Question:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It would require quite a long trip. One 22 ounce can of fuel gives you 22 burns. If you use 2 burns per meal and serve 2 hot meals per day (4 burns per day), you’ve got over 5 days worth of fuel. Agreed, it takes a fairly long trip to make the 1 pound cannister break even, although Snowpeak sells 100 gram and 200 gram cannisters too (with less metal-container overhead, and therefore a shorter-trip break-even point). Other factors are things like zero cost to build, a guaranteed light each and every time because it has no moving parts, pumps, … Yes, that’s cool, I won’t deny it. I think I’m emotionally scarred by years of trying to use a stupid white-gas stove, and the first time I used a GAZ, I fell in love (like many people). I can’t imagine anything else could be as easy and trouble-free, but maybe I should give alcohol a chance. I definitely like the minimalism of it !
What happens with the compressed gas stoves at high altitudes? I have always worked with white gas stoves and, of course, the alcohol burner of late. I have to assume that compressed gas stoves (GAZ or propane) lose quite a bit of punch at higher altitudes since you are working with a set pressure from within the storage can. Liquid fuel stoves have a limitation in colder weather because one needs to preheat the generator. The alcohol stove work great under both these conditions. I guess every stove will have it’s benefits and drawbacks… one has to weigh all of them and adjust to your particular circumstances. There’s nothing pretty about the pepsi can stove. It’s just not as glamorous as Peak 1 Apex II multi-fuel stove. But it is a fun and easy project for those who want to try a different road. — Bryan Casper
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – the liquified-gas fuel is considerably more efficient … My Primus that uses propane/butane mix has specifications that would lead me to expect similar fuel consumption … Kudos on actually doing the experiment (with your gas stove) ! I was just quoting from hearsay and specifications. Specifically, my GAZ stove instructions say it burns 200 grams of fuel per hour. In experiments, I find it takes about 5 minutes to boil a liter of water at sea level. That works out to about 0.6oz of fuel per liter boiled. I wish somebody with a scale that can measure asomething as heavy as a propane/butane fuel bottle to 0.1oz precision would see if this number holds up. If it does, it is clearly much more efficient than alcohol and maybe a little better than white-gas. (I haven’t experimented with my Snowpeak yet, but imagine it would be very similar). The ease of use and relative quietness of the compressed-gas over white-gas is worth a few ounces to me. I haven’t ever used an alcohol stove. Somebody want to comment on its ease of use compared to compressed-gas ? I gather it’s definitely WAY quiter. Most manufacturers tests of boiling time are done with water starting at 70 degrees and at sea level. Most of the commercial stoves tested bring a liter of water to a boil in from 4 to 7 minutes under these conditions. The pepsi can alcohol stove tests that I did were done with water directly from the tap… probably more like 45 degrees. My testing location was at around 1000 feet above sea level. Not too many mountain streams out there giving you 70 degree water and your certainly not at sea level.
May a Coke can be used? I detest Pepsi. Better, can a Keystone light can be used? Chuck — … The times have been, That, when the brains were out, the man would die. … Macbeth
Response:
Ah, guys, you are missing some points with stoves! Butane stoves tend to work well at warm temperatures and tend to work poorly at cold temperatures. However, as you go to high elevations, the atmospheric air pressure outside the can is reduced, so that lets the butane "leak out" easier than it would at low elevation. So, low elevation and low temps are bad for butane. High elevation and any temps are OK for butane. White gas stoves are regulated by the amount of pumping pressure that you put on the fuel reservoir, so atmospheric air pressure is not so much an issue. However, with reduced pressure, you have to make sure that the white gas stove is fully vented. Otherwise, you will asphixiate yourself on fumes. I’ve used a properly vented white gas stove up to 19,500′, and it was fine. —Bob Gross—
Response:
May a Coke can be used? I detest Pepsi. Better, can a Keystone light can be used? Chuck
The instructions try to say that only pepsi cans work because of their unique bottom design. However, I have used other soda cans and even beer cans without any perceivable difference. — Bryan Casper
Response:
What happens with the compressed gas stoves at high altitudes? I have always worked with white gas stoves and, of course, the alcohol burner of late. I have to assume that compressed gas stoves (GAZ or propane) lose quite a bit of punch at higher altitudes since you are working with a set pressure from within the storage can. ….
