Sterno Inferno Olicamp Stove Adaptor Plate

Photos

That’s a very creative repurposing of an existing part. You have an amazing talent for finding things that fit together. I have a lid from you that clicks so perfectly onto an Imusa cup. It’s very satisfying and it looks like it  was originally from a can of smoked almonds or something like that.

That’s pretty cool!  Looks like it fits together very well.  I don’t have the stove in question, otherwise I would be getting one of these.  I also don’t have a talent for discovering makeshift Legos in this manner, but I did find out that the lid of a 1-gallon paint can fits a 1.3L Evernew pot perfectly.  Like, “turn the pot upside down and the lid stays in place, but I can pop it right out with no effort” perfectly.  Of course, the paint can lid is 15g heavier than the factory lid, but I still feel pretty good about myself for discovering that one. 🙂

Bonzo, other stoves that are suited for use with the adaptor plate are Alpkit Kraku, Robens Fire Midge, Vargo Titanium, and the Fire Maple 300t.

If you are really really desperate for bragging rights as to the lightest pot lid, try a square of Al cooking foil.

But remember: the fuel saved per boil by using a lid on the pot will soon exceed the weight of the lid. A lid is good.

Cheers

This lid weighs 6 grams:

http://www.woodgaz-stove.com/Lid-for-Sterno-Inferno-Pot.php

Roger, got a question for you. How do you determine if a stove is emitting a lot of carbon monoxide? In the past you determined the Jet Boils were emitting excessive amounts. In my original design of this adaptor plate I sensed incomplete combustion of gas so I added more air inlet holes and that eliminated the smell and I am now able to operate the stove full throttle no problems. How would I go about measuring for carbon monoxide?

New version, more oxygen intake holes, more centering tabs for least amount of shifting of pot side to side and easier placement of pot onto stove.  Positioning of holes makes for easy insert of Moulder Strip when using canisters in cold weather. Plate is made of recycled commercial overstock.

Hi Dan

The full and complete answer to your question is at
https://backpackinglight.com/stoves_tents_carbon_monoxide/
https://backpackinglight.com/stoves_tents_carbon_monoxide_pt_2/
and onward to Part 6.

However, reading these does require that you have a full BPL membership, not just a Forum membership. Is a full membership worth the cost? I think so, but YMMV. There must be a hundred or so of my reviews on BPL.

You can now buy CO meters on ebay for <$50. You can also buy them from USA companies, basically same specs but add a zero to the price. They all contain a microprocessor, an LCD screen, a thermistor for temp, and a small solid-state CO sensor. You add batteries.

The short answer then is that I made up a custom test chamber for testing stoves, with side-stream CO sampling via a CO detector. I tested MANY stoves.

Cheers

The short answer then is that I made up a custom test chamber for testing stoves, with side-stream CO sampling via a CO detector. I tested MANY stoves.

The stove was placed inside the chamber that had ample oxygen for the stove to ignite and function at a low setting?

Where was the sampling of air taken, side or top via small hole for hand held CO meter?

Are you able to show us a photo of the chamber, please and thank you?

Thank You.

Hi Dan

I take it you can’t read the articles. OK. See photo below.
Steel box w controlled air inflow – inlets usually wide open.
Hot air goes out chimney at top
Side arm to the left, water cooled, fan at end, CO monitor sticking into air stream after cooling.
Temp probe in pot.
Green lab jack under stove under pot so I could vary the gap between burner head and pot base to assess effect on CO levels (it’s significant). Yellow tape measure to give the gap.

Cheers

Thank you very much Roger. The entire structure is awesome.

The water cooled unit for cooling air prior to the sensor is most interesting. Thank you.

What was it that caused you to test the JetBoil for CO, was it an odor of unburned fuel while operating the stove?

Hi Dan

I got interested in the whole CO thing, so I built the test rig and then tested MANY stoves. You will note that the article series has 6 parts – all large. I tested canister stoves, white gas & kero stoves, alcohol stoves, Esbit stoves – everything except wood stoves.

