Jun 30, 2008 at 4:39 pm #1229920
This is my latest stove it is called SUUL stove (Super Ultra Ultra Light) its total weight is 8.8 grams and that includes burner, pot stand, fuel line and control valve.
This stove has only been designed to support a small pot of a volume of around 500ml.
Pot stand 2.1355g
Pre-heat tube and jet 0.5825g
Fuel line 0.3105g
Total weight 8.7751g
This stove has been an exercise in how light I can make a remote canister liquid feed stove, pot stand and valve, I was hoping to get the total under 8g but the valve turned out at a disappointingly heavy 3.8g, I am worried if I go much lighter that I will go below an accepted level of safety.
Every part on this stove has been home made.
The burner tube is made from aluminium with a Ti burner plate.
The pre-heat tube is made from 1mm SS tube and brazed to a small brass fitting that screws into the base burner.
The jet is made of brass and weighs only 0.045g.
The valve is made from a solid piece of aluminium, it has a Ti needle valve with a Beryllium copper handle, the fuel line is connected to a 1mm SS tube pressed into the Valve body, the lindal valve is depressed by a Ti pin.
The fuel line is high temperature resistance PTFE clamped on with small brass ferrules.
The Burner is supported on a piece of aluminium cut out from a cat food can.
I was hoping to add a windscreen and keep the total weight below 10g but I am still 0.2g heavy.
The stove has only been tested in the workshop, I have used it to make several cups of tea. It has been a learning experience and I will now start to make a stove which can be used with larger pots and Coleman Max canisters which I am hoping to use it as my main stove.
SUUL top view
front view with canister attached
Burner and pot stand
SUUL flame under potJun 30, 2008 at 6:07 pm #1440905
@bfornshellLocale: Southern Texas
I can attest to Tony's superb skill as a craftsman. I have been testing one of his Super Ultra Ultra Light (SUUL) valve assemblies for the Coleman Xtreme / PowerMax canister – stove.
It is a work of pure art. The stock Coleman Valve assembly weighs 104.6 grams. The Modified valve assembly I made weighed 74.1 grams. Tony's Valve assembly weighs 19 grams with the optional heavy handle. Tony's valve assembly is a pure work of creative genius.
I have had mine for just over a month. It has been used a lot and works fine.
I will give him the honor of posting a few pictures of it when he is ready to.Jun 30, 2008 at 7:08 pm #1440918
In jeopardy of soiling this rather ethereal thread, let me express my sympathy for the disappointingly heavy 3.8g valve.
I'm sorry for your lack of loss, Tony.Jun 30, 2008 at 7:42 pm #1440928
@sharaldsLocale: Gallatin Range
8.8 grams? I had to do a double and then triple take on that to make sure I'd read it right! Beautiful work, Tony.Jun 30, 2008 at 7:43 pm #1440929
@markhurdLocale: South Texas
Wow!! Beautiful and it actually works, too!
Did you have trouble getting the air to gas mix dialed in or do you just have to have some jets and it all works out? ( I know nothing about these stoves, as is apparent.) But I am intrigued.
-MarkJun 30, 2008 at 9:14 pm #1440943
Thanks for the comments
I have received those service kits that you put me on to and I am about to start making the Max canister valve for my next stove, I am hoping for the valve to weigh in at 10-12g next time.
3.8g was shattering actually, I spent all weekend on trying to get it below 3g, if I can find the right small o-rings I will be able to get it under the 3g target, that will allow me 2g for the windshield.
The weight is real, weighed on scientific scales 0.0001g resolution, as mentioned before I was aiming for 8g total.
I did a lot of work to get the air fuel mixing to work, I had some very good advice from Roger Caffin whom I wish to thank. This stove while it is usable and I hope to use it on a walk soon is too light to be practical, I will have to be treated very carefully, my next stove/pot stand/valve will be much more robust.
TonyJul 2, 2008 at 8:04 am #1441158
@benwoodLocale: flatlands of MO
your machining skills are quite good from what i can tell, do have the tools at home?
ben-Jul 2, 2008 at 9:24 am #1441175
Tony, outstanding job! I love when people push the limits!Jul 2, 2008 at 3:10 pm #1441222
I have been a practicing Machinist for 38 years and I do have an lathe with a milling attachment at home, it is an old School lathe and is a bit worn, it has been treated poorly in the past but I can get the job done. I made 95% of the stove at home, I used some sophisticated machinery at work to remove some extra metal off the valve and to make the Ti burner plate.
Pushing the limits is what BPL and this forum is all about. In the future the limits of today will considered normal and there will be new limits that we will aspire too.
In the back of my mind I am already planning a lighter stove.
TonyJul 3, 2008 at 8:42 am #1441330
@derekoakLocale: North of England
That is amazing Tony.
It however makes me think that we need a lighter design of refillable canister that can be filled with the right amount of gas, to go with your stove.Jul 3, 2008 at 2:57 pm #1441395
The other forum posters are right that it is illegal and very dangerous to refill canisters and should not be done. I certainly do not advise anybody to refill canisters.
