Esbit solid fuel stoves

I was recently asked to give a stove presentation to a group of scouts.  One stove that was missing from my collection was a Esbit solid fuel stove.  I felt the presentation would not be complete without mentioning a solid fuel stove. So I purchased an Esbit stove for the presentation.  Now solid fuel stoves are fairly cheap, especially when compared to LPG stove systems and liquid fuel stoves.  You can basically use a solid fuel tablet on a "Kerr" lid, all you need is a pot stand.

The only solid fuel tables (14g) available at my local outdoor stores were packaged with a Esbit box stove for a price tag of just under six dollars.  The box stove came with six tablets. The box stove is a small steel box that opens to a pot stand, and solid fuel platform with venting to allow good air circulation. The stove can also store up to four 14g individually packaged tablets. Another store sold only the 4g tablets in a package of 24 without a stove.

The packaging for the box stove, and some internet research states that the 14g tablets will burn for about 12 minutes and boil water in 8 minutes. The packaging for the 4g tablets claimed 9 minutes burn. Past experience has shown that packaging and real measured performance rarely come close to matching. My tests with the 4g tablets show that a burn time, for a complete tablet, is about 5 minutes. Boiling water, using three 4g tablets, took over 12 minutes and never achieved a roiling boil for two cups of water. I have not tried the 14g tablets yet.  The packaging for the tablets also stated that burning left no residue.  A false statement.  Both the stove and the pot were left with a brown tar like residue. I was able to remove this residue from the pot using denatured alcohol and some elbow grease.

A couple of observations about the stove. First, the tablets stink. They smell like fish, at least that is how everybody describes the smell. Now I do a lot of backpacking in bear country, not sure I want my fuel smelling like fish and attracting bear. I left the tablets, still in there packaging, in a closed container for a couple of days. When I opened the container, the smell was over-powering. Close inspection of the blister packaging of the 14g tablets reveals a row of small factory made punctures. I assume they are there to equalize the air pressure so that the blister packs do not balloon as you go up in altitude. But they sure let the stink out!

Second, the little 3" x 4" x 1" box stove weighs 88g, same weight as the Optimus Crux. Esbit does make a lighter titanium stove that weighs 12g. You can make your own stove, unless you are a Boy Scout (see BSA Scout guidelines about home made or altered stoves).  Be careful using aluminum foil. The fuel burns hot enough to melt aluminum foil. I know it happened during one of my tests.

During my first test with the solid fuel I noticed a subtle issue. The fuel takes a little effort to ignite, but once burning, it burns well. The issue I noticed is that, the longer the fuel burns, the weaker the flame. This only makes sense. As the fuel is consumed the tablet shrinks in surface area. Less surface area, less flame. I smack myself for not realizing this before I even started.

While I will continue to present the stove during my presentation as an option, I will never actually take the stove into the backcountry. The little testing that I have done was enough to convince me, that solid fuel is not for me.

Stove systems - Reactor

Advantages

• Wind resistent
• Folding, rigid, solid handle
• Small
• Complete system, everything stores in the pot
• 90 second boil at 4500 ft elevation

Disadvantages

• Expensive
• No included canister stand.
• Possibility of a one time thermal shutdown, net research show rare event

Notes

• 1L Reactor nests with 4 oz. canister
• 1.7L Reactor nests with 8 oz. canister
• Packed weight: 14.6 oz. (414 g)

I really liked the idea/design of an integrated stove system. I especially like the fuel efficiency and the nesting of all the components.

Since I did not like the JetBoil, the only real competitor at the time, was the MSR Reactor. My initial reaction the the Reactor was shock, mostly at the price. But I saved my pennies and eventually I was able to purchase a 1L Reactor. The 1L Reactor has a maximum fill line at 500 ml, clearly stamped into the pot. There is plenty of discussion on the net about the maximum fill line, and marketed size, so I will stay away from that discussion.

So my thoughts on the Reactor. Wow! I should have bought this first, and then I would have never wasted money on the JetBoil.

I really like the fact that the Reactor does not twist connect to the stove. When the water boils, I can lift the pot off, and turn the stove off with my other hand. The lip on the radiant burner nests with the pot to give a very good connection and I never feel like the pot is going to slip off. The fold out rigid handle is so much nicer than the JetBoil fabric handle that I feel guilty even comparing the two. Solid handle, secure pour, and no burns!

