Recent acquisition This one had hair growing on it This is shorter then a Juwel 6 vapor tube I had made several of these brass burner plates for some other Juewl 6 stoves and had an extra one No date on this catalog from CCS showing this same vapor tube on a Juwel #2 This took the same size pump washer(25mm) as a Juwel 6 I love the patina on this Tea party time
Wow! I love the subtle flame in the burning Juwel pics I've seen. Is it really that subtle? I also have to make a flame spreader for my Juwel 6, would you have any advice for me?
Doug Can you put a picture of your non return valve components on the site - these can help date these stoves. Dusan has just put his 41 on CCS - you will see his pump tube is lower down the side of the tank, whereas Dougs is sat very high. https://classiccampstoves.com/threads/29034
That's really nice Doug. Being new here, the flame pattern is not something I remember seeing before. Thank you, Ken in NC
rensdb this design has less noise then a standard roarer but way more then a silent burner.Much depends on the condition of the vapor tube and the flame plate height.If you like I can send you a sound byte. If you need the specs on the flame plate I made, that's easy enough but whats most important is that you get about 2-3 mm space below the plate.You can try just using a disk just smaller the those spikes and raise it with some small wire or cut finishing nails in three spots. My flame plate was copied from this Juwel 6 on ebay a few years ago.As mentioned above I used a brass wall plaque.It's 2mm thick. These other flame plates are rare, mostly lost as they are over 100 years old
Ian I am sure not going to take out that NRV as I stay away from them when ever I can. It works great and I don't want to mess it up. It does look like Dusan's NRV from this end. Do you use a special screwdriver to remove this? Once removed if it needs a replacement can the more standard type be used? I can post pics of some Juwel 6 NRVs.Three types
Doug I took my NRV out earlier today, it is the same as Dusans. No you cannot use a standard replacement. I just use a long slotted screwdriver, springs knackered - interestingly the vapouriser tube has steel mesh and not brass - which is stuck fast at the moment.
Ian, do you have a Juwel 41 with a vapour tube? The 41 you posted here was a standard roarer I thought. The Juwel vapour tubes are made of steel.
Yes, I have several variations of the 41s, including this version which you have got. From right to left, is the Juwel 41 vapouriser tube,which is brass/nickel plated, as are the other two shown, central is normal 96, and left is the 100 The non return valve from the 41 The right hand is the bog standard NRV with the Juwel 41 on the left Heads of the NRVs, Juwel on the right, standard on the left Juwel 41, lipstick and steel mesh removed Steel mesh cleaned
Many companies used hexagonal non return valve housings. The heads can also be different. A lot of British NRV's were not interchangeable with some Swedish manufacturers, and others. The top part of the screw section can also be different. For example, if you have a look in the SRG, there is a Le Bluet 1926? in the French section, which has a hexagonal part. Also British blow lamp manufacturers used the hexagonal part, in their Superbrasers etc There are so many variations. Timeline ? Your guess is as good as mine. It would be more helpful if people put more detailed pictures of their stoves on CCS, and not selfies.
There are very occasional selfies on CCS, and in the correct context they are good to see. I like to be able to put a face to a name that I see on CCS. The selfies are also usually accompanied by lots of detailed photos, comments, interest, humour and informative research. Some 'people' post just lots of photos. These can be useful but would be more useful and interesting if accompanied by observations and the sharing of any research carried out - and even a selfie! But of course, those are just my thoughts. Other members may not agree with me.
Iani said, What, no selfies? Would that extend to all depictions of the human form on the site? What an austere, cheerless and de-humanising place this would be! No references to alcohol - so no action shots because we wouldn't be able to prime our stoves - avatars regarded as idolatry and the term jet nipple completely banned. Ian, please say it was wry humour, for all our sakes. John