|
Originally Posted by cyccommute
(Post 15010195)
What do you not get? Do you cook with your stove at home turned down to minimum all the time? All you guys seem to be trying to convince me that the fuel you use is the best fuel on the planet and performs just as well as my fuel choice. I fully acknowledge the short comings of my fuel choice. Availability of butane mixture canisters is limited but they aren't as limited in the US (where I do most of my touring so that's where I'm most concerned about fuel availability) because a major retailer has decided to carry them. Considering that this major retailer is far too prevalent throughout the US...another topic:rolleyes:...I've had no issues in the last 3 or 4 years finding my fuel choice. I acknowledge that my stove of choice comes with some possible safety issues, but I have never heard of anyone having problems with these fuels when used according to manufacturers instruction. I acknowledge that the canister or pressurized liquid fuel stoves are heavier. Now, are you willing to acknowledge alcohol fuel's shortcomings? That pound for pound it has half the energy density of hydrocarbon fuels? That you have to use more of it to do the same thing? That the heat output from it is less than the heat output from hydrocarbon fuels? That you have to refuel more often because you use so much more of it? That you are limited to a very specific range of fuels...ethanol and methanol...to avoid soot and stove clogging? That an open burning liquid fuel has more chance of getting away from the user then a contained, metered fuel? Alcohol stoves are simpler and lighter for trips where you're away from resupply for up to a week, longer and I'd start to consider a canister. Also whatever the energy density the efficiency of your cooking system is going to depend on other factors that contribute to the transfer of energy from the fuel to your food or water. The base weight and volume overhead of a canister stove is larger than that of an alcohol stove, but for multiple people and weeks away from resupply that vcan be overcome. |
I've heard that some people like Windows and some people like Macintosh computers. Luckily, those folks never argue about that. :rolleyes:
|
Originally Posted by spinner
(Post 15006110)
What is the ultralight siphon system?
This would require a bit of explanation. I may start a thread in case there might be others who would be interested but are not following this thread. But I want to get to some other things right now, and might not get to it right away. The idea allows me to do my favorite types of touring (forest service roads, trails, high desert, middle of nowhere, middle of everywhere sorts of trips that take me away from stores and other places where one might find the usual sorts of fuels being sold) without having to interrupt those fine sequences of days and weeks in the wilderness, with the mountain lions and the prairie falcons. And the moon and the sun, and the hot springs, and the sky and clouds, and trees and rivers and hummingbirds and eagles and wild horses. |
Niles, have you been munching on those mushrooms again?
|
Originally Posted by robow
(Post 15011940)
Niles, have you been munching on those mushrooms again?
|
Originally Posted by cyccommute
(Post 15010269)
Thank you for posting realistic heating times. These times are well within what I would expect for comparison to hydrocarbon fuels with a much higher heat content. |
Originally Posted by Niles H.
(Post 15011530)
Sorry, I've been away for a bit, out chasing some mountain lions down.
This would require a bit of explanation. I may start a thread in case there might be others who would be interested but are not following this thread. But I want to get to some other things right now, and might not get to it right away. The idea allows me to do my favorite types of touring (forest service roads, trails, high desert, middle of nowhere, middle of everywhere sorts of trips that take me away from stores and other places where one might find the usual sorts of fuels being sold) without having to interrupt those fine sequences of days and weeks in the wilderness, with the mountain lions and the prairie falcons. And the moon and the sun, and the hot springs, and the sky and clouds, and trees and rivers and hummingbirds and eagles and wild horses. |
Soda can percolator! Teach me, please. I made the Jurey penny 2 stove recently. Works pretty well. I boiled 2 cups of water at a high boil. I was wondering about coffee, though a filter seems easier.
I'm using ever clear. I like that is not poisonous.
Originally Posted by MMACH 5
(Post 14992980)
I use a Heineken-can penny stove with denatured alcohol. Some people hate these things. I've found it to be very efficient and versatile with a simmer ring. I can boil water to make pasta, rice or beans for dinner. In the mornings, I use it to make coffee and then add a simmer ring to make pancakes.
