Stoves

"Brian" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Brian <[email hidden]> wrote in
:"]news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Well after reading all the replies I think I'm either
going to go for a gas stove with remote cannister, or a
mini trangia.

However, I may even order a Swedish Army Trangia
stove, around £10 from various army surplus shops
online. At that price if it isn't all that good, then
not much lost!

Still going to do a bit more research though.

Any other suggestions?

However, according to a websearch, the Swedish Army
Trangias are very very heavy!

Probably they had to pass a military test that required
surviving a 13-meter near-miss from an 81mm mortar round
without more than 13 degrees of misalignment of the
windshield and no more than 13 seconds permitted variation
of the boiling time regardless of conditions.

Or it could just be a general Swedish obsession with
indestructibility: weigh a Hasselblad or a Volvo.
--
Mark South Citizen of the World, Denizen of the Net <<Tiens!
Ce poulet a une grenade!

"C L Imber" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Jim Ford said:

IMO avoid meths - It's got a low calorific value, it
stinks your kit out

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

contaminates food if the storage container leaks, it
soots cooking

utensils,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

you can't properly control the flame, also the flame is
invisible in the sunlight - with attendant danger. I'm at
a loss as to why the Trangia is

so

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

popular! Maybe it's because it's favoured by youth groups
for its

robustness,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and folk that have been introduced to them this way tend
to stick with

them

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

in the absence of knowing better.

A few years ago there was a tragic accident involving a
primary school pupil and a Trangia Stove while on a
school trip.

The pupil told a trip assistant that his stove had gone
out and it needed a refill. The assistant went to the main
tent and got the half full 5 gallon meths can. As soon as
he started to refill the stove, the can blew up
spluttering burning meths all over the young child. The
child suffered very severe burns, and probably only
escaped with his live because the camp was close to East
Grinstead and its famous burns unit.

What has happened was this:
1. The Trangia was not out, only appeared to be out.
Meths burns with a blue flame.
2. The half full meths can was stored in a warm tent. The
*empty* half of the can was full of warm meths vapour.
3. When the meths was poured, the vapour exploded, the
rapid expansion caused by the explosion caused the
can's structure to give way splattering the hapless
boy with burning meths.

Trangia now produce a gas stove as an option. They
recommend filling meths stoves by a small flask with a
safety cap.

That's not the fault of the stove. The trip assistant should
have been aware that the stove burn with a blue flame. The
trip assistant should have checked to make sure that the
stove really was out before starting to fill the stove.

They were lucky that no one got killed.

Trangia's response to this is a good thing. It shows that
they listen and respond to things that happen. It's just a
shame that it takes incidents like that to make companies
see these kinds of danger. I'd have thought that they would
be continously looking at ways to improve their products -
including the saftey of them.

Col.

"Peter Clinch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Ken wrote:

Some good tips - thanks! ....just a case of persevering with
gas a little.

In article <[email hidden]>,

AndyP said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Think I'll do a bit more research. Not sure about meths
stoves as I read that you cannot see if they are lit,

Quoted message said:

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. I don't do that, but a bit
shouldn't hurt. Two burner pressurized meth stoves are
sometimes used in some small boats. Small as in > 20 feet
and < 50 say. I read in a local boating magizine that there
was some gunk that you could add to the fuel to make it glow
yellow. The local chandeler was said to have it. A bit
before my meth days. You could look there. However, it would
seem to be an overkill. I'd rather just hold my hand near.

Ted

Colin Dawson said:

Quoted message said:

Trangia now produce a gas stove as an option. They
recommend filling meths stoves by a small flask with a
safety cap.

That's not the fault of the stove. The trip assistant
should have been aware that the stove burn with a blue
flame. The trip assistant should have checked to make
sure that the stove really was out before starting to
fill the stove.

The trip assistant was a young Australian lad. He suffered
serious burns. Lewisham and Greenwich Education Authority
were slammed by the Health and Safety Executive for not
having procedures in place to reduce the risk of this type
of tragedy. Jointly they paid £1,000,000 for the boy's
present and future needs. He will be badly scarred for life
with some physical discomfort, e.g. itchy scars.

Quoted message said:

They were lucky that no one got killed.

It was a *very* close thing.

Quoted message said:

Trangia's response to this is a good thing. It shows that
they listen and respond to things that happen. It's just a
shame that it takes incidents like that to make companies
see these kinds of danger. I'd have thought that they would
be continously looking at ways to improve their products -
including the saftey of them.

The safety filling bottle was already available. To pour
meths a button on the cap has to be pressed. If the meths
being poured ignites the user's first reaction will be to
release the button and thus stop the flow of meths. Simple
but effective and safe for children to use. The bottles
should only be re-filled by adults well away from any
cooking areas.

