Cylinder Stove Specs

Well, some one ponied up that dollar, but it wasnt Kevin :-(

As promised, here is how you make a bottomless stove work. Dig out a pit under the stove, roughly 1-2 times the volume of the stove. That part is obvious. To make it function properly, you have to employ the "child in a well" technique. dig/bore a hole ~2-3" in diameter, paralell to the pit under the stove. Dig this to the same depth as the pit under the stove. Now connect the pit under the stove, with the parallel bore, by means of another 2-3" bored hole at their bottoms. This can also be achieved by over excavating and then using foil tubes that are back filled into place. Voila, you now have air intake into the bottom of the expanded burn chamber, which allows the bottomless stove to double or triple its capacity. The burn can be controlled via a ground level "damper" over the parallel bore.

I dont "pretend to have some specific guarded knowledge". Its not pretend, its called a fundamental understanding of the art and science. Something you have failed to demonstrate.

We're cool with me building tents with heavier fabric, and doing cone stoves, right?

So I was contacted by Brian at Wyoming Lost and Found(you think I have an attitude problem :-) He was pretty clear informing me that heavy fabric tipis were his "turf". Upon further examination of the matter, it does appear that the "more durable" tipi market is what he has had staked out for some time now. I wont speak for him, but it was comical to see him level similar charges at SO. So after some interesting negotiations, he is cool with me building heavier fabric tipis.

So, Kevin, Brian says yea, how about you?

Hi Josh

> He was pretty clear informing me that heavy fabric tipis were his "turf".

I slept in a tipi in the 50s, with my father. OK, it was in the backyard, but so what?

In the 80s I helped a young hippie girl at work make a 12' high tipi for herself and her boyfriend. When it was finished she invited us to dinner in it. Double bed in there and all. Stock wooden pallets for a floor. Heavy fabric – like canvas. Big bamboo poles.

But the plans for the tipi came from 'Two Little Savages' by Ernest Thompson Seton, published in 1911. Of course, his plans were taken from standard red Indian tipis probably a hundred or more years old.

To claim any ownership today of any aspect of tipi design is questionable, if nothing else.

Cheers

Context, Rodger, context.

Canister stoves are just canister stoves, correct? So when Chinese manufactures, copy numerous features, of a specific stove, especially key features, and names, of established stove designs, your OK with that?

Kevin

Rodger says I'm good to do it too.

Rodger

While we're at it, I'm looking at building and selling tunnel tents too. Do you think you could sell me some of that good Sil you have, at a dicount of course. And to make my R&D a little easier, what are say the 4 or 5 most defining features of your tents. I mean they are already reviewed and tested, so that will help me out considerably. Thanks ;-) At least I ask.

Hi Josh

> So when Chinese manufacturers copy numerous features of a specific stove, especially > key features, and names, of established stove designs, your OK with that?
It's a whole lot more complex than that, at least with China and stoves.

Copying a name is a trademark infringement. That's a No Go.

But copying a stove … well, it is extremely likely that the Chinese company made the original under contract anyhow. In many cases the design of the stove was not even fully specified by the Western company. They simply provided some sketches of what they wanted, or sketched some small changes to an existing Chinese design. Look at the Gnat for instance: it's simply a rebadged Fire-Maple FMS116T stove. It's also sold by other companies with different logos printed on the side.

Well, canisters? Only a couple of companies fill canisters, and they are mostly in Asia. Dae Ryuk Can Co in Korea makes canisters for Kovea, MSR and many others. All these good canisters seem to use the Lindal valve made by the Lindal company. But they will put any paint job you want on the steel.

You might think that this makes stoves a poor example. However, many cheaper day packs are designed and made by Chinese companies, and then sold to Western companies with an optional logo imprinted on the bag. I get offers for this every week, literally. Other packs are 'designed' by Western companies and made by Chinese companies, but what the Western company often provides are nothing more than marketing sketches of 'what would be nice'. No technical details are provided AT ALL.

What about titanium pots? Most of them are variants on the basic Kingsound pot designs. Kingsound have the technology and the carbide dies to make the pots, so everyone buys them from them, with logos added.

It is easy to claim that A copied B's design for a tipi, and it is easy to even compare photos. But considering that the tipi design is hundreds of years old, and is a Red Indian design anyhow, I really doubt anyone has a leg to stand on.

What counts here is value, performance and service.

