On the subject of backpacking...waterproof matches
 

"Tom Nakashima" wrote in
:


Something for Frank: exploding birthday candles

....now you want me to blow up my house...I'm trying to imagine 73 exploding
candles. yikes!

Frank the deaf

On the subject of backpacking...
 

"Jonathan Cook" wrote in message
...
William Claspy wrote:
On 2/10/06 10:22 AM, in article , "Tom
Nakashima" wrote:

Ice-coffee, Bill.

If you ever become a monk, Tom, it'll be a step back for you
in terms of self-denail. Live a little! ;-)


Jon,
I'm as city as they come, drive the rude packed traffic jammed roads, and
deal with high stressed engineers, physicist, theorist who daily push the
edge of the envelope, which is why I ride bicycles, fly-flsh and
backpack....as far from city life as I could get. This is the reason why I
like to be the minimalist
-tom

On the subject of backpacking...waterproof matches
 

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 07:11:33 -0800, "Tom Nakashima"
wrote:

Something for Frank: exploding birthday candles
-tom

Frank doesn't need any explosions. With all those candle to light, it
is already a conflagration.

When are you going to Alaska, Tom?


I'll be on the Arolik River the from July 2-10 for the king salmon, bears
and wild dogs. Should be enough time to bring me back to civilization, but
usually when someone ask me about how my wilderness adventures were, I tell
them; "Not long enough!"
-tom

On the subject of backpacking...
 

Daniel-San wrote:

JetBoil was well-reviewed at backpacker.com. I think Andrew Priest also
reviewed it well at his gear testing site.

Downside for me is that you never really know how much fuel is left in that
can, do you?

Dan

I weigh the full cans and write the weight on the bottom of the can
with perm. marker. Weigh the empty can and then subtract the
difference. Should give a pretty close percentage of the amt. of fuel left.

Wnoop

On the subject of backpacking...
 

"WyoBob" wrote in message
...
Daniel-San wrote:

JetBoil was well-reviewed at backpacker.com. I think Andrew Priest also
reviewed it well at his gear testing site.

Downside for me is that you never really know how much fuel is left in
that can, do you?

Dan

I weigh the full cans and write the weight on the bottom of the can with
perm. marker. Weigh the empty can and then subtract the difference.
Should give a pretty close percentage of the amt. of fuel left.

Wnoop

Sounds like it should work pretty well.

Can those things be refilled.....safely and legally?

Wolfgang

On the subject of backpacking...
 

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

"WyoBob" wrote in message
...
Daniel-San wrote:

JetBoil was well-reviewed at backpacker.com. I think Andrew Priest also
reviewed it well at his gear testing site.

Downside for me is that you never really know how much fuel is left in
that can, do you?

Dan

I weigh the full cans and write the weight on the bottom of the can
with perm. marker. Weigh the empty can and then subtract the difference.
Should give a pretty close percentage of the amt. of fuel left.

Wnoop

Sounds like it should work pretty well.

Agree as to 'should'. However, fuel use in a canister stove is a function of
many things -- including the variables of temperature and humidity (so I've
read -- a chemist I ain't.) Suppose at full throttle (at home), your Pocket
Rocket will go thru the small can of fuel in an hour (roughly what MSR says
it will do with their Iso-Pro fuel). Great. Now, make that test under real
conditions where the pressure in the can is a variable (as a function of
temp), and your pre-planned fuel usage is worth precisely zippo. You either
run the risk of running out of fuel or you carry too much. No way around
that.



Can those things be refilled.....safely and legally?


Safely? Maybe, but I doubt it. Legally? BOMK, no. I am certain it's illegal
to transport them if refilled (look at a propane cylinder at home), but I'm
not sure if the refilling itself is a no-no.


Wolfgang


Dan

On the subject of backpacking...
 

"Jonathan Cook" wrote...
William Claspy wrote:
"TomNakashima" wrote:

Ice-coffee, Bill.

