On the subject of backpacking...

"Wolfgang" wrote ...

"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.

Yes, but it's pretty hard to add to a canister. (at least with what I carry
in my pack)


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

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

Can't find the link now -- sorry.


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.


Ok...'equation' above was a poor word choice. Perhaps 'scenario'?

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 wish it were an edible container, but methinks the methanol formerly
(formally?) contained therein might cause some problems.

Ok... try for a better explanation....


Purchase one of these:

http://tinyurl.com/cmv6g

Label it well with poorly drawn skulls and crossbones. You now have your
fuel container.


Six day trip coming up. At two ounces of fuel per day, plus some extra for a
stranded day, spillage, etc. I would choose to bring along 16 ounces of
fuel. This requires purchase of two 12-ounce bottles of HEET. Fill the
Platy, and you have some HEET left over in its original bottle.

Here's the kicker...

With the alky stove -- you only take what you want to take. The left over
HEET stays home or gets poured into your gas tank.

If I had brought a canister stove, assuming our agreed upon one-hour burn
time per canister of fuel, and a ten minute usage daily (two five-minute
burns) it leaves darned near zero extra 'emergency fuel'. If you want to
bring extra fuel (and hey, you may not want to....HYOH, and all), you have
to carry an entire additional canister.

Better explanation?

In terms of weight, I think the alky stove is more efficient because of the
flexibility it allows in terms of how much fuel you tote. With a canister,
you tote fuel in well, canisters, no? You have to choose between one, two,
or more whole canisters at a close-to-fixed weight per unit. With an alky
stove, you pour how much fuel you want into a bottle whose weight is
negligible. And, the container shrinks as you use the fuel.


Then.... just for funsies.... factor in how the alky stoves have no moving
parts, no pumps, no clogging of jets, no stink, no noise, and are cool to
watch (I'm a geek I guess)..... it becomes a no-brainer _IF_ all you do is
boil water in a three-season (not winter) situation.

As soon as 'real' cooking is attempted, the alcohol stove pretty much goes
staright to the **** pile. There are some folks that claim to be able to
simmer with a few different alkys, but me thinks I'd move to a canister if
simmering were to be part of my cooking equation.



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.

Fair enough --hopefully I have now.

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.


Sunny south? I'm only 80 or 90 miles south of you.


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

Amen.


Wolfgang



If you want, I'll send you a homemade Pepsi can stove to experiment with
(looks a lot like this: http://wings.interfree.it/html/Pepsi.html). You can
get my last name from Timmmmmay's DDFS page (I tied the 'Tom's working
dry'). Send a mailing address to my last name at yahoo.com and I'll send it
out.

Dan
....yeah, maybe a little paranoid.

"Willi" wrote in message
...
I had my primus in Jamaica years ago and couldn't find any white gas on
the island. We burned over-proof rum. It burned hot, smelled good and it
gave us something to do while our food cooked, but it gummed up the jet
on the stove so we had to clean it frequently.

Willi

Well, as I quit drinking some time ago, I haven't tried to burn spirits thru
my stove. However, were I to find myself wanting white gas, I would have
gone for grain alcohol--depending on availability, of course.

Op

"Wolfgang" wrote...


snip



Surely you aren't suggesting that alcohol usage is somehow more calculable
than that for other fuels.


Oops -- missed this question in my reply.

YES -- that is very much what I am suggesting.

Your stove:

How much fuel do you use to prime your stove? How much fuel does it use when
it flares up? How much fuel leaks out the hose when you disconnect it from
the bottle? How much fuel are you wasting by allowing the stove to run
'rich'? How much fuel are you wasting by running the stove too hot (turned
up too far or at a higher than needed pressure) ? How much fuel is left in
the bottle? How much fuel did you ACTUALLY use when you cooked your Knorr
soup or your Kraft Mac?

I have no idea, and neither does anyone. Sure, you can estimate it, but
since the entire fuel supply is attached to the stove, it only stops burning
when you switch it off or you run outta gas.

Alcohol stove:

You instill one ounce of fuel into the stove per use. You then close and put
away the fuel bottle. You now have exactly (starting volume - one ounce) of
fuel in the bottle. The stove cannot burn more than one ounce of fuel at a
time. It is calcuable -- to within whatever precision your 'ounce' is
measured to.

