I made a Fancy Feast Stove after I watched your videos, excellent design and I love the stove. I made a similar version using the Friskies Prime cat food can and diced tomato can for the inner can. I use Carbon Felt for all my stoves. It works wonderfully! Thanks for posting.
Nice test, very professionally done. Fuel, stoves, gear, can all be replaced. Time however, once spent, is gone for good. I'll take the fastest stove everytime. Thanks for sharing!
I'm convinced that the issue with the Zelph stove is the missing "feed holes" on the bottom of the inner cylinder. I've built my own using both carbon felt and fiberglass cloth and both preformed very well. Punch 2 to 4 holes at the very bottom and retest it.
Great test, Hiram! This pretty much confirmed my initial hunch. The lower inside height on Zelph's stove makes it a little slower to boil, but it extends the fuel to last longer. It's a bit of a bummer that it doesn't light from the side. That's one of my favorite features about your Fancy Feast design with the carbon felt.
Thats funny. ME TOO. Hiram's has to win cuz mines from his measurements. To bad about the fiberglass stove being defective (if it was). I wondered if carbon felt and fiberglass were comparable in a reasonable way. I have access to both.
Thanks for the test boils Hiram. I made and have been using a Fancy Feast stove like yours and have had greats results with it hiking. Keep posting reviews and tests!
I think it WAS a scientific test. well done mister. they all did well IMHO Seems one hole at bottom is required? I am just beginning to use these tin can stoves so I found this helpful. & good editing also, yeah liked it.🤠
Who wouldn't find that exciting? I never thought about the problem of identical pots, but I think your solution was a good one. The Goodyear blimp view of the stadium was also great and it was cool getting to watch those bubbles form.
I just checked my Zelph stove and it does not have nicks in the bottom either though I always light mine in the middle. Also, I think the Zelph stove might have a problem with a wide pot like the ones you were using. Try it with a snow peak 700 or 900 pot which is what I use backpacking and see what you get. I get 6 to 6:30 minutes to boil water with a lid depending on the temp of the water.
Rather than see how long the alcohol lasts, maybe measuring the weight of alcohol used to get to a boil might be a more realistic indication of efficiency
I wonder if the missing feed "nicks", while making it harder to light, make the Zelph stove more efficient by reducing the flow of alcohol as internal temperature/pressure of the stove increases.
I believe the zelph stove like others said the feed holes on the inner ring on the bottom. But I also think to aside from the type of wicking. Making small ice pick tip holes for the feed far the capillary action will determine More of the flame output and the duration of burn time. I would think the smaller the holes and or fewer holes would make for a longer burn because the capillary action would have to work harder than bigger feed holes and turn will produce a slower boil time but longer burn time versus the bigger holes that may make A shorter burn time but a quicker boil time.
Hiram, comments don't seem to be editable right now. I should have added that one factor contributing to stove efficiency is the height of the water pot above the flame base. There will be an optimum for a given amount of alcohol burned and maybe for a given size of water pot. In many cases this height will be determined by the pot support used with a given burner and not the burner itself, sometimes this will be determined by the design of the stove. If there are red flames, this indicates inefficient burning, because the red is glowing carbon particles and that means the carbon isn't being burned completely to CO2. Another measure of inefficiency would be carbon monoxide produced, if you happen to have a CO meter handy. Thanks for the reviews.
Really interesting to compare these three in such a boiling test, even if it is not totally scientifically in terms of exact temperatures etc. one can simply see the difference, which is huge enough to be called a such. Thanks a lot, Hiram! You told that some people might claim the one is more energy efficient. Maybe, but seeing that test I doubt whether the one is more energy efficient than the other two in terms of less consumption of ethanol or any better combustion or so - for me it looks as if it would simply burn less alcohol at the same time than the others but then it takes simply longer to heat the water, and finally same amount of alcohol is converted into the required heat to boil. I am not a physicist but according to my understanding the heat of combustion generated by ethanol is always same as long as it burns completely. So whether you burn 10 ml in 3 minutes or in 4, there is always the same heat output (in sum) as long as the ethanol burns totally. If my hypothesis is correct all three stoves should consume the same volume of ethanol in order to get the same volume of water boiling, but if there are differences in the needed ethanol such differences could give us a picture which one burns the ethanol better than the others (in terms of total combustion or so). Not sure whether I am wrong or so, but for me it sounds so far plausible ;-)))
I built a fancy feast with your dimensions of one inch above the carbon fiber. It's a hard working little stove. Although I had to buy a 2 foot square of fiber for 14 bucks an just used fraction of it, I have to say it was well worth it. I love that little stove and I thank you for the advice on making it.