I usually have a 50/50 mix of S-L-X denatured alcohol and HEET. If that runs out, I can find either one of them at almost any gas station or hardware store. Heck, if a liquor store is the only place around, ever-clear works almost as well. In the picture, you can see the stove in the wind-block on the right, my soda-can percolator on the left and my coffee in the middle. |
Originally Posted by cyccommute
(Post 15010400)
You can't burn a lower heat content fuel at twice the rate and transfer heat faster by just making the pool of fuel larger. First, the fuel has a specific amount of heat per mass. If it has less heat per mass, you have to burn more of it to transfer that heat. If you make a large pool of it, you just lose more of the heat to the surroundings. You also have mass transport problems with larger pools of fuel. The yellow flame of your picture and the sooted bottom of the pot indicate that you aren't burning the fuel efficiently because the fuel isn't getting enough oxygen.
There are natural laws that you simply can't violate which dictate how much heat a substance has and how fast that heat can be delivered. You can't break them or even bend them. You may think you have bent them but you really haven't. You are likely comparing caulk to cheese by doing a poorly controlled experiment. You can compare the fuels and the heating rates but you need to use equipment that is the same or at least similar enough to give you a meaningful comparison. Let's not wander off into silly territory. Sticking to the point of liquid fuels used for camp stoves, there is definitely a difference in the energy transfer between ethanol and kerosene and the equipment used to burn the fuel. For example, kerosene used in a Trangia would provide more heat than ethanol because it has a higher amount of energy to give up. In an open burn situation, however, the amount of oxygen getting to the fuel would be limited and it would burn cool. It would produce lots of unburned carbon which is an indication energy loss. Pressurize it, atomize the fuel and efficiently mix it with oxygen and you can capture nearly all of the energy the fuel has to offer. On the other hand, if you were to do the same with ethanol, i.e. pressurize it, atomize it and efficiently mix it with oxygen, you would see a gain in capturing energy but there isn't as much to gain as hydrocarbon fuels. Your fuel is partially oxidized and therefore doesn't has as much energy to give up. I hate to break this to you, but most of the alcohol fuels you are likely to use, outside of something like Everclear, are produced from petroleum. Drinking ethanol is made by biological processes and has been for millennia. But commercially produced ethanol that is use in denatured ethanol is made through refining and cracking and treating oil. ----------- In Australia (we don't just talk about the US in these forums), bioethanol is produced from organic products including sorghum and sugar cane. Petroleum is not used as the base. It never has been, as far as I am aware -- the plant would be readily identifiable as there are only a handful of petroleum refineries in the country, and Caltex seems likely to close one soon. Certainly the chemical plant in Alberta that Machka worked for that dealt with ethylene used its gas and oil supplies to produce plastics. Nope, no ethanol there, either. I also did a google search that stated that only 5% of the world's production of ethanol came from the petroleum source in 2003. Then, Wikipedia (the go-to for all discussions like this, eh?) stated that the TCX Technology was invented by Celanese and was launched in only 2010. Celanese expects to produce from three new plants (two in China, one in Texas) 300 million gallons of TCX ethanol by 2016. There was no mention of volume petroleum production in Brazil or Argentina, which have high ethanol usage, but there was some mention of exports from the Middle East of some petroleum-based ethanol. The other methods of obtaining ethanol from petrochemical feedstocks are virtually obsolete, with Lyondell-Basell Industries being the only company to still use one of them. The article said that petroleum ethanol was used only as an industrial feedstock. Methylated spirits also is not taxed in the same way as gasoline, and therefore the production and make-up of methylated spirits is tightly controlled by various governments. So where does the rest of the petroleum-based ethanol that you allude to come from? ---------------- The shortcomings of alcohol stoves have been mentioned time and again, not only in this thread, but in previous ones where you have slapped down posters with all sorts of theory... and that's just what it has been, because you admitted in this thread that you haven't done enough practical research to provide a realistic and balanced critique of the equipment and fuel source. But ultimately, the same defence you use for the integrity of your chosen stove applies here -- it's up to the user to beware the issues and to act appropriately. By the way, I was in an outdoor supplier at the Grand Canyon today and looked at the Whisperlite stove (complex and I can understand how it can go wrong), the Jetboil (a bulky package if the jug is included, and you still have to buy the plastic base to create any sort of stability, plus tote around the cannisters), the PocketRocket (which I am already familiar with because I own one), and the fuel cannister to power the Jetboil and PR (and those weigh a fair bit). Then I looked at the can of denatured alcohol and thought, yep, even here you can get something to power your Trangia. |
Originally Posted by Rowan
(Post 15004320)
Isn;t that what he said in his post? Denatured alcohol is denatured with methanol, and cannot be drunk, either. He referred to research grade alcohol, which is supposedly pure ethanol. But a cycle tourist would have to be desperate to want to drink stove fuel.
|
Originally Posted by Western Flyer
(Post 15005841)
In my travels in Canada I found a little black plastic bottle Canadian version of Yellow Heet was sold everywhere. I bought a bottle at a rural post office in eastern BC.
|
Originally Posted by Rowan
(Post 15010309)
Are you taking into account the number and weight of the containers required for butane and other fuels? Plus the inconvenience of packing an odd-dimensioned containeer that you cannot decant from?
