Topic

113g Inverted canister stove


Forum Posting

A Membership is required to post in the forums. Login or become a member to post in the member forums!

Home Forums Gear Forums Make Your Own Gear 113g Inverted canister stove

Viewing 25 posts - 1 through 25 (of 101 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1238326
    Tomas Reinhardt
    BPL Member

    @tomky

    Locale: Tatry

    Original stove: Acecamp 4708 "Volcano" weight: 153g ,very cheap. Mod. price:0
    Acecamp4708
    Acecamp4708parts
    Original pot stand 57g, new stand 16g, stainless steel wire (bike spokes).
    4708newdetail
    Small hooks in lower part of stand stop legs at 120 and 240 degree when opening, partially solves problem with stability.
    Added wire to knob regulator +1g.
    4708new
    Final weight 113g(4oz).

    #1518731
    Tony Beasley
    BPL Member

    @tbeasley

    Locale: Pigeon House Mt from the Castle

    Hi Tomas,

    Nice work where did you get the Acecamp 4708 "Volcano" stove from, it is light for an liquid feed stove.

    Tony

    #1518827
    Tomas Reinhardt
    BPL Member

    @tomky

    Locale: Tatry

    Hi Tony,
    best price is 18Euro, hungarian site:
    http://cgbolt.hu/index.php?currency=EUR&main_page=product_info&cPath=74_92&products_id=327&zenid=485adb5759556df5ed8a8ac9705f9289
    ask here: [email protected] (he speaks english)

    Yes, it's the lightest Inverted stove available, and cheapest.
    Close is new(2010) Edelrid(Markill) Opilio 170g details(German): http://www.odoo.tv/OutDoor-2009-Kueche-Special.548.0.html

    #1518828
    Tony Beasley
    BPL Member

    @tbeasley

    Locale: Pigeon House Mt from the Castle

    Hi Tomas,

    Thanks for that information I will get one to test.

    Have you seen the remote canister stove that I made some time ago.

    http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/forums/thread_display.html?forum_thread_id=16222&skip_to_post=122712#122712

    Tony

    #1562639
    Royal Magnell
    Member

    @blueman

    Locale: Northern CA

    I'm thinking about getting one of these. I'd use it for winter camping and alpine mountaineering. How well do you think it would work for melting snow? Is it fuel efficient? I'd be using a Trek 1400 pot with it.

    #1564479
    Andrew Dolman
    Spectator

    @andydolman

    Dear Thomas, Tony and anyone else with an Acecamp Volcano

    Do you have anything to add about this stove now that you've had one for a while? Unfortunately the super bargain Hungarian price has now gone from 18 to 28 Euro but the stove is still a lot cheaper, and 50g lighter, than the nearest alternative i'm considering: the MSR Windpro. I want a remote canister stove to use with the canister inverted, has anyone used this stove like that?

    Hungarian site:
    http://cgbolt.hu/index.php?currency=EUR&main_page=product_info&products_id=327&zenid=485adb5759556df5ed8a8ac9705f9289

    On the German Acecamp site it says that Acecamp is a sales partner of Kovea http://www.acecamp.de/en/Kovea/ so presumably this stove is Kovea made – should be OK

    #1564555
    Roger Caffin
    BPL Member

    @rcaffin

    Locale: Wollemi & Kosciusko NPs, Europe

    Chinese stove, from BuLin. Not Kovea.
    See http://www.cnbulin.com/en/showproduct.asp?id=349&class_id=31

    Cheers

    #1564580
    Franco Darioli
    Spectator

    @franco

    Locale: Gauche, CU.

    Roger is correct, I have that stove.
    It is the one I modified to use with the Caldera Cone.
    Franco
    Bu Lin stove

    #1564631
    Michael Martin
    BPL Member

    @mikemartin

    Locale: North Idaho

    Roger wrote:

    >>Chinese stove, from BuLin. Not Kovea.

    With those legs sitting directly in the flame like that, I'd worry about CO emissions. What do you think, Roger?

    #1564656
    Royal Magnell
    Member

    @blueman

    Locale: Northern CA

    I too, am quite interested in how well one of these stoves works. I'd probably use it mostly for winter stuff (like snow melting).

