1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

DUO-BURN 100?

Discussion in 'Falk, Stadelmann & Co Ltd' started by kaw550red, Dec 20, 2009.

  1. kaw550red

    kaw550red United Kingdom Subscriber

    Offline
    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2004
    Messages:
    2,345
    Location:
    Durham NE England
    This is the only example of this model that I have seen

    I have called it a 100 because it appears to try to imitate a 100. Basically it is a domestic stove with the conventional burner left off and a 96 vapourising tube graphed on with a purpose made gland nut threaded to match the standard rising tube. The rising tube length has been adjusted to make the burner plate the same distance from a pan bottom as a conventional burner would have been. The gauze was not as long as it appears in the photo. After I had photographed the tube I pushed the bottom of the gauze and it disappeared inside the tube. I think that the tube is a standard RM/Thermidor tube with the flange removed from the bottom

    I think that Falk Stadelmann probably asked RM to produce a 100 as cheaply as possible with this as the result.

    A normal 100 was a collapsible stove which was suitable for camping. This does not have that advantage. The small burner arrangement also suggests a poor performance for such a large stove. I doubt whether the model was a commercial success

    The flange around the bottom of the tank is unusually narrow

    The burner plate is not a standard plate. It is a home made one made by a previous owner out of copper. Duo-Burn brand had their own cast plate with their name imprinted into the top.

    1261307172-Duo_Burn_Ass_opt.jpg 1261307196-100_flame_opt.jpg 1261307235-Duo_Burn_lettering_opt.jpg 1261307224-Duo_Bburn_btm_opt.jpg 1261307245-Duo_Burn_vapouriser_opt.jpg 1261307211-Burner_plate_opt.jpg

    I often wonder why a firm would use so many brand names but a possible explanation was given to me a long time ago.

    When I was younger I bought an unbranded motorcycle suit that was very good quality. The fabric and workmanship were excellent. I was puzzled as to why a maker of such a good product would not have put their name on it. The salesman named the maker who was a very reputable maker and said that firms sometimes produced another brand name or did not brand their goods if they wanted to break into a cheaper market without cheapening their main brand

    Veritas was Falk, Stadelmann's main brand and it may be that the other lesser known brands were to supply the same products at cheaper prices preventing the customer from knowing that they were buying rebadged Veritas stoves. If this had been known customers would have avoided the Veritas brand and bought the other brands to save money

    Regards Bryan
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 27, 2015
  2. brassnipplekey

    brassnipplekey United Kingdom Subscriber

    Offline
    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,342
    Dissention in the ranks ..... Me again ;) :)

    I'm pushing my boundaries to consider that as a 100. It lacks the distinctive 1 litre 'Discus' tank , Lacks removable legs , Lacks the large diameter coarse threaded burner nut & is not marked 100 ... Cant be considered as a 100 in my book [-( .

    Nick
     
  3. kaw550red

    kaw550red United Kingdom Subscriber

    Offline
    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2004
    Messages:
    2,345
    Location:
    Durham NE England
    Hi Nick

    The topic heading has ? after 100. I think that this was Duo- Burn's perception of a model 100 but it is not mine. The main characteristic of a 100 is the vapourising tube burner arrangement. However my perception of a 100 has a large vapourising tube rather than the 1/2 pint version.

    If you are classing 100s by the shape of tank you better add Primus 51s, 54s and Svea 105s and 106s to your perception of 100 models. All have similar shaped 1 litre tanks but all have conventional burners

    The topic draws attention to normal 100s being collapsible. To me the model was doomed from its inception which is probably why this was the only one I have seen.

    If you look at the last Primus 100s they do not have the large central connection to the tank. They have an Optimus 45 or 46 connection to the tank which is identical to the 1 pint Optimus 00s

    The model upsets my sensibilities as well as yours. There is absolutely no virtue in its design. Nevertheless it is interesting because it is so awful

    Regards Bryan
     
  4. Spiritburner

    Spiritburner United Kingdom Admin Subscriber

    Offline
    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    9,461
    Location:
    N.E. England

    It's not so much the burners but the tank shape that define these as 'discus' models.

