Discussion in 'Primus Early Models (un-numbered)' started by igh371, May 1, 2018.
Great looking kettle and stove
By strange coincidence I stumbled on a first edition of Nansens book "Fram öfver Polarhavet" about his polar expedition between 1893 - 1896 in a thrift store in Stockholm 2 days ago. It was only about $5.75 in 2 volumes. The stove in the illustration is most likely from 1892-93. It is of the same type but modified by Nansen. The illustration in the 1 st edition is slightly different from this one, taken from a later edition. I will take some pictures later. It shows the flame spreader used and the burner, probably the same as yours.
@Northern Light , very interesting, I wait the next photos with anticipation! Those old explorers' books are always fascinating, a very lucky find
I am still in doubt about the use of a flame ring. Of course the stove can be used without a trivet and a flame ring is useful in this case.
But I don't understand why one would make a well designed trivet with a inner ring which is too narrow to be taken off without taking off the flame ring first. I usually take trivets off to fill a stove or if some wiping of the tank is necessary. Yes, when real cooking is done, not just heating water, this is necessary often.
I would like to see a flame shot like this one
It's a flame shot from a Tasmanian tiger mystery stove I found today in the CCS jungle. I don't think there is a big risk. The trivet is not only designed to support temperature differences much better than ordinary cast trivets, it's also better manufactured in a higher quality.
@Radler long delayed but here at last: flame shots running without flame spreader (ok so it had been temporarily forgot). Yes it does work, as indeed it can be done with any standard roarer, but I'm not convinced it was intended to be run this way. A spreader gives the cast trivet a lot more protection as well as directing the flame in a more helpful vertical direction for quicker boiling. The dropped centre ring of the trivet is too low to substitute for the normal function of a spreader.
Interesting update. Following the subject although not having an early example.
Whether they were designed for a spreader or not, or it was a user choice? It works ok without but was that the intention with the trivet design?
Speculation alert. User choice depending on pot size, wider flame pattern with trivet and bigger pots, remove trivet fit flame spreader.
- not necessary; the flame spreader fits easily and loosely in the normal manner inside the trivet's dropped inner ring and on the burner gallery. The only oddity is that the spreader lifts off with the trivet if you have reason to want to remove the trivet.
I think this whole controversy stems only from the peculiar photo which was reproduced in the Primus history booklet in 1929 and in which there does not appear to be a flame spreader in place.
I'd missed this post, until now!! What a wonderful bit of history you have found, my friend!! It's the sort of thing that really has stories to tell, and makes us wish that it could, indeed, tell us everything we wish to know about it's long life!! GREAT that it actually responded to gentle manipulation, and fired up so nicely! Thank you for sharing this year, and for the excellent photos of your lovely stove! I very happy that this stove has come to a proper and respectful owner, and that you are it's Caretaker!! Thanks, again, for sharing, and I look forward to hearing more information about this steller stove, as it comes to the fore!! Brilliant stuff!!! Take care, and God Bless!
Every Good Wish,
@igh371. I agree it's an odd set up as the history at the moment is obscure. And as you've found the practicalities aren't helpful either, which might have given an idea of fitting a spreader or not.
Thank you Ian for the flame shot!
I am still not sure how to interpret the fact, that the flame ring comes off, when the trivet is removed. If it's not a fault, it must be a feature. I don't expect a fault from the designer of such a well designed trivet, better than most later made.
One speciality of these early stoves are the very long radial ends of the pot supports. Why this? When this stove was made, in most kitchens a wood- or coal-fired stove was used. Only in larger towns a coal-gas net existed since a few years.
Cooking was done in copper casseroles, with long steel handles. Copper is poisonous when in contact with acids. Pans were tinned inside for this reason. This pans had usually not a flat, but a convex bottom. They were not set on top of a hotplate, but set into suitable sized rings. The bottom of the pot had direct contact to the fire. The old fashion pans were rather delicate to handle, thin walled and the tin layer was damaged very easily, when overheated. The tin had to be repaired from time to time and often patches were soldered. This was often done by travelling people (tinkers).
The new invented kerosene stoves had to cope with the existing kind of pans. The flame of a pressure stove has about twice the temperature of the wood fire, and this temperature is concentrated on a small spot. I think it was quite a learning process for the women, how to cook on this stove without ruin pan and food. I interpret the long pan supports as necessary because of the convex bottoms of most pans. With shorter supports, the pan would touch the burner.
Somewhere in the CCS documentation, but I don't find it, there is a statistic, showing how many stoves with roarer burners and how many silent burners were sold during the decades. I was very surprised, to see that the silent were always only a small minority! Camping or outdoor sports were not invented or not a important market.
Why people used roarers indoors? Under burning silent stoves can't be the reason. Maybe less smell when bad kerosene was burnt?
Could it be that women used the silent burners without flame-ring or with it, depending from the pan type used? (Copper pan, steel frying pan, stock pot, water kettle, flat bottom, convex bottom, high pressure or long-time simmering as used from the wood stove cooking?) In this case, the removable trivet, which takes off the flame-ring, could be a useful feature.
We should make experimental cooking with pans and common daily recipes from 1900 to understand it. I think a hundred year old women could tell us much, we don't know.
@z1ulike just to wake up the Tasmanian tiger
I think the stoves statistics you want is this.
Yes, this is the diagram I was talking about! Thank you!
This all adds up to a whole new dimension regarding the assessment of the specific design parameters of the earliest Primus stoves. A particularly welcome contribution Rolf, and one which deserves a lot more attention.
The Tasmanian stove of @z1ulike is remarkable.
Tasmanian Mystery Stove
As far as I can see, neither the burner nor the trivet have a gallery to support a flame-ring. Of course it is not sure, if that trivet came from PRIMUS or if a apt foundry-man just made a local copy. (The British upper class was clever enough to condemn enough good craftsmen to down under.)
I don't know, if this stove was built, to stew the last Tasmanian Tiger, but it seems to be a good construction.
The diagrams submitted by B.A.Hjorth for their contemporary (November 1892) application for German patent protection seem to show that these stoves were designed and intended to utilise a flame spreader, the spreader is clearly visible on all 3 sectional drawings:
This is a real treasure, and you are a lucky guy. Thank you for the wonderful display.
Separate names with a comma.