stoves
12-03-12, 09:40 AM
#176
Senior Member
The use of a light alcohol stove saves weight as long as you only need to carry smallish amounts of fuel. On a bike tour I typically carry only small amounts of fuel and restock often. So weight wise it is the way to go for that application.
The use of butane or other fuel with a greater energy to weight ratio saves weight if you must carry larger amounts of fuel. That can be a big help if counting grams on a trip with weeks between restocking opportunities.
That said both work fine and the weight differences are not enough to worry most tourists since the majority of them are not gram counters. That leaves the choice to be based the other characteristics for most tourists.
The use of butane or other fuel with a greater energy to weight ratio saves weight if you must carry larger amounts of fuel. That can be a big help if counting grams on a trip with weeks between restocking opportunities.
That said both work fine and the weight differences are not enough to worry most tourists since the majority of them are not gram counters. That leaves the choice to be based the other characteristics for most tourists.
It's OK to carry on about fuel efficiency, but there are other trade-offs. What the fuel is carried in counts as much as anything else.
12-03-12, 09:42 AM
#177
Senior Member
You likely would have discovered this information if you had researched sufficiently.
12-03-12, 10:05 AM
#178
Mad bike riding scientist
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 27,369
Bikes: Some silver ones, a red one, a black and orange one, and a few titanium ones
Mentioned: 152 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6222 Post(s)
Liked 4,222 Times
in
2,368 Posts
Say wha...?
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.
Not so, you could burn the lower heat content fuel twice as fast and transfer heat at the same rate as the more heat dense fuel. I offered a cat-can stove I built that boiled a half liter of water in the same time as an Optimus canister fuel burner. Perhaps you didn’t see my entry and pictures.
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.
I am sure this is true, all things being equal, but it is my understanding that plutonium is a very energy dense fuel but it boils water very inefficiently. That is the closer the temperature of the heat source is to the desired temperature of the substance being heated the more efficient the heat transfer. Quite frankly I have no idea if the energy transfer potential between ethanol burning Trangia and say a kerosene burning Wisperlite International is enough to put a period between.
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.
But this is precisely the beauty of alcohol it is so readily available that in theory you might not have to carry any fuel at all. You just need to buy enough at the end of the day for dinner and breakfast. That’s assuming you don’t stop for high tea in the afternoon.
This leads to one of the prime reason I prefer ethanol as a stove fuel. It's a biofuel and renewable. I know biofuels are in their infancy and it is supposed to take one barrel of oil to produce 1.25 barrel equivalence of corn based ethanol energy. I can live with that with the fuel economy I get on my bicycle. I read MIT has developed a biopropane and someday I may buy a green Pocket Rocket stove when one comes on the market.
:
This leads to one of the prime reason I prefer ethanol as a stove fuel. It's a biofuel and renewable. I know biofuels are in their infancy and it is supposed to take one barrel of oil to produce 1.25 barrel equivalence of corn based ethanol energy. I can live with that with the fuel economy I get on my bicycle. I read MIT has developed a biopropane and someday I may buy a green Pocket Rocket stove when one comes on the market.
:
__________________
Stuart Black
Plan Epsilon Around Lake Michigan in the era of Covid
Old School…When It Wasn’t Ancient bikepacking
Gold Fever Three days of dirt in Colorado
Pokin' around the Poconos A cold ride around Lake Erie
Dinosaurs in Colorado A mountain bike guide to the Purgatory Canyon dinosaur trackway
Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!
Stuart Black
Plan Epsilon Around Lake Michigan in the era of Covid
Old School…When It Wasn’t Ancient bikepacking
Gold Fever Three days of dirt in Colorado
Pokin' around the Poconos A cold ride around Lake Erie
Dinosaurs in Colorado A mountain bike guide to the Purgatory Canyon dinosaur trackway
Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!
12-03-12, 01:58 PM
#179
Senior Member
2-propanol is the accepted IUPAC name. It has a single hydroxyl group (-OH), not a double one. Since the hydroxyl group is the 'functional' group in the compound, an ending of -"ol" is added to the alkane's name and the position of the hydroxyl group is noted relative to the terminal carbon of the chain.