Alcohol is also likely to be the weight winner for short backpacking trips, but by a lesser margin. I forget the exact length of time between restock where butane started to have a weight advantage when I last did the calculation, but I think it was at about a week between restocking. Of course that will vary with the particular stoves and fuel containers. If I go more off of the beaten path for a week or more I'll take butane or white gas, but I usually only do that on wilderness canoe trips. I do have a planned backpacking trip where I am still undecided on fuel. It is 3-4 weeks long and I am trying to figure out fairly frequent mail drops so I can go light. If the mail drops work out frequently enough I'll go with alcohol. |
I'm looking for an alchol stove for camp mug water boiling, the 2 cup size. seen lots of designs, built and used many of them, but still after the perfect combo. For me, that would be a stove that has a center flame (as opposed to side jets) that does not need a pot stand and is stable on uneven ground. I user a super cat stove for my wide bottom tea kettle, which works great, but for a small diameter cup, the flame pattern is lost around the sides. This would be for backpacking where volume in the pack is at a premium. Anyone?
|
I took an engineer's tour of the Coors brewery in Golden, CO. The plant engineer leading the tour showed us a couple of rail tanker cars full of ethanol, a byproduct of the beer process. He told us they add "a few gallons" of gasoline to each car to "denature" (poison) it before shipping. It's much cheaper that way, he said, because of taxes on drinking alcohol.
All this circular discussion does for me is make me pleased I found a way to free myself from cooking on bike tours and backpacking trips. But I'm sure glad I learned how to make and use alcohol stoves before I quit cooking. They're a thing of beauty in design and utility. And I still have my old Whisperlite (neither of which is true). |
1 Attachment(s)
Originally Posted by gregw
(Post 15013483)
I'm looking for an alchol stove for camp mug water boiling, the 2 cup size. seen lots of designs, built and used many of them, but still after the perfect combo. For me, that would be a stove that has a center flame (as opposed to side jets) that does not need a pot stand and is stable on uneven ground. I user a super cat stove for my wide bottom tea kettle, which works great, but for a small diameter cup, the flame pattern is lost around the sides. This would be for backpacking where volume in the pack is at a premium. Anyone?
http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=286797 |
Originally Posted by eappleton1
(Post 15013004)
...Soda can percolator! Teach me, please. I made the Jurey penny 2 stove recently. Works pretty well. I boiled 2 cups of water at a high boil. I was wondering about coffee, though a filter seems easier.
... In the field, I've used coffee filters, instant coffee and tea bags filled with coffee. I initially built this as kind of a lark and to see if I could do it. Well, it worked so well, I've taken on a few trips. I built it very much like a soda can stove. It takes three can bottoms; two fit together to hold the coffee and one as the stand at the bottom. The middle shaft or percolation pipe is a piece of an aluminum wind chime. In constructing it, these are the points I tried to keep in mind: 1) The bottom end of the pipe has to stay off the bottom of the pot (so water can percolate up through it). 2) The the holes in the very top portion of the coffee holder are smaller than the ones in the bottom of it so that all water that percolates in can flow through. Preventing it from backing up. I made these holes with tiny tack nails and a hammer. If any of the holes for the pipe to go through the middle are too big, cut a small strip of aluminum and wrap it around the pipe. It should snug right up. It needs to be pretty tight since the aluminum will expand when heated and you don't want the top portion sliding down onto the base. It holds about two tablespoons of ground coffee and letting it percolate for about 4 minutes makes 16oz of fairly strong coffee. Just experiment a few times and you'll find your sweet spot. |
Originally Posted by andrewclaus
(Post 15013552)
I took an engineer's tour of the Coors brewery in Golden, CO. The plant engineer leading the tour showed us a couple of rail tanker cars full of ethanol, a byproduct of the beer process. He told us they add "a few gallons" of gasoline to each car to "denature" (poison) it before shipping. It's much cheaper that way, he said, because of taxes on drinking alcohol.
