STARLYTE alcohol stove worlds lytest almost

[zelph]

Zelph- by any chance do you have any Starlyte XL w/ the wire stand such as the one in this video? I dont need the IMUSA cup or lid, but I’ve always wanted the burner with the wire stand that seats in the burner.

https://youtu.be/DEY2S1DXBCw

Yes, I have some but have not had time to do a listing on my store site. Send me a message via my site(home page has the form) and remind me. I'll have my daughter(helper extraordinaire) send one out :-)

http://www.woodgaz-stove.com/

[zelph]

Her's a better photo of the new addition, golden container with screw threads. Modified Starlyte for size comparison. Weighs 13 grams/1/2 ounce:

Golden Starlyte's.JPG

[MikekiM]

Hoping for help diagnosing poor boil times...

I use two Starlyte burners.. one in my standard kit based on an MLD 850 & TD Sidewinder Ti Tri. This setup is pretty much tweaked.

The second is a SUL kit based on an MLD 475 with a DIY Caldera Cone. The cone is very small.. it packs in the 475. Basically a scaled down version of the Ti Tri. I arrived at this setup because I wanted a wind screen that was also a pot stand.. I've knocked over burning alc stoves in the past and the cone is much more staple and doubles as wind screen & stand. The 475 has fiberglass wrap for the pot to rest on in the cone and the bottom of the pot is one inch from the top of the Starlyte burner. I use an alu vapor barrier under the burner.

The holes in the cone are about 3:1, maybe 4:1, exhaust holes to intake holes and intake holes are only around one side of the bottom edge, but there is a large opening where the handles of a pot would normally be... I originally made this cone for a SP 450 mug.

With the 475 less than full, and one full ounce of HEET in the Starlyte, the setup fails to achieve a boil.

Any suggestions on improving performance? I don't expect this setup to be ideal, and I am not looking for ultra short boil times.. but I do think the setup should boil 450 ml on an ounce or less..

[capehiker]

It appears perhaps you have too much ventilation around the top, plus the air gap where the handles would seat, which is dissipating any heat generated. It's essentially canceling out what makes the cone so efficient?

[Starchild]

You also may be overheating your starlyte by placing it in the cone, causing very rapid evaporation and combustion, so exausting your fuel much faster and less efficient.

OTHO you may not be getting enough air, this unburnt fuel is leaving the cone. This should be evident by smell.

[MikekiM]

It appears perhaps you have too much ventilation around the top, plus the air gap where the handles would seat, which is dissipating any heat generated. It's essentially canceling out what makes the cone so efficient?

So.. reduce the number of exhaust holes? At this point, I can do away with the gap where the handles would have been had I been using the 450 ml mug.

You also may be overheating your starlyte by placing it in the cone, causing very rapid evaporation and combustion, so exausting your fuel much faster and less efficient.

OTHO you may not be getting enough air, this unburnt fuel is leaving the cone. This should be evident by smell.

There is no odor of unspent gas..

I recently read about overfilling and evaporating the fuel.. Not sure if that is the issue.

If I reduce the number of exhaust holes, I would expect the temps under the cone to increase and if there is an issue with overheating, fewer holes would exacerbate this.

Is there a way to trouble shoot, systematically, to determine where the issue might be?

[Starchild]

So.. reduce the number of exhaust holes? At this point, I can do away with the gap where the handles would have been had I been using the 450 ml mug.


There is no odor of unspent gas..

I recently read about overfilling and evaporating the fuel.. Not sure if that is the issue.

If I reduce the number of exhaust holes, I would expect the temps under the cone to increase and if there is an issue with overheating, fewer holes would exacerbate this.

Is there a way to trouble shoot, systematically, to determine where the issue might be?

You can time the burn enclosed vs not enclosed, if enclosed if much faster then you are overheating it

[MikekiM]

You can time the burn enclosed vs not enclosed, if enclosed if much faster then you are overheating it

Would you suggest one completely exposed, with no wind screen.. and then one in the setup as above?