I haven’t used the canister stoves above 14.265′, but up to that point, they work perfectly. In fact, the lower outside pressure gives them somewhat of an advantage at alititude … theoretically. — Jim Fuller
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It would require quite a long trip. One 22 ounce can of fuel gives you 22 burns. If you use 2 burns per meal and serve 2 hot meals per day (4 burns per day), you’ve got over 5 days worth of fuel. Agreed, it takes a fairly long trip to make the 1 pound cannister break even, although Snowpeak sells 100 gram and 200 gram cannisters too (with less metal-container overhead, and therefore a shorter-trip break-even point). Other factors are things like zero cost to build, a guaranteed light each and every time because it has no moving parts, pumps, … Yes, that’s cool, I won’t deny it. I think I’m emotionally scarred by years of trying to use a stupid white-gas stove, and the first time I used a GAZ, I fell in love (like many people). I can’t imagine anything else could be as easy and trouble-free, but maybe I should give alcohol a chance. I definitely like the minimalism of it ! What happens with the compressed gas stoves at high altitudes? I have always worked with white gas stoves and, of course, the alcohol burner of late. I have to assume that compressed gas stoves (GAZ or propane) lose quite a bit of punch at higher altitudes since you are working with a set pressure from within the storage can. Liquid fuel stoves have a limitation in colder weather because one needs to preheat the generator. The alcohol stove work great under both these conditions. I guess every stove will have it’s benefits and drawbacks… one has to weigh all of them and adjust to your particular circumstances. There’s nothing pretty about the pepsi can stove. It’s just not as glamorous as Peak 1 Apex II multi-fuel stove. But it is a fun and easy project for those who want to try a different road. — Bryan Casper
The only problem with high altitude is lack of oxygen. Naturally, I have trouble with that, my car has trouble with that and my stove hase trouble. In general, any of the stoves will work at pretty high altitude. If you can breath, the stove will work but it may not work well. Temperature, at altitudes in the US, tends to be more at issue. White gas and kerosene are fine. Butane won’t even get down to freezing. Propane/butane mix is supposed to be good to pretty low temperatures but I just now put a cannister in the freezer to test this. BTW, the propane/butane mix is known to be good in fairly cold weather but because the partial pressures differ, I have wondered if a propane/butane mix in cold might end up exhausting the propane leaving useless butane behind. Perhaps someone with a nearly empty canister can experiment. Chuck — … The times have been, That, when the brains were out, the man would die. … Macbeth
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – the liquified-gas fuel is considerably more efficient … My Primus that uses propane/butane mix has specifications that would lead me to expect similar fuel consumption … Kudos on actually doing the experiment (with your gas stove) ! I was just quoting from hearsay and specifications. Specifically, my GAZ stove instructions say it burns 200 grams of fuel per hour. In experiments, I find it takes about 5 minutes to boil a liter of water at sea level. That works out to about 0.6oz of fuel per liter boiled. I wish somebody with a scale that can measure asomething as heavy as a propane/butane fuel bottle to 0.1oz precision would see if this number holds up. If it does, it is clearly much more efficient than alcohol and maybe a little better than white-gas. (I haven’t experimented with my Snowpeak yet, but imagine it would be very similar). The ease of use and relative quietness of the compressed-gas over white-gas is worth a few ounces to me. I haven’t ever used an alcohol stove. Somebody want to comment on its ease of use compared to compressed-gas ? I gather it’s definitely WAY quiter.
Most manufacturers tests of boiling time are done with water starting at 70 degrees and at sea level. Most of the commercial stoves tested bring a liter of water to a boil in from 4 to 7 minutes under these conditions. The pepsi can alcohol stove tests that I did were done with water directly from the tap… probably more like 45 degrees. My testing location was at around 1000 feet above sea level. Not too many mountain streams out there giving you 70 degree water and your certainly not at sea level. The alcohol stove (which can be built literally for free) is not meant to be in direct competition with stoves costing $50 to $150. Although it holds up pretty well in a fair comparison test. Size of a pepsi can that stands 1 inch tall. This stove’s pack ability is far superior to any other stove out there. Weighs less than an empty soda can. The closest competitor, another alcohol stove, is ten times heavier. No moving parts to fowl. No sharp pieces to damage packs or other gear. Never needs to be cleaned. In fact, after many, many uses, the stove still looks like it has never been fired. Excellent in all forms of weather and at any altitude. Fuel is readily available across the US and in most foreign counties. In fact, this stove drastically outperforms every stove on the market in every category except for boil time and fuel economy. Both of these items are of little consequence unless you are taking trips which require cooking for a larger number of people in one pot or are gone for over 2 weeks at a time. It’s definitely not as fancy as the commercial backpacking stoves, but it’s an interesting conversation piece at any campsite. It’s a fun project for backpackers who enjoy a little more self efficiency other than just going out and buying every product they need. I enjoy experimenting with things like this. I have also used Tyvec ground clothes for many years and would never consider going back to a commercial tarp. Tomorrow we will be sewing up a parasail for both rain and sun protection using Tyvec. — Bryan Casper
Response:
It would require quite a long trip. One 22 ounce can of fuel gives you 22 burns. If you use 2 burns per meal and serve 2 hot meals per day (4 burns per day), you’ve got over 5 days worth of fuel.