(ted kell) said:

In article <[email hidden]>, AndyP <[email hidden]-
spam.co.uk> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Think I'll do a bit more research. Not sure about meths
>stoves as I read that you cannot see if they are lit,

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Unless you have a real need for liquid fuel I would stick with gas due
to its simplicity. You can get stable gas stoves that have a pipe
leading to the canister such as:

cotswold-outdoor.com68527Open ↗ cotswold-cotswold-Open ↗
outdoor.com/Cat/2006

I've got the latter and it's a real sod to get lit but
really quite good once you do.

Chris
--
Chris Eilbeck "][email hidden]

In article <[email hidden]>, Chris
Eilbeck <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Unless you have a real need for liquid fuel I would stick
with gas due to its simplicity. You can get stable gas
stoves that have a pipe leading to the canister such as:

cotswold-outdoor.com68527Open ↗ cotswold-cotswold-Open ↗
outdoor.com/Cat/2006

I've got the latter and it's a real sod to get lit but
really quite good once you do.

Interesting - I have never had any difficulty lighting a gas
stove except when it is very cold. What happens to make it
hard to light?

--

dscs.demon.co.ukdscs.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Chris
Eilbeck <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Unless you have a real need for liquid fuel I would
stick with gas due to its simplicity. You can get
stable gas stoves that have a pipe leading to the
canister such as:

cotswold-outdoor.com68527Open ↗ cotswold-cotswold-Open ↗
outdoor.com/Cat/2006

I've got the latter and it's a real sod to get lit but
really quite good once you do.

Interesting - I have never had any difficulty lighting a
gas stove except when it is very cold. What happens to
make it hard to light?

It seems to be very difficult to get just the right mixture
of gas and air for it to light. Doesn't seem to matter if
it's hot/cold, windy or still. The best way is to use one of
those turbo-lighter things rather than a piezo device and to
hold it on the burner while you turn on the gas. That seems
to eventually work.

It is very stable and very light though.

Chris
--
Chris Eilbeck "][email hidden]

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 09:38:11 +0100, "Tony Buckley"
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Have to second what Dominic wrote on this. Unless you
really do need something that'll burn most things except
coal, you're better off with gas. Gas is clean, doesn't
smell, shouldn't leak, is no heavier and no more expensive
than most other things.

Yep. But there is something about the design of the
Trangia which means I somehow can't bring myself to use
anything else ;-)

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 00:03:03 +0000 (UTC), "Colin Dawson"
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

That's not the fault of the stove. The trip assistant
should have been aware that the stove burn with a blue
flame. The trip assistant should have checked to make
sure that the stove really was out before starting to
fill the stove.

Never refill a Trangia unless it is stone cold. Or any other
liquid fuel stove for that matter.

I have a Trangia, I love it. I have a Tilley lamp, I love
that, too. I use gas almost exclusively for heavy camping,
and the Trangia for brewing tea and when walking. Gas is
prolly better these days, but why buy new when I already
have the Trangia?

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University

Chris Eilbeck said:

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Chris
Eilbeck <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> cotswold-outdoor.com2006Open ↗

I've got the latter and it's a real sod to get lit but
really quite good once you do.

Interesting - I have never had any difficulty lighting a
gas stove except when it is very cold. What happens to
make it hard to light?

It seems to be very difficult to get just the right mixture
of gas and air for it to light. Doesn't seem to matter if
it's hot/cold, windy or still. The best way is to use one
of those turbo-lighter things rather than a piezo device
and to hold it on the burner while you turn on the gas.
That seems to eventually work.

I've got one of those. The only trouble I've ever had
getting it to light was when I had a blocked jet, I have a
custom built windshield for it p-t-p-t-Open ↗
cook.freeserve.co.uk/Oct03/exp3.htm. I used to dismantle it
to carry it inside a trangia kettle but now it just sits
folded inside my pans. Do you do have the spreader screwed
fully home on the jet? My usual method of lighting is to
turn the gas on until I can hear it hissing and then apply a
bog standard cigarette lighter. If it fails to light by the
third flick of the lighter turn off the gas wait a few
seconds and try again.
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the
"Westminster Gasworks"

"Peter Clinch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Brian said:

A trangia can be left to its own devices more than any
other stove as it

won't flare, is largely unbothered by wind and is very
stable. If you

I'd definitely agree with this; it has considerable
advantages that are easily underestimated.

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Have to second what Dominic wrote on this. Unless you
really do need something that'll burn most things except
coal, you're better off with

gas.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Gas is clean, doesn't smell, shouldn't leak, is no
heavier and no more expensive than most other things.

Yep. But there is something about the design of the
Trangia which means I somehow can't bring myself to use
anything else ;-)

Indeed. Hence my Primus/Trangia hybrid...the ability to burn
anything, laugh in the face of strong winds and singe my
eyebrows...how could any man resist?

T.