+Mike Hedden Make a few extra stoves & stash them away for an emergency. Recently in my neck of the woods had over 100,000 without power due to an ice storm. Those little stoves will heat up cans of soup for family members, friends and/or neighbors. BTW, more than one stove will make meal prep faster --- 1 making coffee, 1 frying bacon, 1 doing hash browns and 1 scrambling a couple of eggs. :-)
Estes dois queimam o álcool mais rapidamente, portando gerando mais calor, fervendo a água mais rápido, porém ao preço de menor duração, ou sejam consome combustível mais rápido. Uma diferença significativa é que o modelo mais lento (Fancee Feest), tem uma menor altura para a chama - 0.60" (15.47mm), o que adiciona menor quantidade de oxigênio na combustão, contribuindo para uso mais econômico do combustível, porém ao custo de menor geração de calor. O Fancee Feast é o mais eficiente dos três, porque com a mesma quantidade de álcool - 30 ml, é possível ferver maior quantidade de água do que os modelos mais "quentes", é só ter paciência de esperar 1:30 minuto a mais. ;)
The idea is that more of the energy is transferred to the water, even if it takes long. That is, less energy is wasted by heating the air, the pot, etc. It takes longer, but you heat up more water.
In actual practical use it's not. In theoretical use, it's too close to matter a whole lot. The full boil times - from the moment they start to roll, until they go out - going by the times in this video: Superlite = 7:59 Fancy Feast = 9:54 Zelph's FF = 13.04 In practical use for using a stove, for almost everything you would cook that needs re-hydration, like dried vegetables to mountain house stuff, stovetop stuffing, muffins, coffee, tea, macaroni and cheese, mashed potatoes, etc. all you need is to get the water to a boil, not keep it there. That's why most tests are done to see what boils two cups of water (basic amount of water called for for re-hydrating meals) the fastest. The fastest you get to a boil, the quicker you eat or drink what you want. If you're trying to sterilize water to make it safe to drink, it's recommended that you boil it for five minutes. So in practical use and what the vast majority of people are going to ever do with one of these, the Superlite is actually the most efficient as it has sufficient length of boil for basically every need, took the same amount to get to a boil as the Fancy Feast, but in a lighter frame. Even if you wanted to boil extra amounts of water, with a nearly 9 minute boil time, and only a 13 minute burn, you'd still have to refuel on the second boil, because you'd be five minutes shy of getting another bowl of water to boil. Since none of them last enough to do a second boil, the efficiency relies literally in the speed they get to the boil for any practical use. Boiling water for an extra 3 minutes has no real practical value in the real world. You're better off just using the smaller, lighter one, because you can get the boil faster, and you still have to refuel on all of them to get a second boil. Lighter and faster ends up being more practically efficient in the end.
You should make one with an adjustable center tube so you can open or close the nicks at the bottom. Leave them open so the alcohol can soak up for the initial light then close them up before lighting it so you get that longer burn time, or you can leave them open for more BTUs.
I'm sure someone said this, with the Zelph stove, you don't cram the inner sleeve all the way to the bottom. Leave a tiny gap. Both of mine look the same with the top notches and work great.