Agreed, it takes a fairly long trip to make the 1 pound cannister break even, although Snowpeak sells 100 gram and 200 gram cannisters too (with less metal-container overhead, and therefore a shorter-trip break-even point). Other factors are things like zero cost to build, a guaranteed light each and every time because it has no moving parts, pumps, …
Yes, that’s cool, I won’t deny it. I think I’m emotionally scarred by years of trying to use a stupid white-gas stove, and the first time I used a GAZ, I fell in love (like many people). I can’t imagine anything else could be as easy and trouble-free, but maybe I should give alcohol a chance. I definitely like the minimalism of it !
Response:
the liquified-gas fuel is considerably more efficient … My Primus that uses propane/butane mix has specifications that would lead me to expect similar fuel consumption …
Kudos on actually doing the experiment (with your gas stove) ! I was just quoting from hearsay and specifications. Specifically, my GAZ stove instructions say it burns 200 grams of fuel per hour. In experiments, I find it takes about 5 minutes to boil a liter of water at sea level. That works out to about 0.6oz of fuel per liter boiled. I wish somebody with a scale that can measure asomething as heavy as a propane/butane fuel bottle to 0.1oz precision would see if this number holds up. If it does, it is clearly much more efficient than alcohol and maybe a little better than white-gas. (I haven’t experimented with my Snowpeak yet, but imagine it would be very similar). The ease of use and relative quietness of the compressed-gas over white-gas is worth a few ounces to me. I haven’t ever used an alcohol stove. Somebody want to comment on its ease of use compared to compressed-gas ? I gather it’s definitely WAY quiter.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – %< = Any theories about why adding water to the alcohol improves how = it burns? (At least here’s some water that you wouldn’t = have to purify!) Actually adding water to the alcohol doesn’t improve the burn, but it does reduce the soot on the pots. Which is why Trangia have recommended the 90% alcohol 10% water mix for decades. %<
Depends on how you qualify "improve the burn". If it burns for 9 1/2 minutes with 100% alcohol and also burns 9 1/2 minutes with 90% alcohol, there is something gained. I have made minor adjustments here and there which seem to decrease boil time thus increasing efficiency. I guess it would be hard to argue that there’s any more potential energy in the 90% mixture than there is in the 100% mixture, but perhaps the slightly slower burn of the alcohol allows more heat to be absorbed by the pot and thus the water in the pot. I also use a Mirror pot which is teflon coated on both the inside and the outside. Because this pot is black on the outside, it seems to get the water boiling faster than an equivalent pot that is silver on the outside. Using a cover on the pot is, of course, just common sense. As far as sort is concerned, either mixture burns clean. However, rubbing alcohol (70% mixture) burns a bit dirtier. — Bryan Casper
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – …. I used less than 1/2 ounce of fuel to boil one liter of water. My Primus that uses propane/butane mix has specifications that would lead me to expect similar fuel consumption in the test. I didn’t try it because I don’t have a way to weigh the cannister. The Post Office lobbies around here have digital postal scales that seem to be accurate (they are repeatable, anyway) to 0.1 oz. up to 3 lbs., 0.5 oz. from 3 to 70 lbs. In general, I have found that my Primus canister stove uses about 0.6 oz. for a meal, which involves boiling a little less than a quart of water, and maybe reheating it or boiling a bit more. That’s in average use in the field. I habitually figure 2 oz. or so fuel per day (breakfast and dinner) for either canister fuels or white gas, and I always bring fuel back with me.
Your considerable experience and my experiment pretty much nail it. White gas and liquified petroleum gas fuels are pretty even and hard to tell apart. That little Trangia burner is just so cute and quiet….
