Topic
Backcountry Boiler Mk II available!
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 › Gear (General) › Backcountry Boiler Mk II available!
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 18, 2011 at 9:00 am #1738071
The cost of titanium boilers might be prohibitive enough that you won't want to keep any on the shelves, but you might want to consider pre-orders and maybe even non-refundable retainers. I'd be happy to drop some money as a retainer. If the final price is higher than I can afford, then I'm okay with the retainer becoming a donation to get this new project going.
May 18, 2011 at 9:02 am #1738072You guys are relentless. :)
May 18, 2011 at 9:37 am #1738085:)
May 18, 2011 at 9:47 am #1738093Hey! You started it! (o:
And we're pretty glad that you did…
May 18, 2011 at 7:52 pm #1738378Titanium addiction > Meth addiction.
We have problems.
May 19, 2011 at 6:04 am #1738459a ti "chimney kettle" is possible if you think differently…
May 19, 2011 at 6:23 am #1738464In veiw of the fact that Devon most likely needs time to focus on whats on his plate and the direction he is currently headed I motion that we end the titanium discussion till a later date when he hase time does anyone second this motion?
May 19, 2011 at 6:29 am #1738465a ti "chimney kettle" is possible if think differently (ie different structure)….
May 19, 2011 at 7:59 am #1738501Wait – the ti version would be heavier and much more costly? Sorry, what is the point then?
May 19, 2011 at 8:04 am #1738503"Wait – the ti version would be heavier and much more costly? Sorry, what is the point then?"
not if its a different form of "chimney kettle"…
May 19, 2011 at 9:13 am #1738524"not if its a different form of "chimney kettle"…"
I am not good at riddles.
May 19, 2011 at 9:43 am #1738535"Wait – the ti version would be heavier and much more costly? Sorry, what is the point then?"
Devin's research lead him to the conclusion that a Ti version would require a considerably more costly process to manufacture than the aluminum version, and in addition Ti costs quite a bit more than aluminum. Since the reason that titanium pots and such generally weigh less than aluminum ones is that they involve less metal, by taking advantage of titanium's exemplary strength, you have to use really thin walls to make titanium pot that's lighter than an aluminum pot — thinner than the aluminum equivalent… which as I understand it, makes for an even more complicated process for manufacturing the suckers.
So, either you'd end up paying for more expensive materials (titanium) and not saving much weight, or you'd end up paying for more expensive materials + a very expensive manufacturing process.
It sounds like there's a *possibility* (maybe I should say potential possibility?) that Evernew could make one at a price point that would be marketable, but Devin's skeptical. Given Devin's research, his skepticism doesn't surprise me — but maybe it would be worth a look after he gets done with the current production run. I'll have to leave that up to him though; I'm just glad that he's getting them into production and that I have a chance to support him… also, I'm looking forward to getting one :)
May 19, 2011 at 9:50 am #1738540Hey – I am the first to love Ti – I have a bunch of it. But based on Devin's previous post, it implies that he would have to use something different that is in the thin walled Ti that I have in my possession which would equate to something heavier.
May 19, 2011 at 12:24 pm #1738630"not if its a different form of "chimney kettle"…
I am not good at riddles."
The chimney needs to be on the outside of the pot…
construction suddenly becomes easy, can use foilMay 20, 2011 at 5:59 am #1738877"not if its a different form of "chimney kettle"…"
"I am not good at riddles."Here is a diagram of my idea, which keeps the conventional chimney kettle's advantage of "chimney effect", windproof-ness and keeping soot inside, away from the user.
NB I have built a non-collapsable stainless steel foil variant with standard fire-base and a stainless steel (boston tin) conic "pot": the lot weighted 11oz
Note the cone is welded closed, it is collapsed around the "pot" to keep soot away from the user.
Similarly, the fire-base would be collapsed. The 0.003 in ti foil should allow this, I think (Suluk46 has windshields like this).The aluminium/ti pot is a conic shape to increase surface area.
The conic pot would not normally be removed from cone: to pour cone and pot would be lifted together.However, if desired, to cook, if you could face some sooty-pan-ness, you could remove the conic pot and place a frying pan etc on top. Or wrap stuff in leaves and cook on the embers.
A disadvantage compared to back country boiler might be that any mid-boil fuel top-ups might require lifting of the cone(and pot).
The advantage would be the weight, and the fact it could scale down to a "1 cup" size pot if desired.How much efficiency(if any) is lost is unknown, however the non-collapsable unit seemed OK.
May 20, 2011 at 6:01 am #1738879Looks like a Caldera Cone.
May 20, 2011 at 6:09 am #1738882"Looks like a Caldera Cone."
Yes,BUT, as mentioned,
1) tall narrow conic pot completely enclosed
(tallness gives the chimney effect, conic-ness increases the surface area to counter-act pot's narrowness).2) cone is welded closed, so not unrolled, soot kept tidily inside like standard chimney kettle.
