I don't know if you have seen this test of a lot of different alcohol stoves someone did over at backpacker.com forums:

http://www.backpacker.com/cgi-bin/forums/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=973107219;t=9991095726

Here is the link of the results:

http://www.runswiftwhippets.com/Hikes/small%20pot%202%20cups%20lid.html

I don't know where these stoves are coming from because I have a number of those stoves all of which will out do the stoves and boil times described here. I looked at some of the pictures and I have seen some of these stoves around but the prior results that I have seen are much different than the results that I am seeing here.
Not to mention that I have, Oh, I will guess and say that I have around 20-30 of these stoves and the worst one will out perform any of the stoves you see tested here. I used colder water (50 degree), same amount (4 cups) and have achieved boil times as quickly as 3-4 minutes. In most cases I could get two boils out of each burn and most of my stoves will roll boil 4 cups of water in around 6-7 minutes....Hopes this helps...Happy Trekking...sabre11004

The first step that you take will be one of those that will get you there.... <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

sabre11004.
I think we discussed this once before but - please describe how you determine that the water is boiling. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" /> Some have said that the first bubbles of air that appear are boiuling and thus had erronious measurements. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" /> The first air starts to bubble out at around 80 degrees centigrade. You must wait until the steam lifts the lid off your pot to call it "boiling" as used by others. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />
Jim <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

Wow... really? 4 cups of 50 degree water probably takes 6-7 minutes on my home stove (if not longer), let alone any alcohol stoves. I guess that I too am curious as to what water temperature you consider to be boiling?

Eric

I wonder how Jim woods Supercat would perform if you added cotton balls??? I guess I'll have to try it!

Eric

Sabre,
Please tell us your exact methods.. From what I read, those times seem to be pretty fair in the test. I love seeing this kind of stuff. I'm glad that someone else does this kind of thing too. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

“colder water (50 degree), same amount (4 cups) and have achieved boil times as quickly as 3-4 minutes.”

Another curious person here.

My pepsi stove does 60F, 3 cup H2O, 1oz Heet, in 6.5 minutes (rolling boil with flaring steam) with 2.5 minutes more on top of that and I thought that was good!

The web sight rates which one boils fastest. And, as always, any titanium stove is going to do bad. But I also like to look at how much longer the flame goes. This gives me a good buffer estimate for field use.

-Barry

Boiling point is subjective and will introduce variation in results, especially if you don't adjust for barometric pressure. A better method would be to measure how long it takes to attain a temperature rise, say from 50F to 200F. Then you can calculate stove output in whatever units you wish. You can also calculate the efficiency of your setup by weighing how much fuel gets used in the process.

I suspect boiling point gets used because the average person doesn't have an appropriate thermometer. The problem is that it takes quite a bit of energy to go from the onset of boil to a full boil, so deciding just when to stop timing will significantly affect the result.

Just a few observations re these tests:

As anyone who has tried to use sea level recipes at high altitude knows, the boiling point of water decreases the higher the altitude (actually, with the air pressure, as Paddy points out). At 7,000 feet (the altitude at which I grew up and learned to cook) it's under 200* F. That may be why I still have a tendency to overcook things if I'm not careful! Here's a table.

The definition most cookbooks use for "boiling" is a full rolling boil.

To make these tests scientific, you really need to record the air pressure and measure the water temperature. To be really scientific, you should conduct the tests in a pressure chamber so the air pressure is exactly the same for all trials.

Out here in the western mountains, most of your fresh water sources (especially if you're trying to use springs or small streams near their source) are closer to 40*F than 50* or 60*.

The temperature that I consider boiling is when the water is trying to get out the pot. I don't just begin to see bubbles on the bottom of the pot and pour it out. I let it roll. I wish that I was smart enough to get pics on here because I have so many different set-ups that there are just too many to describe. Some of them have actually surprised me too. Granted I do have some of them that are closer to the test that you see here but I really do have a couple of set-ups that will blow most any thing away that you see tested here....Hope this helps....Happy Trekking...sabre11004



The first step that you take is one of those that will get you there... <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Yep!!!! That's about where I am with that !!!!!!!!! <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

Barry P, I would hold on to that system. It seems to work very well. I always like to have extra burn time too as I like to boil water to drink and to clean up with later after dinner or breakfast or whatever...Something else that I did not mention is that a lot of these different set-ups are coming in at different weights too. Some are heavier than others...Naturally speaking, but then again not many of them would be what you would call out of line as far as weight is concerned. (and we all know that it is)..Hope this helps....Happy Trekking...sabre11004...