|
Ethanol can be removed from beer by filtration (e.g. reverse osmosis) to make non-alcoholic beer, for those who drive cars instead of bikes ;)
|
Originally Posted by Lasse
(Post 15014352)
Ethanol can be removed from beer by filtration (e.g. reverse osmosis) to make non-alcoholic beer, for those who drive cars instead of bikes ;)
From what I can tell they are using the waste, or spent grains and trub, to then create ethanol.....interesting Anyway, back to the great stove debate of 2012, looking forward to next year ;) |
I didn't read the whole thread, so apologies for repeating anything that has been said already. Here's my take:
I have a Trangia 27 set with the alcohol burner that came with it. Simmer ring and all. It has served me well. At first I used normal PET soda bottles (with the soda texts taped over) for fuel but bought the dedicated fuel bottle for one non-solo trip, to reduce the risk of an unsuspecting touring companion taking a sip out of my fuel bottle. The dedicated Trangia fuel bottle is marginally easier to operate, but no big difference there. The simmer ring is cumbersome but it works. Having three hands would help. This is one of the reasons I sprung for the Trangia "butane" burner, so now I have both. The butane burner is faster and easier to control - and noisy beyond belief, at least when compared to the completely silent alcohol burner. It also doesn't work well, sometimes not at all, in winter, unless you carry the fuel canister close to body. I've seen people heat up their fuel canisters with candle flame. A bit too hardcore for me. The alcohol burner tends to get more use, mainly because I really prefer peace and quiet when I'm in the forest. I'd be OK using the butane burner in a camping area, or roadside stop, but in the woods it seems just so wrong. :) --J |
Originally Posted by gregw
(Post 15013483)
I'm looking for an alchol stove for camp mug water boiling, the 2 cup size. seen lots of designs, built and used many of them, but still after the perfect combo. For me, that would be a stove that has a center flame (as opposed to side jets) that does not need a pot stand and is stable on uneven ground. I user a super cat stove for my wide bottom tea kettle, which works great, but for a small diameter cup, the flame pattern is lost around the sides. This would be for backpacking where volume in the pack is at a premium. Anyone?
https://www.minibulldesign.com/produ...3&idcategory=3 Don't see any Moodoos in the store at the moment, but stuff comes and goes regularly. |
Originally Posted by staehpj1
(Post 15013431)
Yes actually I am taking that into account. I have not done the calculation lately because alcohol is the slam dunk winner for both weight and availability on pretty much any bike tour I have done.
My math was done with a light pop can stove (if you used a Trangia, the number would be lower), and with a Superfly with a wind shield (with a lighter stove, the number would also be lower, unless it was really windy). |
1 Attachment(s)
Originally Posted by cyccommute
(Post 15010400)
You can't burn a lower heat content fuel at twice the rate and transfer heat faster by just making the pool of fuel larger. First, the fuel has a specific amount of heat per mass. If it has less heat per mass, you have to burn more of it to transfer that heat. If you make a large pool of it, you just lose more of the heat to the surroundings. You also have mass transport problems with larger pools of fuel. The yellow flame of your picture and the sooted bottom of the pot indicate that you aren't burning the fuel efficiently because the fuel isn't getting enough oxygen. There are natural laws that you simply can't violate which dictate how much heat a substance has and how fast that heat can be delivered. You can't break them or even bend them. You may think you have bent them but you really haven't. You are likely comparing caulk to cheese by doing a poorly controlled experiment. You can compare the fuels and the heating rates but you need to use equipment that is the same or at least similar enough to give you a meaningful comparison.
Originally Posted by cyccommute
(Post 15010400)
Let's not wander off into silly territory. Sticking to the point of liquid fuels used for camp stoves, there is definitely a difference in the energy transfer between ethanol and kerosene and the equipment used to burn the fuel. For example, kerosene used in a Trangia would provide more heat than ethanol because it has a higher amount of energy to give up. In an open burn situation, however, the amount of oxygen getting to the fuel would be limited and it would burn cool. It would produce lots of unburned carbon which is an indication energy loss. Pressurize it, atomize the fuel and efficiently mix it with oxygen and you can capture nearly all of the energy the fuel has to offer.