Wolfgang



Dan

"Tom Nakashima" wrote in message
...
Bill,
once on a backpack trip with a few friends, I awoke to a loud buzzing
noise out in the middle of nowhere. I got out of my Bivy adjusted my eyes
only to find this guy shaving with a battery powered electric shaver.
Now when I backpack I love to get as far away from society as possible.
-tom

Ok, now I'm comin' up to speed, on this back-country campin' stuff! You and
I need to get together Tom. I ain't much of a hiker--to fat and out of
shape--but I sure as hell won't be bringin' no battery powered shaver,
muchless a Gillett "Fusion!" Hell, the guyz at work ask why I only shave
one side of my face at a time.

Op --workin' the right-side this month--

Wolfgang wrote:
"Daniel-San" wrote in message

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.



This thread is amusing and reminiscent of the posts I read on ultra
light groups when I was researching new gear. People seem to somehow
take it as a personal insult if someone has a different idea of what
gear is best for them. Some people go to incredible (and unrealistic to
me) means to have "bragging rights" for carrying the least amount of
weight. Pretty humorous actually but it did make it harder to gather
information from the discussions.

In this case, it seems clear to me that there is an advantage to use a
fuel that you can measure out like alcohol over a canister fuel. With
the alcohol, you can decide how many ounces of fuel you want to bring,
with a canister you need to take the amount that is in a given
canister(s). Whether this is important to you is a completely different
thing.

Willi

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

"Wolfgang" wrote...


snip



Surely you aren't suggesting that alcohol usage is somehow more
calculable than that for other fuels.


Oops -- missed this question in my reply.

YES -- that is very much what I am suggesting.

Your stove:

How much fuel do you use to prime your stove? How much fuel does it use
when it flares up? How much fuel leaks out the hose when you disconnect it
from the bottle? How much fuel are you wasting by allowing the stove to
run 'rich'? How much fuel are you wasting by running the stove too hot
(turned up too far or at a higher than needed pressure) ? How much fuel is
left in the bottle? How much fuel did you ACTUALLY use when you cooked
your Knorr soup or your Kraft Mac?

Well, I COULD answer those questions individually but, since the answer is
identical in each instance, it seems only prudent to answer them all at
once: A measurable quantity.

I have no idea,

I believe you.

and neither does anyone.

See above.

Sure, you can estimate it,

Or measure it.

but since the entire fuel supply is attached to the stove, it only stops
burning when you switch it off or you run outta gas.

Which (zut alors!) can only be said of any and every thing that runs on any
sort of fuel.......whether or not the entire fuel supply is attached to
it.......well, barring the odd microburst or forty days and forty
nights.......

Alcohol stove:

You instill one ounce of fuel into the stove per use. You then close and
put away the fuel bottle. You now have exactly (starting volume - one
ounce) of fuel in the bottle. The stove cannot burn more than one ounce of
fuel at a time. It is calcuable -- to within whatever precision your
'ounce' is measured to.

Is it safe to assume that you burn the entire ounce.......whether you need
it or not?

Wolfgang

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

"Wolfgang" wrote ...

"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.

Yes, but it's pretty hard to add to a canister. (at least with what I
carry in my pack)

While it is easy to add to an alcohol container from......um.....what,
exactly?

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

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

Can't find the link now -- sorry.

That's o.k........I 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.


Ok...'equation' above was a poor word choice. Perhaps 'scenario'?

Sure.....scenario's a good word. Hell, I've used it myself.

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 wish it were an edible container, but methinks the methanol formerly
(formally?) contained therein might cause some problems.

Ok... try for a better explanation....

Please do.

Purchase one of these:

http://tinyurl.com/cmv6g

Thanks, I already have a couple of those.

Label it well with poorly drawn skulls and crossbones. You now have your
fuel container.

But.....but......I ALREADY have a fuel container!

Six day trip coming up. At two ounces of fuel per day, plus some extra for
a stranded day, spillage, etc. I would choose to bring along 16 ounces of
fuel. This requires purchase of two 12-ounce bottles of HEET. Fill the
Platy, and you have some HEET left over in its original bottle.

Six day trip coming up. I don't have a ****ing clue how much my fuel bottle
holds or how much fuel my stove burns in a given amount of time or per meal,
cup, or whatever. On the other hand, I've never wanted for fuel on a
backpacking trip.

Here's the kicker...

With the alky stove -- you only take what you want to take. The left over
HEET stays home or gets poured into your gas tank.

No one has yet succeeded in making me take more than I wanted to. I have
never (to the best of my recollection) bought "HEET" (whatever it may be) or
poured it into my gas tank......or anywhere else, for that matter.