The penalty is probably only 1 ounce of fuel per day to use it. Considering I can hardly get your pack off of the ground, that should be a small matter. Even at my heaviest when I had two coats and two sweaters along (not light stuff), you were still heavier. It makes me sick. I’ll never get in shape at this rate. You should have seen me a few weeks ago hoping a helicopter would fly over and drop oxygen. It didn’t. I had to walk to get down to where there is something like air. Chuck P. S. That last was for Len McVaulty, outdoorsman extraordinare who "does not do mountains." Where I live, mountains are hard to avoid the way they keep jumping out in front of you. — … The times have been, That, when the brains were out, the man would die. … Macbeth
Response:
…. I used less than 1/2 ounce of fuel to boil one liter of water. My Primus that uses propane/butane mix has specifications that would lead me to expect similar fuel consumption in the test. I didn’t try it because I don’t have a way to weigh the cannister.
The Post Office lobbies around here have digital postal scales that seem to be accurate (they are repeatable, anyway) to 0.1 oz. up to 3 lbs., 0.5 oz. from 3 to 70 lbs. In general, I have found that my Primus canister stove uses about 0.6 oz. for a meal, which involves boiling a little less than a quart of water, and maybe reheating it or boiling a bit more. That’s in average use in the field. I habitually figure 2 oz. or so fuel per day (breakfast and dinner) for either canister fuels or white gas, and I always bring fuel back with me. My point here is the liquified gas fuels and white gas are so close together that it should be hard to tell them apart from fuel consumption. Alcohol, however, is poor enough that it will be behind. It may be preferred in some cases because of availability of fuel and the fact that the alcohol itself is less irritating than many hydrocarbons.
That little Trangia burner is just so cute and quiet…. — Jim Fuller
Response:
If you are into true lightweight backpacking, an alcohol stove is a great idea. No other stove can come close to the weight of the pepsi can stove. At 3 ounces, the Snowpeak stove comes close. Although there is a significant weight overhead for the pressurized fuel can (about 6oz for the one that holds 1 pound of fuel), the liquified-gas fuel is considerably more efficient, in other words, it takes well under an ounce of fuel to boil a liter of water, whereas people are quoting close to an ounce of alcohol or white-gas to boil a liter. So on a pretty long trip, it would amortize out.
It would require quite a long trip. One 22 ounce can of fuel gives you 22 burns. If you use 2 burns per meal and serve 2 hot meals per day (4 burns per day), you’ve got over 5 days worth of fuel. Other factors are things like zero cost to build, a guaranteed light each and every time because it has no moving parts, pumps, generator, jets etc. In fact, it does have a generator, the double walls of the stove work as a generator to cause the alcohol to evaporate and rush out of the burner holes. The stove is just a fun thing to do for ultra lightweight backpackers. The knowledge of how to build one may serve a purpose some time in the future (your on the A.T. and your "super scorcher deluxe" stove takes a dive. You buy a few cans of pepsi and some alcohol and your back on the trail. In a pinch, this stove could be made with nothing more than a knife and some duct tape. — Bryan Casper
Response:
If you are into true lightweight backpacking, an alcohol stove is a great idea. No other stove can come close to the weight of the pepsi can stove. At 3 ounces, the Snowpeak stove comes close. Although there is a significant weight overhead for the pressurized fuel can (about 6oz for the one that holds 1 pound of fuel), the liquified-gas fuel is considerably more efficient, in other words, it takes well under an ounce of fuel to boil a liter of water, whereas people are quoting close to an ounce of alcohol or white-gas to boil a liter. So on a pretty long trip, it would amortize out.