On the other hand, if you were to do the same with ethanol, i.e. pressurize it, atomize it and efficiently mix it with oxygen, you would see a gain in capturing energy but there isn't as much to gain as hydrocarbon fuels. Your fuel is partially oxidized and therefore doesn't has as much energy to give up.
Originally Posted by cyccommute
(Post 15010400)
I hate to break this to you, but most of the alcohol fuels you are likely to use, outside of something like Everclear, are produced from petroleum. Drinking ethanol is made by biological processes and has been for millennia. But commercially produced ethanol that is use in denatured ethanol is made through refining and cracking and treating oil.
But the Alcohol I am most likely to use is Klean-Strip Green Denatured Alcohol – 95% Natural, Renewable and Biodegradable Content. You can pull the MSDS if you need further proof. It is widely available in the United States at home improvement stores like Lowes and Home Depot. Many small town ACE hardware stores carry it. I bought the quart I used for my tests listed below at my neighborhood Fred Meyer grocery store (Kroger’s). I have never had access to it, but I have been told in the Midwest you can burn E-85 in alcohol stoves and E-85 is 85% grain based ethanol. I read that the gasoline content burns out of it fairly quickly and you notice some heat drop when it does. I don’t know the availability of renewable ethanol around the world. I would suspect it would be readily available in South America with Brazil being the largest ethanol producer in the world. Another benefit of using bio-ethanol is the smug knowledge that in the US it is subsidized by automobile and RV owners, and in some very, very small way you are not adding to global warming. Below are some burn and boil test done on 12/3/2012 on various stoves. In the photo they are L-R a modified Packafeater XL (55 g & my current touring stove), Cat-can Trangia(140 g & used on many tours), Cat-can Sheba (120 g & never intended for touring). To the rear is the Optimus canister burner in a Trangia 25 base (220 g in the Cat-can version & never used on tour) and my T-25 kettle, which was used for all bloom to boil tests. Mother Kenmore is holding them all up ( fuel by 100% Columbia River Gorge wind generated 220 volt single phase-50 amp electricity ). http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=286908 The results generally hold up my and other's statements on the efficacy and efficiency of non-pressurized alcohol stoves while not refuting any of your claims as to the heat density of fossil camp fuels or soot on the pot bottoms. [TABLE="width: 500"] [TR] [TD]*[/TD] [TD]Packafeather[/TD] [TD]Trangia[/TD] [TD]Sheba[/TD] [TD]Optimus[/TD] [TD]Kenmore[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Boil 500ml[/TD] [TD]4.9[/TD] [TD]4.5[/TD] [TD]3.1[/TD] [TD]2.8[/TD] [TD]1.8[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Burn Time[/TD] [TD]17.0[/TD] [TD]26.0[/TD] [TD]14.0[/TD] [TD]N/A[/TD] [TD]N/A[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Fuel Amt ML[/TD] [TD]60.0[/TD] [TD]120.0[/TD] [TD]120.0[/TD] [TD]N/A[/TD] [TD]N/A[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]ML/Min[/TD] [TD]3.5[/TD] [TD]4.6[/TD] [TD]8.6[/TD] [TD]N/A[/TD] [TD]N/A[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]ML to Boil[/TD] [TD]17.4[/TD] [TD]20.8[/TD] [TD]26.4[/TD] [TD]N/A[/TD] [TD]N/A[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Oz to Boil[/TD] [TD]0.6[/TD] [TD]0.7[/TD] [TD]0.9[/TD] [TD]N/A[/TD] [TD]N/A[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] * Of course ignition to full flame is nearly instant with the Optimus and I didn’t time ignition to bloom time on the alcohol burners. In relative terms the Trangia was 15 to 20 second faster coming to full bloom than the Sheba and both were considerably faster than the Packafeather. But because the market only seems to advertise full throttle bloom to boil, I timed this “market speak” standard. Speaking only for myself, a better and more poetic standard is the time from when I dig my cook kit out of the bottom of my pannier until I am sitting comfortably on the river bank enjoying a cup of tea and taking in the sunset, because this entails setting up my tent and sleeping situation and other transitional tasks at the end or beginning of the day’s ride, bloom to boil time becomes a back ground concern at most. It is certainly less of a concern as waking up my campground neighbors at 5:30 in the morning with the howl of a pressurized stove. During these tests a small flame appeared at the burner end of the Optimus hose. I have used this burner less than a dozen times, never while cycling. Inspection revealed a serious crack in the swaged hose-end clamp. The flame was small and was put out safely by a turn of the valve. What if the identical clamp on the canister end of the hose was throwing out a larger flame directly onto the fuel canister? Now this is a specific safety failure to a specific model burner, but the more general issue is the greater complexity of the system the greater chance of failure be it safety or just general functioning, and the greater quantity and energy density of the fuel, the great the danger if failure does occur. |
Originally Posted by Western Flyer
(Post 15016230)
I don’t think I am breaking any of the laws of thermodynamics, but who knows perhaps I am on the edge of creating cold fusion (Silliness). We are comparing fuels and not stoves. There are lots of variables that I am assuming to be neutral. Things like complete combustion, similar flame patterns and size relative to the pot and optimum height of the pot off the flame which I have found changes with different stoves. I don’t have the expertise, the equipment or the desire to pin everything down to exact scientific results, just want see what the general trends are.