Last edited by nun; 12-03-12 at 02:40 PM.
12-03-12, 02:18 PM
#180
eternalvoyage
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,256
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
When I got away from alcohol stoves, it felt good to be no longer so cramped and limited by their incapabilities. Glad I'm out.
To convey something of what it felt like making the transition, this comes to mind as a reasonably good approximation:
To convey something of what it felt like making the transition, this comes to mind as a reasonably good approximation:
Last edited by Niles H.; 12-03-12 at 02:48 PM.
12-03-12, 02:28 PM
#181
Senior Member
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
...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.
12-03-12, 03:01 PM
#182
Cycle Dallas
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Land of Gar, TX
Posts: 3,777
Bikes: Dulcinea--2017 Kona Rove & a few others
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 197 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
5 Posts
I've heard that some people like Windows and some people like Macintosh computers. Luckily, those folks never argue about that.
12-03-12, 03:27 PM
#183
eternalvoyage
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,256
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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.
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.
12-03-12, 06:11 PM
#185
eternalvoyage
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,256
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
12-03-12, 06:25 PM
#186
Senior Member
If I use a pot stand so the upper ring of jest on the Evernew stove ignite I get boil times of 4 mins for 2 cups of water. However this uses 0.75 oz of ethanol, so I just sit my mug on top of the stove, blocking off the upper ring of jets and giving me a 5 to 7 min boil for 0.5 oz of ethanol. This shows that stove configuration is as important in energy density when figuring out efficiency.
12-03-12, 06:42 PM
#187
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 101
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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.
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.
12-03-12, 11:07 PM
#188
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 16
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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.
I'm using ever clear. I like that is not poisonous.
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.
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.
12-04-12, 01:17 AM
#189
Senior Member
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.
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.
12-04-12, 02:42 AM
#190
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,441
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
3 Posts
Denatured alcohol is denatured with all kinds of things. I do french polish, and you have to be careful as to the brand, some are really nasty for skin contact. If you search out FP threads you will get all kinds of stuff. I wish we could get everclear cheap.
12-04-12, 02:46 AM
#191
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,441
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
3 Posts
Denatured alcohol is sold as such up here, but far more common is that it is in a bottle named fuel line anti-freeze. Even in summer. At one point they seemed to vary the labels by season, but now it often is sold as anti-freeze all year round.
12-04-12, 06:09 AM
#192
Senior Member
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.
12-04-12, 06:32 AM
#193
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 988
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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?
12-04-12, 07:15 AM
#194
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Golden, CO and Tucson, AZ
Posts: 2,837
Bikes: 2012 Specialized Elite Disc, 1983 Trek 520
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 676 Post(s)
Liked 741 Times
in
430 Posts
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).
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).
12-04-12, 07:20 AM
#195
Senior Member
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?
Last edited by nun; 12-04-12 at 12:56 PM.
12-04-12, 09:56 AM
#196
Cycle Dallas
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Land of Gar, TX
Posts: 3,777
Bikes: Dulcinea--2017 Kona Rove & a few others
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 197 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
5 Posts
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.
12-04-12, 10:45 AM
#197
sniffin' glue
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,177
Bikes: Surly crosscheck ssfg, Custom vintage french racing bike, Bruce Gordon Rock & Road
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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.
12-04-12, 11:12 AM
#198
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 104
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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 
Last edited by Lasse; 12-04-12 at 11:20 AM.
12-04-12, 11:31 AM
#199
sniffin' glue
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,177
Bikes: Surly crosscheck ssfg, Custom vintage french racing bike, Bruce Gordon Rock & Road
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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
12-04-12, 11:35 AM
#200
Formerly Known as Newbie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 6,249
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
3 Posts
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
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
__________________
To err is human. To moo is bovine.
Who is this General Failure anyway, and why is he reading my drive?
Become a Registered Member in Bike Forums
Community guidelines
To err is human. To moo is bovine.
Who is this General Failure anyway, and why is he reading my drive?
Become a Registered Member in Bike Forums
Community guidelines