    The Duo-burn here is more like the later Primus 101 - check bottom right on this leaflet;
    http://www.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 2, 2015
  5. kaw550red

    kaw550red United Kingdom Subscriber

    Offline
    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2004
    Messages:
    2,345
    Location:
    Durham NE England
    Hi Ross

    You appear to have misunderstood the quotation that you have used.

    My point is that if you classify a stove by the shape of the tank you should include all stoves with that shape tank

    Primus 51 Primus 54
    Svea 106

    I suspect that 51 and 54 tanks may have been made by the same press that formed the 100 tanks.

    There is no 105 on the website so I will put one on

    The comment about the burner was to illustrate that all "discus" stoves are not 100s. If the classification is solely by tank size and tank shape other models qualify to be included as discus. All 100s do not have to have the same size and shape of tank

    To get back to this 100? It is pretty awful. It does not function well as a camping stove because it is not collapsible. It does not function well as a domestic stove because it is obviously under powered.

    I think that it must have been made shortly after WW2 when you could not get foreign stoves but I should think that it was dropped after the sale of the first batch

    Regards Bryan
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 2, 2015
  6. Spiritburner

    Spiritburner United Kingdom Admin Subscriber

    Offline
    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    9,461
    Location:
    N.E. England
    If I did I'm sure I'm still confused 8-[ :lol: :doh:

    I am including all those models. There are a few 105's on CCS - just they are in 'other models' at the moment.

    I've seen a few tube burners with the non-discus tank - the 101 is one of them. I have a 401 which is a regular 2 pint sized & shaped tank with a tube burner & removable legs. I don't class it as a 100 type.

    I know what you mean however & it's just that I think Nick & my view on what makes a 100 differs from yours.
     
  7. kaw550red

    kaw550red United Kingdom Subscriber

    Offline
    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2004
    Messages:
    2,345
    Location:
    Durham NE England
    Hi Ross

    To some extent we have got at cross purposes, again

    I think that it could qualify as a 100 because of the burner.

    I think that it was probably passed off as a 100. I cannot think of any other way that it could be sold. It is between the devil and the deep blue sea. It is not a camping stove and it is not a domestic stove.

    We also look at stoves from different perspectives. I was a user who after about 30 years became a collector. To some extent you are a collector who is also a user.

    As a user the most important part of the stove is the business end which is the burner. The tank is not very important because a pretty tank with a crap burner would just annoy me. As a collector I still think of the burner as being the most important part but would like a pretty tank to go with it.

    This stove has a poor burner set up and the prettiest part of the tank is the lettering. The parts of the assembled stove look out of proportion to each other. However from my point of view the impracticality of the design is what makes it interesting.

    I think that it must have been produced immediately after WW2 as I cannot see it selling in any other period. At that time foreign stoves could not be imported into this country and there were limited British stoves available. I think that you have a Burmos letter dated about 1948 explaining to the stockists that they were unable to meet the stockists' orders because of the shortages of materials so they were spreading their supplies as fairly as possible to the stockists.

    People shopping for stoves might have heard of a model 100 and been tempted to buy the stove on the basis that anything was better than nothing. I have an unhappy feeling that I might have been tempted to buy if the same situation was repeated and I did not have a stove. Salesmen can misrepresent facts to get sales "The 100 models were a respected model and always in demand" "It uses half the fuel of a conventional burner" conveniently ignoring that it also produces half the heat. No stoves were available to the public during WW2. In the latter part of the 1940s we had scheduled power cuts and you lost your cooker if it was electric powered. We had a coal kitchen range so could cook on that provided that we had coal but usually that was in short supply so it was often a major decision whether to put two lumps of coal on the fire or three. We usually wore lots of clothes to keep warm and only had a bath on a Friday night to save the coal that was used to heat the water. We must have stunk

    Regards Bryan
     
  8. Spiritburner

    Spiritburner United Kingdom Admin Subscriber

    Offline
    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    9,461
    Location:
    N.E. England
    I am a collector, that is true but I was using stoves heavily way before that transition & still do. I think it is more we are born in different era's. I started my backpacking in the late 1970's & rarely use any of the 'collectable' stoves in my pursuits. In your era you did as they were the norm. I only really use the collectables at home or car camping.