I have heard complaints that you cannot use a regular pot with the Reactor. To confirm, no you cannot use a regular pot, but why would I want to. I purchased a high efficiency water boiler to conserver fuel, and boil water in all conditions. With the heat output of the Reactor, why would I want to try and simmer a dinner on such a stove. If I am going to take something that needs to be "cooked" for a while, a high efficient water boiler is just the wrong choice. Go get something like the Optimus Vega.

I liked the Reactor so much that I took it on my last 50 mile solo trek in the High Uintas Wilderness Area of Utah. Every time I used the stove, I validated my choice. One night was even in a wind that would have put the JetBoil out. If you read my previous post you know that what I called a "breeze" kept blowing the JetBoil out. The "wind" I experienced on my solo trek was no "breeze". The only minor difficulty I had was getting the stove lit. My butane lighter did not like the "wind" any more than the JetBoil would have :)  It did not take much effort to shield the lighter long enough to light the stove. Once lit, I was able to place the stove on a solid surface and boil water. I did not have to continue to shield the stove, so I could pick the best location to place the stove, even if it was somewhat exposed. You might even say I picked an exposed location to test the stove, and you would not be far from the truth.

The Reactor is a pressure regulated stove. By knocking down the pressure delivered from the canister, the stove can maintain consistent heat output as the fuel in the canister is consumed and the internal pressure of the canister decreases. This pressure regulator also helps the stove work at high altitudes where some canister stoves will not work.

There has been some chatter about a thermal one time shutdown mechanism with the Reactor. MSR does confirm the one time and done, thermal shutdown safety mechanism exists. It is a safety device in the event that the stove malfunctions and would cause the canister to overheat and possibly explode.  I cannot confirm if the JetBoil has such a device, but there is some chatter on the net that all regulated stoves now "offer" this safety mechanism. My only complaint is the one and done. What if I am half way into a two week, no resupply trip, when the stove decides to be "done". Not a good scenario. I have never experience the shutdown, and I have only been able to confirm one incident, and as such I have no pattern as to the cause. I cannot give any advice on how to avoid it.

My boil tests show that 2 cups (~500 ml) water boil in 1 1/2 minutes and used .3 oz (by weight) of fuel.

Stove systems - JetBoil

Advantages

• small
• complete system

Disadvantages

• Susceptible to wind

Notes

• packed weight: 12.3 oz (348 g)

My first encounter with a JetBoil system was on a recent trip to King's Peak in the Utah, High Uintas Wilderness area.

With very late start at the trailhead, our first camp was at Alligator Lake, only a couple of miles from the trailhead and at a relatively low altitude. After setting up camp it was time for dinner, and out came my trusty liquid fuel stove. The other stoves in the group were a top-mount upright canister stove and the JetBoil.

The JetBoil caught my attention, not because of speed of boil, which is impressive, but because of the compactness of the entire unit. The engineering to allow the stand, fuel, and pot all to nest is a great feature. The one thing I really did not like was the bayonet connection between pot and stove. As I watch the JetBoil being used, it appeared to be a hassle to disconnect the hot pot from the stove to be able to pour water out of the pot. Apparently the cosy does not do a complete job of shielding the heat, and the fabric handle is not much help either. But pack size...

So I bought a JetBoil. One of the worst decisions of my life. What a waste of money.

First use, was on my patio. Temperature was 45º, but breezy.  I honestly do not know the wind speed, but to me it was a breeze. I nearly failed to boil water. The JetBoil kept blowing out. Since the stove is directly above the canister, it is unsafe to wrap the stove with a wind screen. I finally ended up constructing a wind block with patio furniture and was able to boil water.  I have since tried two other times with the JetBoil.  One success was in near calm, the other failure in a breeze.

I had bought the JetBoil to use on a two week non-resupply extended trip, which will average above the tree line. No natural wind breaks, and now I am reluctant to trust the JetBoil and I will probably never use the stove. I would sell it, but I am having a hard time with my conscience.  Plus I do not make much of a convincing salesman, since I have nothing good to say about the stove. I cannot return it, I have used it three times, (well tried to use it three times).

One further mistake. I bought the titanium version (Sol).  The heat exchange coil is still aluminum. With the Sol, you need to be extremely careful to not melt the heat exchange coil. There are heat transfer problems from the the aluminum to the titanium. Instructions included with the Sol explicitly state that you only boil water with the stove. No cooking, no melting snow, etc...