If I had brought a canister stove, assuming our agreed upon one-hour burn
time per canister of fuel, and a ten minute usage daily (two five-minute
burns) it leaves darned near zero extra 'emergency fuel'. If you want to
bring extra fuel (and hey, you may not want to....HYOH, and all), you have
to carry an entire additional canister.

AH! A ray of sunshine (geographic considrations be damned) at last! So,
what you're saying (and DO feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.....o.k.?)
is that the various liquified petroleum products (butane, propane, or what
have you) are inconveniently packaged! Yeah, that's a pretty good sized
chunk of why I've never owned.....or given any serious consideration to
owning...... a "canister" stove. But there's also the fact that they really
suck at low temperature and, most importantly (for me) a personal grudge
against one-time disposable packaging.

Better explanation?

Well.......it could still be worded better......but I think (I hope) you got
the intended message across this time.

In terms of weight, I think the alky stove is more efficient because of
the flexibility it allows in terms of how much fuel you tote.

No. The efficiency of the stove is a matter of input vis a vis
output.....how much fuel it takes to heat whatever to the desired
temperature.

With a canister, you tote fuel in well, canisters, no?

Yes. On the other hand, with something else you tote fuel in something
else, no?

You have to choose between one, two, or more whole canisters at a
close-to-fixed weight per unit.

Precisely fixed.....for all practical purposes.

With an alky stove, you pour how much fuel you want into a bottle

Obvious.

whose weight is negligible.

Negligible? Um.......oh.....o.k.......I get it.....you're a
theoretician.......you've never actually carried a backpack.......right?


And, the container shrinks as you use the fuel.

Depends on the container......and what "shrinks" means. If you really
believe that a "Platypus" loses mass as the contents are drained, you're
right.......you're no chemist.

Then.... just for funsies.... factor in how the alky stoves have no moving
parts, no pumps, no clogging of jets, no stink, no noise, and are cool to
watch (I'm a geek I guess)..... it becomes a no-brainer _IF_ all you do is
boil water in a three-season (not winter) situation.

Well, just for funsies (or, getting back to the head of the thread, so to
speak), let's assume that I DO go out in the winter......

As soon as 'real' cooking is attempted, the alcohol stove pretty much goes
staright to the **** pile.

Which is, for all I know, precisely where it was before you brought it to
the table.

There are some folks that claim to be able to simmer with a few different
alkys, but me thinks I'd move to a canister if simmering were to be part
of my cooking equation.

Personally, I'm not much interested in either......but hey,
HYOHAA.....ainna?

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.

Fair enough --hopefully I have now.

Nope.

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.


Sunny south? I'm only 80 or 90 miles south of you.

And that's......what?......where the sun don't shine?

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

Amen.

Ah, you say it......but you don't believe it......or is there something
about advocacy I'm missing here?

Wolfgang



If you want, I'll send you a homemade Pepsi can stove to experiment with
(looks a lot like this: http://wings.interfree.it/html/Pepsi.html). You
can get my last name from Timmmmmay's DDFS page (I tied the 'Tom's working
dry'). Send a mailing address to my last name at yahoo.com and I'll send
it out.

No, thanks. I've got a stove I like just fine.

Dan
...yeah, maybe a little paranoid.

Maybe.

Wolfgang

"Mr. Opus McDopus" wrote in message
...

...the guyz at work ask why I only shave one side of my face at a time.

And they're all......what?.....ambi****ingdextrous?

Wolfgang
who HATES a goddamn showoff!

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...


Sunny south? I'm only 80 or 90 miles south of you.

And that's......what?......where the sun don't shine?


That depends on what you think of the Chicago area?

William Claspy wrote:

On 2/10/06 9:41 AM, in article , "Tom
Nakashima" wrote:


My current stove, the MSR dragonfly, is a lot more expensive but it packs
up into a pretty small package. Even with a small fuel bottle it isn't
very large or heavy.......certainly doable for a day trip on a stream.
What makes it even more appealing for me is the very precise control over
the flame......it's the first stove I've owned that will do both jet
blast and a low simmer. If you aren't familiar with this one, it's worth
checking out.

Do you really need a stove?
On short trips I don't even bother to pack a stove now with the packaged
tuna and the many beef jerky brands. Three days or less out in the
wilderness I won't pack a stove.
-tom


One word, brother:

Coffee.

Bill


amen! ...