The first step that you take will be one of those that get you there... <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Sabre, can you at least describe the basic type of stove you have that boils 4 cups in 4 minutes? From the http://zenstoves.net/Stoves.htm link:

1. Open Flame
2. Chimney/Updraft
3. Low Pressure SideBurner
4. Open Jet
5. Hybrid SideBurner Jet
6. Pressurized Jet

How much fuel does your stove use to do that? I've gotten that fast a boil, but with TWO cups of water, not four.

I have all of the above. Some of them are less efficient than others but I have some that really rock. I was working with one the other day and on this particular stove was able to just sit the pot right on top of the stove itself. Although this is not one of the more efficient models of the alcohol stove...I suppose that this particular model would be called a "side- burner" stove....I have them set up where on some the windscreen and the pot stand are one piece. Others I have it is two different things for the windscreen and the pot holder and/or stand. Some of the models that I have, have heat vents very much like you find on the old fashion Coleman canister stoves that more efficiently directs the flame to the bottom of the pot and I have gotten better boil times with these models. I would say that on an average of all the stoves that I have the average boil time would be around 3-5 minutes. That's faster than it takes us to put up our tent. We both carry one of these set-ups or the other so we are most of the time pretty prepared for cooking duties... Hope this helps....Happy Trekking...sabre11004...



The first step that you take will be of those that get you there... <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Sabre
You are being challenged by the group to put up or shut up - no offense intended, <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> but we all have experimented with these and we have real gas stoves etc and you claim to get pressurized white gas performance from your stove. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />Prove it, we don't believe you. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

Saying "oh I have a bunch of them and some really rock" is not the kind of complete description of stove and test that lends credability to your arguement. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Again - no offense intended, <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> just realise that this group is constantly assailed by people with claims that do not seem to meet the general consensus of reality. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

I would love to believe you by the way. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> I believe in santa and the easter bunny too, oh and the tooth fairy. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

As for altitude as a variable, the boiling point may be a tad lower, but the amount of oxygen for the stove is lowered as well. There is probably a net loss as you gain altitude - just surmising.

In most of the magazines with "normal stoves" one liter of 70 degree water boiled out of the wind to a rolling boil.

When the boiling point is reached is not subjective at all. It is boiling or not, but some of it may be hot enough to "boil" but untill the entire mass is "boiling" there will not be a "rolling boil" but when the entire mass is boiling the entire energy input at the bottom will be released at the top thus a "rolling boil". If you lift the lid to see if its boiling, it will take longer, but i you wait until the lid just lifts with steam, you hit the point within within ten seconds.

One problem is that the users of pop stoves do not boil liters of water, thus the standard needs change and as far as I know - no one has been able to establish universal guidelines for pop stove testing.
This is why the exact method of test must be described. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

Thank you for reading this far.
Jim <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

Jim,

I would like to see the test standard 2 cups at 40 degrees. I find the performance of alcohol stoves is not as good when heating large amounts.

I could be flexible about the 40 degrees, but I think that is about the average refrigerator.

Hey, sabre. Please send two of your best stoves to Paddy Crow. He does excellent tests and then we will have third party verification of the boil times.

Jim, when I was a child I did believe in Santa, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairly. Then I got older and lost the faith. When I became a parent I found that I AM Santa, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy. Hard not to believe in yourself.

I doubt that it would be as significant of a factor. With an open flame, fuel tends to burn just as fast at 5000 feet as at sea level. The amount of energy released is directly proportional to the amount of fuel burned so the rate of energy release is directly proportional to the burn rate.

There is an altitude where the air is so thin that alcohol won't burn, but there is also a point where the pressure is so low that water will boil spontaneously. Not sure which would be reached first.



