@ Roger – FMS-116T stove question

Rather than facts, I’ll throw out an alternative theory:  Could a low flame endanger the pot supports a la the BRS-3000T issue Hikin Jim discovered (which wasn’t a low flame, but extended use with a heavy pot)?  While a high flame maybe gets further from the burner before reaching maximum temperature?  And/or a lean flame that burns hotter than over-rich flames.

But it seems less likely than your CO idea.

First time I have heard of that one!
I have no idea at all. Given the number of stoves which have been run at a low simmer over the years (thousands? more?), that seems a bit odd.

It won’t be a CO problem – I am pretty sure of that.

It might be a problem with the titanium pot supports getting red hot for a long time and distorting slightly, but that would only happen with a really heavy pot and rough use. If you are cooking just for yourself, I can’t see that applying.

Eh – simmer your dinners for a year or two and report back if there are any problems?

Cheers

Now I’ve heard of slow cooking, but simmer your dinner for a year or two? Who has that kind of patience?

Could be awful tender meat after a year …

Cheers

Ah, you guys are pretty nuts, all y’all. I’m just simmering a 400 cc cup of noodles, or a soup mix. No heavy weight, no intense heat. It looks like I have my answer here – that it is probably a CO politically correct warning. Hikin’ Jim’s warping problem with his BRS-3000T was likely due to intense heat and heavy weight load, something that I NEVER do with mine, which has performed marvelously with my JB Sol. Always with a med-low to medium flame.

I’m just going to continue simmering my small loads and see how it goes, CO be damned. Thanks, guys.

Could you add some rice or pasta to the soup mix?

Cheers

I think I understand what they are talking about. Remember, this is only a theory…
The small flames will hold close to the flame spreader/grate on the 116. This means it will get hotter than normal. Other stove parts (including the valve mechanism) will also get hotter. Since a larger flame would also require induce a larger influx of cooling air from the sides and below the stove, I believe that is what they are talking about. If simmered on low for a long period (maybe a half hour or so) the body of the stove could reach temps where the valve could potentially start softening/melting the seals, potentially leaking, and, via conduction, overheating the actual canister at very warm ambient temps, despite evaporative cooling in the can, itself.

James, you are my hero. This make pretty good sense to me. I suppose that I will need to watch my technique here. Maybe just run the stove for 5-10 minutes at a time at a low flame setting, and shut it off to allow it to cool down. Then when I start the stove again, use a medium flame for a few minutes to get the food simmering again, then reduce the flame to the minimum for a few minutes and shut it off again. Repeat.

Also, maybe I can figure out a way to elevate the pot maybe an inch or so above the pot supports. That way I can run the stove at a bit higher flame setting and still just be simmering the goodies. Trial and error is good. Destroying a sweet simmer stove, not so much…

James this makes a lot of sense. However, would this effect really be limited just to this stove model? I’d think it would apply to many stove models on very low flame for long periods.

Perhaps this same warning is on the user manual for other Fire Maple stoves?

More destructive testing is in order.

Don’t forget the BRS issues also just happen to some of them as a manufacturing/QC problem. It isn’t necessarily the weight or the flame, some of them are just duds and deform.

The small flames will hold close to the flame spreader/grate on the 116. This means it will get hotter than normal.
I have used mine a bit, mainly on simmer, and I can’t say I have ever noticed any problems. Sure, the pot supports get hot, but they do that at any flame.
My main concern with that stove is that I think the pot supports are too low: they should be about 10 mm higher for minimum CO production.
Otherwise, it’s a neat little stove, and I don’t know what they are on about.

Cheers

I believe this would only apply to the larger headed models, not so much the narrow heads like the 300T or PocketRocket, etc. Anyway, it is only a theory…

So last night at 3:30 AM I had to do my usual pee break. This time I put on my fleece, a parka, and gloves, grabbed a flashlight and went out to my cleverly pre-positioned reclining lawn chair in my dark yard. I needed to see some Orionid shooters, and it was a cloudless night with a new moon – perfect. After 45 minutes I had seen just 7-8 of them, mostly rather faint weenie ones, but there was one that was worth the trip out there. Then here came the resident psycho skunk. I hate when it shows up, as I keep thinking it might be rabid or something. Skunks usually hate bright lights, loud noises, and especially water. But not this one – if I shine my flashlight in its face, or yell loudly, it just comes closer, aims its butt toward me and acts like it might actually spray me. I decided that the night’s skunk-to-shooter ratio sucked, so I went back into the house to snag some more sleep. But I couldn’t, as I just lay there thinking of ways to get even with that skunk. Then I thought, “I know, I’ll go downstairs to the war room and make something that would raise my pot a bit above the FMS-116T stove.” Here is the first idea, a titanium foil pot stand with perforations to let the heat escape.