Hiram, these are great videos, but I think you are missing an important concept. That has to do with the efficiency of the stoves you are testing. A stove that burns alcohol faster will simply run out of alcohol sooner, having no implications to its efficiency. The stoves have similar designs, namely that they all burn alcohol at atmospheric pressure at about the same temperature. As a first approximation, they will all have about the same thermodynamic efficiency, meaning that they will all convert the enthalpy of alcohol when reacted completely with oxygen into heat, CO2, and water. The capture of that heat can be enhanced with fins on the bottoms of pots and blackening the pots, but the actual production of the heat will be very similar, and the actual small differences in the thermal efficiency of the stoves are probably beyond the kinds of tests that can be conducted at home. But there are lessons to be learned. Firstly, not all fuels have the same enthalpies--heat of combustion. Butane, for example, has an enthalpy about 25% greater than ethanol, on a volume basis, whereas ethanol produces about a third more heat of combustion than methanol. The differences are greater on a weight basis.
Tiden Duong Not true at all. The top notches are pressure relief ports. Hiram did a video on why they are important to have. And if you watch other videos about the stove, you'll see that the notches are all in the same spot.
At 2.45 I get to see a reflection of your face....strange to realise having seen so many of your videos that I have only seen your hands and forearms lmao
the carbon felt versions have a wider space between cans and will burn more, more burning faster heating! if your just using it to melt snow, then you don't really need to boil the water, pasteurizing would be good enough because the water hasn't been in the ground or a stream it doesn't get near a contamination source!!
The stove's not efficient if it takes longer to boil water and put out less BTUs. I like your stove and I just ordered carbon felt from Amazon to build one. I'm going to build one for my coffee pot and another larger one for my cast iron pan.
It looks like either the Zelph stove was an unfinished or defective stove, or just a bad design (without the fuel channels to the wick.) So all you'd need is to make a couple notches, like the other stoves have, then see if it has improved. Otherwise, the carbon felt wick seems to be catching on. I learned about it from a tinkerer in the UK: th-cam.com/video/HX2taNrdQh8/w-d-xo.html
I have to chuckle that every test about camping gear...whether it's a tent, or a stove... involves some sort of speed test. Jet-stoves for example. It's odd that people will decide to considerably more, for a far-less utilitarian mug or cooksystem...just because it can boil water a few minutes faster. Lol! To me, I honestly can think of anything less important. Is it a race? When did a relaxing camping trip become something we need to fashion around a stop-watch? No thanks!.
Its because time is a commodity that has a list of other time filling projects that involve relaxing without having to be a speed demon to get them done before real working must resume
Zelph's Fancee Feest stove failed to feed the wicking material properly. That's because of missing fuel-feed ports. Which are indicative of poor quality control. Hiram, am glad that you caught that for us! I was scratching my head at first! Incidentally, the building omission created a crude regulator, so no Darwin award for the builder! I've intentionally built stoves with no feed ports (or modified) for the specific purpose of reducing the fuel flow (flame) for heating chili or more easily scorched foods. But soon moved on to the "building different head-heights" method to accomplish much the same thing in a much more predictive manner! Those wicking-material burners can simmer excellently with only 1/8" head-height, so why make an extra simmer ring for them? (as I've seen in some videos) I use the same name at yahoo if anybody wants to share ideas on wicking-stoves". Hiram and all.... BEST REGARDS!!!
I don't think you can honestly say it was poor quality control, based on one stove that was maybe missing those ports. Hiram Cook probably didn't say anything to them about it, and it was probably the only one of their stoves that was missing those ports. They would surely offer him a free replacement. Zelph does a terrific job. We all know that.
I think it was designed that way for efficiency,you dont need the ports the fuel will get out it doesnt have a seal,but Im sure if you did port it the efficiency will go down and BTU up :)
OK this is worse than a soft football at the Superbowl! Did someone sabotage the Zelph's? Why did it suspiciously arrive with money returned? Is there a link? Tune in next week...
Not to speak ill of zelph,but economy isnt effective if water cant be boiled.thats kinda the main job for these burners.not ideal for cooking dinner lol.
You do know that methanol and alcohol are not the same. right? I love your videos but on several of your videos you use methanol and alcohol like they are the same. I have a redcamp stainless steel alcohol stove and I love it. but for the price your cat stove... ummm sorry fancy feast stove is quite impressive.
Thank you for all you do with/for boiling water. Appreciate how much I've learned. Enjoy the opportunity to continue to learn. Thumbs up, my friend.