The Reactors were tested as part of the canister stoves group. This was a saga. MSR sent me an early model (V1), and that got up to an astounding 2,000 ppm CO, while little upright stoves were giving maybe 10 ppm. Context, from ASHRAE, in ppm
0 – 1 Normal background
9 Max allowed for short term exposure in a living room (ASHRAE, USA)
25 Often encountered on major roads (UK)
30 Health and Safety limit for 8 hours (UK)
35 Suggested max allowable concentration for continuous exposure for 8 hours (ASHRAE, USA)
100 May be encountered on major roads during weather inversions (UK)
200 Health and Safety limit for 15 minute exposure (UK)
200 Mild headache, fatigue, nausea, dizziness. Limit for transient exposure (USA)
200 Slight headache, tiredness, dizziness, nausea after 2-3 hour exposure (ASHRAE, USA)
300 Can lead to collapse (UK MoD)
400 Frontal headache, life threatening after 3 hours

So you can see why I was astounded. We (BPL) sent our test results for the Reactor V1 to MSR, had a bit of a ‘discussion’ with them, and MSR quickly pulled the Reactors off the shelves. A few months later they released the Reactor V2, which was MARGINALLY better, but still >1,000 ppm. (We did a second test just for the V2.) So they included all sorts of big CO warnings on the stove and with the stove: NOT to be used inside any building of closed space. I guess their lawyers thought they could get away with that.

The problem lies in the basic design of the Reactor: the glowing mesh top. The design simply can NOT suck in enough air to get complete combustion: the flame is always starved for oxygen. Use it in the open and sit upwind: fine. Use it inside a tent in a storm: possibly fatal.

Cheers

All great information on how you’ve been beneficial to the BPL family…….thank you so much!

Because of your findings published long ago I modified my Reactor to allow for more oxygen to access the glowing red mesh.

Hi Dan

Sorry, but I am not sure that your spacer will do much to reduce the CO levels. Once the gas stream gets above the mesh it cools, and having cooled the chances of CO turning into CO2 are then seriously reduced. It’s flame chemistry.

You see, I did test something like what you have myself. I adjusted the gap between the top of the mesh and the pot. There was some effect, but the levels were still far too high for me to be happy about safety. As I said above: use it outside while you are sitting upwind: OK.

Cheers

As I said above: use it outside while you are sitting upwind: OK.

Will do….thank you Roger :-)

We do NOT want dead bodies!
Cheers

The problem lies in the basic design of the Reactor: the glowing mesh top. The design simply can NOT suck in enough air to get complete combustion: the flame is always starved for oxygen.

Was the Reactor capable of complete combustion when run at half throttle or less?

Actually, it is the other way around. When a Reactor is run at full throttle, the fuel jet manages to suck in a fair bit of air – not enough, but a fair bit. When run gently, the fuel jet is much weaker and itis powerless to suck in enough air, so the CO level goes way up. This is the opposite of just about every other stove.

Cheers

Ok got it. I’ll run it at full power for less CO.  I like the way I can get it to simmer. I’ll be doing some testing end of September when weather gets cooler over here. I’ll get one of those hand held testers so I can do some careful testing inside my small travel trailer.

Thank you Roger.

This photo from BPL  gave me the idea of raising the pot above the burner:

Hi Dan
I can see what the author of that photo was trying to do, but I am not sure it would work as shown.

Certainly, raising the base of a heat exchanger (HE) pot up another 10 mm above a conventional burner is going to have a good effect. There is a very high risk with such HE pots that the fins will cool the flames down too much before all the CO has been burnt. (Yes, CO is a fuel which can burn.) So giving the flames more room in which to burn is only good.

But with a Reactor the flames are different, and mostly inside the mesh. I don’t think there is much combustion going on above the mesh: the gas above the mesh is too cold for that. So raising the HE may not achieve much.

The chemistry of a flame is fascinating . . .

Cheers

I don’t think there is much combustion going on above the mesh: the gas above the mesh is too cold for that.

If I remember correctly, there were flames on the surface of the Reactor when it was burning red hot. They were small, barely visible blue, but they were there. I would think that if there was CO/gas vapor coming of it would ignite.

I agree….”The chemistry of a flame is fascinating . . .”

I’ll see if I can find a photo from another thread showing some flame on top.

David, where did you get the idea of the adaptor plate in this photo and how well did the hole patern work out for you?