Jun 7, 2006 at 10:31 pm #1218756
This is the latest version of a wood stove for a long hike. It is not designed to be super ultra light, it is designed for continuous daily use for something like a long Winter AT hike. It can be used to cook real food, it is large enough to melt ice or snow if necessary and provide a me with a small amount of heat if needed. I also wanted a backup and adapted my Xtreme Stove to the stove. I have adapted a version of my lighter Son of Balrog but I think I want the PowerMax canister version.
The hinge pins are three of my Titanium tent stakes so they add no extra weight. If I decide I like this design I will remake the stove parts out of Titanium. This will let me drop a little weight. The grate in the bottom of the stove is made out of Stainless Steel wire mesh from Brasslite Stoves.
I can make a wood stove that weighs 1 ounce but not for a hike like this.
1. Wood Stove Multi-Fuel – Flat Mode
2. Wood Stove Multi-Fuel – Set-up 3.51 ounce – NOTE: Stainless Steel Wire Mesh from Brasslite.com Stoves.
3. Wood Stove Multi-Fuel – Wood Burning Mode
4. Wood Stove Multi-Fuel – Xtreme / PowerMax Mode – 6.51 ounces
5. Wood Stove Multi-Fuel – Son of Balrog (parts used) – 3.52 ouncesJun 7, 2006 at 11:31 pm #1357661
@pjLocale: LazyBoy in my Den - miss the forest
Ah…Bill…is there no end to your creativity?!!
Fornshell, you’ve out done yourself this time.
This is one i can see myself attempting to make and using often.
Great job.Jun 8, 2006 at 4:57 am #1357668
Thanks for your comments. A stove like this is very easy to make. I am using it in the wood mode everyday to test how the Aluminum holds up.
However, I really expect that if I like this design well enough to take on a long hike I would re-make it out of Titanium.
The design could be adjusted in size to fit what ever pot size you wanted to use.Jun 8, 2006 at 7:54 pm #1357714
Douglas FrickBPL Member
> it is large enough to melt ice or snow if necessary
Out of curiosity, how would you use a stove like this on snow? Put a fire blanket under it?Jun 9, 2006 at 5:57 am #1357726
Can you expound on / show a detailed view of those rolled channels? What are you using as a form? Do expect Ti to be harder to make the channels with?
Btw – Nice Job.Jun 9, 2006 at 9:48 am #1357734
@owareLocale: Steptoe Butte
Very nice. It looks like you may have been a
tinner in an earlier life.Jun 9, 2006 at 12:33 pm #1357741
Do you think you could use Aluminum Foil pan bottoms for the sides to make a weekend only stove that would work as well?Jun 9, 2006 at 2:21 pm #1357749
I’ve also wondered if something like this might work .. although not nearly as space efficient as this design.
I can’t seem to get the image to upload …. esentially it’s taking a Snowpeak bowl, replacing the bottom with hardware cloth, cutting some low air holes on one side, and some high air holes on the other. Top it off with another piece of hardware cloth for a grill/pot stand and the stove would weigh in under 2 oz I would think.
Thoughts?Jun 9, 2006 at 2:42 pm #1357750
@vickrhinesLocale: Central Texas
Do it. You’ll never know until you try.Jun 13, 2006 at 11:53 am #1357929
I’ve considered similar ideas (but not the same) for a snowpeak ti-bowl. what you might consider is leaving the bottom of the bowl intact and making a ‘mound’ in the bottom out of the cloth…
hmmm… more ideas for my ti-bowl multifuel system… gotta think…Jun 13, 2006 at 3:50 pm #1357945
@bjamesdLocale: South Coast of BC
Thanks for posting this; I was (one of) the guys who asked. It will be great to hear how the titanium version works for you.
I hope one of these days a big company with deep pockets steals one of your designs — anyone as lateral-thinking and creative as you deserves to be rich!Jun 13, 2006 at 5:03 pm #1357954
The Titanium will be just a little lighter but will outlast the Aluminum I am now using if the stove is used a lot. The Titanium is a lot stronger and will take the heat much better. If you don’t use the Aluminum stove a lot it should last a long time. The Aluminum is also a lot cheaper. This Aluminum stove is about the same thickness as the Titanium I use but the Aluminum is a lot easier to work with.
I bought a large size piece of Stainless Steel Wire Mesh from Aaron at BrassLite.com. some time ago. He may still sell small amounts if anyone wants to check with him. There are other places to buy this stuff but I try and buy what I can from BrassLite. I like Aaron and want to see him around for a long time. I think I have three of his stoves.