If you ever become a monk, Tom, it'll be a step back for you
in terms of self-denail. Live a little! ;-)

For me, one of those things is the steaming mug first thing in
the morning.

I'm with you on that one -- 'cept I just use the coffee tea bags.

Dan doesn't do
campfires. I like to have at least one on a trip. Something primal
about
being out there, crouching before a little blaze.

When by myself, I find campfires to be too much of a bother.

I don't own a fancy stove, just an esbit-tablet fold-up (which
you can burn twigs in too). As I understand it, when fire
restrictions are in effect, the tablet stoves ("open flame") are
not allowed. If true, I think that's going a bit too far.

Jon.

Jon -

Most locations that have fire restrictions have an exception for what they
call 'self-contained' stoves. Lots of folks like the Sierra Zip Stove for
the twig burning reason you cite. I know that in the NP's I've visited, the
exception exists.

Dan
....doncha hate the stench of Esbit? uggghhhhhh

On the subject of backpacking...
 

"Daniel-San" wrote in message
. com...

Sounds like it should work pretty well.

Agree as to 'should'. However, fuel use in a canister stove is a function
of many things -- including the variables of temperature and humidity (so
I've read -- a chemist I ain't.) Suppose at full throttle (at home), your
Pocket Rocket will go thru the small can of fuel in an hour (roughly what
MSR says it will do with their Iso-Pro fuel). Great. Now, make that test
under real conditions where the pressure in the can is a variable (as a
function of temp), and your pre-planned fuel usage is worth precisely
zippo. You either run the risk of running out of fuel or you carry too
much. No way around that.

All true. However, the point made had nothing to do with consumption
rates......regardless of conditions. Knowing the full weight, the empty
weight, and the current weight, it's easy enough to calculate pretty
accurately and precisely how much fuel is left in the canister. No way
around that either.

As to predicting the rate of fuel use and how long a given supply will last,
well, that's always an iffy proposition even when tested in the field.
Moreover, this holds true for any type of fuel and delivery system. The
risk of running out of fuel or carrying too much is omnipresent.

Can those things be refilled.....safely and legally?


Safely? Maybe, but I doubt it. Legally? BOMK, no. I am certain it's
illegal to transport them if refilled (look at a propane cylinder at
home), but I'm not sure if the refilling itself is a no-no.

Thanks.

Wolfgang

On the subject of backpacking...
 

"Wolfgang" wrote ...

"Daniel-San" wrote ...

Sounds like it should work pretty well.

Agree as to 'should'. However, fuel use in a canister stove is a function
of many things -- including the variables of temperature and humidity (so
I've read -- a chemist I ain't.) Suppose at full throttle (at home), your
Pocket Rocket will go thru the small can of fuel in an hour (roughly what
MSR says it will do with their Iso-Pro fuel). Great. Now, make that test
under real conditions where the pressure in the can is a variable (as a
function of temp), and your pre-planned fuel usage is worth precisely
zippo. You either run the risk of running out of fuel or you carry too
much. No way around that.

All true. However, the point made had nothing to do with consumption
rates......regardless of conditions. Knowing the full weight, the empty
weight, and the current weight, it's easy enough to calculate pretty
accurately and precisely how much fuel is left in the canister. No way
around that either.

As to predicting the rate of fuel use and how long a given supply will
last, well, that's always an iffy proposition even when tested in the
field. Moreover, this holds true for any type of fuel and delivery system.
The risk of running out of fuel or carrying too much is omnipresent.

True -- there is always at least a small amount of iffy-ness when trying to
predict fuel usage. Minimizing the effects of the iffy-ness is one of the
main features of an alky stove.

Say you use your stove 2x a day (once for coffee in the AM and once for
evening meal). With most alky stoves, that means two ounces of fuel per day.
Multiply that times number of days, add whatever margin of error you feel
comfortable with (extra days, spillage, oops, etc.) and you know how much
fuel to take.

