Subscribe Contribute Advertise Facebook Twitter Instagram Forums Newsletter
The Evolution of a Winter Stove - Part 2
Display Avatars Sort By:
Maia
(maia) - MLife

Locale: Rocky Mountains
The Evolution of a Winter Stove - Part 2 on 07/09/2013 13:50:19 MDT Print View

Companion forum thread to:

The Evolution of a Winter Stove - Part 2

samuel fonteneau
(samol)
Leg support ? on 07/09/2013 14:52:54 MDT Print View

Thanks for that detailed article.
If I understand well, the final design might be a chinese titanium head (FMS 116 T ?) with custom legs, hose and valves. That sounds good ;) !

I just worry about abandoning the "universal" self stable 3 leg support design.
A central support is great on a flat ground but not that great on a rocky terrain, one foot among the 4 (or 6 according to the last picture) won't touch firmly the ground.
Will the 3 aluminium legs be flexible enough to allow enough freedom of movement ?

Thanks
Samuel

Edited by samol on 07/09/2013 14:54:37 MDT.

Michael Gillenwater
(mwgillenwater) - M

Locale: Seattle area
Re: The Evolution of a Winter Stove - Part 2 on 07/09/2013 15:20:35 MDT Print View

Actually, I think it might be a typo.
-184 C should equal -299.2 F

or if you meant -363 F then that equals -219.4 C

Roger Caffin
(rcaffin) - BPL Staff - MLife

Locale: Wollemi & Kosciusko NPs, Europe
Re: Re: The Evolution of a Winter Stove - Part 2 on 07/09/2013 16:05:24 MDT Print View

Hi Michael

> Actually, I think it might be a typo.
> -184 C should equal -299.2 F
Chuckle - yes!
I think BPL added the imperial temps as they were not in my source. +184 C = 363 F. The web guy missed the minus sign.
I will email him and get that fixed.

Cheers/thanks

Roger Caffin
(rcaffin) - BPL Staff - MLife

Locale: Wollemi & Kosciusko NPs, Europe
Re: Leg support ? on 07/09/2013 16:16:20 MDT Print View

Hi Samuel

> I just worry about abandoning the "universal" self stable 3 leg support design.
> A central support is great on a flat ground but not that great on a rocky terrain,
> one foot among the 4 (or 6 according to the last picture) won't touch firmly the
> ground.
Yes, there is a trade-off here.

Remember that this is a winter stove, so it gets used on snow sometimes. It also gets used on rough bumpy terrain, lumpy snow grass, sloping rock, even sand. The trad 3-legs design does not work well on any of those in my experience. I seem to always use my little 3-ply stove base, first getting it level and solid.

In addition there is the skittering 'UL stove' problem which also needs attention. I don't want too much 'freedom of movement' with my stove - that gets dangerous. I find the micro-stakes very reliable in stabilising the stove. Part 3 has more details and alternatives here.

Summer uprights have a nice heavy canister as a base - lucky them!

Cheers

Michael Gillenwater
(mwgillenwater) - M

Locale: Seattle area
Re: Re: Re: The Evolution of a Winter Stove - Part 2 on 07/09/2013 16:23:46 MDT Print View

No worries. Although that does not mean the minimum operating temperature is 184C?

More importantly, I'm at least waiting eagerly for the final installment and where to click purchase. I think you have earned another doctorate in stove design and manufacturing here. Impressive work.

Roger Caffin
(rcaffin) - BPL Staff - MLife

Locale: Wollemi & Kosciusko NPs, Europe
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Evolution of a Winter Stove - Part 2 on 07/09/2013 16:39:21 MDT Print View

Hi Michael

> Although that does not mean the minimum operating temperature is 184C?
It means the minimum operating temperature for the HOSE is MINUS 184 C. That is down at the boiling point of liquid oxygen (-183 C). You don't want to go there.

Cheers

Michael Flanagan
(mikelaw) - M

Locale: Long Island
Stove Stakes on 07/10/2013 08:43:58 MDT Print View

Not sure if you want a design committee comprised of readers but I'll just throw in my two cents: Why not have the "stove stakes" hinged somewhere on each leg? That way there's no chance of losing them and they could be folded into the leg when not needed (if ever). The stove stake could also serve the purpose of acting as a leveler of sorts by varying how much you push the stake into the ground if you're cooking on uneven ground or on a slope.

I don't think you can make the design dependent on their use since the stakes could only be employed into dirt and not rock.

Just a thought.

Edited by mikelaw on 07/10/2013 12:18:07 MDT.

