Stove information

The recently started topic on stoves prompted me to post the four web sites I have found to convey the best and most complete information on stoves, their operation, and fuels (one of these days, I might put one up myself, but then these are quite good, so why duplicate efforts). There are a few mistakes in each one, but generally not of great consequence. Also, I have not included the historical stove sites, of which there are many.

http://www.bushwalking.org.au/FAQ/FAQ_Stoves.htm - Australian, and around for a long time.

http://zenstoves.net/StoveChoices.htm - If I recall correctly, this originated as a diy alcohol stove site. It has grown over the years into a very complete discussion of just about every type of backpacking stove and fuel type. The author has a fun sense of humor (sample comment on carbide stoves -
"Choose this stove if:
* you like to be very different
* you own one of the few portable carbide stoves left in existence and want to show it off

Avoid this stove if:
* practicality and/or safety are important to you"

Or on the "add water to heat" type that first appeared in MRE packages -
"Choose this stove if:
* you don't want any flames
* you have a box of them in the basement

Avoid this stove if:
* you can't get a bunch for free
* being lightweight is important
* you want to cook your food "

Fuel names around the world - http://members.iinet.net.au/~mbuckler/fuel/index.shtml - Another Australian site that has lots of useful information

Another good Australian site on fuel efficiency is http://www.bushwalking.org.au/FAQ/FAQ_Efficiency.htm

There are also comparison pages on sites like Backpacker Magazine's, but I haven't found them as useful as the above ones. Some of the magazine-sponsored websites reproduce tests in their paper versions, which in some cases have had strange anomalies (for example, one climbing-oriented magazine had boil times for Primus MFS and Omni, which have identical burners, differing by a factor of 4, while another magazine showed several stoves Jim S and I have tested having boil times and fuel efficiencies varying by large factors from our experience and from what others have reported on this site). While Jim and I were very careful about making sure our test conditions were the same (mostly by trying the stoves side by side over a one or two hour period), your personal results (and ours) vary according to actual use conditions - air temperature, sitting on snow in winter vs rock in summer, kind of pot, initial temperature of the water, wind conditions (with or without windshield), etc etc. Age of fuel makes a difference, too, along with contaminants (has the can been sitting in your garage or shed with the cap not tightened down for the past year?)

Lots of useful info here. Like you said, there are a few errors, but overall they are well done.

Something that seems to be common to these sites is the large difference in fuel usage between canister and liquid fuel (Coleman). In practice I don't see that much difference. Maybe it's just the way I cook (I actually cook and bake). But even if you only heated a pint of water at a time and had to prime the stove for every pint you wouldn't use that much more white gas than canister fuel (almost twice as much according to the one site).

I don't question how much canister fuel they use, since their numbers are based on a lot of experience. But I also get the impression that almost all of their experience is with canister stoves. Maybe they only use white gas for cold outings, where you use more fuel anyway. Just a conjecture on my part.

I find in my personal use that compressed gas and white gas fuel usage is about the same weight per person per day when doing equivalent cooking. I have taken to weighing my canisters at the start and end of trips to measure the actual fuel usage, with the white gas usage just coming from how many person-days a gallon fuel can lasts.

Some people seem to have the habit of leaving the stove running between "courses". That is, they heat the water for coffee or tea, leave the stove on while they drink the cup, then heat another pot for their freeze dry (or whatever), then leave the stove on while it rehydrates, etc. Sort of like lots of people leave the water running while they brush their teeth. My habit of turning the stove off when not actually heating something, and having something ready to put onto the burner as soon as it is lit comes from wanting to minimize the weight of extra fuel I have to carry on expeditions or on winter ski tours. I don't want to run out early, and I don't want to carry even an ounce extra if I can help it.

I have also noticed that people discard a canister with a couple ounces of butane still in it rather than carry it in to exhaustion before putting on a new canister.

Our usage on Alaska Range trips generally runs to 9 gallons of white gas for 10 people for 25 days, or 4.6 ounces per day, which includes melting snow for all water. It's actually a bit more, since we usually reach our goal and return in less than 25 days (so maybe 5 to 6 ounces per day). For backcountry ski tours, I plan on a bit more (allow 8 ounces), and for summer Sierra trips, I allow 2 ounces per person-day (canister or liquid fuel), actually using closer to 1.5

Lots of wasted fuel.

The other common issue is the confusion between fluid (volume) ounces and weight ounces when it comes to the liquid fuels. This error shows up on these pages as well. For example, a 22 oz fuel bottle would weigh 22 ounces (624 grams) if filled with water, but when filled with white gas the fuel weight is actually about 426 grams. Kerosene would weigh about 500 grams. This makes a large difference in the weight and efficiency calculations. I have seen this same issue on stove manufacturers' sites. You have to be careful about comparing fluid vs weight fuel efficiencies there as well. They don't always tell you which way they are calculating it, and they sometimes use weight and volume ounces interchangeably.

Since I am carrying it on my back (or hauling the sled), I use avoirdupois. Well, actually, no, I set the electronic scale for metric (which means it reads mass units, not weight units, but at least it is consistent). I should have noted that the white gas usage comment above was weight, not volume (gallon of white gas is abt 6 pounds, vs water at 8 pounds per gallon)

Gee, you mean fluid volume and weight aren't the same? Somehow I remember something about that when we had a plane and we had to do careful weight and balance for those little forest clearings at altitude we flew in and out of. Some sort of 3/4 rule or other.

One of the exercises I used to include in my intro survey physical science class was containers of different shapes with water in them - "which has more water?" - a real eye-opener for the non-science majors taking the course to fulfill their science requirement.