Actually, it is. The onset of boiling, referred to as nucleate boiling, is almost imperceptible to the naked eye. It takes a lot of heat to go from that point to the point where the bubbles are large enough to see. The subjective part comes in where the individual doing the testing decides that there are enough bubbles and they are large enough to call it a boil.

The best way to report the output of a heat device is in power conversion units (BTU per hour, Calories per second, watts, horsepower, etc.). It's relatively easy to do by measuring the weight of the water, starting temperature, ending temperature, and time.

“As for altitude as a variable, the boiling point may be a tad lower, but the amount of oxygen for the stove is lowered as well. There is probably a net loss as you gain altitude - just surmising.”

I’ve always noticed I get better boil times in them there UT, CO, WY mountains than I do in the Midwest. So I would incline to think air pressure is more dominant a factor than oxygen, on the crust of this Mother Earth, for alcy stoves.

-Barry

TRANGIA IN '08

Rank um, spank um. To me it does not matter which one works best in the lab. I found that by using the Trangia I got much better mileage -and this of course is due to the fact that I do not have to meter out the fuel, because I just snuff it, cool it and put the lid on. Being able to store fuel in the stove is the way to go and it cuts out a lot of the fiddle factor.
If you meter out too much fuel and cannot recover it then you have to burn it. If you meter out too little fuel you have to add more and re-light the stove. Honestly none of this makes any sense. Some folks say that after a while they know exactly how much fuel to put in their stove - baaaalony. All the external factors that play into burn times/boil times, such as air temperature, water temp, fuel temp, altitude, wind, ect.. change constantly and getting the perfect amount is only possible if you have too much to start with, put the stove out, and save the remainder.

My name is Trangia User and I approve this message!

Sabre
Around here a cup is 250 ml so 4 cups is 1 liter.
Just to make sure, I have just boiled about 900ml of water using one of my thin titanium pots on my stove top using the highest setting. It took over 4 minutes to get a roaring boil. My pot is 4.5" wide. If you can do that with alcohol not only you have the best times I have seen but you are exceeding the theoretical maximum efficiency of alcohol. Well done !

BTW, I do have several commercially sold stoves and made many versions of the supercat and Pepsi type my self. With 1 oz of Ethanol I get to boil 2 cups between 4.5 and 8 minutes depending on the set up. The faster the boil the sooner I run out of fuel. In the end most of my combinations give me 1.5 to 2 minutes of roaring boil. I am at 10 m above sea level. That makes your versions about twice as efficient as mine......

Franco, you reflect my thoughts exactly. Either Sabre is confusing two cups with four, or his 'cup' is a lot smaller than a standard metric (or imperial) cup. It is not physically possible to boil 1 litre or 1 quart of 50F water in the sorts of times Sabre claims.

Paddy Crow brings a sense of science and reproducibility to the discussion "The best way to report the output of a heat device is in power conversion units (BTU per hour, Calories per second, watts, horsepower, etc.). It's relatively easy to do by measuring the weight of the water, starting temperature, ending temperature, and time."

However none of these things tell you how the stove will perform in the real world where wind, pot size, pot material and thickness, windscreen design, ability to simmer, ability to 'snuff and reuse' , stove weight, etc...come into play.

Engineering metrics are just that, but I can tell you that more often than not the more powerful engine will win the race.

There are ways to evaluate performance with various "real world" noise factors, but it is probably more complex than the average DIY'er is capable of dissecting. At least I wouldn't consider those with an understanding of factorial testing and setting up an orthogonal array to be average!

Here are a few metrics:
- A liter of fresh water is about 2.2 lbs. A quart is 2.1 lbs.
- Going from 50F to 212F is a 162F increase, which requires 357 BTU.
- For argument's sake, let's say the stove is 50% efficient (in reality, it's probably less), so 714 BTU worth of fuel must be burned.
- To do this in 3 minutes, burner output would be 14,280 BTU per hour.
- Ethanol is rated about 600 BTU per ounce, so it would take about 1.2 ounces of fuel.

For comparison sake, the burners on my gas range are rated at 13,500 BTU per hour and 9,000 BTU per hour.

I agree with Paddy. If you convert to BTU, Watts, etc, then it is very easy to account for all the other variables that play in boiling water.

