Messages

1

News & Events / Re: Ransom and photobucket

« on: April 18, 2018, 07:32:19 PM »

Wow, this actually works! I added the extension and now I can see all my old photos on this site! And those of everyone else, as far as I can tell.

Why would photobucket allow this to exist?

Oh well, it works for now. Thanks.

Kinguq.

2

Back Country Skiing Discussion / Re: waxing Hoks

« on: April 12, 2018, 11:40:57 AM »

I use ski skins (not Hoks) and they do clog up when the temp is near 0 C.

I have some of the skin wax ANDN mentioned and that helps a bit. Just rub it on, preferably in a warm room as the wax gets too hard when it is cold. I am guessing it is basically just paraffin. It doesn't clog up the hairs and it wears off pretty fast.

Still, using skins around the freezing point can be problematic.

Kinguq.

3

Fire and Woodstoves / Re: The Need for Stove Baffles

« on: April 08, 2018, 07:12:17 PM »

"It's just a box. And it has fire in it."

At one point in this discussion I was going to write something similar: it isn't rocket science. Then I realized that it almost is rocket science!

There are real similarities. In both cases we put fuel into a combustion chamber, ignite it, and spew hot gasses out a pipe. The rest is just optimization for a particular use, e.g. maximizing thrust vs maximizing heat released into a room. But similar principles apply.

One of the things I like best about winter camping is that there is still lots of space to innovate with gear. Anyone can build a stove that is as good or even better than most that are on the market, and the best designs probably haven't been made yet. Same applies to tents, sleeping systems, sleds and all the other stuff we use. There is so much opportunity for new ideas and making your own gear, compared to summer camping where pretty much everything that can be done has been already. That makes it fun, for me at least.

Re the yurt: I would go with an airtight, high efficiency stove made for a house, like a Pacific Energy or similar, since weight is not an issue. These are so efficient and easy to use. I might also pile some concrete blocks or rocks around it for some thermal mass. A yurt will not hold the heat well once the stove get's low, so some thermal mass might make it warmer in the morning.

I really want to build a yurt, just haven't come up with a reason to. Yet.

Kinguq.

4

Fire and Woodstoves / Re: The Need for Stove Baffles

« on: April 06, 2018, 08:41:48 PM »

I think if the baffle comes too far forward on a horizontal box stove it can increase the tendency for smoke to come out the door. As others have said, not sure what the numbers are. Maybe a baffle that slides back as the door opens is needed.

When I first installed the baffle in my stove I had the hole in it right in front of the door, and the stove smoked when I opened it. So I patched part of the hole and cut it back a bit. Fixed the problem. No need to have a complicated arrangement, just a bit of trial and error until it is right.

Hahaha way to complicated for me, I'm really happy with my non baffle stove and I think I will keep it that way! That said if I ever built a smaller stove I have ideas that will probably solve a lot of the problems... But don'T wait here for it to happen, cause you might dry out waiting!!

There's virtue in sticking with whatever works for you! If it ain't broke, why fix it? But for me, installing a baffle solved two problems: it made the cook top hotter, and eliminated chimney sparks.

Kinguq.

5

Fire and Woodstoves / Re: The Need for Stove Baffles

« on: April 06, 2018, 02:20:20 PM »

An other question, since the chimney run cooler does it encourage creosote? I mean every body seem to like using those chimney thermometer but with a baffle that seams like nonsense?!?!?!

I don't use one but it might be a source of entertainment I guess! Re creosote I don't get much in the chimney of my baffled pot stove but I have seen a little condensation on the baffle itself. Very little and easily shaken out after a few days of use.

I do get creosote in the chimney on my baffled Chimpac stove, enough after a few days of use that it seriously impedes draw. So now I make a point of banging the chimney with a stick every time I enter the tent, and that seems to solve the issue. I should note that this is a very narrow chimney, tapering to less than 2 inches.

Kinguq.

6

Fire and Woodstoves / Re: The Need for Stove Baffles

« on: April 06, 2018, 11:48:31 AM »

Don't know what the magic numbers are.

But the opening in the baffle should be at least as big as the chimney size, possibly a touch bigger. You don't want to constrict the draft.

For the same reason the gap between the baffle and the stove top should be large enough that it doesn't restrict the draft, i.e. at least the same volume as the pipe for the same distance. I suspect this is easily achieved and exceeded in virtually all baffle setups.

Beyond that I couldn't say. There are likely tradeoffs in adjusting these variables but it seems hard to predict what they would be. Any baffle is going to restrict draft a bit, simply because of friction and reduction of stack temperature. Of course you could make the baffle adjustable for these parameters and experiment, but that sounds like a lot of work. Perhaps the rocket stove afficionados would have more ideas about these things.

Kinguq.

7

General Winter Camping Discussion / Re: Snowdog

« on: April 05, 2018, 04:32:18 PM »

I've read similar difficulties and that extra weight has helped some as well. Here is one owner that added extra weights, perhaps it's your friend?

Yes, that's him. Other people don't seem to have this issue, however, so maybe it is only under certain conditions? Is it really that much heavier on the right side?

Kinguq.