I could not let this go by without an experiment. First why. It happens that heavier hydrocarbons such as white gas have very slightly greater heat output per pound of fuel than butane or propane. The difference is slight, however. Alcohol is very bad at less than 2/3’s the heat output. I grabbed my MSR bottle and my trusty Whisperlite 600. I poured the fuel from the bottle into a measuring cup. There were about 8.5 ounces – very close. I poured the fuel back into the MSR bottle and proceeded to pump. I then connected the bottle to the stove and moved on to the priming ritual which is simple and takes little time. I then cranked the valve up to satisfactory Boeing 747 takeoff sound effects and placed my normal backpack pot on the stove containing 0.5 liters of what passes for cold tap water here. I prepared another half liter to follow. When the pot reached a good rolling boil, I dumped it, refilled it and put it back on the stove. When it reached a good rolling boil I turned off the stove and waited for the fuel line to clear. I removed the pump and poured the fuel into the same measuring cup sitting on the same surface as before. There was very slightly more than 8 ounces left. Thus, with priming and the whole nine yards, I used less than 1/2 ounce of fuel to boil one liter of water. My Primus that uses propane/butane mix has specifications that would lead me to expect similar fuel consumption in the test. I didn’t try it because I don’t have a way to weigh the cannister. My point here is the liquified gas fuels and white gas are so close together that it should be hard to tell them apart from fuel consumption. Alcohol, however, is poor enough that it will be behind. It may be preferred in some cases because of availability of fuel and the fact that the alcohol itself is less irritating than many hydrocarbons. BTW, see the MSR Whisperlite 600 debate in another thread. Chuck — … The times have been, That, when the brains were out, the man would die. … Macbeth
Response:
Could you describe what a "scratch-all" is?
It’s nothing more than sharp pointed tool with a wood handle. Carpenters use them to scratch marks into wood. Leather workers use them as a small hole punch. Any sharp tool will work for the purpose of getting the initial holes into the can. Mix 10% water into your denatured alcohol (improves to burn). Any theories about why adding water to the alcohol improves how it burns? (At least here’s some water that you wouldn’t have to purify!)
No idea… just picked that tip up off the net from some other backpacker who is into alcohol stoves. I tried it and it does seem to improve the burn, plus it reduces fuel consumption by 10% (because you seem to get the same burn time on 100% or 90% alcohol mixture). Some stove burn rubbing alcohol, which is a 70% alcohol and 30% water mixture. But I’ve found rubbing alcohol to burn a bit cooler than my 90% mixture of denatured alcohol. Buy one of those small cans of dog food (the size of a tuna can) with the plastic reusable top [...] Ooh, now you’ve just tripled the weight of the stove, right? 
Yes, probably so… you’ve got me there. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – So, Troubadour has plans on his site for both the pepsi can stove and the cat food can stove. They look like they do a pretty similar job for how long or how much fuel it takes to boil water. Has anyone built one of each to compare them side by side to see what other factors might make one better than the other? (I would guess that they’re of similarly negligible weight, especially compared with the weight of the fuel.) Here’s the relevant "results" parts of the two descriptions, side by side (go to Troubadour’s nice web site for the full directions about how to build the stoves): Pepsi can stove: Stove weight is 10 g (0.35 oz). Pot stand and windscreeen weight are extra. A volume of 30 ml (1 fl oz or 2 Tb) of denatured alcohol will bring 2 cups of water to a rolling boil in about 5 1/2 min and will burn for about 9 min. Cat food can stove: At ADZPCTKOP2 (i.e., the Second Annual Day Zero Pacific Crest Trail Kick Off Party) [...] it wasn’t the prettiest or the lightest stove there but it did boil one cup of water the fastest in 2 minutes, 24 seconds. [...] It will bring two cups of water to a boil in about 5 minutes, has no moving parts, and will fit inside your cook pot. [...It ] weighs just 1.6 ounces including the stand and windscreen. SPECULATION (I haven’t made one of either of these): One factor that could make a difference is that it looks to me like the cat food can stove would be easier to make. And it might also be a little sturdier if you happen to step on it?
The pepsi can stove is actually quite easy to build. Once you place the bottom and top pieces together, it is also quite sturdy. Remember, once it’s built it has three times the thickness of a soda can on it’s side walls and it only stands 1 inch tall. —
– Bryan Casper
Response:
If you are into true lightweight backpacking, an alcohol stove is a great idea. No other stove can come close to the weight of the pepsi can stove.
At 3 ounces, the Snowpeak stove comes close. Although there is a significant weight overhead for the pressurized fuel can (about 6oz for the one that holds 1 pound of fuel), the liquified-gas fuel is considerably more efficient, in other words, it takes well under an ounce of fuel to boil a liter of water, whereas people are quoting close to an ounce of alcohol or white-gas to boil a liter. So on a pretty long trip, it would amortize out.
Response:
If you have any other questions, ask away… I’ll answer as best I can. [...] Go to http://www.pcthiker.com/pages/gearset.html for step by step instructions. The only improvements I’ve found to make to the stove are as follows. The 32 holes in the can should be punched with a small scratch-all and then opened to the size of a 3 penny finish nail.