I want to see some of sabre's stoves. I am talking pictures and diagrams.

Hey, guys if it is any compensation I was messing with a new stove last night. That thing took 10 friggin' minutes to boil water (3 cups) to a roll !!!!! Don't think this one will make into the back country just yet. To say the least, it is a work in progress...Happy Trekking...sabre11004

P.S. I wished that I could manage to get pics on here because there would be a lot of them...


The first step that you take will be of those that get you there !!!!!!! <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Hi! I just joined because I received a message that my stove tests were being discussed here and I thought I'd come over and see if I can answer any questions.

I did see that someone questioned about "boiling" water. My tests have all been done with a digital thermometer set to the boiling temperature of 212 degrees.

So far I've done all the testing indoors because I wanted a comparison test between the stoves with as little environmental variation as possible. I do plan to do a test of windscreens using a fan to try to, again, minimize variation as much as possible...but still test using moving air.

If you've checked my test pages, I do have a whole series of tests to post where I used the Heineken Beer Can pot...but I've messed up my FTP login and it'll probably be this weekend before I have time to call and get it straightened out...but as soon as I do I will be posting those tests.

I've also got 2 additional stoves to add to the existing posted tests...which may cause some changes in the rankings of the stoves already tested. Those, too, I will post as soon as I can.

I wouldn't expect someone with the time or desire to do that kind of testing to be average either...

As I have been experimenting a lot lately with the effect of windscreens and airflow control with these stoves, I have found there is an 'optimum' burn rate for each stove which maximises fuel consumption. To me this is more important in the long run. Sometimes reducing available oxygen improves the stoves fuel economy, but also slows the heating rate down. If I'm not in any hurry, I prefer this as it saves fuel. A stove that can be filled with more fuel than needed and allows for the recovery of the unused fuel (eg feather fire or trangia) is also more efficient and economical on fuel. An overfilled stove also heats more quickly. A stove that has better stability is safer, especially in strong gusty winds or on uneven surfaces, and will also get more points in my book (eg feather fire, caldera cone, thermojet microlite compared to, eg, gram weenie). Simmering ability (feather fire, thermojet) is also a nice option to have. So I personally disagree that it's all about speed of boil in calm conditions. The best fuel efficiency AND fastest boil I have seen in test burns is combining an MSR windpro with a 2 quart caldera cone. This needs only 8 grams of fuel to boil 2 cups (500ml) water in under 4 minutes. But then again it weighs a LOT more than any of the other stoves, so that is something else that needs to go into my equations as to which stove is most efficient. A caldera cone also increases the fuel economy and stability of the thermojet and solid fuel tabs, yet totally stymies pressurised stoves, creating lots of nasty fumes and non-boils.

What would be ideal is to calculate the benefits of each stove sysem (including windscreens, fuel recovery, stability, total weight) over different trip lengths. Heck, if you had to carry 3 months worth of fuel, it might work out lightest to carry the windpro/Caldera combo. An overnight trip it might be worth just taking your gram weenie and hoping for calm weather and a flat surface to cook on. One week might be best with caldera system and Ti-esbit stand...the possibilities are endless and the pros and cons are endless.

Cost could be a whole other category of consideration too...

Have to agree now that I tried one (Thanks Glenn <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />)

Lots of good mental flossing going on here; maybe start a new thread on this from the Paddy/Retro/etc point of view, than the 'my stove is faster than your stove of Sabre. DoggoneGA, Welcome to the Forum <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />; you did a lot of work there, PM with PaddyCrow to see what you can garner from his knowledge and report back here in a thread.

I am partial to the Trangia also. I wonder if this test was done by setting the pot directly on the burner and not using the windscreen. I feel that Trangia engineered this stove to burn at top efficiency when used with the support/windscreen and the pot/lid that comes with the kit including the Mini Trangia design. Maybe the ratings will change when the windscreens and airflow are introduced.

Hey MM, I recently designed a stove, The Colima... named after Volcano Colima which I can see from my desk.

The Colima runs on regular rubbing alcohol Isopropyl 70%
(not denatured alcohol shellac thinner).

