Between these two stove models,...what is/are the difference/s? Part obviously lies with the jet,....but what else? Just out of curiosity,...does anyone have side by side photos for comparison? Thanks in advance.
tried a search, but no result. So, picture the regular kero brass burner's silent burner. Add the regulating spindle and the wind skirt. There you have 111 burner. Remove the "u" from the burner, and it would look like 111B's burner.
Hi I have had an Optimus 111 (Paraffin-fuelled stove)for many years and it was always a favourite stove....Powerful and very noisy! Recently I acquired an Optimus 111B (petrol) stove, really just to see how it performed. The Op 111B is shown on the left, and the old faithful paraffin Op 111 on the right. Here is a shot of the Op111B operating at full throttle. Below is the corresponding photo for the paraffin Op. 111. Finally here is the side-by-side shot you requested. No contest as far as I am concerned. I have come to the conclusion that the Op 111B is a bit of a con. It is a flame-plate burner masquerading as a tube burner! Best Regards, Kerophile.
Hello, Kerophile, the priest, and all, Thanks, very much, for the great photos, George! Well done! Since I now own a couple of kero-burning 111's, I might have to agree that I like that version a little more than the 111B's, which I have used for years. But, I will have to take a few photos of several of my B's, because they definitely put out more heat than the one you have pictured. I have found them to be pretty close to the 111's, but I'm leaning towards the kero-burners for other reasons. I like the safety issues, having had an NRV go South on me whilst using a 111B; and, I also like the nostalgia of using kerosene in such stoves. If I HAD to choose two kero stoves, above all others, they would very likely be a 111, and a Primus 41. Of course, I would also hide out a pair of 00's, my favorite 48, a 45, a #3, a #10 Ranger, and #11 Explorer, a 199 setup for kero, plus that old 22 I recently got, and........ well, you get the picture!! Take care, and God Bless! Every Good Wish, Doc
Thanks Kerophile,....great pictures!! From B2M's post I gather the piping is in fact different,....which is what I was actually curious about. Thanks to all.
Hey, the priest, I don't know if you saw it, or not, but here is a photo of the NZ Optimus 22 that I recently got, with John's help. (Thanks, John!) The right burner is exactly the same as is used in the 111 stoves. Left burner is the same, but of course, has its controls on the other side for use in the 22. The burner for the 111B and 22B has only two tubes instead of the four tubes which are found on the 111 and 22. Hope that helps. Take care and God Bless! Every Good Wish, Doc
I did see those two threads,....nice work on the 22 by the way. The screens in particular look 1000% better. The problem with seeing threads on different days,...is seeing the threads on different days!!! So much here to look at sometimes I forget what is already here. Do any of you junkies have pics of the two burners for a side by side comparison? And, for consideration of the matter at hand,....I gather the original 111 is more SIMILAR to the 111T burner? Obviously they're different as one is a roarer and the other silent,...but talking more toward the piping and formation of the fuel's stream of fuel for burning,....
Hi, the priest, OK, here you go. I have a pair of "matching" 111's, one a straight 111 kero-burner, and the other its Coleman fuel-powered Brother. Here they are, face to face, with windscreens and flame rings removed for clarity. 111 burner (kerosene). 111B burner (Coleman fuel). And, finally, my two Optimus Brothers, side-by-side, the 111 on the left, and the 111B on the right. I hope this is what you're trying to see. Both are outstanding stoves, and do what they do best, very well, indeed!! Take care, and God Bless! Every Good Wish, Doc
That would do it,....Thanks. The 111 configuration looks earily similar to the 111T. (as many kero stoves do) About the only difference is the jet placement is off the other piping a bit more/higher on the 111T. Thanks again.
This nicely shows what I've never understood about the 111B burner, and why it may well be masquerading . . . what is the path for the fuel ? It can't take the right hand tube as this isn't connected internally and is just a neat way of getting priming fluid down into the cup at the bottom. The left hand tube doesn't go anywhere either ! Presumably the fuel goes straight past the valve and then to the jet. I can only assume that the vertical pipes transmit heat to aid vapourisation, hold the gallery ring in place, and allowed Optimus to use at least part of an existing burner setup.
