Stoves

[Tony Buckley]

Norman wrote

> I wonder why folk go on and on trying to convince other
> people to accept their choices in outdoor equipment as
> being the "perfect one". Trangia stoves are excellent and
> so are the other ones mentioned.

On the contrary Norman. You'll note that I advocated gas
stoves, and have confessed to not owning one as such. This
is not a recommendation that everyone downs pots and follows
my lead, quite the opposite. My personal solution was
arrived at because of a particular need (travel in the USA,
where petrol is the easiest fuel to acquire), plus liking
the singular benefits of a Trangia.

However, as a man that likes tinkering with things, I do
like my own hybrid stove. Were I in the position of the
original poster though, I'd buy a gas stove for the reasons
I put forward at the time.

>There is no short cut to personal experience.

Of course there isn't. But drawing on the experience of
others is a good way to decrease your own learning curve.

T.

 

[Peter Clinch]

Ken wrote:

> Okay; still very prone to wind; still unstable; still
> noisy; still difficult to gauge how much is left (even
> though this gets better with experience); and (I guess)
> still prone to varying function with varying fuel levels
> in the cylinder.

I have a feeling you're not taking something in here... I
specifically mentioned a trangia with the gas burner in it.
That will, pretty much by definition, be exactly as stable
and wind prone as a trangia with a spirit burner in it.

The drop off is IME reasonably steep at the end, and will
still be as good as a trangia spirit burner right up to when
it runs out.

> Watching the pot refers to the fact that you need to watch
> most gas stoves because they are unstable (you may also
> need to shake the cannister every now and then, and you
> may need to watch/shield them from the wind), as you
> yourself posted!

The ones I've recommended are either the Trangia base or
wide, low tripods, which aren't unstable and so no pot
watching needed. A windshield is readily available as an
accessory for camping stoves.

> In my experience, this a phenomenal waste of time

In my experience, using the Trangia gas conversion, it
hasn't wasted any of my time at all.

> Originally, there seemed to be some condescention
> originating from a lack of knowledge about the advantages
> of the Trangia and the disadvantages of other types of
> stove. The simple reason why the Trangia is so popular is
> because it's an exceptionally clever, rugged, and simple
> design, which is well suited to certain types of trip -
> and not necessarily because there is an "absence of
> knowing better". It sounds like your 'hybrid' solution is
> a very good compromise; but that too has the disadvantages
> you mention.

It's not something that's really that unusual. It's a
commercial product made for Trangia by Primus and the hole
in the base that's been standard on Trangias for years is
specifically to allow their use with the gas conversion.

> As I said, each to their own.

But deciding on one's own is helpful without having to do
all the empirical work yourself. I don't spend time having
gas stoves fall over, nor do friends using low tripod
models with remote reservoirs, and none of us seem to spend
much time shaking gas cans. So I feel it could be useful to
point that out.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext.
33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177
Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Jim Ford]

Apropos meths stoves, there was a self-contained meths
picnic stove, rather like a cheap Trangia made out of
tinplate, that Woollworths sold many years ago. My parents
had one. I believe it cost sixpence. I occasionally see
these cropping up at car-boot sales. (I'll bet someone on
this NG will claim to be using one for backpacking, now!)

Regards: Jim Ford

 

[Ted Kell]

In article <[email protected]>,
Chris Street <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 23 Apr 2004 07:32:23 -0600, [email protected] (ted
>kell) wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, AndyP <[email protected]
>>spam.co.uk> wrote:

>>>
>>>> >Think I'll do a bit more research. Not sure about
>>>> >meths stoves as I read that you cannot see if they are
>>>> >lit,
>>>
>>>> But you can tell very easily by putting your hand a
>>>> foot or so above the burner. As long as you are
>>>> aware that it is hard to see the flame you can
>>>> factor that in.
>>>
>>>If you add a bit of salt to meths it ought to make the
>>>flame easier to see if it's a worry for anyone. Ordinary
>>>salt (sodium ions) should make it yellow and that Lo Salt
>>>stuff (mostly potassium ions) should make it go lilac.
>>>I'll try it out at work tomorrow.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Please do. I had the same idea while reading this thread.
>>Perhaps you could disolve the salt in a bit of water and
>>add that to the fuel. I have been told that adding up to
>>20% water is a good idea anyway.
>
>Adding that much water will reduce the flame temperature
>and calorific value of the fuel dramatically. Ordinary
>meths already contains a reasonable amount of water - it
>should still dissolve. Ordinary table salt would work fine
>in a normal burner and a gram or so in a litre will
>generate a lot of light.
>
>--
>79.84% of all statistics are made up on the spot. The other
> 42% are made up later on. In Warwick - looking at flat
> fields and that includes the castle. Take out the planet
> to reply by email

OK, I tried this yesterday. I put about a teaspoon of warm
water in a glass, added several shakes of salt, agitated
until disolved and added the mess to about 1/2 liter of
fuel. The result burned a nice shade of yellow. The flame
was easily visible in full daylight in the sun.

Ted

 

[Andyp]

"ted kell" <[email protected]> wrote

> OK, I tried this yesterday. I put about a teaspoon of warm
> water in a
glass,
> added several shakes of salt, agitated until disolved and
> added the mess to about 1/2 liter of fuel. The result
> burned a nice shade of yellow.
The
> flame was easily visible in full daylight in the sun.

My tests of burning it on a foil jam **** tray (don't have a
stove) were less conclusive if only because the meths I was
using burnt pretty yellow and was easily visible to start
with but adding table salt probably did increase it a bit.

From a chemistry viewpoint, couldn't get any lilac colour
from adding the Lo Salt stuff (it's actually about equal
parts sodium chloride to potassium chloride) and no more
than a hint from pure potassium chloride with or without
added water to make more dissolve. Even copper chloride
(which is far more soluble in meths than sodium or
potassium chloride) didn't give much of a green colouration
when fully dissolved. Seems like you really need to cover a
layer of it with meths and then burn it off to get good
flame test colours for anyone interested in it for chemical
analysis purposes.

While I'm on about chemistry though, made some excellent
slime/flubber type stuff from PVA crystals and borax with a
bit of food colouring and glitter.