The galvanized steel wire mesh (hardware cloth) doesn’t last very long with the heat from a good wood stove. I have watched the wire get smaller and smaller as my wood stove burned it up.Jul 12, 2006 at 12:17 pm #1359270
Turn the stove into a small grill and cook a few fish or other trail kill over a small open fire.
This adds almost no extra weight from what I would be carring anyway.
This was an easy modification for my Wood / Gas Canister Stove. I already had a row of small hole punched on the stove parts for the SS Mesh I was using for the grate. I just turned two of the stove pieces upside down so I could put Ti Rod or Ti tent stakes across for the grill. What you see in the picture would use up to 8 tent stakes 1/2″ apart (pictured are – wood sticks and one long piece of some 1/8″ titanium rod I had on hand). You can get Ti tent stakes that are 8.5″ and 12″ long. The grill size in the picture is 8″ long by about 3.5″ wide. This might be a little small. The grill is about 3″ above the red stones (fake fire) but hot coals could be put in a small hole to provide more space between the grill and the coals.
SUL grill number two is on the drawing board and would be a little bigger, but with bigger will come a little more weight.
How big is big enough?Jul 12, 2006 at 7:15 pm #1359285
What a great idea for a grill Bill …
Another innovation !Aug 14, 2006 at 1:15 pm #1361114
Hope you don’t mind re-opening this discussion. I’m new to UL and your stove fascinates me. I hate lugging canisters, full or empty. Bulk is as much an issue as weight and your fold-flat design is great.
How’s the aluminum holding up? Can you give an idea of boil times? Burn time fully stoked? (I realize that the choice of wood will play into this). Now that you’ve had some experience with the stove do you find yourself using it on a regular basis?
Oh, and here’s a question that no one with an attorney would answer … by fitting an easily removable stainless screen over the top would you expect a SIL tarp user to a) be able to boil water during a rain, or b)light up the night in a blaze of burning woven petroleum products?
And I can almost taste a nice brookie on the “transformer” grill.
PaulOct 30, 2006 at 12:42 pm #1365799
I would like to re-open this thread. Please see my post directly above. I’m pretty new to UL so I will appreciate your insights.
I hike where there’s plenty of firewood, mostly bushwhacking and brookie fishing. I tarp and am interested in the concept of a light woodburner, mostly to boil water.
The ideal burner would:
a) boil water efficiently
b) weigh 6 oz or less
c) take up little space, as in the Little Bug design or Bill’s design above.
d) leave minimal scar and be safe in dry conditions.
e) BE TARP COMPATIBLE (a top spark screen?
Ryan, can you tip your hand on this a little?
Bill, your take on this is appreciated. Anyone else, is it feasible or fatally flawed? I like/hate my cannister stove and mostly don’t like my OH stove.
PaulOct 30, 2006 at 2:38 pm #1365809
@pivvayLocale: Rocky Mountains
What about a tiny version of the kelly kettle? I’ve been doing the math this weekend and I think I can build an ultralight one. I only have the materials for a “light” one but I will build it and see if the design is functional as currently drawn/calculated. If so I will source the lighter gauge materials. I didn’t intend on posting until I completed a prototype but it meets your requirements for the most part.
If it is functional would you like to test the “light” version while I source materials for the “ultralight”?
How much water does it absolutely have to hold? 8oz, 12oz, 16oz? How much weight over 6oz are you willing to accomodate if it replaces your mug as well?Oct 30, 2006 at 4:15 pm #1365819
Sam HaraldsonBPL Member
@sharaldsLocale: Gallatin Range
An ultralight kelly kettle would be an excellent stove as defined by ultralight standards. It could weigh more than your typical stove and still be superior in that the pot is built in. It uses wood and therefore doesn’t require the carrying of much fuel (except to light it with) and it burns “off the ground” so it conforms more to the leave no trace ethics.Oct 31, 2006 at 6:20 am #1365860
I would jump at an opportunity to test a kettle-lite. I have to admit I had to search on the kelly kettle and it’s a paradigm shift from what I had envisioned. I does look like it would boil water very efficiently, leave no scar and could be adapted to use under a tarp. It looks like it could do well in moderate wind.
It is bulky but in my case it would replace my Litech kettle which is also bulky (it’s my luxury item).
I was willing to add 6 oz for a stove + the 6 oz replacing the Litech leaves an acceptable weight of 12 oz. Does this seem achievable?
12 oz volume is sufficient for solo. I often go with one or both of my boys but the boil times are reasonable enough to boil a second batch. 16 oz may preferrable but that would have to be balanced against weight and bulk. Others may be happy with 12 but I doubt 8 oz would suffice.
