Sterno Inferno model 70138 High-tech Sterno?

I agree with both :)
I think one needs to start with tests under very controlled conditions, to establish a reliable baseline, then move into testing under field conditions to see how sensitive the system is to ‘outside forces’.

Jetboil – now owned and run by a multinational marketing conglomerate managed by accountants and lawyers. The founders had some interesting ideas, and made some mistakes, but I would not expect much from the current mob. Yes, a HX pot absorbs heat a little better than a plain pot, but you pay for it in extra weight. It can be tricky setting up conditions where you actually get a weight benefit overall.

Cheers

I agree with some of what you said about the JB corporate culture. This new group did come up with a couple of decent tweaks on the original concepts however. Examples: the MiniMo and Sumo pots have a nice niche for winter use (melting snow), and the MiniMo stove burner, while a full ounce heavier than the Sol burner it seems to have replaced, is one heck of a great simmer stove. I think the way to look at all this is to take the best of the various innovations and concepts and incorporate what you like into one’s kit. My favorite example of this is to use the JB titanium Sol cup with the BRS-3000T stove. Mine comes in at 13.9 ounces, which includes a cuben stuff sack, a 110 gm fuel canister, and Josh Leavitt’s carbon fiber lid. This is my lightest canister stove kit that is dependable, fuel efficient, compact, and might I say, cute.

@ Dan – an update. I did buy a couple of Sterno fuel gel canisters today, and I did my test. The water bottles were accidently left in the freezer while I ran errands. I put them in the microwave to melt them, but I overdid it slightly. So instead of being my usual 45* F water it was 68* F. I didn’t want to wait while it chilled back down, so I did my test anyway. The fresh Sterno boiled the 2 cups in 12 minutes 30 seconds, far better than the previous tests with 4-year old generic gelled fuel. I noticed on the Sterno can that there was an expiration date, so my guess is that the other fuel was way past its. I’m blaming the previous results on that. I do wish someone else would do a test with their Sterno Inferno to see how fast it boils 2 cups of water. As for now, it seems like that gelled fuel stove is a very inefficient (and heavy) setup, only good for maybe car camping, if at all. That being said, $25 for a HX pot is a pretty good buy. And I’m certain that the cozy enhances its performance at just a 0.7 oz weight penalty. However, Bob is right – the HX of the Inferno appears to be inferior to that of the Jetboil. I don’t have an Olicamp pot to compare them to.

OK, I’m done. Hopefully others will report their findings on the performance of the Sterno Inferno.

I am always agnostic until I run a few well-controlled tests and end up with enough data points to produce a nice little graph.  :^)

As far as cozy/no-cozy heating efficiency with HX, I could see that going either way in mild conditions. But when it’s 4°F I’ll take the cozy every time!

Gary, make another cozy from the other gaiter and I’ll purchase it from you so I can do the side by side comparisons. I have 4 extra Infernos, I can do the testing.

Sure, Dan, I’ll make you a gaiter/cozy, and I’ll put some extra love into it for you. Want to trade for a couple of your alky stoves, and I’ll pay the difference? I’ve got to upgrade my alcohol burner, but I’m not sure which of your models would be best. Maybe try a couple of your best ones? I make my own pot stands, so I’ll just need a stand-alone stove. Stoves-&-Cozy Geeks ‘R’ Us!

Please e-mail me: drzooz(at)AOL(dot) com      We can exchange mailing addresses.

I’ll be tied up for a day or two, but I can send a cozy early next week, Dan.

__________________________________________________________________________

By the way, I averaged the cooling rates for the cozy and the no-cozy setups over a 30-minute time frame. It looks like the cooling of boiled water happens 25% faster when no cozy is used. The difference is even more dramatic during the first 15 minutes.

Ok, let’s make a deal! Will email you later.

Now here’s some interesting stuff after doing some test boils this morning with my Sterno set up using the Starlyte XL3 (got it yesterday, Dan — thanks!).

I wanted to see if I could put just 20ml of DA in it and get a boil, as per above. Got a boil in about 9:15 and continued to boil another 1:30 or so.