Doug Johnson
(djohnson) - MLife

Locale: Washington State
Re: The Evolution of a Winter Stove - Part 2 on 07/10/2013 12:59:02 MDT Print View

I am loving this series- thank you Roger!

Roger Caffin
(rcaffin) - BPL Staff - MLife

Locale: Wollemi & Kosciusko NPs, Europe
Re: Stove Stakes on 07/10/2013 15:58:54 MDT Print View

Hi Michael F

> Why not have the "stove stakes" hinged somewhere on each leg?
Neat idea, but how? Ideas from anyone welcome.

> I don't think you can make the design dependent on their use since the stakes could
> only be employed into dirt and not rock.
I agree, which is why they are separate at present. More on this in Part 3.

Cheers

Edited by rcaffin on 07/10/2013 15:59:26 MDT.

Paul McLaughlin
(paul) - MLife
Re: Re: Stove Stakes on 07/10/2013 22:22:40 MDT Print View

"stake" in the form of a small eyebolt but not threaded; riveted to each leg with plastic washer(s) for friction fit; rotate into downward position for use as stake; rotate into retracted position when on hard surfaces

Roger Caffin
(rcaffin) - BPL Staff - MLife

Locale: Wollemi & Kosciusko NPs, Europe
Re: Re: Re: Stove Stakes on 07/10/2013 22:40:55 MDT Print View

Hi Paul

Hum ... I will have to think about that one for a bit. Turning 1.6 mm Ti or Al wire into an eyebolt sounds a bit tricky, and rivets and washers add weight too.
Deep Thought required.

Cheers

J C
(Joomy) - M
117 on 07/11/2013 05:24:48 MDT Print View

My FMS-117t does not have the body touching the ground. Seems to be something they changed.

I am thinking about modifying my 117T, any ideas about how to get the hose out of the base? Does it involve the tiny screw in the base?

Edited by Joomy on 07/11/2013 05:31:29 MDT.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: 117 on 07/11/2013 08:13:06 MDT Print View

If the body touches the ground, then you now have 4 points touching the ground so it can be wobbly on slightly uneven ground. "Three legged stools" have advantages. But if the 3 legs are springy it wouldn't matter.

Paul McLaughlin
(paul) - MLife
Re: Re: Re: Re: Stove Stakes on 07/11/2013 15:54:57 MDT Print View

Yep, probably a tad heavier if attached. But you won't lose them, and they would be where you need them when you need them. Could also be laser or waterjet cut out of sheet stock.

Roger Caffin
(rcaffin) - BPL Staff - MLife

Locale: Wollemi & Kosciusko NPs, Europe
Re: Re: 117 on 07/11/2013 15:59:52 MDT Print View

Hi Jerry

> But if the 3 legs are springy it wouldn't matter.
Yes, it's a trade-off. 3 big solid legs would work fine - but they would be heavier.
I do have a different sort of leg which does not have the centre support. It works, but the springiness seems a bit chancy in comparison. The wobble is definitely obvious.

Cheers

Tanner M
(Tan68)
Re: Re: Re: The Evolution of a Winter Stove - Part 2 on 07/12/2013 08:23:35 MDT Print View

> I think BPL added the imperial temps as they were not in my source.

I had planned to write a note of thanks. I noticed the article had unit conversions and other articles had not. I think it is a nice addition.

When I make notes, I include conversions. It takes me some time but saves many man-hours of conversion time for the other people.

Maybe the BPL-guy with + in his eyes will read this; it is his thank you.

Tanner M
(Tan68)
Re: Re: Re: stiffening tripod legs on 07/12/2013 09:00:47 MDT Print View

> I do have a different sort of leg which does not have the centre support. It works, but the springiness seems a bit chancy in comparison. The wobble is definitely obvious.

This might be a little difficult to describe. I am thinking of the cheap type of photographic tripod that has the center supports to stiffen light legs. Well, very expensive video tripods have these supports as well.

Anyway, there are the three legs, of course, and these make it possible to always have good contact with no leg/earth wobble/totter.

About 2/3 way up the leg are cross members to connect the three legs to a central support. These cross members are hinged and fold out of the way when the tripod is collapsed. The central support could be your burner tube.

I suppose little rods could run from each leg to the burner tube/housing. I don't think a hinged rod that remains in place, as with the photo tripod, is practical. The rod may be hinged on one end or come free altogether. On the burner end, there could be a little dimple or receiver for the end of the rod/wire. Securing the leg end of the rod is an exercise. Threaded sleeve magically attached to the side of each burner leg?

I think just running the rod from tripod leg to leg without meeting in the center would add stiffness. This might be easier to implement.