With the pot sitting on it:

I wasn’t quite happy about it, as I could see how heat from the bottom of the pot could still bounce down to the stove. I needed to provide more ventilation. So I looked around my pile of titanium stuff that is intended to be re-purposed, and I saw a very crappy triangular ti pot support that looked to be about the right size (or at least I could modify it to work). Here it is…

And with the pot on it:

As you can see, there is a lot more air flow for the heat to escape out into the cosmos and not toward the stove. I agree with Roger’s thought that there needs to be greater stove-to-pot distance with the FMS-116T. I designed both of these “pot stands” to raise the bottom of the pot .625″ above the top of the pot support arms. I figure that by positioning the pot higher I can turn the flame up a wee bit and still achieve a sweet simmer. We’ll see…

I now await a response from either Monoprice (who sold me the stove) or preferably Fire Maple itself (who made it) to answer my question about not running the stove at a minimal flame for extended burn times. Is it due to CO, or does it relate to destruction of the stove somehow? Again, we’ll see – assuming that either company responds. And if Fire Maple should tell me that there’s no issue at all, I’ll just toss my creations and simmer happily without concern (which both Roger and I have done anyway, without incident).

Response from Fire Maple: “hi, for all of our stoves, we don’t suggest run low flame for a long time. It may damage the burner.”

Fire Maple added: “This warning is on every booklet of firemaple stove.”

Gary nice job, looking forward to reading the full post later.

OK, so not specific to the FMS-116T.
But sadly they don’t say WHY.
Me, I have no idea.

Cheers

Interesting thread.

I own one of Roger’s V1 winter stoves with the 116T burner, and I’ve used it on several occasions to dry-bake muffins, following the recipes & technique’s on Flat Cat Gear’s Youtube page and using one of his 5″ muffin tins inside an Open Country aluminum pot.

This means that I’m running the FMS-116T stove on its lowest setting for 45-50 minutes.  I use it in conjunction with a full sized foil wind screen.

I’ve done this 5 or 6 times over the last 18 months or so. So far I haven’t noticed any damage to the 116T burner head, but all this talk about burner damage now has me worrying.

Wait, Ethan, was that an actual response from Fire Maple, or is that what you are assuming they would say? It’s convincing, with the ‘broken English” that they tend to use. You had Roger believing it. I will post any communication that I receive from Monoprice or Fire Maple itself. My prediction is that Monoprice won’t even respond, and that Fire Maple won’t quite answer my question completely.

I’m thinking that for the $12 I paid, that I’ll just go ahead and use it in simmer mode (outside of course, if there might be a CO issue), and if it goes bung somehow I’ll just learn to live with that. It would be a shame though, as it’s one heck of a simmer stove at just 1.8 oz.

One variable not yet discussed it that since the FMS-116T was first produced in 2009, maybe FMS found a problem that they recently corrected, and that they dumped their stock of older, problematic 116Ts and sold them to Monoprice very, very cheaply. Hey, it could happen.

Gary, that’s an exact quote from Fire Maple by Messenger from their fb page.

My suspicion (and it’s only a suspicion), is that it is a generic warning in response to some vague problem someone claimed to have experienced once. I think ‘CYA’ might be the appropriate description.

Me, I would NOT worry about it, at all – because I don’t believe there is a problem. At least, not with the Ti burners. Cheap steel – maybe …

Cheers

So there you have it, Ethan. Thanks for finding that. Looks like we’re done thinking about it. Time to simmer away without worries or embellishments.

And I need to trap that psycho skunk and covertly mail it to Ken as, you know, a gift – destructive testing indeed! You’re a devious imp, dude, but a lovable one. Next time I embark upon some form of destructive testing I’ll call you right away so that you can join me.

Explanation from Fire Maple (again, quoting): “hi, when you run low flame, the flame burns inside of burner head, which much easier to cause damage. When you run normal flame, most of flame burns above burner head. That is the reason”

I’ve found them to be responsive and helpful.

That’s interesting. So it is sounding more like possible stove damage vs. excessive CO production now. You have done some good work here, Ethan, and I appreciate it.

“hi, when you run low flame, the flame burns inside of burner head, which much easier to cause damage. When you run normal flame, most of flame burns above burner head. That is the reason”

OK, I will stick my neck out here and say that is pure crap. I suspect it comes from someone in Fire Maple who does not have the faintest idea of what he is saying – lawyers or marketing or similar. Let me be very plain:

On a properly made burner head, there is NO flame inside the burner head.

That is why there are small holes in the burner head – to keep the flame outside. For more explanation of this, read up about the Davy Safety Lamp, invented in 1815 for safe illumination in mines.

I have seen one stove (from China) which did get flames inside the burner head. It was a copy of the MSW Whisperlite. Whoever built it did not have a clue either – and had done ZERO product testing before selling. The stove was lethal. As soon as the flame got inside (which only took a few seconds) the whole burner went bright red.

So I will again stick my neck out and say that there is NO danger with simmering, at least with any well-made upright canister stove. The FMS-116T is quite safe.

And with a vortex burner like the ones I sell, the flame is inherently inside the burner chamber! But that is part of the design too, and quite safe. I wonder how many XGKs (and GK etc) have been sold and used around the world?

Cheers