Page 6 of 8

Re: White Box Stove

Posted: Sun May 04, 2008 3:59 pm
by zelph
[quote="billinmt
Here's your big chance bill. You can be the one to set some standards for us.
I think I will pass on the opportunity to get mud slung at me... thanks for the offer....

Bill in MT[/quote]

Thanks bill, we'll make do with what we have.

I've put up a copy of your response to BPL's review of your stove and will have some comments tomorrow and then continue on with my testing.



Since I have been contacted by quite a few people over the somewhat lack-lustre review that Roger Chaffin performed, I thought I would add my 2 cents worth.

FYI: BPL had this stove last October and tested it back then. For the record they never published their test results until after Gossamer Gear started selling the stove this February. I received several emails and promises from Roger that he was going to post the review but never did until GG got involved. Could that be part of the reason, in my opinion and opinions of numerous other stove owners, for the lack-lustre review.

Roger included some information with the article that needs to be looked at. Most all alcohol stoves are really made for boiling water and for single users. For the vast majority of the backpackering people in this world a 1/2 ounce extra weight is no big deal especially when it makes the stove many times more durable than a typical pop can stove and again when the stove is designed to be used by 2 or more hikers. Most alcohol stoves are barely capable of handling the needs of one hiker let alone 2 or more.

Also the windscreen shown in the picture in the review isn't the right windscreen. It obviously must be something Roger found somewhere else. Controlling the air flow with a properly designed windscreen is important and it looks to me like his windscreen has twice as many holes as the one I provided with the stove. Also, as per instructions, wrapping the windscreen to tight around the pot, which Roger did, works against the efficiency of the stove. Any "qualified" stove tester should know that.

Roger also claimed flames were licking up the side of his pot. Could be because he didn't place the pot on the stove as soon as the stove blossomed out. But I think perhaps he could possibly have a fuel contamination problem more than a stove problem. If a picture is worth a million words then watch the attached video for yourself to see if the flames go up the side of the pot.

http://minibull.org/i ... ve=2007-03

Another point Roger Chaffin brought up is that the stove flares up when the pot is removed. Again this might be because of the fuel he was using. I can disprove that by the video that was produced by Tinny from MiniBull Designs. You might find it interesting to know that Tinny, one of the best and innovative alky stove makers in the world, and a competitor, not a friend, of mine, actually thought the stove was way better than what BPL's reviewer thought. Watch the video and see for yourself.

http://minibull.org/i ... ve=2007-03

To counter another "educated guess" by Roger. His comment "If the jets were made a little smaller to bring the flames a little more under control". Making the hole size smaller so you get a smaller flame pattern won't work. If you change the hole size and make them smaller, the stove won't function as good and the flames tend to go out. Also that fact seems to be seconded in Tinnys article and video.

Thanks to all my loyal customers who have contacted me about the BPL review.

ONE LAST THOUGHT: Is it the reviewers job to throw insults during the review. Let me quote a part of Roger's article referring to the number of stoves I've built and sold: "(It also means someone has drunk a huge number of drinks out of those cans - no comment!)" Tell me, what does that have to do with reviewing as stove. To me that shows a true lack of professionalism. Had I known Roger would have written something like that I would have never ask BPL to review this stove. I really feel insulted by the inference that I drink a lot. Any one who knows me will tell you that I haven't drunk and type of alcohol in over 30 years. Can you say that Roger? All of the bottles I use for this stove are scrounged from the roadways and litter containers and recycled into a very good product. Roger if you are reading this you owe me an apology!

Now that I've had my say, again I want to thank all the loyal White Box Stove owners, worldwide, who enjoy the stove and realize it is one of the best made.

Bill in MT

Re: White Box Stove

Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 12:16 pm
by zelph
I think it's safe to say that we all know by now that Bill and tinny were not satisfied with the results of the testing performed by Roger Chaffin of BPL.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill--Also, as per instructions, wrapping the windscreen to tight around the pot, which Roger did, works against the efficiency of the stove. Any "qualified" stove tester should know that.
Roger had it 1/2 inch from the pot and that is adequate and probably the industry standard. I and BPL believe Roger to be a qualified stove tester.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill--Roger also claimed flames were licking up the side of his pot. Could be because he didn't place the pot on the stove as soon as the stove blossomed out. But I think perhaps he could possibly have a fuel contamination problem more than a stove problem. If a picture is worth a million words then watch the attached video for yourself to see if the flames go up the side of the pot.)

In my tests so far I had flames lick up the side of the pot right after stove blossomed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill--But I think perhaps he could possibly have a fuel contamination problem more than a stove problem. If a picture is worth a million words then watch the attached video for yourself to see if the flames go up the side of the pot.
We all know that tinny uses HEET in the yellow bottle and discourages the use of Denatured Alcohol. It's obvious the video would show no flames up the side of the pot because he's using a different fuel than what Roger used. The fuel recommendy by Bill is denatured alcohol.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill--Another point Roger Chaffin brought up is that the stove flares up when the pot is removed. Again this might be because of the fuel he was using. I can disprove that by the video that was produced by Tinny from MiniBull Designs. You might find it interesting to know that Tinny, one of the best and innovative alky stove makers in the world, and a competitor, not a friend, of mine, actually thought the stove was way better than what BPL's reviewer thought. Watch the video and see for yourself.)