It's all a bit of a giggle, really.

Cheers

Hi Josh

> I'm looking at building and selling tunnel tents too.
Good. We need more manufacturers of tunnel tents.

> what are say the 4 or 5 most defining features of your tents. I mean they are already
> reviewed and tested,
Tested, yes.
Reviewed? As they are not commercially available, they haven't been reviewed yet.
Photo'd – for sure.

Yeah, I'm nit-picking. But seriously, no-one thinks I invented tunnels. I have no claim to the basic design. It may be a hard world, but I prefer to focus on providing good design, good performance, and good support. They give me satisfaction.

Cheers
PS: the 4 or 5 defining features? Read the article at the head of this channel: they are all there!

Rodger

I'm not suggesting you invented the tunnel tent, that would be ignorant. I'm just asking if I can ride on your coat tails. I dont have a back ground in tunnel tents, I have not done the work, nor do I understand the concepts. So if I can just duplicate your efforts, it will save me allot of time and learning.

But maybe my thinking is wrong. Are all tunnel tents, just tunnel tents? or are there stand out features and designs out there?

So I should just copy from the article?

Rodger

OK, So I read the article. Appearantly tunnel tents, are NOT, just tunnel tents. There appears to be some key features, that define effective designs. So if all tunnel tents are not created equally, and are a function of the sum of their individual attributes and parts, I propose that the same applies to tipi/lavvu/conical/pyrimid tents. Sound reasonable? Now obviously this applies to gnat variants, kingsound pots, and chinese day backs also. The difference being that those are all single source items.

If I remember correctly, you've made a few statements about intelectual property rights before?

.

Edit: I see what is going on here. Carry on.

Are you cool with Josh using your spelling?

Rodger, roger, its all the same, its just details. A canister stove is a canister stove, a tunnel tent is a tunnel tent, a tipi is a tipi, a Rodger is a rodger, right? The details dont matter.

Hi Josh

> the same applies to tipi/lavvu/conical/pyrimid tents. Sound reasonable?
I guess so. I am just not sure where this is heading.

> you've made a few statements about intelectual property rights before?
That is true, BUT I have also said that there is very little new in this game, so anyone's ability to claim IP rights is very limited. Yes, I support IP rights, but equally I oppose any unjustified extension of a claim beyond what is strictly provable.

In this case, seems to me the IP rights to most tipi features belong to some Red Indian who died hundreds of years ago. I am happy to be shown new and novel features, but they would have to be 'non-obvious to someone skilled in the arts', to use the patent language.

Maybe you should write an article on tipis for BGT?

Cheers

"> the same applies to tipi/lavvu/conical/pyrimid tents. Sound reasonable?
I guess so. I am just not sure where this is heading."

---

This may be headed towards a business venture or two, but mostly I'm just reinforcing my claims of bad business practices against Kevin and EdT. But, like my business venture coment suggests, they may really be on to something. That is why I am looking at your tunnel tent a little differently now. Like I said, I dont know anything about them, but maybe I dont need to. That part is appealling

"> you've made a few statements about intelectual property rights before?
That is true, BUT I have also said that there is very little new in this game, so anyone's ability to claim IP rights is very limited. Yes, I support IP rights, but equally I oppose any unjustified extension of a claim beyond what is strictly provable." —-I'm sure my patent lawyer can address this better, but trying to apply the burden and level of novelty, required for a patent is excessive in this case. That does not negate the fact that products are a sum of their parts and features. It is industry norm to borrow and adapt those individual parts, designs, and features, for a number of reasons. Maybe a new use, maybe making something more affordable, maybe making it lighter, etc. But, if you use many individual parts, designs, and features(especially in multiple products) and you are not greatly distinguishable in some way shape of form, from those that came before, ie. innovation, better materials, price, function, etc. You are just copying and profiting, overwhelmingly, on some one elses work. Two reasons to do this. First, you cant innovate on your own, and your not skilled or knowledgable. Second, its much easier to follow in other peoples footsteps. Just like with finished products being a sum of their parts, either one of these on their own is understandable, but togther, they constitute some inexcusable behavior.

