Thank you for all of your ideas and for those who answered the survey. It seems to me that a major issue with backpacking stoves isn't just the stoves stability but also pot stabilizers and wind putting out flame. Would it be beneficial to design a product to make a stove be able to support a larger pot better? I guess that has to do with the overall stoves stability as a whole but I'm talking about the pot supports itself.
Thank you for all of your ideas and for those who answered the survey. It seems to me that a major issue with backpacking stoves isn't just the stoves stability but also pot stabilizers and wind putting out flame. Would it be beneficial to design a product to make a stove be able to support a larger pot better? I guess that has to do with the overall stoves stability as a whole but I'm talking about the pot supports itself.
_________________________
Some peopole live life day by day. Try step by step.
That isn't the type of stove we are talking about. Our group is focusing on the canister stoves where the canister is located beneath the stove not on the side attached by a cable
Well, it is a fix. If you are frying or simmering, remote canisters are the best option, because the burner is wider and it's lower to the ground. The top mounted stoves are basically torches that focus on a spot in the center of the pot.
Trying to stir something on a top mount stove is tempting fate... I've been a little hungry before thanks to the pot tipping off entirely and throwing the gnocchi into the duff. Boil and rehydrate for me.
_________________________
"In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities. In the expert's mind there are few." Shunryu Suzuki
Yes I'm implying that there are plenty of stable canister stoves available there is either a $ penalty or a weight penalty usually both!
The micro rocket pictured in your survey is ment for boiling water in a small pot by an experienced backpacker. If you have met all those criteria than. Stability is seriously not an issue.
_________________________
Some peopole live life day by day. Try step by step.
Registered: 11/09/12
Posts: 9
Loc: Western New York
From your responses Im finding the top mount stove is best used boiling water because when you try to stir food in the pot atop the stove there is a tendency for the pot to fall off.
With this said would the real stability with these types of stoves be with the pot itself compared to the base of the canister?
From your responses Im finding the top mount stove is best used boiling water because when you try to stir food in the pot atop the stove there is a tendency for the pot to fall off.
With this said would the real stability with these types of stoves be with the pot itself compared to the base of the canister?
Not necessarily true I've used one of these
For about to years with big pots, small pots, big frying pans, small frying pans. Titanium cups and done all sorts of real cooking. All kinds of stirring and egg flipping actions and never felt like I was going to loose any of it!
Very stable lightweight canister stove! Where the burner itself sits above canister
_________________________
Some peopole live life day by day. Try step by step.
From your responses Im finding the top mount stove is best used boiling water because when you try to stir food in the pot atop the stove there is a tendency for the pot to fall off.
With this said would the real stability with these types of stoves be with the pot itself compared to the base of the canister?
The top mounted stoves are poor choices for cooking for several reasons. That doesn't keep some of us from trying, obviously. People also say (I also say) that the home made cat can stoves aren't really for cooking either, yet I have also fried an egg on one successfully without torching anything or damaging myself.
You can add a heat diffuser to avoid the scorching that can happen with a single-point flame, but that adds weight, of course. And there are some top mounts with wider burners, though they are necessarily heavier than the narrower ones (you should be detecting a theme here - some of the resistance to a stabilizer you will get is due to weight reduction - see the name of the forum for another clue).
Then there is the fact that all stoves have fiddle factor - all of them require tending at all times, just because they are on fire. You clear an area and you mind it, and try to avoid things like kicking it over (I did that) or tipping it over (did that too) or putting it where others will walk through... Since I am already minding the stove closely to avoid lighting the forest on fire, I really don't mind not having a tripod or stand to keep the stove upright. I should have done that already before I ever lit it - create a stable platform if the ground isn't level. That's part of good stove-manship.
_________________________
"In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities. In the expert's mind there are few." Shunryu Suzuki
Registered: 10/29/12
Posts: 43
Loc: western Oregon
Samoset, that looks exactly like the stove I am currently using and my experiences are similar to yours. In my 10" fry pan I cook two or three items at once and have never dumped a meal. Knock, knock, knocking on wood. Sometimes I cook in a three liter pot. I also use the tall fuel canisters on long trips. Could just be luck, but I start with a flat stable surface and center the pots over the burner. Often I keep the fry pan off center to put more or less heat on different foods. My Pocket Rocket is much less stable, but it is just a back-up.
Registered: 02/03/06
Posts: 6800
Loc: Gateway to Columbia Gorge
No. Not necessary and not worth carrying the extra weight. There are a number of stoves with wider pot supports designed for really large pots, but very few carry such pots except in winter for melting snow. In winter we can't use canister stoves anyway because they don't work in below-freezing temperatures.