It is factual that there is a condensing of liquid fuel on the bottom of the cool pot that occurs while there is still liquid fuel in the stove that is boiling. This condensed fuel is what is igniting and causing the flare-up when the pot is lifted off. Tinny's video shows that it was at the end of the burn test when there was very littlefuel left to boil and the pot had warmed to boiling temp and was not condensing on the bottom of the pot, therefore no flare up. In my movies, I show the bottom of the pot on fire due to the fuel that had condensed. I will make another movie showing the flareup. Roger most certainly would have experienced the flareup also.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill--To counter another "educated guess" by Roger. His comment "If the jets were made a little smaller to bring the flames a little more under control". Making the hole size smaller so you get a smaller flame pattern won't work. If you change the hole size and make them smaller, the stove won't function as good and the flames tend to go out. Also that fact seems to be seconded in Tinnys article and video.
I think Roger did ok to give that Educated Guess" tinny gave his educated guess also and wasn't sure if enlaging the holes would work when he said:quote
Tinny--For the first few minutes it had a rather large flame ring but slowly settled down and got to work. I might have inlarged the jets to get the flame ring down abit but i am not sure that would work out. The thing that bothered me most was the slow blossom that caused me to give up on this project in the beginning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


At the very end you give ONE LAST THOUGHT.
Bill--I really feel insulted by the inference that I drink a lot. Any one who knows me will tell you that I haven't drunk and type of alcohol in over 30 years
.)


Nowhere did I see Roger indicate that you were using bottles that contained alcohol. He said they were made from a more robust aluminum energy drink can and then went on to say:
Roger--This White Box Stove is made from a thicker aluminium drink bottle - think miniature SIGG water bottle or conventional white gas stove tank. As such, the wall is much thicker and stronger. The company claims the drink bottles they use have walls 3 to 4 times thicker than found in 'Pepsi' cans. I measured the wall thickness in the White Box Stove as 0.040 millimetres (0.0016 inch), while an energy-drink can I measured had a wall thickness of 0.010 millimetres (0.0004 inch). That is 4:1. To be sure, the alloy used in the drink bottle may not be quite as hard as the alloy in a 'Pepsi' can, but I can certainly feel the greater rigidity in the White Box Stove
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BPL makes it clear about the "Overall Rating" in their gear reviews when they say:
BPL--it's also an inexact science, subject to bias, prone to controversy, an equivalent to an invitation to put your head on a chopping block.)
I hope everone can look at these facts and see this issue in a different light.

Re: White Box Stove

Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 4:49 pm
by billinmt
While you are doing all your research you might want to research how the fuel used by Roger is different than the stuff we use here. I just found out and apparently other people are just finding out that there is a big difference. See this forum: http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin ... index.html

Something about ethanol and methanol and methyl alcohol (meths) being way different.

Also if you wrap the windscreen to tight around this stove you get less air flow and it doesn't work as good. You will also burn a hole in the windscreen. Most people would agree that adequate air flow to a fire is very necessary and a tight windscreen doesn't allow that. As for an "industry standard" of 1/2 inch away from the pot, I thought there were no industry standards when it comes to alky stoves and all I have ever read is 3/4 inch to 1 inch away is best. At any rate Roger didn't do what the directions say to do which nor did he use the windscreen provided to him.
I think it's safe to say that we all know by now that Bill and tinny were not satisfied with the results of the testing performed by Roger Chaffin of BPL.
Add to that list about 75 other people who took the time to send me emails saying they thought is was a poor review.
BPL--it's also an inexact science, subject to bias, prone to controversy, an equivalent to an invitation to put your head on a chopping block.
Now you know why I didn't want the enviable task of being the one going on record for choosing the "industry standard" when it comes to akly stoves. Apparently anything and everything goes so it doesn't matter what you come up with, someone else will always come up with a different result to counter yours. Oops did it in his own two videos just by changing to fresh fuel. So which one is right???????

One last remark about Roger's review as quoted below:
I thought that the flames from this stove look very long compared with the flames from a similar stove such as the Mini Bull Designs Elite. This makes me think this White Box stove should preferably be used with large pots, cooking for two people perhaps.
DUH! Ya think Roger ever read the instructions where we recommend using a wide pot and that the stove was designed to cook for multiple people.

Enough fools play with this subject.

Bill in MT

Re: White Box Stove

Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 5:06 pm
by oops56
billinmt wrote:While you are doing all your research you might want to research how the fuel used by Roger is different than the stuff we use here. I just found out and apparently other people are just finding out that there is a big difference. See this forum: http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin ... index.html

Something about ethanol and methanol and methyl alcohol (meths) being way different.

