So I assume everyone knows this burner design. Its essentially the Optimus Nova, Primus Omniful, MSR GK/XGK, Trangia Multifuel, etc etc... Some have longer or shorter fins in the gas generator and different air inlet arrangements. But outwardly they are all very similar in design. With the open bottom, a cylindrical main section and an angular flare at the top. The fins are pretty much arranged in a similar manner as well. But my question is.. What is the lineage of this specific burner design? I know it must go back to the bell shaped burners somehow. But where did this specific design arrangement originate?
Actually, Brassaxe... I am of the opinion that the burners you have named are all very different in design. The Nova, Omnifuel, XGK/GK and Trnagia Multifuel (two types of these, btw) are only generally similar in their outward appearance. Their functional design is very different from each other. I'd suggest looking these burners up in the Stove Reference Gallery, or, looking at the designs in the paperwork in the Stove Reference Library so that you can figure out the operational differences between them. Interpreting which burners led to the design of your Hiker+ burner (the one you have pictured above, which is different than other Nova burners, btw) might not be possible in any case with any surety. Proving such a case would, imo, be futile. That said, for myself, I'd select the first (original) Optimus 8 as the progenitor of the lineage. There might be others that I've neglected, though.
There definitely is a difference in operation an functionality. But the similarities cannot merely be coincidental. The shape must have been inspired and invented somewhere first and then companies adapted it to their own designs. Kinda like hot and cold blast lanterns, both completely different in operation but they both come from the tubular lantern idea. And this is where the tubular outside with flared end and the thin burner plate of these stoves intrigues me.. There must be a stone somewhere that all these inventors stepped on to make their products. Maybe it is one of the burners from an optimus 8, but do you think it could predate them?
Do all optimus 8's have a bell shaped housing? I found Swedish patent 71018 and it has the cylindrical burner with the flare but I don't see that burner in and Optimus 8. It looks like whats on the optimus 11 maybe.
Brassaxe sez: Sorry, but I don't believe that is really true. Burner design is fairly straight-forward and is not really difficult for those who are savvy engineers and familiar with the whole vapor-into-flame physics of stoves. I think you should look up the Optimus 8s in the Stove Reference Gallery to answer your question about the burner bell you posed above. The one I listed and the one that whitegas listed seem to be the earliest of the models. Those two date from between 1934 and 1939 if I have it right. If you are intrigued with the bell shape of the burner that employs a flame plate, then I suppose you could go all the way back to the early Primus 100 lipstick burners for that piece of technology. That would put you back in the Primus catalogs in the catalog section of the Stove Reference Gallery circa 1912, or even earlier, actually. Those early lipsticks were, of course, not regulated with a knob, but with pressure changes in the tank. I note that even in 1912, the Primus 100 normally ran with a flame plate, but also had a silent cap available as an accessory. Swedish patent 71018 seems to be for the drop-front and pull-out structure of the early Campingo 1 and 2. Neither of those stoves use a burner bell structure. In fact, I think you are really missing the point of your Hiker+. The Hiker+ stove is the last in the line of stoves that started with the Campingo 1 and evolved through the Optimus 11, Optimus 111, 111B, 111T and 111C. I suppose we could throw in the 111D as a modified cousin, too. None of those stoves used burners with bells until your Hiker+ came on the scene. The Hiker+ uses the Nova burner which was developed for use with a remote fuel bottle. In that way, the Hiker+ breaks from the tradition of it's forebears to use an entirely modern burner design (the Nova) mostly designed to optimize production in non-Swedish countries where it is produced. Of the stoves you mentioned... - The Omnifuel and Trangia X2 (a modified Omnifuel burner) use the bell to conduct heat to the base of the burner where the fuel is vaporized. While there are conductive connections to the burner base that resemble fins, there are no fins per se in the Omnifuel burner. - The MSR XGK operates with an overhead vaporization tube to turn fuel into vapor. The bell is not a significant source of vaporization heat. - The Nova burner (and the original Trangia multi fuel burner - a modified Nova burner) relies on it's unique design with six fins to conduct heat to the base of the burner. The tubular and vestigial "bell" of the burner does not actually perform a significant amount of conduction to the base of the burner where the fuel is vaporized. It's mostly there just to hold the flame plate. There's a lot to learn here at CCS about stoves. I've suggested where to go look to see the various trends in the catalogs and photo galleries compiled here at CCS. Spend some time in these places and the answers to many of your questions will become clearer. Cheers, Gary
"The Omnifuel and Trangia X2 (a modified Omnifuel burner) use the bell to conduct heat to the base of the burner where the fuel is vaporized. While there are conductive connections to the burner base that resemble fins, there are no fins per se in the Omnifuel burner." You learn something new here everyday. I suspect the same is true for the burner bell on my Vesta which explains why it burns so much better after a double prime. A single prime doesn't heat to the bell sufficiently.
