Another Wax Stove

I think a piece of carbon felt should be placed on top of the wax in the reservoir. This way, when the wax liquefies, it will completely saturate the carbon felt and not have exposed liquid wax.

The reason for this is that “wax fires” come extremely easy if the user accidentally spills even a small bit of water from their pot into the stove. See this for reference or look up “wax fire”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wax_fire

For what it’s worth, we used to have wax fires for fun on July 4th.

Thanks, Jeff!  I definitely now have to do a “wax fire” with the kids (in a safe area, from a distance, blah, blah).  Methane-filled soap-bubble clouds are also fun to ignite.

HehHeh, methane fart ignition was a competitive sport for loggers up in Alaska as they were driven to their work site. Sitting in the back of a pick-up truck farting and lighting them off. A lit lighter was held at butt level and you can imagine the rest. Many an eyebrow were singed. :-)

It’s annoying that in most houses, even though there’s natural gas piped to the house, there’s no convenient tap for accessing it.  The water heater and furnace are hard-piped in without any extra ports.

Not at my house.

David
Just think for a moment. YOU may know what you are doing with the gas line, but do you really want the average idiot dweeb having access to the gas line? Or his kids? Not within 5 km of my house thank you!

Cheers

The way that the stove works is that the pilot flames on the bottom of the stove heat the wax to create vapors.  By design, it is in an oxygen starved environment so there should be little to no flare ups.  Now, if you remove the outside diffuser/nozzle then you expose the system to the outside environment,  That being said, I’ll have some fun testing it on an large, fireproof surface.

This is super cool! How much fuel does it use to boil the 2 cups?

…How much fuel does it use to boil the 2 cups?

John reports 20 grams on the second page of the thread.

Actually, it was 20 grams for 4 cups.  Still testing.

Revisiting this thread got me thinking:

If you went with a toroidal reservoir, you could move the air intake to the bottom and use the cooking flame to heat the fuel, eliminating the need for a permanent priming flame.

The conical insert has axial creases in the parallel/vertical walls, like a groove stove, that serve as a priming wick to draw wax up to the flame ports. The all metal construction will conduct heat down in to the fuel reservoir faster than a carbon wick so this should prime faster. Once the fuel vaporizes, it will self ignite and bloom from the priming flame. Since the air intake is so far from the flames, you don’t need any wire mesh to prevent combustion inside the stove.

I notice most of the soot in Jon’s experiments was in the middle of the pot, where it seals against the stove body. Given that the pot is always below stove temp., it makes sense that vapor is condensing on it there. I’ve closed the top of this stove to prevent that. If contact between the pot and stove is minimized, the stove top will remain hot, eliminating internal vapor condensation. A bit of carbon felt can take care of that letting you use the stove as a pot stand. Then you just have to ensure the reservoir remains above the ground for the air intake – also easy. In cold weather, this insulates the reservoir from the ground.

I think this can be built entirely from beverage cans with a little JB Weld, Tektoba style.

As an option, separate priming ports could be placed below the cook flame ports and a rotating snuffer sleeve added. And I suppose a snuffer sleeve for the cook ports is in order.  Might also need to close the air intake once the flame is out to contain the vapor while the wax cools. You’ll probably get vapor condensation all over the inside of the stove at this point, but it should boil right back off next time you fire it up.

Unfortunately I don’t have time to tinker with this – just thought I’d put it out there if anyone is interested.

Anyone have any progress to report?

Been there done that ;-)

different one, multi wick beeswax with glass followers. Made this one years ago. Old stuff all on bplite.com

No mixing chamber.

worked well without it.

Look forward to your version. Find the time, make time ;-)

Looks interesting Rene. I may toy around with it some, but I still agree with Dan.

Not directly related, but I’ve wondered if very fine stainless steel mesh could act as a wick also? People have used them in nicotine/flavor vaporizers to wick the mix.