You folks seem determined to find a "solution" to a problem which doesn't exist!
Edited by OregonMouse (11/19/1204:29 PM)
_________________________
May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view--E. Abbey
Registered: 10/29/12
Posts: 43
Loc: western Oregon
As I read your question you are proposing a device to increase the stability at the burner level, not at the bottom of the fuel canister. I don't see how it would compensate for an unstable canister and my system is working just groovy (toally awesome), but if you can demonstrate it's effectiveness I would consider it. Tripod down-rigger arms and such aren't likely to be taken seriously. KISS.
Just maybe there are more pressing issues. Can you design a more versitle tarp system for example? Currently I'm working on a small insulated box, for perishables, that will compliment my Bearikade canister.
Registered: 11/09/12
Posts: 24
Loc: Buffalo, NY, U.S.
Well, the problem with this is that it doesn't fit all canisters. The product you referenced to only fits 111.5 mm canisters or very loosely fits a 109.5 mm tank (The most commonly found size), and doesn't fit the other sizes at all. Our product will be one that fits all sizes of canisters, not just a few. So this really isn't our competition, because it is not universal.
Registered: 11/09/12
Posts: 24
Loc: Buffalo, NY, U.S.
Why do you feel that it won't be taken seriously? Is it not as effective in your opinion? If so; what would you feel is a more stable or effective mechanism. (Picture examples would be appreciated)
Actually it is quite the opposite. We are focusing on the bottom of the stove but Tobi was merely suggesting a possible stabilization at the burner. This would reduce the risk of tipping over a larger pot on a small diameter burner, like most of them currently are.
What you are missing is that this is a LIGHTWEIGHT forum and the folks here are willing to sacrifice some function for lighter weight and less fiddle factor. What would be great for car camping is just not going to sell to a lightweight group.
Originally Posted By Xavier
Actually it is quite the opposite. We are focusing on the bottom of the stove but Tobi was merely suggesting a possible stabilization at the burner. This would reduce the risk of tipping over a larger pot on a small diameter burner, like most of them currently are.
Well, the problem with this is that it doesn't fit all canisters. The product you referenced to only fits 111.5 mm canisters or very loosely fits a 109.5 mm tank (The most commonly found size), and doesn't fit the other sizes at all. Our product will be one that fits all sizes of canisters, not just a few. So this really isn't our competition, because it is not universal.
It works with all size canisters. So do the more expensive competitors. I've seen them at work (other people have gotten them with their Jetboils).
And, they aren't necessary, as has been mentioned. I think that people who don't really know how to use their stove or are afraid of it are the most likely customers. There's a lot of things marketed to backpackers that haven't really filled a need, however, that sell nonetheless.
_________________________
"In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities. In the expert's mind there are few." Shunryu Suzuki
Or, depending on how securely the pot is attached to the burner to prevent it tipping off the burner, you may just tip over the whole stove-and-pot combo. Think "Jetboil." (Not that I'd ever admit to doing such a thing myself. )
Registered: 02/07/07
Posts: 3917
Loc: Ozark Mountains in SW Missouri
Tobi, here are a few observations given with the best of intentions:
It's been gently pointed out that the problem you're attempting to solve does not exist to any great degree for anyone here.
You've received this feedback from a very experienced focus group, but you're not doing much with it.
You've been urged you to look into other types of stoves where we do see room for innovative solutions, but you never even asked a follow up question about that. You should never let a path like that go unexplored.
You can not do better than starting off with looking to refine what the DYI crowd is doing at any given time in the category your looking into. That is the very cradle of innovation Tobi. It always has been.
It's also important to realize that changing course based on what you learn is key to success in any venture. Today, more than ever, it's absolutely critical to understand this.
As of yet, I've haven't seen that in the progress of your interaction here. This suggest your looking for affirmation as opposed to information. That can be a costly path. The "Segway" is an example of an amazing product that used that approach and fell flat on it's face despite it's amazingness being affirmed by very respected sources.
I suggest you step back, forget for a moment your initial approach, forget you even started this thread, then reread all that's been offered to you here with fresh eyes and see if you can come away with anything new from it.
Our long-time Sponsor, BackcountryGear.com - The leading source for ultralite/lightweight outdoor gear:
Affiliate Disclaimer: This forum is an affiliate of BackcountryGear.com, Amazon.com, R.E.I. and others. The product links herein are linked to their sites. If you follow these links to make a purchase, we may get a small commission. This is our only source of support for these forums. Thanks.!