And if your thoughts prove correct, I would suspect the Starlyte + Cone are incompatible.

[zelph]

Read how the Starlyte became popular for use with the cone. Lots of reading in Dan Durstons thread at BPL. He is the one that engineered the cone to work with the Starlyte. You'll get some ideas how your cone needs to be changed to be able to use the Starlyte.

One thing to eliminate is the aluminum ground plate that you set the burner on.

You should be using a modified Starlyte that has a smaller opening so it burns more slowly.

CALDERA CONES – MY ADVENTURES IN IMPROVING THE ULC SYSTEM

[Starchild]

Would you suggest one completely exposed, with no wind screen.. and then one in the setup as above?

And if your thoughts prove correct, I would suspect the Starlyte + Cone are incompatible.

Starlyte and cone are a very good combo. We are just diagnosing where the problem is. By burning it in open air, no wind, you can get a baseline. If your cone burns significantly faster it may give us some useful info as to what to change to address your problem.

[MikekiM]

Read how the Starlyte became popular for use with the cone. Lots of reading in Dan Durstons thread at BPL. He is the one that engineered the cone to work with the Starlyte. You'll get some ideas how your cone needs to be changed to be able to use the Starlyte.

One thing to eliminate is the aluminum ground plate that you set the burner on.

You should be using a modified Starlyte that has a smaller opening so it burns more slowly.

CALDERA CONES – MY ADVENTURES IN IMPROVING THE ULC SYSTEM

Thank you.. I'll educate myself more.

The modified burner might be the ticket as well.. But let's not change too many variables, just yet.

Starlyte and cone are a very good combo. We are just diagnosing where the problem is. By burning it in open air, no wind, you can get a baseline. If your cone burns significantly faster it may give us some useful info as to what to change to address your problem.

Makes perfect sense. I have some homework to do.

[MikekiM]

...One thing to eliminate is the aluminum ground plate that you set the burner on.

Curious about the rationale behind eliminating the vapor barrier?


Sent from somewhere east of Montauk..

[MikekiM]

Admittedly, I don't have the time, fuel or patience to do as many test burns as others might, and I won't be as detailed as others might, but last evening I gave this a go...

I am using HEET... 1 oz.
Eliminated the vapor barrier. Test was outdoors with a mild breeze and burner was placed on an irregularly surfaced stone.

First burn, with no cone, no wind screen... flame out occurred at 10:15

Second burn with only the cone... Flame out occurred at 10:45

Third burn, Two cups of tap water. Pot is 1" from top of the Starlyte burner.... Never got a full rolling boil, but at 11 minutes, I started to see weal bubbles. Flame out occurred at 13:00... odd. I did smell unspent fuel a few times during the test.

Fourth burn, two cups of tap water. I placed four y-stakes in parallel, placed the Starlyte on the center two and the cone resting on all four to effectively raise the bottom of the cone about 1/2" off the deck, largely increasing the intake but maintaining the same 1" distance from pot to burner. A full on rolling boil occurred at 9:51 and was maintained until 13:26 where the flame weakened to the point that the point that a light roll can be seen, but certainly no to be classified as a rolling boil. Flame out occurred at 14:50.

My best guess... I've been choking the Starlyte of air.. super lean mixture. More intake holes are needed to make this work. How many? Alot.

Well, the spaces between the y-stakes were about 1/2" wide and about the same distance in height. There were six spaces like this along the bottom of the cone. Additionally, there were two longer air spaces where the cone rested on the first and last stake. I can elongate every other pair of holes I already have.. that would me the same as adding six+ 1/4" holes.. and then replicate the same on the other side which would add six long holes. After the first test I can add holes as needed.