BernieDawg, I think maybe I should have elaborated more because I think were kinda talking about the same stuff but somehow on different parts of the same page. This specific design shape is really the only thing i'm interested in. I'm not referring to the bell shaped burners. And if there really are entirely independent design lineages with different manufacturers then I guess I'd want to focus on the history of the Hiker lineage. It may or may not converge back in time with other manufactures but I don't know. I'm just really curious as to how that shape came into existence in burner design. Was it for manufacturing, or for performance? You know that sort of thing. I know a lot of this stuff can;t be answered but I'de like to either find out or have fun looking. I've looked through the stove gallery and the publications and the shape seems to go back as far as optimus history goes.
Heya Ben Yup. You got it. The Vesta bell conducts the heat back to the base where the vaporization happens. The little cast iron lip protector thingy that fits into the mouth of the burner bell takes a lot of warming up with the Vesta. Have you ever tried the stove without it? Fwiw, I always fill the preheat dish to the brim with mine. But, I still have my crummy original paint still so it's not an issue if I spill some on it. Brassaxe, I'm not sure I can help you much more on this. You see, to me, what you drew in your post above looks like a burner bell. And, that being so, that's what I thought we'd been talking about all along. Since I am hearing I'm wrong on that assumption, then whatever it is that you are looking to research is apparently beyond my ability to understand. The good news for you is that pretty much all the info you could ever really want to know is right here in the libraries at CCS. I hope you'll find your answers to whatever your questions might be by engaging in some diligent research. Cheers, Gary
I think BD summed it up for you in the below quote. The Nova burner is probably the exception, as the fins do the heat conduction and the bell seems to be more for directing the flame, like a traditional flame ring.
For multifuel evolution I think I would be looking more towards the Coleman M1920 or maybe the famous 111 for the first step towards multifuel. The 8 and really all the self pressurising stoves are really a branch in the evolutionary tree that stopped pretty much at the 123r and its close siblings. That is pretty much where development in that design type stopped. Ive heard the m1920 and 1950 can burn kero but not seen to much verification on this but following the 111 lineage you start from a burner that can burn kero and add the ability to burn white gasolene. Then you add restrictors and a jet change to burn meths then its only really another jet change to burn propane mixes. Of course this doesnt answer how to feed it fuel. That saw a few early efforts on refillable fonts but none really solved the issue. It wasnt untill Gaz started making a disposable canister that anyone took gas seriously for anything except large camping stoves attached to 9kg bottles. Then we saw a whole lot of different designs in disposable cartridge gas only stoves and the final evolution to the current lindal valve cartridge which spread like a virus to the whisperlite universal nova etc. It could only spread to stoves that had a remote tank arrangement already so blame MSR with there model 7 for making this infection possible. Now the lindal valve is common on all multifuel stoves so they can burn whatever you can feed them. Its really the lindal valve rather than burner design that made this happen.
Yellowdog has made my main point being the shape is directional. Brassaxe esp considering you have a simultaneous post re this burner function/tuning and open this one with "burner design"... I felt BD was spot on with explanations he took time to make. For you to say "This specific design shape is really the only thing i'm interested in." [and tracing it's lineage]. That is short-sighted (for lack of a better term) imo, a rule that applies is "Form follows function", if so your interest in shape/form would include it's function. Your burner along with self-pressurizing, vaporization & efficient burn the function of your stove is to spread the flame out to heat a pan for cooking. The "plate" you refer to in other post is a Flame spreader. That and the burner head (bell) work together, exact shapes vary some BUT ALL are shaped to perform stove function. FYI Franz Lindqvist invented Primus stove burner. He had a blowtorch, and an idea of how he can change it's function to heat a pan. Developing the idea and conceptualizing it creates the ideas for the shape, prototypes are tested and they were cookin with gas man! BD chose the Primus 100 as 1st example of a burner most similar to your "specific design shape".
Hi, here is a link to some images of Primus 100 fitted with a lipstick vaporiser, burner bell, and choice of either burner plate or silent damper. It was made in 1911, and still works as designed: https://classiccampstoves.com/threads/9286 Over 100 years old but most of the design principles of liquid fuel pressure stoves already understood and sorted out, and available in a commercial product for the mass market. Quite humbling I think. As Gary mentioned, the CCS Site is an amazing resource for anyone with an interest in stoves and a desire to know more. Best Regards, Kerophile
primus 100 could also be a route to multifuel. The lipstick burner will burn anything you could throw at it as long as its jetted right and unlike the lineage from the 111 doesnt require a vaporiser tube or generator. Would that mean 2 evolutionary branches ie 111 creating the whisperlite international and all other multifuels with a generator and the 100 creating the dragonfly nova and all those multifuels without. Still its the lindal valve that made it all possible rather than burner design.
G,,day . for the hell of it I did try a M-1950 on kerosene . two preheats with metho (alcohol) and it did work . mind you it was warm weather , and I would not recommend it as a fuel of choice for a M- 1950. but I wanted to know . cheers kerry
I think you could divide modern multifuel burners into two classes. Those with generator tubes... And the newer ones with heat conducting fins. (I would lump the omnifuel cutouts as 'fins') Single fuel tubeless gasoline burners are common, (123, 8r...)but the coil and find are design elements to allow the vaporization of heavy fuels. I'm not sure which is 'better' my pre-EX Primus multifuel glows orange on kerosene. A certain part of me considers this 'better.' The part of me that appreciates the stove needs to completely vaporize fuel for reliability.