That said, I have been playing around with lighter canisters for a while (picture below) the small canister in the picture holds enough fuel to boil about 3l and is bottom feed.
TonyJul 5, 2008 at 12:54 pm #1441621
Stunning. Speechless. Wow.
Tony, it seems you hear this all the time, and it also seems to bear saying again all the time… you're an absolute wonder.
I have absolutely no idea if this makes sense in terms of weight, but would using thin titanium foil w/holes drilled in bottom be able to work as both pot support and windscreen??? My guess is you thought of the answer to this years ago and it was a firm "no;" seeing and reading about your projects just gets my novice mind running.
Thanks!Jul 5, 2008 at 2:03 pm #1441629
you have inspired me to pull out an old MSR canister fed Whisper Lite type (don't know the name but it is at least 20 yrs old) stove with intention of modifying it into something both light and practical but it is too heavy. Where could I search for a burner and valve like you are using? Great little stove. I would very much like to build something similar. Thanks for your post. Hope you continue to show us your handiwork.
JohnJul 5, 2008 at 2:12 pm #1441632
MOMA or the Smithsonian will be contacting you any day now.
A work of art.
An impressive bit of design and fabrication.
Thanks for the inspiration to go lighter, smaller and better.Jul 5, 2008 at 9:29 pm #1441675
I have made this comment to Tony and he agrees entirely, but it may be worth while repeating my comment to potential MYOG enthusiasts.
The fuel line connection shown in the first photo is simply a bit lab plastic tubing pushed over some stainless steel tubing. This works fine for a short while, but we know from many experiments that this junction WILL leak gas after a while, especially when it gets warm. Then you have little flames dancing around the place, very quickly becoming major gas leaks. Fire balls beckon.
If you want to try something like this yourself, you will need to implement a far more secure and thoroughly (heat and pressure) tested connection and fuel line. Naturally BPL accepts absolutely no responsibility for what you do.
(Fellow stove enthusiast)Jul 6, 2008 at 8:49 am #1441715
Was this really necessary today? After all, another poster has been posting threads with similar DIY canister-fed systems to universal acclamation and praise without BPL staff members jumping in with cautionary legal exculpatory clauses. The only significant difference, that I can see, between this thread and the other more frequent posts from the west side of the Pacific is that the explanatory text is in readable English rather than Japanese.
Hopefully your insertion here does not put a freeze on any follow-up with this DIY design. Specifically this discussion lends itself to those that favor canister systems but have switched to alcohol or other types for the single purpose of weight saving gain. This thread allows us to actually read the input from the designer.
After all, MYOG is the whole purpose of this particular forum. Your phrasing of your last post has apparently doused the flames of this discussion. Why here and now has BPL deemed it necessary to exculpate itself and not with the other poster? Is BPL instituting a policy of limiting the types of discussion that are permissible on the MYOG forum?
With all the best regards, JohnJul 6, 2008 at 10:41 am #1441724
@back2basicsLocale: Southeast USA
The Japanese posts don't mention anything about advice from Roger as Tony's earlier post does.
You're right in that it was probably unnecessary, but in this world of idiot-proof consumer goods, someone is always out there trying to make a better idiot.
No harm was done. I'm sure it was just an act of CYA.
ChrisJul 6, 2008 at 3:05 pm #1441758
> Hopefully your insertion here does not put a freeze on any follow-up with this DIY design.
Perish the thought!
FYI: Tony and I communicate directly a fair bit over what each of us is doing in the area of stove design. Competitive? Well, slightly of course! But each advance each of us makes gets posted here for others to see.
> Your phrasing of your last post has apparently doused the flames of this discussion.
I very much doubt it! I can see lots more postings and photos down the track. Anyhow, Sunday evening is often a bit quiet as everyone recovers from the weekend – we were all out walking and gear-testing, weren't we?
> Is BPL instituting a policy of limiting the types of discussion that are permissible on the MYOG forum?
Yep – but only with regard to rudeness and so on. You know about that. Certainly NOT with regard to gear experiments. They are our lifeblood!
Now, let's look again at what I wrote. I have been doing similar stove development work to Tony, and I found that the simple fuel line connection shown in the photo could and would leak after a sustained period of operation, when the plastic gets warm and soft. So I posted a warning about this based on my experiences, in the spirit of sharing information and especially about safety.
Why did I add the bit about BPL accepting no responsibility? Because my name has 'Staff Member' under it, and the world we live in is a bit prone to litigation. CYA.
Let the experiments proceed!
CheersJul 6, 2008 at 4:15 pm #1441764
I would like to thank Brad, John and Greg for their nice comments.
>I have absolutely no idea if this makes sense in terms of weight, but would using thin titanium foil w/holes drilled in bottom be able to work as both pot support and windscreen?
Brad, good idea I have thought about using a Ti windshield as a pot stand but I do not have any suitable Ti and Ti is expensive, when I can get my designs sorted out with cheaper materials I might make in Ti.
