I noticed some discrepancies with the Trangia burners I have since I recently aquired a Swedish army mess kit and got one of the Military version burners that come with it. So i decided to do some tests. The first thing I noticed anout the two burner, the civvi version heats up[ into "gas burner" mode much quicker than the military version - and I mean much quicker. So, I filled em both with neat meths (no added water) and lit em both. I set up my digital camera on a tripod and took photo's every 30 seconds....
Test done on a concrete floor in sheltered conditions. Civvi version on the left, military version on the right:
after 10 seconds...
after 30 seconds...
after 1 minute...
after 1 minute 30 seconds...
after 2 minutes...
after 2 minutes 30 seconds, and the civvi burner is pretty much up to full heat with the gas ring in full flow...
after 3 minutes...
after 3 minutes 30 seconds...
after 4 minutes...
after 4 minutes 30 seconds...
after 5 minutes...
after 5 minutes 30 seconds and finally the military version cartches up. A fiull 3 minutes longer than the civvi model...
After the burners are both up to heat, there is little to *visually* choose between them as the following random shots show. Again, Civvi model on the left, military on the right...
After this, I decided to time them both and see which boiled faster, but doing the test with hot "up to speed" stoves. Using the small pan in the Swedish kit, I times how long each burner took to boil 250ml of cold water. Both burners took around 3minutes 30seconds (give or take) to achieve a high, bouncing boil. So they pace each other pretty well, which agrees with my visual impressions of both burners when they are hot. But you have to factor in the HUGE warmup time for the military version - add that on to the boil time and who knows. I'm waiting for the burners to go fully cold, then I'll do a boil test from there.
More later....
Update:
I put 250mls of cold water into the swedish kit, lit the (cold) stove and immediately placed the pot onto it and started the clock.
The civvi burner took 5 minutes to reach a bouncing boil.
The military burner took 6minutes 45seconds to reach the same bouncing boil.
Update
Initially, I boiled 250mls of water with hot stoves to test performance. I thought this would be a good real world experiment as 250mls is a good mugfull. Both burners were pretty close, maybe the civvi slightly faster, but i couldn't be sure that wasn't due top some anomalous factor - there was only a few seconds in it, so to my mind, they were equal. But this didn't really establish if one design was inherantly more powerful than another. Maybe the mil-spec model could claw the difference back over a longer burn with a bigger volume. So, I decided to test further.
First off, I emptied both burners and burnt off any excess fuel. Than I added exactly one film-canister full of fuel (probably about 20mls) to each burner. Then I lit them both, and concious of the milspec burner having a longer warm-up time, I used a small butane torch to warm both burners simultaneously. The milspec burner needed more work from the torch, but very quickly (less than 20 seconds), both burners were running at full heat. I then just left them so see which one ran out and self-snuffed first. Afetr about 5 minutes, the civvi model ran out of fuel first - but closely followed (about 20 seconds later) by the milspec model. Conclusion - inconlusive. The difference could have been explained by the harder to heat up military model, they were certainly very evenly matched. Both burners seem to consume fuel at about the same rate - with possibly the civvi version being slightly more thirsty. I would need to test again with a much larger fuel volume to me more certain.
next up, boiling 1 litre of cold water. This is a big boil for a trangia and about tyhe maximum capacity of the Swedish mess kit. I( made sure both burners were up to full heat before putting the cold pan of water on to boil. The civvi burner reached a bouncing boil in 11 minutes, 45 seconds. The military model reached the same point after 14 minutes! That's 2 minutes and 15 seconds slower to boil 1 litre - and this was using a hot burner.
Itr would seem that the civvi model is a little more powerful and maybe slightly more thirsty (I'm not sure on the last point).
My conclusions so far...
Civvi:
Smaller footprint
Lighter (a full civvi including simmer ring, weighs the same as a bone dry military)
Much faster warmup
Cools down much faster
A little more powerful
A simmer ring
Better lid seal
Generally more efficient
Military:
Larger capacity
More robust
Much cheaper
Simpler construction (if that is a factor)
Given the data, it's difficult to reach any other conclusions really. It should be noted though, that the differences are not that big in reality. Similar performance, similar fuel consumption. The only significant factors are the much slower warmup time of the military model and the loger time it takes to boil a big panfull - oh and the simmer ring is a huge bonus for the civvi model IMO (though this can be improvised for the milspec version). Everything else is just little bits & pieces that dont amount to much - but if you have to choose, they do persuade towards the civvi as number 1 choice.