The one time I was able to boil 2 cups (~500 ml) water without incident it took 2 minutes and used .2 oz (by weight) of fuel.  Impressive numbers when it worked one out of three times.

Stove systems

The latest advancement in stove technology seems to be the stove systems. A couple prominent examples of this technology are JetBoil Flash, the MSR Reactor, and MSR WindBoiler. The JetBoil and the WindBoiler closely resemble each other, while the Reactor has some important differences. However all three stoves share the attributes of being a complete system. The pot, burner and canister work together to form a high efficient system to boil water quickly with low fuel consumption.

For the next several posts I am going to be discussing these stove systems individually and in a bit more detail. Overall I think these systems are a good thing, but there are some small details that the vendors do not seem to want to talk about. These small details could become huge stumbling blocks for you outing.

Canister Stoves - Optimus Vega

Advantages

• Built-in stand for inverted canister stand
• Low center of gravity
• Wide pot stand
• Small total package
• Fuel efficient

Disadvantages

• 
  

Notes

• Pack weight: 8.4 oz. (237g)

This stove is the reason I do not recommend the MSR WindPro II. I had originally bought the WindPro, then upgraded to the WindPro II for the inverted canister design. A season or two after purchasing the WindPro II, I came across the Optimus Vega. I was immediately impressed with the design and sturdiness of the stove. The fact that it was a couple ounces lighter than the WindPro II did not hurt either.

The Vega fuel valve has two folding wire legs that when unfolded support the canister in the inverted position. The fuel hose is a little longer as well. The stove folds very neatly and stores in a small included stuff sack. A windscreen is also included. The whole package is significantly smaller than any other stove I have, with the exception of the Optimus Crux. The unfolded stove is also shorter than any other stove, making the center of gravity lower, and hence a more stable stove.

Do I recommend this stove. Yes! I wish that I had found this stove before purchasing the WindPro or WindPro II stoves. I could have saved myself some money. I have only used this stove a couple of times, since it is fairly new. I must still be in the honeymoon phase because I really cannot point to anything that I dislike.

One of the things I like about this stove is the burner head size.  Some of the canister stoves have such small heads, that the center of the pot is over heated while using the stove. Other stoves have such large burners, that the flame jets past the edge of the pot and heat is lost. I use a Titan Kettle almost exclusively. The Titan diameter is such, that a 8 fl. oz. canister fits snuggly inside the pot. With such a small diameter pot, many burner heads are too large. The Optimus Vega burner head is middle ground, and works very well with my Titan Kettle.  Note, the Crux appears to use the same head. This stove fold really well, with the folded legs curving around and protecting the fuel line and generator.

As I continue to use this stove, I will update this post as necessary. 

My use and testing show that the stove boils 2 cups (~500 ml) of water using a MSR Titan Kettle in 3 1/3 minutes using .2 oz. (by weight) of fuel. With the Terra Weekend HE pot, the boil time is 2 1/4 minutes, but pot weight increases significantly in respect to the Titan Kettle.

Canister Stoves - MSR WindPro II

Advantages

• Remote canister
• Canister can be inverted
• Windscreen

Disadvantages

• Separate canister stand
• Long boil time
• Fuel consumption

Notes

• Packed weight: 10.5 oz. (297 g)

On the original version of the WindPro stove the canister attachment did not swivel and inverting the canister was not very easy or practical. The WindPro II, has been modified to allow for the easy inversion of the canister, and a separate stand is supplied that attaches to the canister valve and keeps the canister in the correct position while inverted, giving access to the valve control.

I really dislike the separate stand. The separate stand just feels cheap! You attach it and detach it every time you use the stove. It is a non-folding, rigid three legged, space consuming "plastic" piece that you must also carry in addition to the stove. Being a non-metal item may make it weigh less, but it is a non-field-repairable point of failure for the stove. At least with a metal stand, you could straighten the item if it were crushed.

What makes the WindPro II better than a top mount canister stove such as is exemplified by the Optimus Crux? Two major items make the WindPro a better stove system.

First, the remote canister allows for the addition of a windscreen around the stove without heating the canister..

