gabby
Trail Wise!
Posts: 4,537
|
Post by gabby on May 26, 2019 11:04:16 GMT -8
If I'm seeing correctly, in the pot I see the water at the 300ml mark, but OVER the 12oz mark. ... ... which would mean something is wrong with the pots measurement marks. Nothing wrong with the pot's markings - I noted this before in the earlier tests. Although my intention was to fill the pot to the 16 oz line, if you look closely you can see from the photo that the water in the pot is closer to the 300ml line. I guess I get a little sloshing when I'm pouring the water in, and I'm not being nearly as careful as I should. The pictures from 2 days ago show the same thing. It's more obvious in the final photo in this group, but then some water boiled away by the time of the last photo - or boiled over. bpbasecamp.freeforums.net/post/219597/threadIn the last "suite" of tests with the 2 pots (above), I actually took a measuring cup out with me, and carefully poured its contents into the pot to check the measure marks therein (note my patio is slightly sloped) ... ... but, after getting outside with my "kit", remember being more concerned that the temperature probe was resting on the bottom of the pots for the tests. Not sure if this is a real issue, but I did see the boiling event occur 2 or 3 degrees before the 210° point I expected, so this would say that either barometric pressure wasn't what it should be at 1100', or something else is not being considered. Lots to think about, including performing tests indoors to avoid the effect of variable winds and other phenomena. As I recall, I did all my alcohol stove tests on the range in the kitchen with a holder for the temperature probe to keep it centered in the water above the bottom of the pot and away from the side of the pot (where did that holder thingamabob go?) and the A/C vent in the kitchen closed and covered with a sheet of cardboard. Sometimes one can think too hard, and that takes all of the fun out of stuff.
|
|
ErnieW
Trail Wise!
I want to backpack
Posts: 9,875
|
Post by ErnieW on May 26, 2019 11:23:05 GMT -8
something else is not being considered with a holder for the temperature probe to keep it centered in the water above the bottom of the pot Think you have considered. Seems like you have been measuring the temp of the bottom of the pot not the water.
|
|
|
Post by bradmacmt on May 26, 2019 15:39:09 GMT -8
Gabby... you’ve missed the point entirely.
IT IS NOT POSSIBLE to have 300 ml measure over 12 oz’s... either the ml marks are wrong, or the oz marks are wrong, or both.
Get yourself a certified measuring cup and check the hash marks.
|
|
gabby
Trail Wise!
Posts: 4,537
|
Post by gabby on May 26, 2019 17:33:30 GMT -8
IT IS NOT POSSIBLE to have 300 ml measure over 12 oz’s... either the ml marks are wrong, or the oz marks are wrong, or both. You are right, you are right. Cheap Chinese junk!!! I've seen this sort of thing before - on a pair of Swiss Gear trekking poles I bought at Walmart. It didn't take long to figure out what happened here. The markings are accurate enough, but they are reversed. 300ml mark should be 16 oz (~473ml) 200ml mark should be 12 oz (~355ml) 100ml mark should be 8 oz (~237ml) 16 oz mark should be 500ml 12 oz mark should be 400ml 8 oz mark should be 300ml (Pictures below as proof of all but the last 2 ml markings - trust me, I checked those also. The pictures didn't arrive on the cloud at time of posting.) I should have figured this out way back there if I'd been as observant as you, bradmacmt. Turns out I was actually testing with 16oz in my first tests, but 500ml in the last one. Now I recall seeing the 16 ounces of water I poured into the pot only come up to the 300ml line. In my rush to simply "get 'er done", I ignored it, filled the pot to the 16 oz line (what really is the 500ml/16.9oz line), shoved the measuring beaker aside and simply filled the next 2 tests of the pot from my large 2L water container, forgetting completely about measurement. Thanks for pointing out this error. Cheap Chinese junk! ETA: Now that I see these pictures, I also realize that I left the onion (upper right photo) out of the veggies I made tonight. So I had sautéed eggplant, yellow squash, zucchini, mushroom, garlic, yellow tomato and onion minus the onion. Oh well: I forgot the pecorino romano on top too, but I remembered the wine! (So I didn't forget the important part.)
|
|
|
Post by bradmacmt on May 26, 2019 18:02:34 GMT -8
It didn't take long to figure out what happened here. The markings are accurate enough, but they are reversed.
WOW! Thanks for following up the observation!
|
|
|
Post by dayhiker on May 26, 2019 18:42:53 GMT -8
I have primes eta 1,? Liter pot . I have done a test on it, backpacking light did do this. Quite a few years ago.
I think the other issue might be that fuel saved equals $$$ saved
I got it since it is bigger than my other pots for melting snow
The biggest problem is it just barely fits on my latest stove so placing it just a bit off and the pot supports go into the fins of the heat exchanger dumping water etc
Not sure how well it works since the pot sits up above the flame. Did not want a bulky separate obe
|
|
gabby
Trail Wise!
Posts: 4,537
|
Post by gabby on Jun 11, 2019 12:02:26 GMT -8
I used another stove with the Inferno pot this morning (it was extraordinarily cool this morning), a "prototype" chimney effect alcohol stove by Minibull Designs that I had never used before. I thought that its "center flame" design might be more appropriate with the Inferno pot, given the performance of the cannister stoves I tried before. The stove has a little handle that makes it "adjustable", but the handle isn't readily accessible, given the need for a windscreen. The "air intake" on this stove is the elongated oval aperture seen just above the bottom leg of the pot stand. Results? I found that this setup seemed pretty optimal, though there was also some of the "toxic smell" effect I'd noted before with the White Box stove. I didn't actually spend the time to accurately record "boil time", but it was pretty fast. It was also pretty easy, given the built-in potstand on this stove. I apologize to those who see this as "beating a dead horse", but I had the time and the energy, and thought it might be interesting. Parenthetically, I also just discovered the ability to resize the "edit window" editing and posting this just now. (I'm sure all of you know about this - I'm dense.)
ETA: I revisited this lazy, undisciplined "test" last night in the kitchen. I couldn't consistently duplicate the result I got yesterday morning, and, even worse, I got spectacularly divergent timing results on several tries using 2 different pots. With the Inferno pot, times varied from ~5:30 to over 12 minutes, and this was inside the house, in the kitchen! I tried varying setups, varying fuel feed levels, but nothing seemed to produce reasonable results. I'm nonplussed.
|
|
gabby
Trail Wise!
Posts: 4,537
|
Post by gabby on Feb 17, 2020 21:19:50 GMT -8
Just a quick note on this particular heat exchanger pot I was previously raving about (Sterno Inferno) :
Yeah, that little Fire-Maple melted the (supposedly) anodized aluminum pot.
Back to the drawing board. (Or, at least, use only alcohol stoves with this particular pot!)
|
|
BigLoad
Trail Wise!
Pancakes!
Posts: 12,911
|
Post by BigLoad on Feb 23, 2020 20:35:02 GMT -8
Yeah, that little Fire-Maple melted the (supposedly) anodized aluminum pot. At least you verified that the Fire Maple can crank out the BTUs.
|
|
|
Post by johntpenca on Feb 24, 2020 6:41:19 GMT -8
Without going back and searching for the Sterno Inferno data, sterno burns considerably cooler than canister gas. If that exchanger was made for use with sterno, I'm not surprised it couldn't hold up to more heat. Or maybe I missed something; lazy this morning...
|
|
BigLoad
Trail Wise!
Pancakes!
Posts: 12,911
|
Post by BigLoad on Feb 24, 2020 8:28:13 GMT -8
If that exchanger was made for use with sterno, I'm not surprised it couldn't hold up to more heat. I agree
|
|