[pct-l] Different types of Alcohol Stoves

[dsaufley at sprynet.com (dsaufley@sprynet.com)]

Great site -- thanks for the info.

-----Original Message-----
>From: Hotmail <bodhisattvavow@hotmail.com>
>Sent: Jan 26, 2006 8:29 PM
>To: Mark Verber <verber@gmail.com>, pct-l@mailman.backcountry.net
>Subject: Re: [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
>_______________________________________________
>pct-l mailing list
>pct-l@mailman.backcountry.net
>unsubscribe or change options:
>http://mailman.hack.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l