Second, the ability to invert the canister gives a wider range of temperature for operation. You still need a warm canister for stove ignition, but as soon as the stove is lit and hot, you can invert the canister. The pressure from the propane will force liquid contents of the canister through the fuel line and the stove then functions as a liquid fuel stove. Since very little conversion is occurring inside the fuel canister, the canister does not self-cool as quickly and you are not simply burning off the 20% propane. Note, you must have either a warm canister or enough propane in the canister to light the stove, or in liquid fuel stove terms, prime the stove. Keeping the canister inside you coat prior to using, or in the bottom of you sleeping bag during the night (if you are cooking breakfast) will to the trick.

In the inverted orientation, you will notice a lag between the time you turn off the stove, and until the stove actually goes out. This is similar to a regular liquid fuel stove. You will also notice some loss of flame simmer control.

Do I recommend this stove? No. I my opinion there is a better designed and a more efficient stove, both in terms of boil time and fuel consumption. I will discuss, in my opinion, a better stove next.

My use and testing show that the stove boils 2 cups (~500 ml) of water using a MSR Titan Kettle in 4 1/4 minutes using .4 oz. (10 g by weight) of fuel.

Canister stoves - Optimus Crux

Advantages

• Small
• Folding
• Stores in concave bottom of 8 fl. oz. canister
• Larger burner

Disadvantages

• Instability - Center of gravity (with full pot) vs. footprint diameter
• Worse with 4 fl. oz. canister
• No windscreen

Notes

• Mounts on top of canister
• Consider a stabilizer stand
• Pack weight: 3.8 oz. (108 g)

The Optimus Crux is similar to almost all canister stoves. The stove mounts directly on top of the canister and uses the canister as the base/stand. This style of canister stove suffers from the inability to use a windscreen. Using a windscreen will also reflect heat back towards the canister which is very dangerous.

This is the first canister stove that I bought. I had a trip planned for Havasupai, in the Grand Canyon. With summer temperatures and little wind in the Grand Canyon I had decided that I wanted a smaller, lighter stove. After talking with several people and doing some research I decided on the Crux. I liked the size of the burner head, and the fact that the stove came with a "pouch" that stored the stove in the concave bottom of an 8 fl. oz. canister.

After purchase, testing only re-enforced that I had made a good decision. My three day trip in to the Grand Canyon proved the stove even more. This was my mainstay summer overnight camping stove for several years, until I spent way too much money and purchased a MSR Reactor.

At the time of my purchase, I did not know that you could not use a windscreen with this style of stove, and none of my research mentioned the danger of using a windscreen with a canister. For my trip into the Grand Canyon the Crux performed flawlessly and since there was never any wind in the canyon, I never noticed the lack of a windscreen. Several weeks after the Grand Canyon trip, I took this stove on a solo overnight trip to one of my favorite fishing holes. At this particular location a light wind is always present especially in the morning and evening as the nearby valley warms and cools. That evening as I was attempting to boil water for my evening meal, I became very aware that upright, top mount canister stoves are susceptible to wind. I had to move my meal preparation area to find a more sheltered location.

On my return from the above trip, I started my research into windscreens for the Crux. I liked the stove enough, that I did not want to change to something else. At the time, no one made a windscreen for an upright top mount canister stove. Today is a different story. Optimus now makes a windscreen for the Crux and Crux Lite. Of course they have made the windscreen specifically for use with the Optimus Terra Solo or Terra Weekend HE pot, but I have found that the Titan kettle that I own is almost exactly the same dimensions as the Solo pot, and functions nicely with the windscreen. The only thing I do not like about the windscreen is it fixed size, and I have difficulty packing it since it is rigid. The windscreen does pack around the Terra Solo and Weekend pot very nicely.

You can also purchase a stabilizer stand for the canisters. These give a much wider footprint. I have found that not all the canisters have the same outside dimensions. As a result the plastic legs similar to the Optimus Canister Stand or the JetBoil Fuel Can Stabilizer work best for the matching brand canisters. The MSR Universal Canister Stand works across every brand canister that I have been able to test (Primus, Optimus, JetBoil, MSR, and several other less know brands).

Do I recommend this stove? Yes, I really like this stove, and the windscreen is not a requirement.

Note: The Crux Lite is a non-folding version of this stove which is 11g lighter. I prefer the folding version because it stores in the concave bottom of an 8 fl. oz. canister.

My use and testing show that the stove boils 2 cups (~500 ml) of water using a MSR Titan Kettle in 3 1/2 minutes using .3 oz. (by weight) of fuel. With the Terra Weekend HE pot, the boil time is 2 minutes, but pot weight increases significantly in respect to the Titan Kettle.

