[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[pct-l] Different types of Alcohol Stoves



In fact, Sgt. Rock has a very thorough study of the efficiency of various
alcohol stoves on his website.  http://hikinghq.net
Peace and love,
Matt
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark Verber" <verber@gmail.com>
To: "Alistair and Gail Des Moulins" <aandg@telusplanet.net>
Cc: <pct-l@mailman.backcountry.net>
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 9:46 AM
Subject: Re: [pct-l] Different types of Alcohol Stoves


A while ago I did some calculations of stove step-in weight + fuel weight
for my style of cooking (boiling 2-3 cups, once / day).  I remember my
conclusions, but I don't have the raw data laying around.  I found that for
me an alchohol stove has the lowest initital weight for trips less than 6
days, and the lowest average carry weight for trip less than 15 days (the
longest I would go without resupply).  For 6-14 days (3-7 days with two
people), a canister stove had a lower step-in weight, but was slightly
heavier on a daily average carry weight weight.

My guess is that with the amount of cooking you are doing (boiling 6 cups
each night + sometimes hot water for breakfast, up to 15 days without
resupply), that the canister would be slightly better than the alchohol
stove from an average carry weight, and a whole lot less hassle. With
boiling 6 cups, I wouldn't be surprise if sometime (like with especially
cold water on a windy night) that a single load of fuel in the alchohol
stove might not be enough to get all your cooking done and you will have to
refill.

There is a nice graph
http://www.thru-hiker.com/articles.asp?subcat=2&cid=57and a calculator
at
http://www.kzpg.com/Backpacking/Stove/Stoves.htm

According to http://www.bushwalking.org.au/FAQ/FAQ_Efficiency.htm white gas
doesn't have more energy / carry weight than isobutane.  My memory is that
white gas did have more energy / fuel carry weight (one of us is wrong...
likely me), but when you added in the stove weight, canister system always
lighter.  One other small nit to pick with Roger's  table... when evaluating

alchohol, a heavy nalgene contain was used with the alchohol stove.  The
nice thing about alchohol is that you can use a much lighter container for
the fuel.  This significantly lowers the step in weight of an alchohol
stove, and drops the daily average carry weight as well

There were some pretty good tests run by bpl.com looking at boil time (how
much heat) and fuel efficency (economical):

http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/lightweight_alcohol_stoves_test_report.html

My personal tests found that for my style (2 cups in a evernew .9l pot) that
the Sgt Rock Ion stove was the most efficent.  For larger (I only tested up
to 4 cups) that the thermojet seemed to be the most efficent. I have
wondered if there are other burners that when combined with the rest of the
thermajet might be more efficent, but I didn't spend much time trying to
figure it out.

--Mark
_______________________________________________
pct-l mailing list
pct-l@mailman.backcountry.net
unsubscribe or change options:
http://mailman.hack.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l