May 20, 2011 at 6:53 am #1738895That is the exact same shape, size, and dimensions as the Backcountry boiler, but instead of being sealed at the top, it is open, and there is a tight-fitting ring-like lid. Manufacturing something like this would certainly be a lot easier than the Boiler because it wouldn't require the sealed, joined top (the cross-section would basically be a "V" shape).
It could use the existing sleeves and stuffsacks, and the only drawback would be you couldn't use it for water storage. On the other hand, you'd have access to the chamber for cleaning (and therefore cooking).
May 20, 2011 at 7:43 am #1738931You should build one and test it Alan. How did your stainless version work for woodburning? In my experience the design shown above will work with an alcohol stove but will be extremely difficult to keep lit in a woodburning configuration without the most pristine of dry wood. I have made a number of stoves with a very similar concept. The problem has been that no matter how many vents you have at the top it still requires a min. clearance from flame to pot. I have many pictures/videos but did not want to hijack
the boiler thread.May 20, 2011 at 9:01 am #1738967I think I might.
The stainless version worked OK so far: 2in gap between pot and standard fire-base.
and a top lit twigs fire boiled 500ml in approx 7 minutes, without refuelling.
May 20, 2011 at 3:41 pm #1739117Different set up…
The Backcountry Boiler is ready to go as you take it out of the bag.
As it burns you can drop more wood inside if required.
When the water boils you just pick the boiler up and pour the water out.
No assembly, easy to feed, very safe. And as mentioned the soot is out of touch at all times.
FrancoMay 21, 2011 at 6:31 am #1739259"Different set up…
The Backcountry Boiler is ready to go as you take it out of the bag….
No assembly, easy to feed, very safe. And as mentioned the soot is out of touch at all times."Yes, but my idea does not have that much more assembly, and still keeps soot inside:
1) the cone is to be welded closed, and collapsed around the pot, so to use, remove from bag, cone pops back into shape, foil base pops into shape, fill cup, load base, light, place cone/cup over base, wait.
2) the soot is still kept inside the cone as it collapses around pot rather than being unrolled like a caldera cone. Similarly the firebase is crumple-able/collapse-able.
3) Yes, any mid burn refuelling would be less convenient, when needed, but batch loading is more convenient when possible.
However, it seems a reasonable compromise in return for a significant weight reduction, for those for who would prefer lighter at expense of the slightly less convenience compared to the "neater" back country boiler.
I.e., some people seem to think the back country boiler is nice but too heavy for them, the above compromise could keep most of its advantages for those people, while others can buy the boiler for its neatness.
May 21, 2011 at 4:06 pm #1739407Alan
No offence, but what appears to be working, in theory or after one or two burns, and what really does work are two different matters as Devin found out making the boiler.
(in his case mostly about how to manufacture it, the theory had already been worked out).
For a start , It may not be obvious to you , but when you remove your cup/pot it will also be coated with soot , not just the inside of your cone .
You would also need a floor and of course you would need to manufacture a cone shaped cup.
(not cheap in small quantities)
However if you want to work along this lines you could get hold of a Swiss Army Ranger volcano stove.
That comes with a conical aluminium cup. (about 1 pint from memory. I had one)
FrancoMay 22, 2011 at 4:39 am #1739551"Alan
No offence,…. your cup/pot it will also be coated with soot , not just the inside of your cone. You would also need a floor…"None taken,
but
the idea is that for boiling water only mode (i.e. back country boiler style),
the cup is not normally removed, it is lifted with the cone still attached, just like lifting the kettle off the back country boiler.The ti foil floor and fire-box are one unit, as shown.
Swiss ranger cup idea: Thanks, should be lighter than stainless steel boston cocktail tins.
More burn testing would be required, but I can see no obvious flaw..
I looked a utube video of the swiss volcano: it seems quite similar (I had not realized the out vents were near the top of cup).
However, a cone allows more internal area, and according to wiki, chimney effect is proportional to height and area.
Reviews seem to mention that the the volcano stove has very little chimney effect, presumably due to the small area of said "chimney".Also, a cone allows a bigger fire-base, thus hopefully often avoiding need for re-load.
However, cup does not look quite as conical as I would like, so probably not as efficient as it could be, but probably OK, so I may get one
May 22, 2011 at 7:59 am #1739584Alan, Your idea looks interesting. Have you considered a high temperature outer insulator for the cone? This should raise the internal temperature for a better burn and speed the boil time. It may also allow you to lift/handle the cone during use. I'd suggest CarbonX ( http://www.concordcoinc.com/index.aspx?Command=GroupInfo&GroupID=9937) or a similar material.
Steve
-
AuthorPosts
- 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!
Our Community Posts are Moderated
Backpacking Light community posts are moderated and here to foster helpful and positive discussions about lightweight backpacking. Please be mindful of our values and boundaries and review our Community Guidelines prior to posting.
Get the Newsletter
Gear Research & Discovery Tools
- Browse our curated Gear Shop
- See the latest Gear Deals and Sales
- Our Recommendations
- Search for Gear on Sale with the Gear Finder
- Used Gear Swap
- Member Gear Reviews and BPL Gear Review Articles
- Browse by Gear Type or Brand.