I made a Fancy Feast Stove after I watched your videos, excellent design and I love the stove. I made a similar version using the Friskies Prime cat food can and diced tomato can for the inner can. I use Carbon Felt for all my stoves. It works wonderfully! Thanks for posting.
Nice test, very professionally done. Fuel, stoves, gear, can all be replaced. Time however, once spent, is gone for good. I'll take the fastest stove everytime. Thanks for sharing!
I'm convinced that the issue with the Zelph stove is the missing "feed holes" on the bottom of the inner cylinder. I've built my own using both carbon felt and fiberglass cloth and both preformed very well. Punch 2 to 4 holes at the very bottom and retest it.
+1
I guess like others commented below, it was probably fitted in upsidedown by accident.
Yes I agree; and I don't know why they don't nick both ends!
The competition is really heating up around here - fun to see!
Great test, Hiram! This pretty much confirmed my initial hunch. The lower inside height on Zelph's stove makes it a little slower to boil, but it extends the fuel to last longer.
It's a bit of a bummer that it doesn't light from the side. That's one of my favorite features about your Fancy Feast design with the carbon felt.
Hiram, it’s good to see you back on the TH-cam. You are a good help. Texas
Love watching water boil I does! Thank you Mr Hiram Cook for the comprehensive test.
pierre
I always root for yours since I made one off your design!
Thats funny. ME TOO. Hiram's has to win cuz mines from his measurements. To bad about the fiberglass stove being defective (if it was). I wondered if carbon felt and fiberglass were comparable in a reasonable way. I have access to both.
Thanks for the test boils Hiram. I made and have been using a Fancy Feast stove like yours and have had greats results with it hiking. Keep posting reviews and tests!
I think it WAS a scientific test. well done mister.
they all did well IMHO
Seems one hole at bottom is required? I am just beginning to use these tin can stoves so I found this helpful. & good editing also, yeah liked it.🤠
great colours in this video and of course an excellent video too
Excellent testing. A taller Zelph stove with ports in the bottom of the inner ring would be a fantastic stove.
Who wouldn't find that exciting? I never thought about the problem of identical pots, but I think your solution was a good one. The Goodyear blimp view of the stadium was also great and it was cool getting to watch those bubbles form.
10,000 years from now; wooo another Fancee Feest video !
if you look at the top of Zelph's stove. the insert is up side down because the notches are for the fuel flow that is why it's hard to light.
Great fun. Cheering on boiling water! You mentioned the carbon felt getting old--Never thought of that. Hm!
I just checked my Zelph stove and it does not have nicks in the bottom either though I always light mine in the middle. Also, I think the Zelph stove might have a problem with a wide pot like the ones you were using. Try it with a snow peak 700 or 900 pot which is what I use backpacking and see what you get. I get 6 to 6:30 minutes to boil water with a lid depending on the temp of the water.
Maybe that inner can on Zelph's stove should actually be inserted upside down, with the two little nicks on the bottom.
No it should have them on both sides of the inner ring. Not just the bottom or the top
Awesome video! Just what I was looking for
Rather than see how long the alcohol lasts, maybe measuring the weight of alcohol used to get to a boil might be a more realistic indication of efficiency
I wonder if the missing feed "nicks", while making it harder to light, make the Zelph stove more efficient by reducing the flow of alcohol as internal temperature/pressure of the stove increases.
yeah quite likely
interesting, you should build one, with a telescop inner tube, from boiling to simmering or slow cooking ... i love such experiments. thx! Hans
Expertly done... Thanks for the results. Terry
I believe the zelph stove like others said the feed holes on the inner ring on the bottom. But I also think to aside from the type of wicking. Making small ice pick tip holes for the feed far the capillary action will determine More of the flame output and the duration of burn time. I would think the smaller the holes and or fewer holes would make for a longer burn because the capillary action would have to work harder than bigger feed holes and turn will produce a slower boil time but longer burn time versus the bigger holes that may make A shorter burn time but a quicker boil time.
So I will make 4 - 6 very small holes at the bottom good thinking man.