Could you describe what a "scratch-all" is? Mix 10% water into your denatured alcohol (improves to burn).
Any theories about why adding water to the alcohol improves how it burns? (At least here’s some water that you wouldn’t have to purify!) Buy one of those small cans of dog food (the size of a tuna can) with the plastic reusable top [...]
Ooh, now you’ve just tripled the weight of the stove, right? So, Troubadour has plans on his site for both the pepsi can stove and the cat food can stove. They look like they do a pretty similar job for how long or how much fuel it takes to boil water. Has anyone built one of each to compare them side by side to see what other factors might make one better than the other? (I would guess that they’re of similarly negligible weight, especially compared with the weight of the fuel.) Here’s the relevant "results" parts of the two descriptions, side by side (go to Troubadour’s nice web site for the full directions about how to build the stoves): Pepsi can stove: Stove weight is 10 g (0.35 oz). Pot stand and windscreeen weight are extra. A volume of 30 ml (1 fl oz or 2 Tb) of denatured alcohol will bring 2 cups of water to a rolling boil in about 5 1/2 min and will burn for about 9 min. Cat food can stove: At ADZPCTKOP2 (i.e., the Second Annual Day Zero Pacific Crest Trail Kick Off Party) [...] it wasn’t the prettiest or the lightest stove there but it did boil one cup of water the fastest in 2 minutes, 24 seconds. [...] It will bring two cups of water to a boil in about 5 minutes, has no moving parts, and will fit inside your cook pot. [...It ] weighs just 1.6 ounces including the stand and windscreen.
SPECULATION (I haven’t made one of either of these): One factor that could make a difference is that it looks to me like the cat food can stove would be easier to make. And it might also be a little sturdier if you happen to step on it? —
Response:
I’m trying to keep a light load when I do the JMT in a year or so (I like to plan early <grin); would it be worth it to make one of those alcohol burning stoves, or should I buy a light weight stove- how long would on of the pepsi can stoves last? Thanks!
Response:
I’m trying to keep a light load when I do the JMT in a year or so (I like to plan early <grin); would it be worth it to make one of those alcohol burning stoves, or should I buy a light weight stove- how long would on of the pepsi can stoves last? Thanks!
If you are into true lightweight backpacking, an alcohol stove is a great idea. No other stove can come close to the weight of the pepsi can stove. In fact, the stove, the sterno windscreen (available anywhere that sterno is sold) and a 22 ounce fuel canister full of fuel, is still lighter weight than a Coleman Duel Fuel 533 stove with it’s fuel compartment empty. It takes about 30 minutes to build one after you have done it once. The stove burns completely clean… in fact a stove that has burned many times still looks like it has never been fired. I have fired mine up many, many times without any visible signs of wear and tear. Since they cost nothing to build and weight nothing, you can carry a spare, just in case. Go to http://www.pcthiker.com/pages/gearset.html for step by step instructions. The only improvements I’ve found to make to the stove are as follows. The 32 holes in the can should be punched with a small scratch-all and then opened to the size of a 3 penny finish nail. Cut the center of the can out by simply scratching around the edge with a razor blade knife until you cut through the can (no need to do all that drilling and cutting). Place some loosely fitting household fiberglass insulation between to 2 walls of the stove for better fuel absorption. Mix 10% water into your denatured alcohol (improves to burn). Buy one of those small cans of dog food (the size of a tuna can) with the plastic reusable top (this works well to store the stove and to prop it up to the right height when it is in the sterno wind screen). Advantages Denatured alcohol is still available at most hardware stores. Zero cost to build. 1 Ounce of fuel gets a quart of water boiling. Instant lighting under any conditions or altitude. No moving parts, pump or generator to foul on the trail. Burns very hot. Disadvantages It’s like a booster rocket. You put the fuel in it, light it, and it burns for about 9 1/2 minutes at full power and then goes out. No simmer setting. No real way to save the remaining fuel if your water is already boiling. Remember, 2 cups of water comes to a full rolling boil in 5 1/2 minutes. Some Remedies I have not tried snuffing the fire out and placing the stove into the dog food can to try and reserve unspent fuel, but it probably would work. I carry a can of sterno for simmering. Without any attempts at fuel preservation, the stove gives you 209 minutes of burn time on a 22 ounce fuel supply. It will heat either 2 cups or one quart of water to a boil 22 times on this amount of fuel. If you have any other questions, ask away… I’ll answer as best I can. — Bryan Casper