    #1564709
    Roger Caffin
    BPL Member

    @rcaffin

    Locale: Wollemi & Kosciusko NPs, Europe

    Hi Mike

    > > Chinese stove, from BuLin. Not Kovea.
    > With those legs sitting directly in the flame like that, I'd worry about CO emissions.

    Yeah, I've been working on that issue recently. It seemed like a logical explanation for some things, but …
    There's this little bit of red-hot metal in the flame next to a great big cold surface – the bottom of the pot. If the pot support is that small, is it really going to create that much of a problem compared to the 'cold' bottom of the pot? (100 C is cold compared to a flame or a red-hot bit of metal.)

    The more I think about it (along with some experiments I've done recently), the more I question the idea – for thin small pot supports. Heat exchangers on the base of the pots take this to an extreme of course. If I can get hold of the stove I will do some tests. It may happen.

    Far more significant in my current way of thinking is the clearance between the top of the burner and the bottom of the pot. I already have lots of hard evidence (published in the various CO articles) that an increase in the clearance leads to a decrease in the CO emission.

    The problem is that the stove designers see making this clearance as small as possible as a way of boosting (5%?) the apparent power output of the stove. It's marketing vs health – guess which wins?

    Cheers

    #1564753
    Greg Mihalik
    Spectator

    @greg23

    Locale: Colorado

    "> With those legs sitting directly in the flame like that, I'd worry about CO emissions."

    Roger,
    What is the chemistry behind this issue? How do hot supports influence CO emissions?

    #1565125
    Stuart R
    BPL Member

    @scunnered

    Locale: Scotland

    I think Roger is saying that a small, hot pot support has very little influence on CO, compared to a large, cold pot base.
    From my very limited knowledge of flame chemistry, the hydrocarbon molecules are broken apart by various reactions and the carbon atoms react with oxygen radicals to form CO which is then oxidised to CO2. If the flame is in contact with a cold surface it can be quenched: this means that it's not hot enough for the CO -> CO2 reaction to occur and this unburnt CO then just goes into the surounding environment

    #1565207
    Kevin Beeden
    BPL Member

    @captain_paranoia

    Locale: UK

    > What is the chemistry behind this issue? How do hot supports influence CO emissions?

    I think the issue with a cold pot too close to the flame is that the flame is 'quenched', i.e. the heat is taken out of it before the flame has had chance to complete combustion to CO2 and H2O. Thus, you get only partially burnt fuel (varying from the original fuel to the partial combustion products, including CO).

    If the flame hits red/orange/yellow hot metal of a pan support, it won't quench the flame, so the combustion isn't interrupted.

    #1565236
    Roger Caffin
    BPL Member

    @rcaffin

    Locale: Wollemi & Kosciusko NPs, Europe

    Hi Greg

    As Stuart and Kevin indicated: the second part of the carbon combustion cycle CO + O => CO2 can be interrupted or quenched, leaving free CO to waft around. Well covered in some of the CO articles available to members.

    Cheers

    #1565263
    Greg Mihalik
    Spectator

    @greg23

    Locale: Colorado

    Got it. "Red hot" is still cool enough to quench, but insignificantly so, compare to the rest of the components.

    Thanks.

    #1565310
    Roger Caffin
    BPL Member

    @rcaffin

    Locale: Wollemi & Kosciusko NPs, Europe

    Hi Greg

    > "Red hot" is still cool enough to quench
    Yup, exactly.

    From Part 1 of the CO articles:
    'atoms flying around in a hot flame which can peak around 2,800 to 3,200 F (1,540 to 1,760 C). Actually, the flame should reach 3,600 F (1,980 C) if it didn’t lose heat to the surroundings– but it always does.'
    Red hot usually means (very roughly) about 600 C: roughly 1000 C below the flame temperature!

    That's why I always want to see very short flames and a decent clearance between the burner and the pot: give the chemistry time to happen.

    Cheers
    Edited to increase 500 C to 600 C after comment from Stuart. Still a long way below flame temp tho'!

    #1565469
    Stuart R
    BPL Member

    @scunnered

    Locale: Scotland

    > Red hot usually means (very roughly) about 500 C: at least 1000 C below the flame temperature!

    The dullest red glow, just visible in a dark environment, occurs at the Draper point: 525C.
    The bright red glow that is easily visible in normal lighting will be a good bit hotter than this, but still considerably below the flame temperature!