    What the salesman may say is obviously conjecture but this strikes me as a stove that would be pitched at the domestic ie No:1 or 5 market with the 'benefit' of an economical burner, rather than the outdoor market the 100 was aimed at. You as the outdoor user from the 50's wouldn't fall for it.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 2, 2015
  9. brassnipplekey

    brassnipplekey United Kingdom Subscriber

    Offline
    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,342
    Duo burn 100?
    Its not marked 100 , It doesn't have the coarse threaded large diameter tank/riser (originally lipstick burner) connection & It's not a 'discus'
    Its the wrong shape & it has a fixed riser ....
    still my shed (head) cant take it as a 100 stove.
    Later stoves , Marked 100 but with different tank/riser connection ..??. I'm in to the Ref gallery .
    Its the wrong shape to be considered as a 100 .. unless its stamped or documented as such.

    It's the wrong shape.

    Nick
     
  10. theyellowdog New Zealand

    Offline
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2008
    Messages:
    1,873
    While under powered in a domestic situation it would be very easy to clean for those who liked their kitchen to gleam.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 2, 2015
  11. kaw550red

    kaw550red United Kingdom Subscriber

    Offline
    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2004
    Messages:
    2,345
    Location:
    Durham NE England
    Hi Both

    Stove makers were in competition with each other and did not sit down and agree specifications with each other. They went there own ways and in the case of the 100s they were very similar

    It is a British stove and British stoves rarely show the model number on the tank. The only one that I can remember that does was a Burmos 21 and that only occurred whilst they engraved the tanks which was only for part of the manufacturing period.

    If you are using tank shape to define a discus meaning a 100 your logic is flawed because that shape tank was used on numerous models not just 100s

    Primus 100, 51 & 54
    Optimus 100, 45 & 48
    Svea 100, 105 & 106

    That is nine stoves with identical tanks not just 100s. It is simpler to call the models 100s. If discus is part of your defining characteristics you are going to have to call the models discus 100, discus 51, discus 54 etc.

    Look at the reserve lids on the following topic and you will clearly see that early in the PTC period the special riser user on the 100/4043 had changed to a standard 45 and 48 riser PTC 100s. You will also see that the stove has changed from the 100/4043 made by Bahco to 100/4128 and 100/4138. There is a very simple explanation for the change in numbers. The Bahco stove had a 2 pint burner fitted with a 0.23 mm nipple. The PTC stoves were fitted with standard 2 pint burners which had a 0.32 mm nipple. The only similarity of those stoves to conventional 100s was the shape on the tank and the number on the tank. Frankly I cannot accept that as being a true 100. The nearest Bahco models to those 100s are 51 for the roarer and 54 for the silent. A conventional 100 had a vapourising tube (VT) burner arrangement with a large connection to the tank and a 0.23 mm jet. Those later stoves have a conventional connection to the tank, a rising tube that had been in production for years and a conventional burner with a 0.32 mm. The heat output has doubled so that is not even the same.

    That stove comes into my perception of a 100 even though I do not like it. It has a domestic sized tank with a VT burner arrangement

    Whilst I believe it may have been a Duo-Burn version of a 100 there is another feasible explanation. My comments up to now assume that the stove is as it come from the maker. UNfortunately that is a very basic mistake to make and I apologise if my assumption is wrong

    It could have been a DIY special. The VT has always bothered me but I did not know why.

    The tube projecting out of the gland nut served no purpose. I have now realised why I was bothered. I could make that VT out of standard parts using a hacksaw and drill stand and soldering the parts together. The tube is from an RM/Thermidor 1/2 pint VT. The gland nut can be cut off the bottom of a 2 pint burner which when drilled out can be soldered to the tube producing an authentic looking VT. If I had been doing it I would have cut the tube flush with the bottom of the gland nut so that it could have been stood upright whilst soldering

    I now think that the stove was either Duo-Burns version of a 100 or possibly a DIY special.

    The stove would polish up as an ornament

    Please drop the subject as it appears that neither of us can see the other's point of view

    Regards Bryan
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 2, 2015
  12. Spiritburner

    Spiritburner United Kingdom Admin Subscriber

    Offline
    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    9,461
    Location:
    N.E. England
    & not for the first time! ;) I appreciate you want to move on so :-#
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 2, 2015
  13. David Shouksmith

    David Shouksmith United Kingdom Subscriber

    Offline
    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2004
    Messages:
    6,873
    Location:
    Co. Durham, England
    See here...
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 2, 2015

Share This Page