0.25 fl oz (2 to 3 squirts from my bottle) will heat 2 cups to 189F which is almost too hot to drink. In other configurations with more flames and the mug held above the burner the burn time is a lot shorter, flames lick around and outside the base of the mug and the water gets up to 151F. This actually points out the flame regulation advantage of canister stoves, but most people seem to crank them all the way up to boil water quickly.....slow and steady is often the most efficient use of fuel. |
Originally Posted by Scubasteve1808
(Post 15013143)
Have you tried cooking with your stove at 16,000'? :thumb:
|
Originally Posted by cyccommute
(Post 15001044)
You know there are forum rules about respect. Calling into question my intellect and my grades is violating those rules. Attacking the man is just a cheap trick by people who have no other recourse and whose arguments are weak. Talk to the point of the argument. You have no idea what my grades in college were, when I graduated from college or anything else about me. In other words, your entire post is nothing but insulting drivel meant to do exactly what you say that I am doing, i.ee. making yourself a legend in your own tiny little mind. Where have you been constructive? I pointed out a mistake on your part and all you can do is deflect it with insults that I should report to the moderators.
|
Originally Posted by Western Flyer
(Post 15016230)
Originally Posted by cyccommute
(Post 15010400)
I hate to break this to you, but most of the alcohol fuels you are likely to use, outside of something like Everclear, are produced from petroleum. Drinking ethanol is made by biological processes and has been for millennia. But commercially produced ethanol that is use in denatured ethanol is made through refining and cracking and treating oil.
I don’t know the availability of renewable ethanol around the world. I would suspect it would be readily available in South America with Brazil being the largest ethanol producer in the world. Another benefit of using bio-ethanol is the smug knowledge that in the US it is subsidized by automobile and RV owners, and in some very, very small way you are not adding to global warming. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/eth...roduction.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethano...her_feedstocks Methanol is primarily produced from fossil fuels (natural gas, not oil): http://www.methanol.org/Methanol-Bas...nol-Made-.aspx |
Originally Posted by corvuscorvax
(Post 15017611)
Most of the 13 billion gallons of ethanol produced in the U.S. is produced by fermentation of starch-based crops, primarily corn:
|
It's kind of sad that this turned into a giant alcohol stoves are dangerous debate. I'm a little surprised though that so many use alcohol stoves. I thought they would be a little too fringy outside of the lightweight backpacker community but I guess there are a lot of similarities.
I used my pop can alcohol stove for close to 200 days in '07/'08 while hiking the PCT and it was perfect. However no stove is perfect for all situations. Alcohol stoves have their drawbacks but I really don't have a problem waiting an extra 5 minutes. I've used the MSR pocket rocket a lot and it's really nice to cook on but I dislike the canister issue and I can't use larger pots on it. I've used the old school whisperlite a lot also and it's great to cook on but when things go wrong they can really go wrong (like impossible to cook). The other intriguing option are the small contained wood burning stoves. I know some will immediately say this is a huge fire hazard but they haven't seen these in operation then. This is great because you have a 5-6 oz stove and you don't have to carry any fuel. Of course you have collect some twigs every time you want to cook. Your pot also becomes a sooty mess. One of my PCT friends seemed to always be covered in soot. |
Okay lets stop the insults and bickering RIGHT now. Don't bring up issues from other threads. Respect what others say and stop trying to make them think like you. I'm not going to go through cleaning up this thread because there's too much so let's get back on topic.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:38 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.