Comparing Stoves and introduction to canister stoves

One of the things that I have realized as I have been writing about some of the stoves I have purchased and used of the the last few decades was that I needed to put all my information on one page. As a result I have built a spreadsheet comparing weight, fuel consumption, boil time, etc. I now need to build a page showing that information. I am in progress on that page, and it will show up here in the near future. I am still trying to design how to compare the different types of stoves, namely; Alcohol, liquid fuel, and canister.

I have never been a fan of canister stoves. My dislike of canister has it roots in two things. First, the inability to know how much fuel remains, and the associated need to either carry a spare canister, or a new canister. If you always carry a new canister, you end up with a shelf full of partially used canisters.

Second, canisters suffer in performance and/or failure in cold temperatures and with altitude. If I were only a fair weather backpacker and I did not regularly backpack in an area where getting above 11,000 ft. was difficult to avoid, then maybe I would not distrust canister stoves so much.

Do I own some canister stoves? Yes, I have several.
Will I be objective in discussing canister stoves? Yes, canister stoves have their place.

A major advantage of a canister stove is the "instant on". A canister stove is a "light, adjust flame, and use" stove. Setup time is minimal. Another advantage is that the stoves are generally lighter, and smaller than liquid fuel stoves. Canister can also be significantly cheaper in price than a liquid fuel stove. Note however that canister stove systems, such as; JetBoil, Reactor, or the WindBoiler are generally more expensive than most liquid fuel stoves.

My next few post will be around the few canister stoves that I own and have used.

Before I begin I want to say a few technical things about canisters.

1. Butane requires a temperature above 31º F to convert from liquid to gas
2. IsoButane requires a temperature above 11º F
3. Propane converts a -45º F
4. Canisters containing a mix of butane, isobutane, and propane generally contain 20% propane
1. MSR IsoButane is 80/20 mix of Isobutane and propane
2. JetBoil JetPower is 80/20 mix of Isobutane and propane
3. Primus Power Gas is 50/25/25 mix of Butane, Isobutane, and propane
5. Canisters are unsafe at temperatures above 120º F. Bulging and/or rupture and explosion are likely. The real warning here is that you should never use a windscreen that encloses both the stove and canister together!

For temperatures below freezing, using a butane/propane canister with an upright canister stove. Only the 20% propane fuel is available, and when that 20% propane is consumed, the stove will cease to function with 80% of the fuel still in the canister. Inverted canister stoves are designed to fix low temperature canister issues and for the most part are successful. You should note that the process of converting from a liquid to a gas causes cooling. This cooling occurs inside the canister. So while the butane will quit converting a 31º F, outside temperature may be will above 31º F. In fact, I was using a canister in 43º when the stove went out. The canister still had some fuel, but until I warmed the canister, (by placing the canister in a shallow bowl of tepid water), I was unable to relight the stove.

Liquid Fuel - Optimus SVEA

Advantages

• No pump
• Proven design
• One piece
• One moving part (the valve)

Disadvantages

• Small fuel reservoir
• heavy

Notes

• White gas only
• Integrated fuel reservoir
• Pack weight (w/o fuel): 22.2 oz (629 g) w/cup, 19.6 oz (557 g) w/o cup 
• Include "pot" extremely small

Originally introduced in 1955, this stove remains essentially unchanged. The only noticeable changes are the internal jet cleaner, valve angle, and the modifications to the valve key tool. The original valve had a downward angle from the stem. The new valve is perpendicular to the stem. I assume the change in angle is to facilitate the internal jet clean. The changes to the key are of little importance since the key is only used to turn the valve and has cut outs to fit the jet and hex nuts for maintenance.

I bought this stove for a couple of reasons.

First, this stove remains essential unchanged since 1955 and is still available today. How many stoves can boast that longevity. I just wanted one. Since I have more advanced stoves, I doubt that I will every carry this stove into the back country.

Second, this stove has no pump and bridges the gap from the simple alcohol stove, to the pressurized liquid fuel stoves. One of the drawbacks to alcohol stoves is their susceptibility to wind. Without pressure behind the flame, the flame moves around like a flame on a candle. One of the drawbacks to liquid fuel stoves is the pump. A pump failure is catastrophic. I have never had a pump fail, but it is a complex piece of the stove. The SVEA does not have a pump, yet works as a pressurized stove. As I do presentations to groups about backpacking, I like to have this stove that bridges the gap.