    #1566297
    Fred eric
    BPL Member

    @fre49

    Locale: France, vallée de la Loire

    I am wrong or there was planning for BPL to release someday a lightweight inverted canister stove ?

    I do plenty of myog projects, bivies, clothes, shelter etc.. but i dont feel that brave to do a Myog canister stove as i use the canister in my shelter 90% of the time.

    My search for a somehow light inverted canister stove using all kind of canister with valves ( like the superfly "multimount" ) has been fruitless yet.

    Btw is the stove used for this modification designed to use inverted canister or not but used that way ( like some do with the windpro for exemple ) ?

    #1566686
    Stuart R
    BPL Member

    @scunnered

    Locale: Scotland

    Hi Fred

    I cannot answer your first question.

    I too use my stove inside the test vestibule and this was one reason for wanting a stable stove. My first effort is here.

    To use a canister stove which has a screw thread, inverted or upright, with the camping gaz CV canisters, you need a Markill Valve Cartridge Adapter MK92497-100

    Your last question is a good one: there are many remote canister stoves that have a preheat tube which is claimed to improve cold weather performance, but the manufacturers make no mention of inverting the canister in order to obtain this improved performance. Some, like Primus, have the adjustment knob on top of the valve making it almost impossible to invert the canister, so one may assume that it is not designed to be used upright, and yet there is absolutely no point having a preheat tube when the canister is used upright.
    My conclusion is that if the stove has a preheat tube, it is possibly designed to be used inverted, but the manufacturer does not promote this for fear of liability in case of any flare-up.

    Added: Coleman promote the use of an inverted canister with their Fyrestorm stove, look at all the warnings in the instruction manual!

    #1696055
    Sergiy Sosnytskiy
    BPL Member

    @ssv310

    Locale: Ukraine

    Hi, I've just received this model and hope to introduce similar mods. But there are some questions.
    1) The feed line is quite stiff. Moving the canister part can make the stove fall even when it has no modifications yet. Is this typical, or is it just my sample?
    2) Franco, both in the original design and in Tomas's modification the upper part of the burner is held in place with the stand. Have you solved this problem somehow, or you just don't consider it to be a problem?
    3) It seems like stability of a modified stove could benefit from changing the shape of the pre-heating tube (the tube is quite heavy and its gravity center is high). Had anyone tried it? I am afraid to break it while trying to bend.

    #1696061
    Franco Darioli
    Spectator

    @franco

    Locale: Gauche, CU.

    Sergiy
    first i have no idea of what I do, I just do it…
    Mine was meant to work with the cone so that is my pot support .
    Mod Bu Lin stove
    There is a clearance between the pot and the top of the burner of about 5mm only , however I was going to make a plywood base that would have grooves for the stand so that it locks those legs in, drops it down a bit and lifts the cone/pot another 5 mm or so . Probably a good distance would be around 15mm.
    I did bend that pre-heat tube a little bit and VERY gently and very carefully so not to damage it.
    As it happens I used alcohol and another cone with a 1.3l pot in winter so I have not finished fiddling with this one.
    ( I am now experimenting again with wood burning stoves)
    Franco

    #1696107
    Bob Gross
    BPL Member

    @b-g-2-2

    Locale: Silicon Valley

    Franco, I agree that plywood makes a good base material, but most of it is too heavy. Isn't there a better material than that?

    Currently I use a piece of Masonite, but it is a bit heavy also.

    –B.G.–

    #1696152
    Paul McLaughlin
    BPL Member

    @paul-1

    Sergiy – you say the feed line is quite stiff – but does the fitting at the canister rotate (to facilitate inverted canister use) or is it rigid?

    #1696174
    Sergiy Sosnytskiy
    BPL Member

    @ssv310

    Locale: Ukraine

    Hi Paul,
    The fitting rotates all right. The pipe is not as flexible as I thought it would be.

Viewing 25 posts - 1 through 25 (of 101 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Forum Posting

A Membership is required to post in the forums. Login or become a member to post in the member forums!

Get the Newsletter

Get our free Handbook and Receive our weekly newsletter to see what's new at Backpacking Light!

Gear Research & Discovery Tools


Loading...