Until now the use of rubbing alcohol as a fuel has been hampered due to poor stove design in where the alcohol burned too “cold”, inefficiently, smoked, and dirtied the stove and the pot.

The stove is designed differently than any other stove I've seen online. It is simple, but is not a pepsi can or cat food can stove.

Here are some of its beneficial features:

Weighs 3 ounces

4" diameter by 6" tall in size. (has storage for 4 ounces of extra fuel inside)

Made from mostly recycled materials with a total cost of about $2.50

The stove runs on common rubbing alcohol and NOT denatured alcohol, so it is not burning Methyl ethyl Ketone (also known as Butanone), nor is it burning Methanol or Acetone. All three chemicals are in denatured alcohol, but not in rubbing alcohol.

Operates cool enough that you can hold the stove in your hand while boiling a pot of water. The stove is designed to contain the high heat produced by the flame. The exterior surfaces of the stove do not reach a temperature that would cause combustible materials such as grass, leaves, twigs, tent floors, paper, clothing, etc., to ignite. The fuel and flames are not pressurized, so they do not flare up the sides of a 5 ½ in. diameter pot. I run the boiling tests with the stove sitting on a cotton cloth on my wooden desk, right here next to my monitor. Of course, it should go without saying that you should be cautious where you place any source of fire in the outdoors.

The stove can be returned to your pack with one minute of cool downtime

Does not soot up the pot or stove. Leaves only a 2 inch diameter circle of ash under the pot.

The design incorporates a built in wind screen and can be used in wind, rain or snow

Very stable and strong. ( I stood on the stove for 30 seconds on one foot and it showed zero visible damage.) Was not lit!

Here are the latest test results:

Stove # 1 - Test # 10 (01/19/08)
Containment cell # 1
Windscreen # 3
Fuel cell # 4

Altitude: 5700 ft.
Ambient temperature: 56 degrees
Fuel: 3 tablespoons rubbing alcohol Isopropyl 70%
(NOTE: NOT denatured alcohol shellac thinner)
Water: 8 oz (58 degrees)
Cook pot: 24 - oz capacity, 5 1/4 in. diameter, aluminum.
Prime time: 30 sec.
Steam forms: 5 min. 10 sec.
Standard food serving temp of 160 degrees reached: 5 min. 15 sec.
Bottom bubbles: 6 min. 10 sec.
Boils: One mile altitude = 7 min. 30 sec. (sea level 5 min. 23 sec. boil time)
Fuel total burn time: 21 min. 35 sec. ( 3 tbsp. rubbing alcohol )

Right on. I think Trangia did some engineering on this stove. And I also think they may have designed these items to function as a unit. I have been carrying the kit as it comes in the Mini28t version.

Brumfield, great post...Photos please! Once Jason sees this he'll want to make one to put on his website which is a great one to be featured on by the way <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" /> Gardenville/Bill Fornshell likewise will be able to whip one up with supplied directions for all the Forum to see <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

Yes Hooty, I think Trangia worked very diligently on putting together kits that function flawlessly when used as one piece. Reliable and sturdy two good words to have descibing a piece of gear in your pack IME <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

Hey earthling, let me refine the stove and get it down to it's lowest boil time and highest maximum fuel burn time, and I'll then post images and specs. I would really like to see everybody start using rubbing alcohol and not the denatured shellac thinner stuff. Where rubbing alcohol versus denatured alcohol, the health benefits and fire hazard safety factors make it well worth waiting the 3 extra minutes to boil water or heat food. Brum

The Trangia will run wide open and boil water the fastest if the pot to burner height is ~1.75". The burner works better closer if you use the simmer-ring. I looked some test results that said they burned 2oz of fuel in the Trangia and didn't boil 1qt of water. I have no idea how they got such crappy results, but they must've been doing something really wrong. I'm a Trangia bigot and I approve this posting.