"In this case, seems to me the IP rights to most tipi features belong to some Red Indian who died hundreds of years ago. I am happy to be shown new and novel features, but they would have to be 'non-obvious to someone skilled in the arts', to use the patent language." —-The US Patent office disagrees with you on this, and there is long standing history to support their assertion. The first being a patent, on what you would call a "tipi". Its about details, not just one detail, but the sum of many details, and the way they work together. Some parts very key and central, while others work in conjuction with lesser and greater elements to create a unique final product. How unique?, depends on who makes it, and what you compare it to. Also, while I am not exactly indigenous to this continent, some of the folks that call me "Brother", would much prefer the terms American Indian, or First Nations People.

"Maybe you should write an article on tipis for BGT?"

---

Maybe, that would be a good way to launch things. Let me start another thread, and ask my potential customers what they would like to see. I am told it is they, that I should listen to on this.

Hi Josh

We welcome any cottage industry serving the light-weight backpacking community. For obvious reasons we (BPL) can't get involved in or adjudicate in any commercial disagreements. We just look for good products, good quality and good support. They are what sells best.

I did a search at http://www.uspto.gov for the word 'tipi'. Zero hits. Interesting. Not sure exactly what that means though.

I was using the term 'Red Indian' in the context of Seton's books (1911). He was the American version of Baden Powell, and he merged his concept with the Boy Scouts idea very early on.

I eagerly await an article! I can help with the editing if you wish.

Cheers

Try teepee and tent.
I like the one from 1911 from an Australian.

I just spit food all over the place, I'm laughing so hard. "For obvious reasons we (BPL) can't get involved" Roger suddenly doesnt have an opinion :-) Rodger Dodger.

Hi Tim

OK, I found a couple under 'teepee'. But I couldn't get the images because the USPTO uses some variant of QuickTime which I couldn't download from Apple. WHY they can't use PDF for images I really cannot understand. Very bad decision I think.

The one patent (1988) I could read amazed me. Basically, the author is claiming the basic teepee design. How on earth did that get through????? Does this mean Kifaru, Rota L and SO are all in breach of that patent?

Couldn't find one dated 1911 though. Help?

Cheers

I dont know how that got through, I mean any pointy tent, is just a "tipi". Just like any roundy-round tent is just a tunnel tent, cant be anything unique there. Allot like back packs too, just bags with straps, I mean Otzi had one 5300 years ago, nothing new there. I bet he even had a water bottle holster, sorry Dan. Kinda like them there "Red indians" all the same, nothing distinguishing. I probably should not sweat it, and just go enjoy the 24-7-365 perfect weather outside. Have you ever been through the Patent process?

Hi Josh

To clarify, for everyone:

"For obvious reasons we (BPL) can't get involved"
The only person who can speak for http://www.backpackinglight.com is the owner, Ryan Jordon. Furthermore, I am not an employee of BPL. But I know what Ryan's policy is: BPL will not get involved in any disputes between competitors. I can state that.

"Roger suddenly doesnt have an opinion"
Er … hardly! :-)
But my opinions are my opinions, not BPL's.

> Obviously the opinions are reserved for the paid content(articles).
Well, it would be a dead boring life if our articles did not have opinions, wouldn't it? So yes indeed, articles are expected to sometimes present opinions.
But I am sure 'a few' contributors to these Forum channels may also express their opinions at times …

> So BPL(Roger) can't take a stance, but as a manufacture I can write articles, full of opinion,
Well, as explained above, 'Roger' is NOT the same thing as BPL.
'Roger', or any other contributor, can take a stance or express an opinion. And you as a manufacturer can also take a stance or express an opinion.

Hope this helps
Cheers

Hi Josh

Yes, there are a number of patents with my name on them. I wrote the drafts for some of them myself and had the patent lawyer finalise the claims.
Hard work.

Cheers

Roger —
http://www.google.com/patents

No quick time issues.

Use Google Patents https://www.google.com/?tbm=pts&hl=en

Using the search term "uspclass:135/100" gives 971 results; the US patent classification 135/100 is Cone-shaped type shelters, e.g., tepee: Shelter which is formed in the shape of an inverted cone.

The search included this result which may be the patent from 1910 being refered to in a previous post: US985243 (BAHAN) Feb 28 1911, a pyramid tent that has a collapsible pole structure where the poles are connected together at the apex.

Another interesting but OT patent is a combined shelter/cape US646421 from 1900.

Searching with "uspclass:"135/100" teepee" gives five patents showing teepee tents.

Barry

It just cant be, nothing new since some "Red indian" invented hundreds of years ago.