My next question is... Can there be too many exhaust holes? Because of the small size of the cone, required so it nests in the small 475 pot, only a small amount of the pot is actually in the cone or the 1" from burner to pot will be compromised. As a result a fair amount of heat and flame actually come through the exhaust holes, virtually wasted. I can make another cone, with less holes. However, I think the next test, after adding the additional intake holes, should be to close off some of the exhaust ports... mainly the handle gap, which isn't needed for this pot. I suspect aluminum foil to close off the exhaust holes will not survive that heat, but I do have some flashing scraps to try. I can fold a piece of alu flashing over it as a test...

So I achieved the boil AND extended the burn time substantially. I'll focus on shortening the time to boil first, then I can back off on how much fuel I am using.

Thoughts?

[Starchild]

Your mixture was rich, not lean. You are at the fiddle factor of tuning a alchy stove. I say this because you state you don't have much time for this, but it's all part of the deal. Be aware of this, it may take several more attempts to get into the goldilocks zone, which IIRC is about 8-9 minutes for 2 cups with a starlight, but I may be misremembering. I may be able to try my setup in a bit and report. That will give you a baseline as to where you want to be, and if you are close enough.

You also can't overlook the exhaust ports. It may seem counter intuitive, but not releasing that exhaust heat causes exhaust gasses to back up, the cone is already a oxygen deprived environment once that cone is lit, causing a backup will cause it to further be depleted of O2, causing a over rich mixture, and unburnt (and unhealthy to breath) fumes get out of the cone.

Raising it up may have helped with exhaust, where the air entry was the bottom and the top holes + the bottom holes both helped with exhaust. Posting picts may help.

[MikekiM]

Obviously you are absolutely correct about the mixture. Coffee hasn’t kicked in yet. Regarding the pictures, specifically what would be useful?

With regard to the boil times, I’m OK with the longer boil time although I don’t think nine minutes is that far off the mark. Given the intended use of this kit, I’m OK with it. If I thought I needed something faster, or more capacity, I would take MLD 850.

On the other hand, I would like to trim back the amount of fuel needed to achieve the boil, and it seems like there’s room for me to do that.


Sent from somewhere east of Montauk..

[Starchild]

Did a burn, it took 9 minutes for a full boil, which is how I remember it. Some observations:

1 - Using the Firelyte the flame was about 2.25 inches from the pot

2 - Don't measure out the amount of fuel for this stove, fill it up to the brim, or just shy of it, or just make sure you have extra and let it burn for what you need, then blow it out, cool and cover for next time. The stove will hold the fuel. You can store it in a ziplock if you want, I don't. To calculate the fuel used weight it before and after the burn. Remember that fluid oz are going to be different from weight oz if you are comparing - I'm not sure of the conversion anymore. This method uses the advantages of the Starlyte, 1 - fuel can be stored in the stove - on a short overnighter I have only carried a near full Starlyte and no fuel bottle. 2: Starlyte burner is strongest when it is near full and has less heat as it empties, this could be a problem as you approach boiling and need that extra heat to kick it over the top, yet the stove produces less near the end of the fuel.

3 - The exhaust was never hot enough that I could not hold my hand over it continuously, though the steam after it was boiling was.

4 - I made a restrictor to be more efficient with the firefly. It was a cut piece of AL that was a circle about 2/3rds the diameter of the starlyte. If I wanted to save fuel or cook slower I could add this intop of the burner.

[Starchild]

Just to add about the restrictor, I didn't use it for this test, it's just a modification I found useful at times and wanted to share.

As for the picts was thinking about the holes, the amount and placement, it's sometimes easier to see then have one describe them.

I would try a hight adjustment first, try to get the 2 inches, seems like the largest discrepancy.

[zelph]

Curious about the rationale behind eliminating the vapor barrier?

It allows infra red radiation to pass into the earth instead of back at the burner. It's fine to have it during winter months but not for the other months of the year.

My motto is: "Never Deny Your Stove Oxygen". Design a stove under ideal conditions. Reduce it's output by making the hole smaller.

