Samh;samh wrote:What's the weight on this, Daren?DarenN wrote:
you sittin' down?
the burner alone weighs 6.2oz.


Daren.........
Samh;samh wrote:What's the weight on this, Daren?DarenN wrote:
DarenN wrote:(same pic as the first post in this thread. re-posted for reference.)
the legs of the potstand are on a 6" outer diameter. i thought to make it smaller and bent up a set of legs to make a 5" diameter. bad idea!!it would stand up on it's own but as soon as i put a pot of water on it, splash!!, it collapsed.
well, the floor needed a wash anyway.at least it wasn't burning!
![]()
Daren........
Nice metalworking Daren, looks sweetDarenN wrote:(same pic as the first post in this thread. re-posted for reference.)
the legs of the potstand are on a 6" outer diameter. i thought to make it smaller and bent up a set of legs to make a 5" diameter. bad idea!!it would stand up on it's own but as soon as i put a pot of water on it, splash!!, it collapsed.
well, the floor needed a wash anyway.at least it wasn't burning!
![]()
Daren........
Me thinks it was because the legs were not equally spread apart and the pot off center to where the larger opening was.DarenN wrote:something to do with the geometry, i suppose. the legs just kinda twisted, turned in thier pockets, and the pot fell over.
i was reasonably careful in eye-balling the leg spacing, but i think you are correct to some extent. however; i think that the smaller leg circle was too fussy about it's spacing. the reason i'm not pursuing the smaller leg stand legs is this: there is exactly 1.5 grams difference in weight between the 5" legs and the original 6" circle legs, and virtually not volume penalty as the legs take up unused space in the bottom of the pot when they are packed up.zelph wrote:Me thinks it was because the legs were not equally spread apart and the pot off center to where the larger opening was.DarenN wrote:something to do with the geometry, i suppose. the legs just kinda twisted, turned in thier pockets, and the pot fell over.