Could stove #3 middle tin be upside down?
Thanks Hiram
Excellent head-2-head video!
I did not have a tomato paste can so I cut a strip out of an aluminum can and rolled to fit. I put notches in the bottom and top.
why the hole at the top?
Hiram, comments don't seem to be editable right now. I should have added that one factor contributing to stove efficiency is the height of the water pot above the flame base. There will be an optimum for a given amount of alcohol burned and maybe for a given size of water pot. In many cases this height will be determined by the pot support used with a given burner and not the burner itself, sometimes this will be determined by the design of the stove. If there are red flames, this indicates inefficient burning, because the red is glowing carbon particles and that means the carbon isn't being burned completely to CO2. Another measure of inefficiency would be carbon monoxide produced, if you happen to have a CO meter handy. Thanks for the reviews.
Have you ever tried anything to boost the heat that alcohol puts out or a different fuel source just as cheap?
Really interesting to compare these three in such a boiling test, even if it is not totally scientifically in terms of exact temperatures etc. one can simply see the difference, which is huge enough to be called a such. Thanks a lot, Hiram!
You told that some people might claim the one is more energy efficient.
Maybe, but seeing that test I doubt whether the one is more energy efficient than the other two in terms of less consumption of ethanol or any better combustion or so - for me it looks as if it would simply burn less alcohol at the same time than the others but then it takes simply longer to heat the water, and finally same amount of alcohol is converted into the required heat to boil.
I am not a physicist but according to my understanding the heat of combustion generated by ethanol is always same as long as it burns completely. So whether you burn 10 ml in 3 minutes or in 4, there is always the same heat output (in sum) as long as the ethanol burns totally.
If my hypothesis is correct all three stoves should consume the same volume of ethanol in order to get the same volume of water boiling, but if there are differences in the needed ethanol such differences could give us a picture which one burns the ethanol better than the others (in terms of total combustion or so).
Not sure whether I am wrong or so, but for me it sounds so far plausible ;-)))
I built a fancy feast with your dimensions of one inch above the carbon fiber. It's a hard working little stove. Although I had to buy a 2 foot square of fiber for 14 bucks an just used fraction of it, I have to say it was well worth it. I love that little stove and I thank you for the advice on making it.
+Mike Hedden Make a few extra stoves & stash them away for an emergency. Recently in my neck of the woods had over 100,000 without power due to an ice storm. Those little stoves will heat up cans of soup for family members, friends and/or neighbors. BTW, more than one stove will make meal prep faster --- 1 making coffee, 1 frying bacon, 1 doing hash browns and 1 scrambling a couple of eggs. :-)
+Mike Hedden Same here. I was going to buy a Zelph stove till Colorado Camper pointed out you can build a taller stove and get more heat.
Oldtimer Lee That's a very good point...Thanks
Helped alot sir thank you
The “Big Match” is awesome
Correction: rccrashnburn
It was changed a while back.
good demonstration
Não entendi wual a diferença dos dois que fervura mais rápido, alguém sabe dizer?
Estes dois queimam o álcool mais rapidamente, portando gerando mais calor, fervendo a água mais rápido, porém ao preço de menor duração, ou sejam consome combustível mais rápido.
Uma diferença significativa é que o modelo mais lento (Fancee Feest), tem uma menor altura para a chama - 0.60" (15.47mm), o que adiciona menor quantidade de oxigênio na combustão, contribuindo para uso mais econômico do combustível, porém ao custo de menor geração de calor.
O Fancee Feast é o mais eficiente dos três, porque com a mesma quantidade de álcool - 30 ml, é possível ferver maior quantidade de água do que os modelos mais "quentes", é só ter paciência de esperar 1:30 minuto a mais. ;)
Great job
Cool comparison.
Thanks for sharing, some useful info.
How is it more efficient if it takes longer to boil water?
The idea is that more of the energy is transferred to the water, even if it takes long. That is, less energy is wasted by heating the air, the pot, etc. It takes longer, but you heat up more water.
In actual practical use it's not. In theoretical use, it's too close to matter a whole lot.
