113g Inverted canister stove

Hi Tomas,

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

Tony

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: info@cgbolt.hu (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

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

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.

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

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

Cheers

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

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?

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).

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

"> 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?

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

> 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.

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

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

Thanks.

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'!

> 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!

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 ) ?

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!

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.

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 .

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

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.–

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?

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