the internet/stoves. It's an ejoyable experience. Thanks for making it possible. :)

The regular and modified burners are a good companion to the Caldera Cone and other light weight pot supports.

Reasons:
1. A few grams less.
2. No need to prime stove in cold weather.
3. Small in size for compact storage in pot.
4. Will not become deformed by heat.
5. Remaining fuel can be left in burner and capped for fuel efficieny.
6. User friendly

I've added the International paypal buttons to my stove store site.

http://www.woodgaz-stove.com/starlyte-burner-with-lid.php

Dan - I placed an order for a modified and an unmodified Starlyte Burner a few days ago with the idea of using the modified version with a Caldera Cone and trying to use the unmodified version with a Clikstand. If you haven't shipped that order yet, would like to accept your offer to have an empty burner included for use as a shim like you suggest for the Clikstand. Very much appreciated!!!

If the order has already shipped so that the empty burner can;t be included, I'll fiddle with the Clikstand/Starlyte to achieve the 1" gap some other way.

Edited by JRScruggs on 01/16/2013 10:55:42 MST.

Hi Richard, they were shipped yesterday. I'll put a shim in the mail today, no charge. Customer appreciation day ;)

Richard, I made a mistake, that was not your order I shipped yesterday. it was for Nick in California. oops. I'll modify your order and ship the shim today.

Edited by zelph on 01/16/2013 13:55:03 MST.

Wow! That's really nice, Dan. Much appreciated.

Makes me want to go on a shopping spree with cottage outfits to show how much I appreciate them all!!!

Note to self: Gotta be strong; resist the temptation; don't do it, don't do it . . . at least for right now. Maybe tomorrow.

I don't really like posting hard data because there are so many variables that fair comparison is tough, but here's my typical results for a normal Starlyte in a Caldera Cone.

Setup
- Caldera Cone with SKINNY/TALL 750ml Pot (Evernew ECA278)
- 8 extra hole punches around the base of the cone (not shown)
- Starlyte stove (not restricted version) with pot held 1.8 - 1.9" above ground

Note that a wide pot can be 10-20% more efficient, and that you're considering starting water temp, water volume and fuel type when comparing any numbers.

Typical Results
Methanol:
500ml of 40F Water: Boil in 9:40 using 15.6g (0.67 fl oz @ 23.3g/fl oz (29ml))
473ml of 70F Water: Boil in 8:20 using 11.4g (0.53 fl oz)

Ethanol:
500ml of 40F Water: Boil in 9:30 using 13.2g (0.57 fl oz)
473ml of 70F Water: Boil in 7:50 using 10.8g (0.46 fl oz)



Performance Notes/ Restricted Starlyte Stoves
When I vary pot height, the performance changes along a predictable curve. Putting the pot lower is slower but more fuel efficient, while raising the pot is faster but uses more fuel. So it's a trade-off between fuel economy and speed. My thread below goes into this with graphs.

In my setup, the restricted Starlyte stoves land further along the curve towards fuel economy than the regular Starlyte. So everything else being equal, instead of boiling in 9min using 0.6oz, it might boil in 10min using 0.55oz. It's not a bad trade off, but I can achieve the same thing with the regular Starlyte by lowering my pot down 0.2". So because my pot height is easily adjusted on the fly with my silicone band, I can choose whatever trade off I prefer and then is no need for the restricted stove as I can simulate its performance. By using the regular Starlyte, I still have the full potential for speed should I desire (ie. winter use).

So my experience is that people with non-pot height adjustable setups should choose the regular Starlyte if they value speed more, or the restricted one if they value fuel efficiency more. With either, you'll likely need to add a few air holes to your cone to get enough air. You can simulate this by setting a few stakes under the cone to create an air gap under the cone. Also see this thread for more discussion on this:
http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/forums/thread_display.html?forum_thread_id=71861

Full info of my setup (pg 2-5)
http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/forums/thread_display.html?forum_thread_id=57721&startat=20

Edited by dandydan on 01/17/2013 11:17:31 MST.

Thanks Dan, lots of good information there. I'll be sure to read what you have in the links.

Here is some data that Tony Beasley documented a while back:

http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/reviews/display_reviews.html?forum_thread_id=20958&skip_to_post=167837#167837

Here is a partial quote from Tony Beaselys' testing of the StarLyte. You'll notice he snuffs out the stove after each test to calculate fuel usage by weight. So by snuffing out your burner, then waiting for it to cool and placing the air tight lid on it you'll be able to experience some very efficient fuel savings.

(quote)
Testing

Test condition was in my garage at 600 meters elevation, the ambient temperature was around 170C, I used Australian denatured alcohol 95% ethanol content. In each test I place 20 grams of fuel in the stove and after reaching 950C as quickly as possible I placed a tin over the stove to put the flame out, this was the same for all tests.

I ran four tests on the starlyte stove (heating rates can be seen in graph below) in each test I heated 0.5 liters of water from tap temperature to 950C and then normalized the results to grams used to heat water 800C (g/800C). As the stove was sitting directly on my test bench and the test surface was warming up between tests I placed a cooled piece of 3 mm ply under the stove before each new test.

Results

1/ 14.0 g/80.0C
2/ 16.0 g/80.0C
3/ 13.1 g/80.0C
4/ 12.3 g/80.0C

Average of test 1,3 &4 = 13.1 grams or about 16.4 mls

Note test 2: while doing the test I noticed that the pot was not central on the stove, I must have knocked the stove off center while placing the pot on it, I decided to leave this incorrect placement until the end of the test, this non central placement showed more fuel being used than the other tests.

Notes test 1&3: in these tests the windshield was left slightly open so I could look at the flame, I suspect this might have some effect on the efficiency.

Notes test 4: in this test I had the windshield full closed, as can be seen in the results this was the most efficient test. (end quote)

More can be found here:
http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/reviews/display_reviews.html?forum_thread_id=20958&skip_to_post=167837#167837

Edited by zelph on 01/19/2013 08:33:21 MST.

Thanks for the test results and data Dan. Looks like you've got a very efficient stove/cooking setup.

p.s. It looks like all of your temperature numbers are missing a decimal point. I'm assuming 800C should be 80.0C etc.

Thank you Richard for the heads-up. I made the correction and now all is well:-)

No deal.

Is it just me, or does this entire thread not belong under Gear, instead?

"Is it just me, or does this entire thread not belong under Gear, instead?"

Bill, no deal!!!! :-)))