I would be concerned with what happens to the embers under a tarp when you lift the kettle off the base. Any concerns here? Any problems seating the kettle back into the base immediately after pouring off (if you want to boil another pot)?Oct 31, 2006 at 8:39 am #1365863
@dangLocale: Pacific Northwet
I have the size small kelly kettle. I’ll have to weight it again but if I recall it weighs something like 16 or 17 oz.
1. I think 12 oz or even less for an ultralight version would not be that difficult. The size small kettle is listed as being a pint, but I think that refers to an imperial pint as the actual capacity is something like 24 oz. So just reducing the size, say down to 12-16 oz without changing anything else would reduce the weight. There are a few other things, like the bail I think is steel, and the kettle uses a wood handle, so these items can be lightened. I think it would not be too difficult to have something down in the 8-10 oz range.
2. As for using one of these under a tarp, I would not do it, as the flames (and embers) tend to shoot out the chimney, especially when you are getting the fire going or adding twigs to the fire (This is with the kettle on the base). It’s pretty impressive, the flames can shoot out a foot or more above the kettle, which is already tall to begin with.
DanOct 31, 2006 at 9:56 am #1365866
Sam HaraldsonBPL Member
@sharaldsLocale: Gallatin Range
> …Kelly Kettle…It looks like it could do well in moderate wind…
According to the research I’ve done on Kelly Kettle’s they apparently do BETTER in a wind. In fact it is suggested that the breather hole be pointed in the direction of the wind thereby increasing the amount of air moving upward through the fire-hole and increasing the “volcano” effect.
This volcano effect is the same effect mentioned in the post previous to mine that emits flames and embers from atop the kettle thereby deeming it unsafe for use under a tarp.Oct 31, 2006 at 10:51 am #1365872
@pivvayLocale: Rocky Mountains
12 ounces is easily achievable by my calculations. I got my metal out last night to do a “reality check” on diameters and heights. The stuff I have on hand will be a little heavy (but still lighter than commerical stuff) unless I chuck it up in the lathe and turn the walls down a bit. I may do that though so we’ll see. If it works I found a good source of the thin wall material I need to make the ultralight version without the lathe.
How many of you have a desired max height requirement? I personally don’t want a 12″ tall or even 10″ tall kettle but didn’t know what other users thought. Specifically people who have used one before. Also what if the base didn’t come off and it was all one piece?
Solo kettles as light as sub 6oz seem possible, maybe as light as 4-5oz but I really need to do some physical testing before claim any volume/ounce details.Oct 31, 2006 at 11:55 am #1365876
Chris, Dan, Sam,
Thanks for the posts. I am committed to trying wood. The main advantage of a wood stove is an inexhaustible fuel supply (around here anyway). However, if you can’t use it under a high-pitched tarp in a rain, then your menu is out the window if an unexpected and prolonged shift in weather occurs.
Chris, it sounds like you may be able to bring weight down very low. For my money an 8″ tall kettle would not be too much for packing. Can’t say about the fixed base, best answered by the experienced.
Dan and Sam,
I hear what you’re saying about using this with a tarp. I’ve burned sil nylon just to make a point with my boys and it burns very nicely. I have no desire to be the poster boy for the dangers of flammable gear. And yet a stove rarely could be a critical piece of gear in a cold rain when things have gone wrong.
So, just thinking out of the box, could you envision a fix? For instance, how about an inverted screen cylinder (basket) with a ti plate bottom to deflect the flame.
What do you think? Could this or any wood stove be made safe when used WITH CARE beneath a tarp? I do appreciate the opinions of those who think it foolish. I AM listening. But I also know that some members have done it.
PaulOct 31, 2006 at 12:05 pm #1365877
@dangLocale: Pacific Northwet
“How many of you have a desired max height requirement? I personally don’t want a 12″ tall or even 10″ tall kettle but didn’t know what other users thought. Specifically people who have used one before. Also what if the base didn’t come off and it was all one piece?”
I have not given a maximum height requirement much thought but I suspect the current height has been empirically arrived at over the years as being efficient for heat transfer, though I could be wrong.
I would prefer the removable base, and can see some problems with having the base integrated:
1. Easier access to start the fire and arrange twigs and fire starter with the kettle removed.
2. Easier cleanup of ashes with base removed.
3. If the base was attached, when you go to pour the water the ashes/twiggs would move around, and they are typically still lit when the water has boiled and you are going to pour the water.
4. If you want more boiled water, you can fill the kettle while the fire is still going to heat more water.Oct 31, 2006 at 7:08 pm #1365899
@jasonklassLocale: Parker, CO
You never cease to amaze me with your innovative designs! And, it’s multi-use. How do you think the walls will hold up over extended use? i.e. are they thin enough to melt when using the white-gas stove?
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.