Cool. I have tested my BRS with Ocelot windscreen with a fan, but didn't document the wind speed, as I could have as I have an anemometer for when I was learning the wind speed while flying my dual line foil stunt kites. There was a wind tunnel experiment about blowing out a candle behind a round object, but I don't remember the principles involved, just that the candle did go out...

It's not the roughness of the bark, and it isn't the proximity that matter as much as the shape. A wing is not a good windscreen. Isn't that obvious? (Or maybe it is, but you are just trolling us?) You KNOW how to make a windscreen that works. So why do you keep trying to prove that you also know how to make a lousy windscreen, and what on Earth does it have to do with the stove? The stove and the windscreen are separate topics. Don't try to conflate the two. I'm not trying to be critical; just analytical.

@billb5732

10 ай бұрын

On second thought, maybe you're just kidding around? That would make more sense. And, yes, an Ocelot should be a heckuvalot better than a log. Or a bear can. Or any other sort of wing. Agreed about not cooking near your sleeping gear.

@FlatCatGear

10 ай бұрын

So, there are a whole lot of people that thing that a rock or a tree will solve the problem. Since no one has any real data on this, I decided to measure it. I was surprised at how small a gap is needed. Read this thread to see what some people think will work to block the wind. www.reddit.com/r/Ultralight/comments/160jw4b/brs3000t_vs_msr_pocket_rocket/

@billb5732

10 ай бұрын

@@FlatCatGear Hmmm... I don't see anything like that in that thread. Most of it is quite rational. There's one guy arguing some nonsense, but not about trying to make a windscreen out of inappropriate objects. I get that you were initially surprised about the gap, but you should not be. Add a smoke generator and you will see that air flows around the wing quite effectively. At low speeds the majority of the flow should be laminar, resulting in most of the full effect of the wind being available almost immediately after the wing. Now that you have seen it in action, it should not surprise you anymore. The size of the gap does not matter in the case of a wing. (The gap _would_ matter if you used something like an umbrella as your windscreen. But even that wouldn't be as good as an Ocelot.) There's nothing wrong with testing a hypothesis, but retesting the same thing when you KNOW it is going to fail seems odd. Also, I'm pretty sure that your editorial caption at 0:16 is not true. If you want to test it, then the way to do that is to remove all confounding factors and test just the stoves, using the most efficient methods for each stove. You can test without wind, which has been done (and BRS was as good as other stoves). Or, if you want to test WITH wind, then put your best windscreen on each stove. You have already demonstrated that ALL stoves REQUIRE a windscreen above 8mph. So test THAT condition if you're curious. I think it is fair to say that _some stoves_ (not "most stoves") are more refined than BRS-3000t, but they do not perform any better (at boiling water) when used correctly with a proper windscreen. To be clear, that's the _only_ thing you've said here that is (probably) wrong; just that caption. Everything else is 100% dead-on balls accurate. ;) When it comes to testing stoves, few people have done as much of that as you. :)