>you have inspired me to pull out an old MSR canister fed Whisper Lite type (don't know the name but it is at least 20 yrs old) stove
John, I originally started to work my old Whisperlite but Roger convinced me that making liquid feed canister stoves was a better way to go.I might revisit the UL Whisperlite idea soon.
>MOMA or the Smithsonian will be contacting you any day now.
Greg, I am sitting beside my phone waiting
TonyJul 6, 2008 at 5:09 pm #1441766
I would like to thank the posters coming to my defense but I think Roger is right.
Making and modifying canister stoves can be very dangerous
What you do not hear from me and other myog stove makers is about the failures and near disasters that we have had (from thread on another forum I know most stove makers have them).
I have nearly burnt down my workshop several times, I regularly have flareups and burn the hair off my hands, this happened to me only yesterday, I am sure Roger has experienced the same. That is why he is being careful and warning us of the dangers of playing with canister stoves. Recently while testing the SUUL stove I screwed off from the valve the canister while upside down , this sprayed some liquid fuel over the test bench, the problem was that the flame although I could not see it it had not gone out and I nearly had a Fourth of July incident, the canister has burn marks on it now and I make sure the flame is out and the canister is turned upright when I unscrew it. I am also going to buy a full face mask.
I my defense the original pictures of the SUUL stove show that I have the fuel line attached with small brass ferrules clamping it on, the fuel line has a high temperature rating and a higher melting temperature.
In the small canister picture (this picture has been posted before without criticism, I pulled it from my archives))I do not have the fuel line clamped on as it is a prototype stove and the tube is a long way away from the flame and I have specifications claiming that this tube pushed on a correct size barb is good for 500PSI, up till I have not had any problems with this tube.
Often the pictures that I post of my stoves are of prototypes, I do not clamp the fuel line on as I am always pulling them apart to modify, for future BPL forum posting I will clamp the fuel line on and cover it with SS braid.
As I have told Roger my next stove which is one that I am hoping to use as my main stove will have an acceptable fuel line on it, clamped on with SS braid covering it.
TonyJul 6, 2008 at 5:53 pm #1441771
@back2basicsLocale: Southeast USA
Don't forget to add the little hang tag to the fuel line to remind yourself that CO emissions can be hazardous or fatal (yep, that's definitely hazardous!) if used in a confined space.
I look forward to seeing your improvements on this project.
ChrisJul 6, 2008 at 6:11 pm #1441774
Roger, thanks for the kindness and care in your reply. I understand now, with a little more time and consideration of the matter, the earnest of your input and your interest in protecting the company against your own advice. Again my only interest is in pursuing this design. I would like to replicate it with some modifications but it would be a shame for everyone to clam up just when I see a DIY design for a truly lightweight canister system that would be practical for lightweighters.
The excitement in the design caused me to foresee, obviously prematurely, that further helpful advice could quite possibly dry-up. Furthermore, not being a regular in this particular MYOG forum, I was not aware that you and Tony were buds and that the exchange between you two was somewhat in-house.
With all of this being said, I want to acquire the parts and build my own. I can see from the photos that hat the metal tubing should extend out at least as far as the length of a reasonable radius length windscreen to prevent overheating. This is patent from the photos.
Chris, thanks for your input.
Tony, if you have not already realized, I am excited by your design and would like to know what to look for when shopping for parts. I am happy that you and Roger are working day and night to advance the technology of lightweight cooking. Please continue to keep us aware of your progress.
With all of the kindest and warmest personal regards,
JohnJul 6, 2008 at 9:04 pm #1441796
I found your post to be rather disconcerting, Roger.
I would state, for the record, that I have no interest in chiming in following your post. I found it rude and discourtous.Jul 7, 2008 at 4:38 am #1441812
> am excited by your design and would like to know what to look for when shopping for parts.
Well … this could be a problem. I think the stoves Tony and I have been working on all start with a lump of metal in the chuck of a lathe. :-)
The only parts we normally buy are the plastic fuel line. You need something like Teflon or PFA (or maybe neoprene) laboratory tubing – try Cole-Parmer for that. Don't use softer plastic tubing like PVC or gasoline line – check the upper temperature limit! At least 150 C imho.
> I would like to replicate it with some modifications
And we would all LOVE to see your results! Please!
RogerJul 7, 2008 at 9:21 pm #1441941
"And we would all LOVE to see your results! Please!"
There must be two of you in there. The first one is concerned about safety, uses legalese to CYA and absolve from liability. This first one cautions other designers not to lead us duffers astray and wants to shut down the thread because a little information might be dangerous to those of us who might take a little knowledge and use it.
Now another Roger pops up. This second one a describes a piece of plastic line but withholds any suggestion or even a hint of how to make or acquire the active part of this stove and then encourages this duffer to, without any directions or suggestions on how to construct this hazardous piece of equipment, go ahead and put together a bomb while you wait with glee to see the results.
Which Roger is the real one? I don’t understand your conflicting directions here. Nevermind! I will contain my enthusiasm and look elsewhere to assuage it.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.