Stove Fuels

[johnboy]

You can do the calculation using the base line figures for ethanol.Ethanol is 46.07g mol with a density of 0.789g/cm3. ( figure from Wikipedia)

Nice testing Martyn,We should write a standard for stove fuel consumption testing....

 

[Martyn]

Does anyone know the weight of 30mL/1 oz of Meths please in grams, my scales don't go down that far accurately?

Steve.

Edit... Tried my scales and got 28 grams??

As John says, it's got a specific gravity of 79% (of water). Water weighs 1g per ml, so 30mls of meths weighs 79% of 30g = 23.7g.

 

[Martyn]

Nice testing Martyn,We should write a standard for stove fuel consumption testing....

LOL, I think for it to be properly meaningful, you'd have to repeat each test a few times to minimise errors and discard flyers at each end of the curve. It could be done, but it would be kind of boring.

The idea of stoves having an efficiency value is interesting though. Providing you are consistent with everything, you could give each stove an ad-hoc efficiency value based on the above. The methodology might have a few holes in it that stovies would no doubt pick apart, but it could provide a useful guide. Though I suspect it would just prove what we already know.

 

[ateallthepies]

Thanks both of you for the info.

So that means my pellet tin stove needs 23.7 grams of meths to bring 500ml of cold water to a 100 degrees C rolling boil. Not sure how this compares to your 350ml test Martyn as my brain just won't let me do any sums tonight but to boil 7 litres would need 420 ml of meths.

Steve.

 

[rik_uk3]

It's not about speed, it's about how much fuel is used Rik. Which stove boils first, is irrelevant. We are debating efficiency, not effectiveness. The pot used was a wide based terra weekend with heat exchanger fins on the base. It's about as efficient as you can get, regardless of the burner used under it. The prime and bleed out of the nova is not affected by pot diameter or wind direction. I didnt test the 111, so that is irrelevant, but if you feel your stove is affected adversly by wind, then use a windshield.

But thanks for your comments, they always make me smile.

I aways use a windshield unless I'm using a Trangia, No12, Coleman twin or ETA

 

[Martyn]

Thanks both of you for the info.

So that means my pellet tin stove needs 23.7 grams of meths to bring 500ml of cold water to a 100 degrees C rolling boil. Not sure how this compares to your 350ml test Martyn as my brain just won't let me do any sums tonight but to boil 7 litres would need 420 ml of meths.

Steve.

Ahhh, I see where you are going with this, but there is a problem. I could give my stoves and scales to you to test, and you'd probably come up with a different set of numbers. But that wouldn't matter, so long as you applied the same criteria to all your tests, the relationship between the stoves should still be the same, even though the actual numbers would be different. The problem comes when comparing your number to my numbers. Differences in the way we conduct the tests, would make doing such a comparison meaningless. That's what John was talking about when he mentioned drafting testing standards. Some numbers you can extrapolate, but others you cant. The only way to do a comparison is to do the test in exactly the same way. Same pot, same water volume, same cold water temp, same ambient temp, same definition of "rolling boil" etc.

 

[Andy BB]

Very impressed with all the science! However......in the real world, things like temperature, wind, non-ideal pot shapes/materials for the stove in question, items being cooked etc tend to add a whole other ball-game to it. Would I want to rely on an alcohol stove if I was having to melt lots of snow for drinking water at altitude, for example. Or if I wanted to do a stew that took an hour or more. And which stove I enjoy playing with most at any particular time!

At the end of the day it all comes down to horses for courses.

 

[johnboy]

Very impressed with all the science! However......in the real world, things like temperature, wind, non-ideal pot shapes/materials for the stove in question, items being cooked etc tend to add a whole other ball-game to it. Would I want to rely on an alcohol stove if I was having to melt lots of snow for drinking water at altitude, for example. Or if I wanted to do a stew that took an hour or more. And which stove I enjoy playing with most at any particular time!At the end of the day it all comes down to horses for courses.

Exactly right.... Lab based testing ( which is what you could very loosely call Martyns sterling efforts) is not the same as real world testing out in the Ulu....