With a canister stove, you have a fixed amount of fuel per can -- roughly an
hour's worth in the small can. At five minutes per use (a fair estimate if
only boiling water), you get twelve 'uses', or six days in the 2x a day
usage example. You have little to no wiggle room built in to this equation.
In order to allow for extra days, wiggle-room, margin of error, etc., you
have to carry not only another canister (even perhaps a half-full one), but
also the weight (albeit small) of the now empty original canister.

Here's a pretty good discussion of the weight differences of variously
fueled stoves:

http://www.thru-hiker.com/articles.asp?subcat=2&cid=56

Dan


Can those things be refilled.....safely and legally?


Safely? Maybe, but I doubt it. Legally? BOMK, no. I am certain it's
illegal to transport them if refilled (look at a propane cylinder at
home), but I'm not sure if the refilling itself is a no-no.

Thanks.

Wolfgang

On the subject of backpacking...
 

"Daniel-San" wrote in message
. com...


True -- there is always at least a small amount of iffy-ness when trying
to predict fuel usage. Minimizing the effects of the iffy-ness is one of
the main features of an alky stove.

Say you use your stove 2x a day (once for coffee in the AM and once for
evening meal). With most alky stoves, that means two ounces of fuel per
day. Multiply that times number of days, add whatever margin of error you
feel comfortable with (extra days, spillage, oops, etc.) and you know how
much fuel to take.

Sounds simple enough.......but I fail to see any reason that I couldn't
apply the same sort of equation to my Dragonfly. Surely you aren't
suggesting that alcohol usage is somehow more calculable than that for other
fuels.

With a canister stove, you have a fixed amount of fuel per can

A fix amount of fuel per storage container is a fact of life regardless of
the nature of the fuel or the container.

-- roughly an hour's worth in the small can.

O.k., I'll take your word for it.

At five minutes per use (a fair estimate if only boiling water), you get
twelve 'uses', or six days in the 2x a day usage example.

Well, it starts to look like I'm being asked to take a lot on faith.

You have little to no wiggle room built in to this equation.

A good equation, I think, reduces wiggle room to a bare
minimum......otherwise it's really more of a guess.

In order to allow for extra days, wiggle-room, margin of error, etc., you
have to carry not only another canister (even perhaps a half-full one),
but also the weight (albeit small) of the now empty original canister.

In order to allow for extra days, wiggle-room, margin of error, etc., you
have to carry extra fuel of whatever type.....and they ALL have to be
carried in some sort of container, no? Unless your alcohol comes in an
edible container, I can't quite see what advantage you're trying to describe
here.

I can't help but feel that you think you demonstrated alcohol is a more
efficient fuel somewhere in the discussion above. I'm willing enough to
accept that it IS in fact more efficient IF it is so demonstrated, but if
you reread what you've written above, you haven't really done that.

Here's a pretty good discussion of the weight differences of variously
fueled stoves:

http://www.thru-hiker.com/articles.asp?subcat=2&cid=56

If (as we agree) predicting fuel usage is an iffy proposition even after
extensive field testing, then I maintain that accepting the results of
someone else's minimally outlined tests and assumptions is even more so. Be
that as it may, let's stipulate that the results are valid. So? So, my
Dragonfly (which is almost certainly heavier than the Whisperlite) and it's
fuel are "the clear loser" in this test. If weight were the only
consideration, the choice would be clear. But we know that weight is not
the only consideration. As a matter of fact, we know that "Of the three
lightest options (Cat, Esbit, and Canister stoves), none perform
particularly well in winter conditions. Even in temperatures around
freezing, the Cat and Esbit stoves will not perform particularly well."
Now, they may still be good enough for you, down there in the sunny south,
but up here I think I'd want to know a bit more about exactly what "...will
not perform particularly well" means before making a decision.

Besides, "Hike your own hike and all.....", ainna? :)

Wolfgang