Sabre11004 wrote: "I have around 20-30 of these stoves and the worst one will out perform any of the stoves you see tested here. I used colder water (50 degree), same amount (4 cups) and have achieved boil times as quickly as 3-4 minutes. In most cases I could get two boils out of each burn and most of my stoves will roll boil 4 cups of water in around 6-7 minutes....Hopes this helps...Happy Trekking...sabre11004"


Sabre, yes, but that mixture of white gasoline, 151 rum, Durango 220 proof yellow tequila, lacquer thinner, and a double shot of Everclear 190, hooked up down line of a 30 liter nitrous oxide tank, that you're using as fuel will tend to burn a little hotter than most alcohol fuels. We can't compete!!! <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Brum

Consumer warning: Do not attempt to ignite the above mentioned fuel mixture. Drink it? Maybe, however passing gas could be lethal to innocent bystanders...

I did not say that last part, earthling did it. Brum <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

Yeah, I'm the Chief Gas Passer around these parts <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

I like what you're saying with regards to the rubbing alcohol Barry. I use it already for charcoal BBQ starting instead of lighter fluid. It's cheaper, burns without affecting the taste of the food grilled, and can be found nearly everywhere <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

Now on with the tests! Oh yeah, what altitude, temps, water temps, etc are you testing your device at Barry <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Earthling, I don't want to be redundant and repost the specs here, so instead, please look under this same "Stove Test" topic, near the top, for my post labeled as:

Re: Stove tests - Colima Alcohol stove Brumfield 02/01/08 08:12 AM

Or hold down your shift key while you click the link below and it will open in a new browser page directly to my post:
;
http://www.backpacking.net/forums/showth...31&vc=1

I appreciate all the work and testing on all the little stoves and I've made several of them myself. Today I built two. One was a modified pop can type stove with side burner. I cut fiberglass cloth and wrapped inside so as to have a wicking effect. I put in an ounce of denatured and lit it. It warmed and wouldn't flame until I gave it a little nudge. It then crackeled to life and melted the top of the aluminum flashing windscreen. It burned with a vengence for about 4 minutes and went out. I then built the penny stove with some 12 oz heine cans and it just kept going out. So I opened up the fill hole and got it to light. But was not impressed. I am tossing (recycling ) them. A couple of the earlier pop can stoves I built were the best performers and I'll hang onto them. So I got to thinking, (sometimes a very dangerous habit), how could I save unused fuel if I didn't burn it? I got on e-bay and bought a brass Trangia kit with a German cook kit for a total of $20 with shipping.
I was watching a YouTube video on it's use and thought I would add it to my collection. When it arrives, I'll burn some more fuel and boil some water. If all else fails, I have an old stand by built in 1952 army issur multi fuel. Single burner that you pump up like a coleman lantern that I've never had problems with. It fits in it's own pot with a cup that doubles as the lid. I have recently built a few wood burning stoves that burn pretty well and would work in a pinch but who likes soot. All my options are not extremly LW but I just want something I can reley on.

I *finally* got my problems with logging in to my site corrected and have uploaded a new page of tests. It's a test with 2 cups of water and using a Heineken beer can pot. There were about 3 stoves I couldn't test because I couldn't get the beer can to sit safely on the stove. Those have been noted.

The link is: http://www.runswiftwhippets.com/Hikes/Descriptions.html

Were the tests done without windscreens?

‘DoggoneGA’,
Very nicely done! Thanks for spending your time at comparing. I also appreciated the fiddle-factor comments you put in such as needing extra parts (priming pan…), and tricks (light it twice…) and dangers (flared to top of pan…). Good info on boil times and when it went out.

I also like to see if an alcy stove lights EASILY at 0F (stove temp AND alcy temp). That’s a good test of a fiddle-factor-free stove (say 10 times <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />). I may be paranoid but I feel more confident in the wilderness when it meets that test <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />.

-Barry

"I also like to see if an alcy stove lights EASILY at 0F (stove temp AND alcy temp)."

Well...someone else will have to do THAT test. It might be YEARS before we get temps like that in Georgia. Maybe even decades! <G>

"Were the tests done without windscreens?"

Yes, and all were done indoors. At this point I'm still trying to elimnate as many variables as I can. Plus, I wanted to see how the flames behaved and I can't do that with a windscreen in place.

Some of my future plans are to decide on a stove, and then test with all the windscreens I have...maybe using a fan of some kind to keep the wind variable as constant between tests as possible.