Then factor into the whole equation human factors such as SKS + MLF and you'll never get a definitive best bit of kit...

However what the 'lab' tests reinforce to me is my experience with differing types of stove and what I think I 'know' is actually not that far off of the mark...

Gas is efficient and easy to use ( but possibly a bit boring)
Pressure stoves are fun to use but a bit of a faff to get going and shut down
Meths is fun but you need a lot of it....

 

[Martyn]

Very impressed with all the science! However......in the real world, things like temperature, wind, non-ideal pot shapes/materials for the stove in question, items being cooked etc tend to add a whole other ball-game to it. Would I want to rely on an alcohol stove if I was having to melt lots of snow for drinking water at altitude, for example. Or if I wanted to do a stew that took an hour or more. And which stove I enjoy playing with most at any particular time!

At the end of the day it all comes down to horses for courses.

That's fine and as it should be. I'm not trying to tell you what stove to use where or when, just running a set of experiments. You be the judge of how useful the number are. Like I said...

...endless list of other variables, but it gives a fair baseline for simple "brewing up" conditions...

and

...this is how the numbers run. They are what they are...

At least it gives an idea of stove efficiency and the relative merits of different fuels in something more solid than anecdote and "in my experience". There will always be sets of what-if circumstances that could or would affect these results. But that doesnt matter and it doesnt invalidate doing this either. Some people have obsessive loyalties to certain bits of kit, whether it's knives, stoves or even fuel types. This loyalty can sometimes make their opinions a little partisan. This was just an experiment to try and get past that and put some numbers down under a limited, but reasonably typical set of circumstances. Take it for what it is, just a simple experiment. If the results have meaning for you, great, if you have other criteria for your stove choices that make this experiment irrelevant to you, no problem.

 

[Martyn]

Exactly right.... Lab based testing ( which is what you could very loosely call Martyns sterling efforts) is not the same as real world testing out in the Ulu....

Then factor into the whole equation human factors such as SKS + MLF and you'll never get a definitive best bit of kit...

However what the 'lab' tests reinforce to me is my experience with differing types of stove and what I think I 'know' is actually not that far off of the mark...

Gas is efficient and easy to use ( but possibly a bit boring)
Pressure stoves are fun to use but a bit of a faff to get going and shut down
Meths is fun but you need a lot of it....

Exactly right mate. We will all use what we want whatever and I think we all know how these numbers would run anyway. There are no big shocks with how it ran. It's just interesting to see the theory pan out in practical experiment and helps to reinforce what we already know.

 

[rik_uk3]

"
Gas is efficient and easy to use ( but possibly a bit boring)
Pressure stoves are fun to use but a bit of a faff to get going and shut down
Meths is fun but you need a lot of it.... "

Well said John, pretty much sums it up (but gas is getting better with the multi-mix cans).

A good mate of mine picked up a 111 paraffin and moaned it was not that good and my reply was pump it more...he's now a happy bunny. Whatever stove you use will depend upon your own preferences, being fickle if you like and so long as they do the job for you then great.

Before my nursing retirement I would often set up a coffee pot on an old Turm domestic alcohol stove last thing at night to use when I had to get up around 05:00 for an early shift. It would be on a table next to my computer desk and I could awake, shower, sit down, light the stove and switch on the computer. The stove was silent, the coffee was good and I was happy. I often looked at that stove and thought what a good job it did for me and I'm sure for the other people who owned it before me.

 

[johnboy]

"
Gas is efficient and easy to use ( but possibly a bit boring)
Pressure stoves are fun to use but a bit of a faff to get going and shut down
Meths is fun but you need a lot of it.... "

Well said John, pretty much sums it up (but gas is getting better with the multi-mix cans).

A good mate of mine picked up a 111 paraffin and moaned it was not that good and my reply was pump it more...he's now a happy bunny. Whatever stove you use will depend upon your own preferences, being fickle if you like and so long as they do the job for you then great.