Also if you wrap the windscreen to tight around this stove you get less air flow and it doesn't work as good. You will also burn a hole in the windscreen. Most people would agree that adequate air flow to a fire is very necessary and a tight windscreen doesn't allow that. As for an "industry standard" of 1/2 inch away from the pot, I thought there were no industry standards when it comes to alky stoves and all I have ever read is 3/4 inch to 1 inch away is best. At any rate Roger didn't do what the directions say to do which nor did he use the windscreen provided to him.
I think it's safe to say that we all know by now that Bill and tinny were not satisfied with the results of the testing performed by Roger Chaffin of BPL.
Add to that list about 75 other people who took the time to send me emails saying they thought is was a poor review.
BPL--it's also an inexact science, subject to bias, prone to controversy, an equivalent to an invitation to put your head on a chopping block.
Now you know why I didn't want the enviable task of being the one going on record for choosing the "industry standard" when it comes to akly stoves. Apparently anything and everything goes so it doesn't matter what you come up with, someone else will always come up with a different result to counter yours. Oops did it in his own two videos just by changing to fresh fuel. So which one is right???????

One last remark about Roger's review as quoted below:
I thought that the flames from this stove look very long compared with the flames from a similar stove such as the Mini Bull Designs Elite. This makes me think this White Box stove should preferably be used with large pots, cooking for two people perhaps.
DUH! Ya think Roger ever read the instructions where we recommend using a wide pot and that the stove was designed to cook for multiple people.

Enough fools play with this subject.

Bill in MT
All i got to say the dam thing works its the people that don't work also its not the best one just one of the best

Re: White Box Stove

Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 5:47 pm
by zelph
Also the windscreen shown in the picture in the review isn't the right windscreen. It obviously must be something Roger found somewhere else. Controlling the air flow with a properly designed windscreen is important and it looks to me like his windscreen has twice as many holes as the one I provided with the stove. Also, as per instructions, wrapping the windscreen to tight around the pot, which Roger did, works against the efficiency of the stove. Any "qualified" stove tester should know that.
You said the windscreen used by Roger had twice as many holes as yours. That is sufficient to provide the required amount of oxygen for the WBS. i always say "never deny your stove oxygen" :) I think Rogers windscreen was just fine.

Bill, you're the one that directed us to read the links, were not doing research here. Your links take us from one thing to another and thats good because we are more informed now than previously.
Enough fools play with this subject.
:?:

.

Re: White Box Stove

Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 7:31 pm
by Tony
Hi All,

First I will confess That I have not tested a White Box Stove yet so I am not going to comment on its performance.

What I am going to comment on is alcohol and types and what fuel Roger used in his tests.
Something about ethanol and methanol and methyl alcohol (meths) being way different.
Methanol and Methyl alcohol are the same alcohol the same as Ethanol and Ethyl Alcohol are
the same.


As I stated in the BPL thread http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin ... index.html US denatured alcohol is a not a standard product.

This is a statement from the above thread.
That explains why it doesn't burn as well in some stoves that were developed with methanol in mind. This will be worth knowing for folks such as Bill Bellowe and his white box stove, which those of us down-under seem to have trouble with using our purple ethanol-based fuel.
I have read on this thread that Bill recommends Denatured alcohol yet some people think that the White Box stove is designed for Methanol???? Every Alcohol stove that I have tested so far has performed better on Ethanol than Methanol.

The Australian Denatured is much more Standard mix of 95%-96% Ethanol this would have been what Roger used this alcohol fuel is of a much higher quality and performing denatured alcohol than any mix that I have found in my research of US denatured alcohols.

The conclusion of my testing is that the performance of an alcohol is related to the amount of heating energy in that Alcohol

As stated before on this forum and others, Methanol is not the best performing fuel as it has the smallest amount if heating energy of all alcohols and its fumes are very toxic.

Tip: do some research over the net of what denatured are available to you and what is in them and choose the brand that has the highest level of Ethanol in it, I have found some US brands to contain 92% Ethanol.

Tony

Re: White Box Stove

Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 7:39 pm
by DarenN
in this thread viewtopic.php?f=19&t=633&st=0&sk=t&sd=a we explored the comparison between methyl and ethyl alcohols.

Daren........

Re: White Box Stove

Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 11:12 pm
by billinmt
If you want to read about methanol or methyl alcohol or ethanol here ya go.... No Scientist am I .....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol

Have fun but remember only one is drinkable if you really need a hang over.

Bill Ballowe

Re: White Box Stove

Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 11:36 pm
by samh
I got my White Box out on the trail for the first time two weekends ago. My buddy had the Bushbuddy he'd gotten for x-mas along as well so it was like new toy fest for us. I made a couple cups of coffee, oatmeal and also boiled up a Lipton's Side on the Whitebox. One day it was really, really windy but the stove performed. This is by no means a full review or testimonial (which I won't be able to give until I've taken it for a real test drive) but it is my two cents of honest truth placed here for no other reason than for Bill to read and have a smile.

Re: White Box Stove

Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 11:51 am
by Mags
My buddy Disco is currently using a White Box stove on he and POD's PCT hike.

Disco is a gear geek; I am sure he will have a full review at the end his excursion.