Stoves

Norman wrote

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

Ken said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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 hidden]
dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

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

In article <[email hidden]>,

Chris Street said:

On 23 Apr 2004 07:32:23 -0600, [email hidden] (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,

> 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

"ted kell" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

OK, I tried this yesterday. I put about a teaspoon of warm
water in a

glass,

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

flame was easily visible in full daylight in the sun.

My tests of burning it on a foil jam [censored] 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.