In the most simple terms, the SVEA uses heat from the burn to self pressurize. Like other liquid fuel stoves, you must prime the stove. The integrated fuel reservoir is heated with the priming, causing pressure to build. The burner is also heated converting the liquid to gas and allowing the stove to produce a good blue flame which perpetuates the process. Word of warning. The stem and valve get very hot and if you leave the key on the valve, that heat is transferred to the key. You will burn you fingers adjusting the flame! Always remove the key from the valve after making any adjustment.

The SVEA burner is the classic inverted bell similar to the DragonFly and Nova stoves.

The noise level is similar to the Nova stoves, which produce less noise than the DragonFly stove. The SVEA also has a "buzz" beside the classic jet engine sound.

The included aluminum "pot" is too small to be of any value other than a lid to the packed stove. Since there are not "parts" for the lid to hold in place, that does not even make a good reason to carry the "pot" as a lid.

One thing to note. The stove has performance issues with older fuel. With newer pressurize stoves you will probably not notice the performance difference using older fuel unless you use a stopwatch to time your boils. With the SVEA you will notice that the stove does not produce a consistent flame and tends to sputter. I discover this by accident. I had an old fuel container with a few ounces of fuel left in it that was several years old. I used that older fuel in the stove just after I purchased the SVEA. The stove performed so poorly that I was beginning to wonder if I had a bad stove, or if the "cult" like following of the SVEA was just that, a "cult". I finally dismantled the stove, cleaning the jet, the tank, and everything else I could find. I poured in new fuel, and the difference was night and day. The stove performed so well that I wondered what I had done that fixed it. I then had a thought about the fuel, so I swapped out the fuel for the older fuel. Stove went back to not working very well. Changed the fuel out again to new white gas, and I had a functioning stove that performed very well.

With newer and lighter stoves available to me, the SVEA has not yet made it into my backpack. My decision not to carry the stove is all about weight. The fuel reservoir carries enough fuel for a few nights, any longer trip length and you need to carry addition fuel. The extra fuel and bottle make the SVEA even less appealing because of stove and fuel weight. The SVEA performs as well as any other stove, and is uses about the same amount of fuel as my most efficient liquid fuel stoves. It is just heavier than the newer stoves.  For an overnight or for a weekend trip, the SVEA competes very well since no additional fuel bottle is required. Newer stoves require the fuel bottle which raise their weight to be comparable to the SVEA that does not require a fuel bottle (for short trips).

My use and testing show that the stove boils 2 cups (~500 ml) of water using a MSR Titan Kettle in 5 minutes using 2/5 oz. (by weight) of new white gas.

Liquid Fuel - Optimus Nova+

Advantages

• Four season
• Fuel efficient
• Fine grain flame control
• Non-Plastic pump (durable)
• Fuel line purge
• Fuel bottle pressure purge

Disadvantages

• Weight
• Non-Plastic pump (weight)
• Noise level

Notes

• Multi-Fuel: Optimus Arctic Fuel, white gas, kerosene, diesel, jet fuel
• Pack weight: 18.9 oz. (535g)

My first impression of this stove was "wow". It is well built. It has a wide set of legs and pot supports. After using this stove several times, my opinion has not changed. I am impressed. The weight is a little high, but to have a stove this solid, I can understand the little extra weight. However, the stuff bag is really odd. It has pockets for the stove, pump, and probably the windscreen. However, the factory folded windscreen does not fit in to any pocket. In fact, the pump really does not fit well, it keeps falling out of the pocket. The whole stuff sack unzips down the side to lay flat. Bottom line, the stove really does not fit very well in the stuff sack. With everything in the stuff sack, I am unable to completely close the opening with the drawstring. No matter how I arrange the stove, pump, tool, and windscreen, it just does not fit! To have a stove that impresses with it's engineering only to have a less than useful stuff sack is just dumb!

The Nova more closely compares to the DragonFly stove because the second jet adjustment is at the stove. The Nova+ modifies the Nova slightly by using the fuel line as the second jet adjustment. While I was initially hesitant about the design, I have really come to appreciate it. Since the fuel line just turns the threaded flame adjustment jet in and out, I see no more of a point-of-failure than either the Nova or the DragonFly. The advantage is that the windscreen does not need to be arranged around the second jet adjustment level. I like the design.