Before my nursing retirement I would often set up a coffee pot on an old Turm domestic alcohol stove last thing at night to use when I had to get up around 05:00 for an early shift. It would be on a table next to my computer desk and I could awake, shower, sit down, light the stove and switch on the computer. The stove was silent, the coffee was good and I was happy. I often looked at that stove and thought what a good job it did for me and I'm sure for the other people who owned it before me.

Hi Richard,


I have nothing against Alkies... Happily lugged a Trangia around for a number of years ( and have happy memories of making Fondue camped below Grand Vache) and I have a nice Gravity Fed Turm Sport in 'Luftwaffe colours'. The fact they are very quiet is a real boon and 99.9% of the time I'm not in that much of a hurry for a brew or a feed when out and about...

I'd personally just think twice about spending an inordinate amount of cash on a 'high performance' version ( like 'white boxes' and 'triads' etc) if 'high performance' was what I was after... the reality is a 10 quid chinese gassie and a 230g canister is pretty much all you 'need' for most things..

Regards

John

 

[rik_uk3]

Hi Richard,


I have nothing against Alkies... Happily lugged a Trangia around for a number of years ( and have happy memories of making Fondue camped below Grand Vache) and I have a nice Gravity Fed Turm Sport in 'Luftwaffe colours'. The fact they are very quiet is a real boon and 99.9% of the time I'm not in that much of a hurry for a brew or a feed when out and about...

I'd personally just think twice about spending an inordinate amount of cash on a 'high performance' version ( like 'white boxes' and 'triads' etc) if 'high performance' was what I was after... the reality is a 10 quid chinese gassie and a 230g canister is pretty much all you 'need' for most things..

Regards

John

Too true John, I had a Titanium (Yes,,,me) meths stove, a Triad and was not impressed at all. The only good thing was that I got it for next to nothing and sold it for a profit. I've made a few 'pop can' stoves and they are fun but very heavy on fuel.

My favourite reviewer/hobbyist is Rob
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGFK4EXVOK8 he's a real character and a gentleman.

 

[Andy BB]

I think we've overlooked a most important stove fuel here - wood/pinecones etc etc. I have no idea what its calorific content is, but it weighs nothing to carry (find it at your campsite, or pick it up along the way) never runs out (unless you're in a desert!), can cook for as long or as short a period as you want, can boil water exceptionally fast (kelly kettle/Swiss Army volcano stove), or reduce to a simmer over some coals for extended cooking. And can double up as totally safe tent heating by using hot rocks on the fire!

I therefore claim that the King Of Stove Fuels is Wood

(Must now go and speak nicely to my alcohol, paraffin, petrol and gas stoves so they don't feel upset....)

 

[Martyn]

I'd agree, except it can be problematic on Dartmoor, the Yorksire moors, the North coast, at altitude, if it's raining, and it's a PITA if all you want is to stop for a cup of tea. Wood is a great fuel, so long as you are in the woods.

 

[santaman2000]

I'd agree, except it can be problematic on Dartmoor, the Yorksire moors, the North coast, at altitude...

At altitude? What's the problem there? I've used a wood fire at near 12,000 feet.

 

[Martyn]

At altitude? What's the problem there? I've used a wood fire at near 12,000 feet.

Finding wood - generally.

Although the treeline is about 9000 ft in the US rockies, it can be anything from about 1500ft upwards - as in the Scottish highlands.

 

[santaman2000]

Finding wood - generally.

Although the treeline is about 9000 ft in the US rockies, it can be anything from about 1500ft upwards - as in the Scottish highlands.

I was at nearly 12,000 ft on Mt. Wheeler at the time. In the Humbolt range in Nevada. I was actually camping somewhat lower but the forest kept growing all the way to the top.

 

[Martyn]

Well, if that's where you are, then it's not a problem.

 

[ateallthepies]

To throw a spanner in the works, how do those MSR Reactor stoves do with efficiency. They are gas but I seem to remember a youtube vid comparing it to a Jetboil and the Reactor boiled in a minute less. Not sure how much fuel was used by each though?

Steve.