8

General Winter Camping Discussion / Re: Snowdog

« on: April 05, 2018, 02:46:27 PM »

My friend in Yellowknife has had difficulties with his pulling to the right in soft snow. He thinks it has to do with weight distribution, and has actually added weight to the left side, which he claims lessens the problem. The dealer recommended adjusting the track tension, but I don't know if that worked for him. I will be curious to see whether yours has this issue too.

These look like fun and useful machines. Looking forward to your reports!

Kinguq.

9

Fire and Woodstoves / Re: The Need for Stove Baffles

« on: April 04, 2018, 02:45:17 PM »

Hi Dave,

Could you explain how you interpret the results of such an experiment? I thought baffles worked not by reducing the draw of the chimney (although they will do that, slightly) but rather by giving the hot gasses a longer path and retaining them longer in the stove body. And also by directing them against the stove top to give a better cooking surface.

I can only say that adding a baffle to my pot stove improved cooking performance, and I also think (although I can't prove it) that it throws more heat per unit fuel. And sparks were completely eliminated, which was important to me since I was using a lavvu with a chimney straight up the middle.

Kinguq.

10

Fire and Woodstoves / Re: The Need for Stove Baffles

« on: April 04, 2018, 01:27:37 PM »

And the other, to me huge, advantage is the near elimination of sparks coming out of the chimney.

Kinguq.

11

Sleds and Toboggans / Re: Pulk Design

« on: March 30, 2018, 04:17:19 PM »

"I can't see there being any innate advantage in any of the designs in terms of friction though, friction is proportional to force not pressure. All that actually matters there is weight (ie force) and material (ie coeffient of friction as in uhmw vs hd), and all three sled,pulk,toboggan can be optimized for weight and built from any material."

Actually I don't quite agree. Friction on snow is quite a dynamic process that depends on temperature and loading among other things. Also there is compressive friction, essentially the force needed to push through the snow, or move it out of the way. I wrote about these things here, although the photos have disappeared.

https://www.wintertrekking.com/community/index.php?topic=3917.msg35277#msg35277

I found a pulk with runners slides more easily than a toboggan under almost all conditions. A sled with runners has "enough" flotation under most conditions, because it is almost always following at least one snowshoe or ski track, and the loading on your skis and snowshoes is inevitably greater than that on your sled.

Kinguq.

12

Books, DVD's, Films and Magazines / The birthplace of skiing?

« on: March 28, 2018, 08:11:08 PM »

http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20180328-chinas-8000-year-old-skiing-method

Wide skis with horsehair skins. Where Hoks came from. Interesting video showing the making and using of these skis.

Kinguq.

13

Snowshoeing Discussion / Re: Looking for advice re large snowshoes

« on: March 26, 2018, 06:04:09 PM »

If you feel you must have a claw, you can have one on any snowshoe with this binding:

http://www.snowshoesalesandrepairs.com/?action=racheting

I have them on my 16 x 48 Hurons and I like them. The claw is removable with a couple of bolts and I took mine off years ago because they are just more trouble than they are worth most of the time. In icy, settled or crusty conditions I use a smaller modern shoe.

Kinguq.

14

Back Country Skiing Discussion / Re: Trekking Skis'

« on: March 10, 2018, 10:38:56 AM »

I keep thinking up ways to add retractable teeth, either passive wide tipped ones that slide back on forward motion and bite in if the ski slides back, or latch-down long teeth for uphill or side hill travel.

As you might guess there is nothing new about this idea and it has been tried in many forms over the years, including here.
https://tinyurl.com/y7urqayz

The problem is that they don't work well in soft snow (just like snowshoe crampons), and even when they do work there is a slight backslide with every step as the ski must slide backwards a bit for the device to grip.

I can't emphasize this enough: if you want to ski in the bush, get a pair of climbing skins. They change everything. Not just because of more grip: they also decrease glide substantially. In the bush, glide is usually a problem, not an advantage, because we mustn't hit trees on the downhill runs.

The trick, for me, is having the right balance of grip and some glide, which is achieved by changing the size of the ski skin. I use very narrow skins on my skis, about 1.5 cm wide, which I have cut down from wider ones. Works for me.

Kinguq.

15

Snowshoeing Discussion / Re: Looking for advice re large snowshoes

« on: March 09, 2018, 10:29:04 AM »

I would recommend a large pair of traditional style snowshoes, preferably with mono lacing.

If as you say you are travelling in soft snow, you don't need crampons. They don't do anything in soft snow. I had them on my traditionals and I took them off. Snow sticks to them under some conditions and they become a problem. And lacing grips surprisingly well in soft snow.

I have a pair of 16 x 48 Hurons that I got here http://www.snowshoesalesandrepairs.com/?action=products

These are pretty much the largest snowshoe in terms of surface area that you can find. I love them. And I weigh about 160 lbs. They are fantastic in deep soft snow. Size is everything with snowshoes under those conditions.

Many people prefer the Bearpaws to the Hurons and I wouldn't argue much over that. The Bearpaws are certainly better for deep bush.

As to skis, I use pretty standard touring skis with a narrow, full length climbing skin which are removable in the field. These give more than enough grip. Personally I think flotation in skis is vastly over-rated under most conditions. Most of the time you will be pushing any ski through the snow, and a narrower ski pushes through snow more easily than a wide one. That is why I am not a fan of super-wide skis like Hoks. I should note that this is very much a minority opinion, but it is based on quite a lot of experience.

Kinguq.