When I first started writing about remote liquid fuel stoves, I mentioned a couple of issues that plague most remote liquid fuel stoves. The Nova+ not only addresses the simmer issue, but also the issue of fuel left in the fuel line after use. Optimus has designed this stove and pump, so that after you are finished using the stove, you flip the fuel bottle over. The fuel line to pump connection is designed to let the fuel bottle swivel. The inverted bottle raises the fuel intake out of the fuel and allows you to burn off the fuel left in the fuel line, and evacuate the pressure from the bottle. Very nice useful feature. You do not have to worry about the fuel spraying in your face when you remove the pump, or the fuel leakage into your pack from the fuel line.

My use and testing show that the stove boils 2 cups (~500 ml) of water using a MSR Titan Kettle in 5 minutes using 2/5 oz. (by weight) of white gas.

Liquid Fuel - MSR SimmerLite

Advantages

• Light weight
• Faster boil times

Disadvantages

• MSR no longer produces this stove
• Uses more fuel to achieve faster boil times

Notes

• Pack weight: 11.5 oz. (327g)
• Single fuel: White gas

What terrible name for this stove. Luckily I bought this stove for its weight, not for the promise the name implies. Like almost all remote liquid fuel stoves the SimmerLite does not excel at "simmer". If you need "simmer" capabilities you need to look at the MSR DragonFly, Optimus Nova, or Optimus Nova+. From a quick search on the Internet MSR took quite a bit of flack for the inability of the poorly named SimmerLite to actually simmer.

I actually like this stove, but I only use it to boil water (or melt snow). Having previous experience with the inability of remote liquid fuel stoves to simmer, I never thought too much about the name. You know a name is after all just a name. My regret is that one of the lightest liquid fuel stoves is now off the market. Since, I almost exclusively, backpack in North America where White gas is always available, a single fuel stove is not a disadvantage.

The burner technology for the SimmerLite is similar to the WhisperLite.  If you look at a WhisperLite stove vs. a DragonFly stove you will see many differences but the one I am referring to is the burner where the WhisperLite has a typical gas stove type flame spreader, while the DragonFly has a inverted bell with a concave flame spreader. The result for the SimmerLite is a much quieter operation.  The inverted bell and concave flame spreader of the DragonFly make like a small jet engine.

One interesting note is that the MSR Windpro II stove is the canister stove twin of the liquid fuel SimmerLite. So MSR is still making the burner, but just jetting it for canister. Too bad there is not a conversion kit. If the name was the reason they quit sell this stove. MSR should have just changed the name and re-marketed the stove. Luckily the pump is identical to the WhisperLite so if I ever need to replace or repair the pump I can. Since all the seals and O-rings reside in the pump I am also covered with the Maintenance kit.

My use and testing show that the stove boils 2 cups (~500 ml) of water using a MSR Titan Kettle in 3 minutes using 3/5 oz. (by weight) of white gas.

Liquid Fuel - MSR DragonFly

Advantages

• Liquid fuel
• Fine grain adjustable flame
• Efficient

Disadvantages

• Weight penalty for adjustable flame
• Noise level (not quiet)

Notes

• Multi-fuel is: White gas, unleaded auto fuel, kerosene, diesel, jet fuel
• Pack weight: 16.8 oz. (475g)

There are two things to note about almost all liquid fuel stoves with an external fuel bottle. I say "almost" because I know of a few stoves that solve either one, or both items. Inverted canister stoves share these same issues to some extent.

First, external liquid fuel bottles stoves are basically designed to boil water. These stoves lack the fine grain flame control required to simmer. Which I discovered on a trip, when I tried to make pancakes. My only excuse was that it was my first extended trip and only my second trip ever with the stove and I just did not think about "simmer" since I usually only boil water for dehydrated food.

With the fuel bottle some distance away from the stove, and the valve controlling fuel flow located at the bottle you can begin to understand the issue. With the valve open, the liquid fuel with pressure from the bottle pushes down the fuel line, then spews through the jet, where it ignites and burns to boil your water. If you close the valve to decrease the flame, less fuel is delivered down the fuel line, and less pressure pushes it. What I am trying to say is that the flame begins to sputter. It does not go out, but it no longer burns at a constant level.