Many hikers need "fast" boil times, they use canister stoves. Which lane do we want to be in? We hear it time and time again "hike Your Own Hike"

[MikekiM]

Did a burn, it took 9 minutes for a full boil, which is how I remember it. Some observations:

1 - Using the Firelyte the flame was about 2.25 inches from the pot

So my 9 minutes was horrible.

From the top of the burner to bottom of the pot or from the ground to the bottom of the pot?

With this setup, I won't be able to reach a distance of 2" from top of burner to bottom of pot and still have a setup that meets my objectives, one of which is everything nests in the pot. As it is, only about 1" of the pot is actually in the cone. It's still far more stable (one of my other objectives) than if I were using a stand of any other sort, so any additional boil time might be a necessary compromise.

2 - Don't measure out the amount of fuel for this stove, fill it up to the brim, or just shy of it, or just make sure you have extra and let it burn for what you need, then blow it out, cool and cover for next time. The stove will hold the fuel. You can store it in a ziplock if you want, I don't. To calculate the fuel used weight it before and after the burn. Remember that fluid oz are going to be different from weight oz if you are comparing - I'm not sure of the conversion anymore. This method uses the advantages of the Starlyte, 1 - fuel can be stored in the stove - on a short overnighter I have only carried a near full Starlyte and no fuel bottle. 2: Starlyte burner is strongest when it is near full and has less heat as it empties, this could be a problem as you approach boiling and need that extra heat to kick it over the top, yet the stove produces less near the end of the fuel.

I don't keep the Starlyte in a ziploc.. but I also haven't stored fuel in it, though I know that is one of the benefits. I am not confident enough with this setup to rely solely on what fuel gets decanted to the burner.. I would want to take extra, if only an extra two ounces.

You mention 'fill it to the rim'. How can you tell how much fuel is the stove to determine whether it is at or about to go over the brim? Zelph has been quite vocal about not overfilling the stove for fear that it will heat up, boil and overflow.

3 - The exhaust was never hot enough that I could not hold my hand over it continuously, though the steam after it was boiling was.

Certainly not the case for me. I can grab the pot without getting burned, but if I keep my hand at the pot top, I will be sorry..

4 - I made a restrictor to be more efficient with the firefly. It was a cut piece of AL that was a circle about 2/3rds the diameter of the starlyte. If I wanted to save fuel or cook slower I could add this intop of the burner.

I can now see the value in using the restrctor plate. Consider, I am not in a rush so a longer boil time can be ok. And, I don't ever recall actually needing to reach a boil in the field.. hot enough is hot enough.

Just to add about the restrictor, I didn't use it for this test, it's just a modification I found useful at times and wanted to share.

As for the picts was thinking about the holes, the amount and placement, it's sometimes easier to see then have one describe them.

I would try a hight adjustment first, try to get the 2 inches, seems like the largest discrepancy.

Holes are slightly larger than 1/4".. not standard hole punch. I am using the HD hole punch with the depth index on it. Love that thing. The holes are spaced 7/8" OC, single row on only one side of the cone.

It allows infra red radiation to pass into the earth instead of back at the burner. It's fine to have it during winter months but not for the other months of the year.

My motto is: "Never Deny Your Stove Oxygen". Design a stove under ideal conditions. Reduce it's output by making the hole smaller.

Many hikers need "fast" boil times, they use canister stoves. Which lane do we want to be in? We hear it time and time again "hike Your Own Hike"

That makes sense and I know that intuitively.. just didn't know how best to diagnose the choke point. I have three top notch canister stoves and I never use them. If I am in a rush, I'll go to the diner.

So once I have the airflow correct, will the cone need any modification if used with the modified Starlyte?

[zelph]

So once I have the airflow correct, will the cone need any modification if used with the modified Starlyte?

Yes, get rid of the gaping hole that was once used for the handles of a diff pot. That hole diverts the heat off to one side. The air flow is following the path of least resistance.

Capture.JPG