The only thing left to test is ease of lighting, warmup time and heat output during cold and/or windy weather. I've a sneaking suspicion that the civvi model will dramatically out-perform the milspec version in very cold conditions. We'll have to wait for the snow for that test though. :biggthump
Test done on a concrete floor in sheltered conditions. Civvi version on the left, military version on the right:
after 10 seconds...
after 30 seconds...
after 1 minute...
after 1 minute 30 seconds...
after 2 minutes...
after 2 minutes 30 seconds, and the civvi burner is pretty much up to full heat with the gas ring in full flow...
after 3 minutes...
after 3 minutes 30 seconds...
after 4 minutes...
after 4 minutes 30 seconds...
after 5 minutes...
after 5 minutes 30 seconds and finally the military version cartches up. A fiull 3 minutes longer than the civvi model...
After the burners are both up to heat, there is little to *visually* choose between them as the following random shots show. Again, Civvi model on the left, military on the right...
After this, I decided to time them both and see which boiled faster, but doing the test with hot "up to speed" stoves. Using the small pan in the Swedish kit, I times how long each burner took to boil 250ml of cold water. Both burners took around 3minutes 30seconds (give or take) to achieve a high, bouncing boil. So they pace each other pretty well, which agrees with my visual impressions of both burners when they are hot. But you have to factor in the HUGE warmup time for the military version - add that on to the boil time and who knows. I'm waiting for the burners to go fully cold, then I'll do a boil test from there.
More later....
Update:
I put 250mls of cold water into the swedish kit, lit the (cold) stove and immediately placed the pot onto it and started the clock.
The civvi burner took 5 minutes to reach a bouncing boil.
The military burner took 6minutes 45seconds to reach the same bouncing boil.
Update
Initially, I boiled 250mls of water with hot stoves to test performance. I thought this would be a good real world experiment as 250mls is a good mugfull. Both burners were pretty close, maybe the civvi slightly faster, but i couldn't be sure that wasn't due top some anomalous factor - there was only a few seconds in it, so to my mind, they were equal. But this didn't really establish if one design was inherantly more powerful than another. Maybe the mil-spec model could claw the difference back over a longer burn with a bigger volume. So, I decided to test further.
First off, I emptied both burners and burnt off any excess fuel. Than I added exactly one film-canister full of fuel (probably about 20mls) to each burner. Then I lit them both, and concious of the milspec burner having a longer warm-up time, I used a small butane torch to warm both burners simultaneously. The milspec burner needed more work from the torch, but very quickly (less than 20 seconds), both burners were running at full heat. I then just left them so see which one ran out and self-snuffed first. Afetr about 5 minutes, the civvi model ran out of fuel first - but closely followed (about 20 seconds later) by the milspec model. Conclusion - inconlusive. The difference could have been explained by the harder to heat up military model, they were certainly very evenly matched. Both burners seem to consume fuel at about the same rate - with possibly the civvi version being slightly more thirsty. I would need to test again with a much larger fuel volume to me more certain.
next up, boiling 1 litre of cold water. This is a big boil for a trangia and about tyhe maximum capacity of the Swedish mess kit. I( made sure both burners were up to full heat before putting the cold pan of water on to boil. The civvi burner reached a bouncing boil in 11 minutes, 45 seconds. The military model reached the same point after 14 minutes! That's 2 minutes and 15 seconds slower to boil 1 litre - and this was using a hot burner.
Itr would seem that the civvi model is a little more powerful and maybe slightly more thirsty (I'm not sure on the last point).
My conclusions so far...
Civvi:
Smaller footprint
Lighter (a full civvi including simmer ring, weighs the same as a bone dry military)
Much faster warmup
Cools down much faster
A little more powerful
A simmer ring
Better lid seal
Generally more efficient
Military:
Larger capacity
More robust
Much cheaper
Simpler construction (if that is a factor)
Given the data, it's difficult to reach any other conclusions really. It should be noted though, that the differences are not that big in reality. Similar performance, similar fuel consumption. The only significant factors are the much slower warmup time of the military model and the loger time it takes to boil a big panfull - oh and the simmer ring is a huge bonus for the civvi model IMO (though this can be improvised for the milspec version). Everything else is just little bits & pieces that dont amount to much - but if you have to choose, they do persuade towards the civvi as number 1 choice.
The only thing left to test is ease of lighting, warmup time and heat output during cold and/or windy weather. I've a sneaking suspicion that the civvi model will dramatically out-perform the milspec version in very cold conditions. We'll have to wait for the snow for that test though. :biggthump