Next came 3 boils which were done after filling the XL with approx 90ml of DA. Weight of XL plus fuel, but not cap, was 83.6g. (rough test, generic conditions)

1. First boil in 9:15, weight after boil 72.5g, with 11.1g (approx 14ml) fuel  consumed.
2. Second in 8:45, weight after boil 59.9g, with 12.6g (approx 15.8ml) fuel consumed (rather breezy during this boil).
3. Third boil in 8:00, post-boil weight 48.3g, with 11.6g (approx 14.5ml) fuel consumed.

Pretty darn fuel efficient! 1/2 fl oz to boil 2 cups is close to the limit of what can be done with alcohol.

Great find again, Dan!  Are you selling this as a package kit (pot, windscreen, starlyte xl) yet?

Im ready to bite and would prefer to support you again, and buy it as a unit with a good profit margin for you for your effort.  PM me if you prefer

Good stuff, Bob. It looks like you nailed your Sterno setup nicely. Tell me about the Starlyte XL stove. How tall is it, and how much fuel will it hold? Also, what is the distance from the top of the stove to the bottom of the Sterno pot? I have been having problems using my version of Dan’s Fancee Feest stove that I’ve shown you. There has to be a way to get an alcohol setup to work with this pot, as you have clearly shown. It needs to have the right stove, I think. Is that Starlyte XL the one, or do you think the regular Starlyte would also work? I plan to buy one from Dan, but I don’t know which model would work best.

Bob, never mind the specs of the Starlyte XL – I found everything on Dan’s web site. I guess the only thing left for me to learn is the stove-to-pot distance you had with those efficient tests.

Gary, my pot stand/screen is 3.125″ tall and of course the pot rests right on top. The Starlyte XL3 burner was not raised at all so the distance is pot stand plus HX minus burner height. I did another burn with the regular starlyte and the efficiency was not quite as good, approximately 17 – 18 ml as in the previous test. I also did not raise the burner height for that test.

EDIT: I double-checked when I got home… my pot stand/windscreen height is 3.125″ and not 3.25″… it is also incorrect in my post from about a week ago but I am no longer able to edit… the other major BPL bug.

So, Bob, the stove-to-pot distance would be 3.25″ (pot stand) + 0.5″ (HX fins) -1.375″ (Starlyte height)? That would make the stove top-to-pot bottom distance 2.375″. Wow – I had always thought that the optimal distance was 1.0″ to 1.25″. I wonder why it works so well at 2.375″. Maybe it gives the alcohol more room to fully combust or something? Even if the flame might dance around a bit, little to no heat would be lost, as it is a closed titanium screen system. Man, there are so many variables to consider with alcohol and Esbit stove systems.

I’ve been playing with my own “Moulder Sterno R-OH System” the past week. I have a 2″ tall screen, to match up with my stoves that have the flames start at 1.25″ from the ground. This puts the stove-to-pot at about 1.25″, which I assumed was pretty much in the optimal range. I haven’t achieved results nearly as impressive as yours. This could be due to a combination of factors – (1) the wrong type of stove, (2) the likelihood that I don’t have enough air intake holes (I could smell incomplete combustion), and (3) my starting water temp. of 48* F.   My boils were taking 10-13 minutes for the 2 C, using .75 fl oz of fuel (~22-23 ml). I’ve got to make this work better. You know, so that I can be like you, Bobby M.

Gary, the number you came up with, 2.375 (2-3/8″) is exactly right for the burner to pot bottom distance (measuring the actual burner height, not the little flange around the top which is a teensy bit higher), even though the stand/windscreen height I gave above was not quite correct (now edited… the accurate number is 3.125″).

Yes, I was also surprised with the efficiency. When I did the first boil and got 11.1g consumed I almost didn’t believe it, so of course I had to do a couple more runs. Volume estimates derived by dividing grams by the specific gravity of Klean Strip 0.798….  Did I do that right? Hmmm. The increasingly quicker boil times I chalk up to the stove being warmed up when started.

For anyone who wants to replicate, I should add that the 2 rows of holes were made with the 9/32″ punch, top row with 24 holes and bottom with 26 holes.