Running around the perimeter allows at least two methods of implementing the idea. Three rods could be used to run between the legs without heading to the center. I wouldn't position them 2/3 up. Maybe halfway up.

The rod could slide through an opening in one leg and into a receiver on the adjacent leg. The opening in the first leg could be a threaded sleeve (attached with any remaining magic) that the rod, threaded at the end, could be screwed into. Attaching the threaded sleeve to you stove leg probably isn't practical. Tapping the leg itself probably wouldn't be enough simpler.

What might work is to make a wire loop pre-bent for the triangular shape of the tripod. The wire could be thin. It just needs to be strong enough to put tension on the legs. Each stove leg could have a little groove for the wire to seat in. The two ends of the wire could be joined and tightened by a couple different ways. Some kind of tiny turnbuckle type arrangement. Whatever.

[the whatever would need to be something that could be finger tightened easily enough to properly tension the hoop. for this reason i don't think a typical turnbuckle that requires a wrench is practical. the user doesn't need a little tool to deal with. I can't imagine a micro turnbuckle has a built-in lever..? maybe little turnbuckles with flattened edges exist. the turnbuckle equivalent to a wing nut.]

If it adds enough stiffness and allows 3 points of contact to be viable, it might be worth the trouble. If the burner housing can be smaller because it doesn't need extend to the ground, that weight saved would offset the connector rods or wire.

It does add to the assembly for the user. Increased fiddle factor. Most stoves just fold open... The hoop wouldn't always need to be used. It could be lost or not used when it should be. It creates a bit of room for user misdecision. Error. Pegs a user must place to secure a stove are also a thing they could lose or fail to use. I guess it depends on the user and the number of warning labels on the packaging :^)

I don't think I would worry with Deep Thought. The answer is 42. If the tripod legs are wobbly, I wouldn't give up on the benefits of tripod design. I would consider stiffening them. If the legs flex in and out, use a wire hoop to pre-flex them in and prevent the out...

Edited by Tan68 on 07/12/2013 09:14:25 MDT.

Tanner M
(Tan68)
Re: Re: Leg support ? on 07/12/2013 09:43:52 MDT Print View

> ...used on snow sometimes. It also gets used on rough bumpy terrain, lumpy snow grass, sloping rock, even sand. The trad 3-legs design does not work well on any of those ...

Three legs always work well for a stable platform. Without independently adjustable legs, the ground needs to be fairly level, of course. So the average slope of any surface can not be great. However three legs will always form a stable connection with surfaces that are not uniformly level. If three legs don't work well on soft surfaces, they need a broader foot. [or the board you use, of course. i agree boader feet on stoves isn't really desirable]

I guess it would be pretty easy to create a firm enough surface with snow. Unless it is very dry. The skitter factor remains. Shifting sand is hard. Is this sand enough to make dunes that are difficult to walk on? I haven't been to any classic 'dune' type deserts where there wasn't some rock reasonably nearby. I have only been around little dunes with safe haven from the spice worms. Dry sand only... I might put a cloth under the stove legs to distribute the load. The fabric would need to be reasonable stiff to be of any use and might not be a good idea if wind could get under it and lift it and the stove. If I worked on soft surfaces often and it really was a trouble, I might try baskets of some sort. They work for skiers. Probably not... A tripod would sit on the top curved surface of a rock. The rock doesn't need to be level. The radius/dome of the top just needs to not exceed the area/arc bound by the tripod legs. Or however it should be described.

I guess I am pro-tripod because I use one regularly with my camera. While it has independently adjustable legs and allows more freedom in site selection, I have set it up on just about every type of surface someone is typically going to find acceptable for cooking. Yeah, I have had to stamp down snow to prevent it sinking.

Edited by Tan68 on 07/12/2013 09:52:30 MDT.

Thomas Rayl
(trayl) - MLife

Locale: SE Tx
Stove stakes on 07/12/2013 12:16:15 MDT Print View

I like the thought but I'm wary of tiny, easily-lost, single-use parts. Personally, I also am not a fan of "shepherd's crook" pins/stakes: I too often find hard ground requiring stakes to be pounded in (room for another whole thread on this one!). My personal favorite is the MSR Groundhog stakes -- a three-flute straight stake with a cord loop at the top. Relevance? How about forming the stove legs with a slight nub/bump/spur or something at the TOP of the outer leg ends so a full-size stake (shepherd's crook or straight-with-loop) can hook over it. Take extra stakes of what you're already using and you have inherent back-ups. Granted, not necessarily the lightest, but each can judge the feasibility on their own. And the stove design itself perhaps stays a bit "cleaner".

Edited by trayl on 07/12/2013 12:17:33 MDT.