Dan,

Can you elaborate on ‘worked well’? I took a quick look on bplite and didn’t see this – link? How bad was the soot? How did the numbers compare to Jon’s?

No numbers, long time ago. Had it’s down sides, too long prepping it and cooling for storage. smokes when snuffed out, same as Jon’s  I noticed Jon has deleted his videos, wonder why. They were informative to show flame lift off and smoke related negatives.

Follow through on your design, make time on the weekends ;-)

The wax stove (Jon’s) is working very well, here are some particular specs:

Time to light – 45 sec
Time to warm up stove body ~ 1 minute
Time to boil 2 cups (70 F) water ~7 minutes
Fuel consumption <12 g per boil

No flame lift-off (as other people claim)
No performance degradation up to 8,000 feet (not tested any higher)
Stove consist of two main parts: stove body and stove shroud
Weight without fuel < 60 grams
It does take some time for the wax to re-solidified
There is a residual wax odor, similar in pervasiveness as wood smoke

Notes:
Soot on the pot – minimal. Can be wiped off with a paper towel, washes off with soap and water. It is probably an order of magnitude easier to clean than soot from wood.
Residual smoke – minimal when used with a snuffer

I was considering developing a limited run ALPHA version to collect more customer feedback. I was contacted by Raymong Gatt of Gatt energy (PLS stove), who claimed that my YouTube videos violated his patent. Mr. Gatt doesn’t know the details of how my design work yet he claim broad coverage of a wide range of wax based stove design. I knew of and read his patent claims and I am positive that no infringement is involved. Mr. Gatt threatened to contact YouTube in order to shut down my channel, so I elected to remove the video rather than fight over the videos.

Wax stoves are a cool but a niche market, while technically challenging you only develop this kind of stove for fun. I have yet to decide what to do with the stove. I am certain that my design does not violate Mr. Gatt’s patent,however; I am not sure if it is worth my time or energy to fight over it. Mr. Gatt was less than cordial in his emails. I will probably continue the work and post results on a different YouTube channel.

Best regards

” I was contacted by Raymong Gatt of Gatt energy (PLS stove), who claimed that my YouTube videos violated his patent.”

What?! There’s no way a video can violate a patent (unless maybe it’s a patent related to videos.) The whole idea of a patent is that the patent makes the information on how to do something public. You only have to license it if you make a commercial product that uses the patent.

“You only have to license it if you make a commercial product that uses the patent.”

I agree that the educational aspect of a YouTube video wouldn’t be directly afoul of patent law.  Certainly not if you just presented the patent and discussed it.  But I see an opener if Jon made a stove covered by Gatt’s patent.

You can’t use someone else’s patented product or process, even for your own benefit, without being licensing.  An obvious example:  Chevron develops a more efficient refining process and patents it.  Exxon and Shell can’t copy that process and use it for their own use, even if they don’t market it to anyone else.  Chevron would have a strong case against them if they did implement the patented process for their own use.  (Remember, SCOTUS says corporations have the rights of natural persons – something I’ll believe as soon as Texas executes one).

So a patent holder could pursue an individual user for building their own version if it infringes on the patent.  But the damages would be on the order of $50 for a single unit, presuming the infringer would otherwise have bought a unit from the patent holder, denying them their profit.  That was the problem with the cotton gin and why Eli Whitney never saw any profit from that invention: it was an incredible insight and groundbreaking in its approach, but it was too simple to build.  You can’t drag every DIYer of a $50 item into court – only a manufacturer or marketer is worth going after.

What I often see happen is someone thinks their patent will cause the world to start sending them large royalty checks.  Actually, in most cases, the world doesn’t care about your invention as much as you do and there are other, better options out there.  If your patent really solves a problem for lots of people, then you might get royalties if you want to spend a lot of time in court.