Response:
Has anyone used the smaller (i forget the exact name) Trangia stove? What are your thoughts on it, im thinking of buying it for short 2-3 day hikes in spring,summer, fall, and i may use it on winter overnighters (read snow, freezing temperature, wind) thanks John Misrahi Montreal, Canada
You can actually build one of these alcohol burning stoves out of 2 pepsi cans. Plan are available on the net. I use this type of stove regularly and it works quite well. The stove weighs less than an empty soda can. An aluminum "cross" can be fashioned to hold a pot over the stove. Other have simply used three titanium tent stakes. I use a wind screen from the Sterno company. I get about a nine and half minute burn from one ounce of fuel. The fuel is 90% denatured alcohol and 10% water. Fuel cost is about $3.50 per quart, but I’ve seen gallon cans at Home Depot for around $7.00. The fuel comes at 100% strength. You must add the 10% water when you fill your fuel canister. Five and a half minutes gets 2 cups of water to full rolling boil. Eight and a half minutes get a quart to just start boiling. Sterno can be used to maintain a boil after the alcohol stove does its work of getting the boil going. The home built stove and the trangia stove are ideal lightweight backpackers options. — Bryan Casper
Response:
So if I was to make/buy a windscreen, possibly out of some heavy duty foil or something, could it make the difference with the mini Trangia? The burners are the same on all the Trangia stoves; the difference is in the pot stand and windscreen. With the larger sets the stand is an effective windscreen. With the mini, the stand (with burner inside) fits inside a 1 qt pan. At that size it is more stand than windscreen
So only available for the full sized model? Btw, can anyone tell me roughly how much these stoves retail for in Canada? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -For winter use with their larger sets, Trangia sells a winter adapter. This apparently consists of an aluminum plate to keep the burner from sinking into the snow and a ‘warmer cup’ that allows you to preheat the fuel. These burners give the strongest flame when all the fuel in the cup is hot, which normally requires several minutes of burning. Paul
Response:
Has anyone used the smaller (i forget the exact name) Trangia stove? What are your thoughts on it, im thinking of buying it for short 2-3 day hikes in spring,summer, fall, and i may use it on winter overnighters (read snow, freezing temperature, wind)
The burners are the same on all the Trangia stoves; the difference is in the pot stand and windscreen. With the larger sets the stand is an effective windscreen. With the mini, the stand (with burner inside) fits inside a 1 qt pan. At that size it is more stand than windscreen. But a folded (or rolled) windscreen such as used on MSR stoves fits around the mini stove and pot. Some places also sell a ‘westwind’ stand (with burner) that is just stand – consisting of 2 crossed pieces of metal. For winter use with their larger sets, Trangia sells a winter adapter. This apparently consists of an aluminum plate to keep the burner from sinking into the snow and a ‘warmer cup’ that allows you to preheat the fuel. These burners give the strongest flame when all the fuel in the cup is hot, which normally requires several minutes of burning. Paul
Response:
My Mini-Trangia is my favorite stove. Don’t think I’d use it in the winter though, white gas would be better. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Has anyone used the smaller (i forget the exact name) Trangia stove? What are your thoughts on it, im thinking of buying it for short 2-3 day hikes in spring,summer, fall, and i may use it on winter overnighters (read snow, freezing temperature, wind) thanks John Misrahi Montreal, Canada
Response:
Has anyone used the smaller (i forget the exact name) Trangia stove? What are your thoughts on it, im thinking of buying it for short 2-3 day hikes in spring,summer, fall, and i may use it on winter overnighters (read snow, freezing temperature, wind) thanks John Misrahi Montreal, Canada
Response:
[ John Misrahi ] Has anyone used the smaller (i forget the exact name) Trangia stove? What are your thoughts on it, im thinking of buying it for short 2-3 day hikes in spring,summer, fall, and i may use it on winter overnighters (read snow, freezing temperature, wind)
Is this the one without windscreen? If so, it is unsuitable in wind, and especially in winter. If you look at the last couple(?) month’s worth of postings to this group, you’ll see some threads on this, notably with ginnregin and S W as prominent participants. Martin — Unfortunately, the computer science departments in many universities apparently believe that fluency in C++ is more important than a sound education in elementary mathematics. -Leslie Lamport, Specifying Concurrent Systems with TLA+
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.