Just zis Guy said:

Yep. But there is something about the design of the
Trangia which means I somehow can't bring myself to use
anything else ;-)

So get a gas conversion for it, and retain the all in one
package, stability, wind and fool proofing while getting
something that doesn't need refuelling nearly as much and is
more controllable wit less fiddling.

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 hidden]
dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

* Ken <[email hidden]> deigned to grace
uk.rec.walking
* with their presence by declaiming:

Quoted message said:

"Peter Clinch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Brian said:

A trangia can be left to its own devices more than any
other stove as it

won't flare, is largely unbothered by wind and is very
stable. If you

I'd definitely agree with this; it has considerable
advantages that are easily underestimated.

... and greater disadvantages that are easily overlooked ;^}

Regards: Jim Ford

"Jim Ford" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

* Ken <[email hidden]> deigned to grace
uk.rec.walking
* with their presence by declaiming:

Quoted message said:

"Peter Clinch" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Brian wrote:

> A trangia can be left to its own devices more than any
> other stove as

it

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

won't flare, is largely unbothered by wind and is very
stable. If you

I'd definitely agree with this; it has considerable
advantages that are easily underestimated.

... and greater disadvantages that are easily
overlooked ;^}

Depends what you want.

Gas = have to watch the pot (an uncomfortable waste of
time); poor function in the cold and wind (just when a stove
is most important); unstable; noisy; difficult to gauge fuel
use; poor function well before fuel is expended. Trangia =
more weight, less control, dirty, invisible flame (though I
can't say that I consider this to be a problem for anyone
other than the terminally inept).

Personally, I want something that is going to make a hot
drink in the foulest of weather, on any sort of incline,
while I put up my shelter - not something that it only going
to work on the flat, out of the wind, when it is warm, and
that I have to watch every second. I'll happily pay a weight
penalty for that. All other Trangia disadvantages can be
managed with a little experience.

Ken said:

Gas = have to watch the pot (an uncomfortable waste of
time); poor function in the cold and wind (just when a
stove is most important); unstable; noisy; difficult to
gauge fuel use; poor function well before fuel is
expended.

A lot of this depends on the stove, a lot else depends on
fuel management. My trangia with gas burner *is* a gas
stove and is unbothered by the wind and very stable. Poor
function in cold depends how cold is cold, and what sort
of fuel. Propane mixes do pretty well, pure butane
doesn't, so if it's pure butane you've got and it's well
below freezing that's a fuel management issue, not a fault
of the stove. I just don't understand "have to watch the
pot": please explain.

Quoted message said:

Personally, I want something that is going to make a hot
drink in the foulest of weather, on any sort of incline,
while I put up my shelter - not something that it only
going to work on the flat, out of the wind, when it is
warm, and that I have to watch every second. I'll happily
pay a weight penalty for that. All other Trangia
disadvantages can be managed with a little experience.

And many of them can be managed by putting a gas burner in
to the Trangia base!

You still have the weight disadvantage and the conversion is
overpriced (though the "unofficial" Markill one is far more
reasonable), but if your primary concern is stormproofing
you've still got it, and won't run out of fuel so often or
wait so long or bugger about with simmer rings.

I still use the Meths burner now and then, but use the gas
head more.

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 hidden]
dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

"Peter Clinch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ken said:

Gas = have to watch the pot (an uncomfortable waste of
time); poor

function

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

in the cold and wind (just when a stove is most
important); unstable;

noisy;

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

difficult to gauge fuel use; poor function well before
fuel is expended.

A lot of this depends on the stove, a lot else depends on
fuel management. My trangia with gas burner *is* a gas
stove and is unbothered by the wind and very stable. Poor
function in cold depends how cold is cold, and what sort
of fuel. Propane mixes do pretty well, pure butane
doesn't, so if it's pure butane you've got and it's well
below freezing that's a fuel management issue, not a fault
of the stove.

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.

Quoted message said:

I just don't understand "have to watch the pot": please
explain.

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!
In my experience, this a phenomenal waste of time, and last
time I was out led to the ridiculous situation where I got
cold sitting around waiting for my rubbish gas stove to boil
a hot drink!

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.

As I said, each to their own.

Tony Buckley said:

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Have to second what Dominic wrote on this. Unless you
really do need something that'll burn most things except
coal, you're better off with

gas.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Gas is clean, doesn't smell, shouldn't leak, is no
heavier and no more expensive than most other things.

Yep. But there is something about the design of the
Trangia which means I somehow can't bring myself to use
anything else ;-)

Indeed. Hence my Primus/Trangia hybrid...the ability to
burn anything, laugh in the face of strong winds and singe
my eyebrows...how could any man resist?

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.

It is really up to the original person in this thread to go
camping with other folk and watch, listen and learn and make
his own judgements from his own experiences. Only then will
he be satisfied. There is no short cut to personal
experience.

Norman