Looks as if I just stumbled upon the sweet spot (or very close to it) for this setup. The Starlyte XL3 is significantly larger than the old, original version, which obviously changes the airflow down there, and certainly for the better!

That’s good stuff, Bob. I can’t wait try to replicate your results. That 2.25″ stove-to-pot distance still has me a bit baffled. But your results are what they are, and who am I to argue that? You are about to be even more famous than you already are. First you gave us the Moulder Strip, then the Moulder Trickle Trick, and now the Moulder Inferno Hack. You will be in line for a BPL Lifetime Achievement Award, Bob. Except that maybe Sterno has discontinued the Inferno. In that case there will likely be just a few of us that can become your worshiping groupies…

@newmexikev, Great find again, Dan! Are you selling this as a package kit (pot, windscreen, starlyte xl) yet?

I’m ready to bite and would prefer to support you again, and buy it as a unit with a good profit margin for you for your effort. PM me if you prefer

I have 4 Inferno’s that I can use to create kits as seen in one of the photos that includes aluminum lid, XL3 burner, titanium windscreen and the Inferno cup.

I’ll send you a PM

Lol, well I think Dan’s stove had something to do with it!  :^)

I am interested to see fuel efficiency tests with Dan’s cone; it might be even better.

Bob, I’ll do some tests tomorrow.

The opening in the Starlyte XL3 is the same as the Modified Starlyte burner if I remember right.

Dan, it could be that the smaller burner opening of the XL3 and the slower rate of fuel burn are the keys to this improved performance.

As always it is a combination of factors that determine efficiency. But normally we would think 2-3/8″ burner-to-pot distance is too much, although it might not be as critical as we assume… What is the distance with your cone?

Bob, the cone is 3″ in height. My first three tests were completed using the stock support that comes with the Inferno. Today I’ll do tests with the Titanium 3″ windscreen.

3 tests today using the ti windscreen, Starlyte XL3, Inferno cup with aluminum lid, 67 degree starting temp of 2 cups water. Tests were for fuel usage not time to boil. Started will full burner.

1st test = .04 ounce

2nd test = .03 ounce

3rd test = .03 ounce

The exchange fins really work well on this unit.

Will continue tests tomorrow with remainder of fuel in burner.

Great news! I can’t even measure out 0.04 oz.

A misplaced decimal point there, Dan, surely?

“As always it is a combination of factors that determine efficiency. But normally we would think 2-3/8″ burner-to-pot distance is too much, although it might not be as critical as we assume… ”
Yes, very true.
Air temp (ambient)
Wind or breeze
Water temp (start)
Type of fuel (methanol, ethanol or SLX blend)
Air input temp (preheating air to be burned)
Oxygen availability/exhaust avenue
Cleanliness of pot fins
Distance from top of stove
More, because I am sure I forgot a few. The actual distance within a half inch or so will not matter much, as you say. Given a rather confined combustion chamber, there is really no place for the heat to go except up, onto the pot/fins. As I remember, commercial kilns used to use stacked heat inlets with the heat from one kiln entering the second, third and fourth kilns and still doing it’s job, albeit at a somewhat lower temp. They were often separated by rather large distances (several yards as I remember.)

@William, I also think there is a misplaced decimal there, lol! But Dan said “fuel usage” and not boil so it will be interesting to see fuel need to boil.

IMO a scale with resolution of at least 0.1g is good to have, and sometimes I would like 0.01g….    0.1oz is 2.835g which is too large a step when dealing with such small quantities.

@James, excellent reminder about factors, and why I always say “quick-n-dirty” or “generic conditions” when I do a test without good controls.

I am going to do some better tests in a couple of weeks. Dan and Gary are sending me various stove bits and I hope to produce some graph-worthy data. Wife and I are going down to TN tomorrow to visit relatives and to do a hike in order to catch the eclipse from a mountain top… fingers crossed for good weather!

oops, brain fart combined with oldtimers end of the day drag my butt combinations.

11.3398 grams

8.50486 grams

8.50486 grams

Tests were completed under calm conditions in my 75 degree air temp garage.

Found that my digital thermometer is off by 5-6 degrees 

one of those days.