I come up with a few patentable ideas most years.  That’s fun.  And well-compensated just by being a problem-solving consultant to toxic polluters.  I’ve seen other people cling, desperately, to their pet idea as their one chance to get rich or famous.   To the point of it straining marriages and families.  Mr. Gatt appears to have that mindset.  The creative people I see who just keep writing, inventing, and designing without excess pride of ownership tend to be living happier lives.

A YouTube video cannot violate a patent on a wax stove. The patent covers a STOVE, not a VIDEO. Posting a Game of Thrones extract might breach their film copyright (or it might not), but a video can NOT violate a patent.

David is right about the ideas that some people get about patents. Slightly mad, and definitely wrong.

Also, wax stoves are absolutely NOT new. For a start, people have been selling tea light candles and associated cookers and warming trays for maybe 100 years, which would block most claims. Next, here at BPL we have published articles on candle stoves: see for example Mark Hurd’s article at https://backpackinglight.com/candle_stoves/ . There were some follow-on discussions about improved designs in the Forum discussions.

All Mt Gatt could claim might be some fine details about the air flow in his design. Fine, but they would have to be very narrow claims, of little or no commercial value.

Repost on YouTube and ignore Mr Gatt. If he complains again, fight.

Cheers

Also, the US Patent Office long ago stopped doing any due diligence for prior art and just issues patents to applicants who submit them in the proper format. They let competing interests hammer it out in court.

Having patent # 8,268,027 for a wax stove would be unenforceable against a knowledgable party if there is prior art in older patents or anywhere in the public domain more than a year before to the patent application.  But it will take everyone a lot of legal expenses to get there.

So I looked up Mr Gatt’s patent. I see that Claim 1 is:

1. A method of generating a gas or vapor state of a wax, the method comprising the steps of providing a gas generator assembly, introducing a meltable fuel consisting essentially of wax into the gas generator assembly, converting the wax to a wax gas or vapor, releasing the wax gas or vapor from the gas generator assembly, and combusting the released wax gas or vapor, wherein the method is not part of a refinery process; and wherein the step of converting the wax to a wax gas or vapor comprises heating the wax to a temperature above the liquid-gas transition temperature of the wax without cracking the wax.

Now, I am not a Patent Attorney, but I have written patents myself and acted as an expert witness over a patent (we won), and I can not see Claim 1 standing up in court. It is rather vague (by design, so as to be as broad as possible), but I can see prior art for each of the steps listed. I do not think Claim 1 would survive 5 minutes.

Now, if Claim 1 fails, all the subsequent Claims up to 15 will fail in consequence. Claim 16 is very similar to Claim 1 and both it and its dependents fail due to the same prior art.

I repeat, I am not a PA, but I would have no hesitation in laughing.

Cheers

I agree 100% with the last few post but here’s are some realities:

We are smaller than your typical cottage industry and for us social media as our main conduit to customers.  I removed the post in order to preserve my YouTube channel.  If a complaint is filed, YT is notorious for not responding and resolving issues in a timely manner.  Rather than risk this channel which has a lot of valuable information on it, I would post the videos to another channel.

There is a high probability that prior art does indeed exist.  However, USPO files typically go back to 1970.  The older patents are more difficult to search and obtain.  Additionally, the term parrafin is often used for liquid fuels.

I agree with Roger that the primary claims are vague and could be challenged.  The problem is with these kinds of activities, only the lawyers make money.  As a very small business, it imposeses a high financial risk.

That really leaves me with 2 primary option : go forward and play the odds or do my own patent searches for prior art.  Time or money, both in short supply.

My 2 cents

Hi Jon

Can’t and won’t argue.
I have never posted to YouTube, so I know nothing there. But I like you idea of posting to another channel.
Patent Trolls are a serious pain. A dark and ugly fate awaits them somewhere.

Cheers

I was considering developing a limited run ALPHA version to collect more customer feedback.

I’d like to see you go ahead with that and collect the feedback here in this thread for all of us to see. The recipients give feedback here with videos. Visuals without editing.