Discussion in 'Stove Forum' started by Tony Press, Jul 27, 2021.
What size (diameter) is the jet in the Primus No. 3?
By way of a private message to me, I see that I may have caused some confusion. So…
In my form of English the “jet” is the hole in the nipple from whence the vapourised fuel emerges. I was asking for the diameter of that hole.
Hi @Tony Press Not an answer as such but in this post:
Radius No. 36 Stove *
I said: “This Radius No 36 is jetted at 0.7mm, or 28 thou, which is bigger than my No 3 stove.”
In this thread I gave a link to a useful listing of jet aperture sizes for many stoves:
Jet for Optimus 11 (not explorer)
The Op. No.3 stove takes a #2504 jet.
Unfortunately the table does not give the aperture diameter for the jet....
Base Camp lists:
2504 Jet for No. 3 stove 3 £ 7.50
The pack of prickers i have show a size of 0.60mm
Hope this helps
Fogas in Sweden also have #2504 jets in stock .
Munstycken & Nålar - Gasol- och fotogenprodukter
Thanks for your responses. I’m looking forward to getting this train wreck going to see what aflame it pumps out.
As an aside, I note that the early English language Primus parts catalogues list the piece as a nipple, so my sense of pedantry is satisfied.
Nipple is used in British English, in American English it's almost a dirty word. Not sure if that's from some national immaturity, or a cultural artifact from the prudishness of the Pilgrim Founding Fathers. ''Jet'' sounds cleaner to our US ears.
Is that also why you refer to your backsides as a kind of horse?
It's neither. It's certainly not a 'dirty word', nor 'almost', though its use will usually evoke the nipple of the female breast. Because the word does mean that, after all.
What is the human structure called in the UK and Oz? A jet? That would be truly peculiar, if so. What do they call it?
I doubt the Pilgrims have anything to do with the terminological question...
The human mammalian structure is called a nipple in Australian English.
Somehow I thought that might be the case. Yet nary a Pilgrim landed upon that fatal shore!
Rs are expensive...
Ed, perhaps it's the tomato/tomato distinction, but I think my fellow Australians have been wondering how calling a protruding solid object a "nipple" and a gas-emitting hole a "jet" is in any way connected to Pilgrims? I think we have thought that calling a protruding solid object a "jet" implies a resistance to calling it a "nipple." In my anatomy training the tubular structures in a mammalian nipple were called "ducts" and I believe it is the same in American anatomy. I think these distinctions (nipple/jet/duct) owe more to Latinists than to Dissenters.*
As to Pilgrims, if you mean "conservative non-Anglicans" then yes, we got those. We did have to wait a while after you got yours though. Quite off topic but John Dunmore Lang is to blame for ours.
* I wrote this then checked. I am only 2/3 right. "Nipple" is believed to derive from an old Germanic word, and means "a little nose." Which I would point out is a quite reasonable description of a stove nipple/jet.
Back on track:
I’ve just tested the jet in the No. 3 nipple and a 0.6mm drill will fit neatly, but a 0.7mm drill will not.
Hi @Tony Press I am glad you got the nipple bore query sorted out.
Can we expect to see photos of the burner in action?
Yes… I’m going to test the stove before I do the gruesome job of sorting out the dodgy solder, so I’ll post a pre-fettle photo, hopefully this weekend.
Well… it’s a beast!
I had a bit of time this afternoon, so I thought I’d see if the two No. 3 burners I have were ok.
The first, which was on the No. 3 stove was shot: bent off kilter (fixable), and holes in the burner tubes (might be fixable).
The second burner functioned very well.
Two different aperture shots of the same flame. The flame pattern rises 7cm above the top of the flame ring.
The burner gets quite hot.
Now to start cleaning the awful mess someone created with solder.
@Rodger Willows @igh371
Hi @Tony Press An impressive burner performance!
I calculated the theoretical heat output of a No.3 stove as around 10Kw, compared with 2.8Kw for a No.1.
From this thread:
Calculated Stove Powers.
I note that in the photos placed by @richmay, above, the Primus No.3 and the No.85 both have the same sized jet at 0.6mm (which is what I measured my jet at).
Which jet size did you use for your above calculations?
Hi Tony, the calculation of max theoretical power is based on fuel consumption per unit time ( from stove manufacturer’s data) and the power density of kerosene. There is no consideration of burner geometry or jet aperture.
Stove power depends on other variables as well as jet size, and you will see from the table that a No.85 stove has a max theoretical power of 16.3 kW despite having the same jet size as a No.3 stove @10kW
Similarly a No.210 stove and a No.1 stove both use a 0.32mm diameter aperture jets, yet their respective max power is 1.9 kW and 2.8kW.
Separate names with a comma.