Spot on (methinks .. ) Very similar to most other Coleman fuel/gasoline stoves such as the Optimus 8 and 123. The difference is that these has a bell instead of fake tubes to hold the burner plate and lead the heat down to the fuel. These type of fuels vaporizes much easier than paraffin and there is no need to lead it to the top of the burner for vaporization. With the Nova, Optimus has developed a burner without tubes that also manage to vaporize paraffin.
But it's still a complex casting to use just because it's there, and without that the valve/jet casting assembly would also be simpler and use less material! Whilst I know myself, Doc and others always use meths for priming white gas stoves I think we're very much in the minority. Therefore the fact it's got the tube for pouring your chosen priming juice is surplus to requirements when most people would just pressure the tank and crack the valve to fill priming dish.
Keith, when you look at a lot of Optimus and Primus stoves the engineers tried wherever possible to use the same parts on differing stoves to keep the costs of production down. As Kerophile said above, the 111B is a flame plate burner. In reality the tubes do nothing for fuel vaporisation except, as you rightly say, conduct some heat from the flame plate down to the burner. The path for the fuel is just from the tank feed and up past the spindle into the needle chamber and out of the jet. Because the path to the jet is far less convoluted than the 111 it is less prone to clogging when using automotive gasoline than the tubular burner on the 111 would be. But my 111B burner was clogged solid when I got it. Here is another shot of a 111B burner - this time out of the stove. I had to heat and quench this burner to get it unclogged. I suspect it had burnt a lot of automotive gasoline through it. Another thing about the 111B is that it is very fussy about the correct jet size. The 111 will tolerate a degree of variation and still perform well and you can run a 111 with out the flame ring but the 111B, in my experience, needs exactly the right jet to work well and the flame ring definitely needs to be in place. Here it is going with a fully fettled burner and running a 0.39mm orifice diameter jet and a flame ring. In comparison with a 111, the 111B is louder.You can hear all of the detonations as the vapourised fuel hits the flame plate and combusts but the 111 seems more powerful. An upside to the 111B is you can prime it using its own fuel. Both great stoves... Cheers John
Indeed Graham, but don't forget that all of the other parts of the stove . . . case, tank and pan supports were there as well.
Hi Keith, Yeah, I know! Wearing an engineering hat I'm just being too much of a purist. Wearing my marketing hat I can't argue with the sales figures
interesting stuff as yet i haven't got a 111b or c, i reckon it would be a good idea to put the close ups of the different 111 model burners in the stove ref gallery, ie 111 111b 111c 111t and if Prime Us (Gary) has it a photo of his meths only 111 and any other variants ie the old 111 with no meths tube the topic comes up fairly regularly so it would be a good place to look for comparisons imho
On the subject of the reference gallery,...I was thinking the other day it would be nice to put information like tank size/volume, burn times, and heat produced, etc along with the stove photo entries,....even for stoves still made today that information will be gone quick enough and it's nice for comparison.
Back to the stoves at hand,....I started this thread because i was obviously not sure of the burner configuration differences between the two. Time after time I've read the 111 is the better, hotter stove and thought a 'why is that?' topic might be prudent. Per Doc Mark though,....that may not be the case if a 'B' is in proper working order and to be honest,...given the differences between the two fuels, I'm not sure the lack of piping from the 111 burner makes that big of a functional difference. (I would still be interested in seeing Doc Mark's burn-off competition!!! It could be very interesting) Having said that,......the BTU potential per gallon of fuel is: Kerosene------135,000BTU Gasoline------125,000BTU Not much of a difference really. Living in the States (and consequently dealing with our common fuel choices/prices) I've been thinking seriously about getting a 111B as a user stove. One that could be left in the vehicle that would be dependable and (I hate to say this) but kind of a who cares stove,...one that I don't feel a need to keep in perfect condition. i.e. dents and scratches are encouraged!! My thoughts would be 1. Fuel is everywhere and the most bang for the buck, 2. No seperate priming fuel is necessary like with the 111, 3. To find a decent stove on the net is pretty easy and no where near the cost of a 111, 111T or even the sometimes maligned 111C. Just my thoughts.