The full boil times - from the moment they start to roll, until they go out - going by the times in this video:
Superlite = 7:59
Fancy Feast = 9:54
Zelph's FF = 13.04
In practical use for using a stove, for almost everything you would cook that needs re-hydration, like dried vegetables to mountain house stuff, stovetop stuffing, muffins, coffee, tea, macaroni and cheese, mashed potatoes, etc. all you need is to get the water to a boil, not keep it there. That's why most tests are done to see what boils two cups of water (basic amount of water called for for re-hydrating meals) the fastest. The fastest you get to a boil, the quicker you eat or drink what you want. If you're trying to sterilize water to make it safe to drink, it's recommended that you boil it for five minutes. So in practical use and what the vast majority of people are going to ever do with one of these, the Superlite is actually the most efficient as it has sufficient length of boil for basically every need, took the same amount to get to a boil as the Fancy Feast, but in a lighter frame.
Even if you wanted to boil extra amounts of water, with a nearly 9 minute boil time, and only a 13 minute burn, you'd still have to refuel on the second boil, because you'd be five minutes shy of getting another bowl of water to boil.
Since none of them last enough to do a second boil, the efficiency relies literally in the speed they get to the boil for any practical use. Boiling water for an extra 3 minutes has no real practical value in the real world. You're better off just using the smaller, lighter one, because you can get the boil faster, and you still have to refuel on all of them to get a second boil. Lighter and faster ends up being more practically efficient in the end.
I do love your videos
Can you tell me the name of that lighter you used in the beginning of the video? Thanks!
+Scott L This video should help.
th-cam.com/video/5L9nPP2COgs/w-d-xo.html
+Hiram Cook Thank you...very helpful.
You should make one with an adjustable center tube so you can open or close the nicks at the bottom. Leave them open so the alcohol can soak up for the initial light then close them up before lighting it so you get that longer burn time, or you can leave them open for more BTUs.
👍👍🇧🇷 Parabéns
I'm sure someone said this, with the Zelph stove, you don't cram the inner sleeve all the way to the bottom. Leave a tiny gap. Both of mine look the same with the top notches and work great.
The weight of a pot of water will cram it for you.
Just use longer wick
Hiram, these are great videos, but I think you are missing an important concept. That has to do with the efficiency of the stoves you are testing. A stove that burns alcohol faster will simply run out of alcohol sooner, having no implications to its efficiency. The stoves have similar designs, namely that they all burn alcohol at atmospheric pressure at about the same temperature. As a first approximation, they will all have about the same thermodynamic efficiency, meaning that they will all convert the enthalpy of alcohol when reacted completely with oxygen into heat, CO2, and water. The capture of that heat can be enhanced with fins on the bottoms of pots and blackening the pots, but the actual production of the heat will be very similar, and the actual small differences in the thermal efficiency of the stoves are probably beyond the kinds of tests that can be conducted at home.
But there are lessons to be learned. Firstly, not all fuels have the same enthalpies--heat of combustion. Butane, for example, has an enthalpy about 25% greater than ethanol, on a volume basis, whereas ethanol produces about a third more heat of combustion than methanol. The differences are greater on a weight basis.
The Zelph stove looks to have the nicks in the top of center tube,maybe it is upside down.
Hiram's stove has holes too, they let air in so the fuel flows more easily to the wick.
I just figured it out, probably after everyone else…
good shop cloth + heavy duty aluminum foil = good wind screen.
the Zelph stove inner ring is put in wrong side, u can see the notches is on top rather at the bottom. wrong assembly
Tiden Duong Not true at all. The top notches are pressure relief ports. Hiram did a video on why they are important to have. And if you watch other videos about the stove, you'll see that the notches are all in the same spot.
you need to consider watts i.e btu per hrs. The same mass of alcohol will have the same caloric value.
The boil with a covered pot will occur a lot sooner. If it was my test, I would use a glass lid for accurate timing.
The Carbon Felt seems better then the Fiberglass. Its easier to light in the cold and these look hotter.
At 2.45 I get to see a reflection of your face....strange to realise having seen so many of your videos that I have only seen your hands and forearms lmao
the carbon felt versions have a wider space between cans and will burn more, more burning faster heating! if your just using it to melt snow, then you don't really need to boil the water, pasteurizing would be good enough because the water hasn't been in the ground or a stream it doesn't get near a contamination source!!
Thanks! --- Clark
The stove's not efficient if it takes longer to boil water and put out less BTUs. I like your stove and I just ordered carbon felt from Amazon to build one. I'm going to build one for my coffee pot and another larger one for my cast iron pan.
Meth burns very blue, nice
The hat you stole from a prison, are you on the run? .. lol do you do tunnels too.. :)
It looks like either the Zelph stove was an unfinished or defective stove, or just a bad design (without the fuel channels to the wick.) So all you'd need is to make a couple notches, like the other stoves have, then see if it has improved.
Otherwise, the carbon felt wick seems to be catching on. I learned about it from a tinkerer in the UK:
th-cam.com/video/HX2taNrdQh8/w-d-xo.html
Great vid thanks for doing this, sent you a pm regarding a new wick material :)
Care to share?
@@swassige i have a vid on my channel for ceramic woll
I have to chuckle that every test about camping gear...whether it's a tent, or a stove... involves some sort of speed test.
Jet-stoves for example. It's odd that people will decide to considerably more, for a far-less utilitarian mug or cooksystem...just because it can boil water a few minutes faster. Lol!
To me, I honestly can think of anything less important. Is it a race?
When did a relaxing camping trip become something we need to fashion around a stop-watch?
No thanks!.
Its because time is a commodity that has a list of other time filling projects that involve relaxing without having to be a speed demon to get them done before real working must resume
*TO BE FAIR ON THE TEST " drill punch 3 or 4 holes " AND RETEST
That's a real purdy boil.
Don't bowl over...i need my coffee...he he he...hi Hiram !
+MrFullautoak47 i got a real pocket rocket (msr) ...finally...and geigerrig 3 liter water bladders...new gear is fun !
Same test with the paper towel stove...
Zelph's Fancee Feest stove failed to feed the wicking material properly.
That's because of missing fuel-feed ports.
Which are indicative of poor quality control.
Hiram, am glad that you caught that for us! I was scratching my head at first!
Incidentally, the building omission created a crude regulator, so no Darwin award for the builder!
I've intentionally built stoves with no feed ports (or modified) for the specific purpose of reducing the fuel flow (flame) for heating chili or more easily scorched foods.
But soon moved on to the "building different head-heights" method to accomplish much the same thing in a much more predictive manner!
Those wicking-material burners can simmer excellently with only 1/8" head-height,
so why make an extra simmer ring for them? (as I've seen in some videos)
I use the same name at yahoo if anybody wants to share ideas on wicking-stoves".
Hiram and all.... BEST REGARDS!!!
I don't think you can honestly say it was poor quality control, based on one stove that was maybe missing those ports. Hiram Cook probably didn't say anything to them about it, and it was probably the only one of their stoves that was missing those ports. They would surely offer him a free replacement. Zelph does a terrific job. We all know that.
I think it was designed that way for efficiency,you dont need the ports the fuel will get out it doesnt have a seal,but Im sure if you did port it the efficiency will go down and BTU up :)
OK this is worse than a soft football at the Superbowl! Did someone sabotage the Zelph's? Why did it suspiciously arrive with money returned? Is there a link? Tune in next week...
Not to speak ill of zelph,but economy isnt effective if water cant be boiled.thats kinda the main job for these burners.not ideal for cooking dinner lol.
Thy do you make such a big deal about alcohol stoves....? When was the last time you went backpacking or bicycle touring?
I think Hiram likes to help his viewers with cool videos and useful information. Why do you make such a big deal about that?
You do know that methanol and alcohol are not the same. right? I love your videos but on several of your videos you use methanol and alcohol like they are the same. I have a redcamp stainless steel alcohol stove and I love it. but for the price your cat stove... ummm sorry fancy feast stove is quite impressive.
👍👍🇧🇷 Parabéns