While you can simmer, the stove really functions best at higher flame output.

The MSR DragonFly addresses the flame adjustment issue, and does so very well. The DragonFly adds a second valve at the stove just before the jet. This allows you to leave the fuel valve open to deliver fuel at pressure to the stove, then restrict the amount of fuel delivered through jet controlling the flame. The only penalty you pay, is the slight increase in weight caused by the hardware of the second valve. I measured the weight difference of my WhisperLite International to the DragonFly at 2 oz. (~55g). Note that the stove utilize different burner technologies so the weight difference cannot all be attributed to the second valve.

One other thing to note is that the DragonFly burner technology, shared by many liquid fuel stoves from various vendors, is rather noisy in operation. The WhisperLite uses a different burner technology and is quieter in operation.

Second, when finished using the stove, and you have closed the fuel valve. The fuel line remains full of fuel. While the fuel in the line is a very small amount, it will still seep out. I you immediately pack the stove after use (and cooling) then you may get fuel on something in your pack. You will definitely have a fuel smell in your pack. This is not a major issue, just something to be aware of. There are a couple of stoves that address this issue, and I will discuss them in the future.

My use and testing show that the stove boils 2 cups (~500 ml) of water using a MSR Titan Kettle in 3 1/2 minutes using 2/5 oz. (by weight) of white gas.

Liquid fuel - MSR Whisperlite International

Advantages

• liquid fuel
• reliable
• Quiet operation (not silent)

Disadvantages

• Stove becomes covered with soot if primed with white gas or kerosene
• Requires priming

Notes

• Multi-fuel is: White gas, unleaded auto fuel, and kerosene
• More suited to boiling
• Pack weight: 14.9 oz. (421g)

You will notice that I did not list multi-fuel as either a pro or a con. I do all my backpacking in North America and white gas is readily available and I have no need to use kerosene. I have tried kerosene with this stove, and it does work very well. However, the priming for kerosene leaves the stove heavily covered with soot that gets on everything. As the stove heats to a glowing red, the soot detaches and floats in the air. When it lands it leaves a black soot stain. You will get soot on your hands, the storage bag, clothing, and even you pack if you are not careful. So I just quit using kerosene. Since I use denatured alcohol to prime the white gas, I do not have any soot reside. However, alcohol does not burn hot enough to prime the kerosene! If you use white gas to prime the stove, you will have some soot to deal with.

The stove comes with a heat reflector, a windscreen, storage bag, pump, maintenance wrench, o-ring and pump cup oil, and instructions in several languages.

The stove does not include the fuel bottle.  MSR fuel bottles are available in three sizes. 11 (~300 ml), 20 (~600 ml), and 30 (~900 ml) fl. oz. models. The fuel bottles now come with a "child proof" cap that only adds weight (28g). MSR sells an expedition fuel cap for a price that weighs 11g. An empty bottle without the cap is 86g. When I purchased my bottles the expedition cap was the standard. I really dislike the new cap so much that I have looked at other vendor's bottles. Unfortunately I discovered that all the vendors have gone 'CYA' with the new heavy useless caps, and sell the ones you really want for an added cost (which I think is too high).

My use and testing show that the stove boils 2 cups (~500 ml) of water using a MSR Titan Kettle in 3 1/2 minutes using 1/2 oz. (by weight) of white gas. A full 11 fl. oz. bottle will hold about 8 oz. of fuel (by weight).  You can do the math. I used the Whisperlite International in the Wind Rivers of Wyoming for a week cooking (boiling) for two people and came home with a half full bottle of fuel.

My "go to" liquid fuel stove

I have never really given up backpacking. The first few years after I married my wonderful wife, our outings became mostly day hikes that could be done in the area. I still managed an overnight trip occasionally. I took my young son on several trips where he carried a small day pack, and I carried everything else. I still remember our first overnight trip. I was so worried that he have a good time, and that I was prepared for any emergency. I carried an 85 lbs. backpack. Of course my son was about 5 years old at the time.

When my son entered scouting in the mid 1990's and I was ask to tag along as one of the "dads", I began to inventory my gear. Several years at a desk job had convinced me that I was no longer willing to carry an 85 lbs. backpack. One of my first gear changes was, once again, a stove.

Doing some research and visiting several outdoor stores, I discovered MSR stoves. There was a very limited backpacking stove selection in most stores, and most of the stoves being sold were canisters stoves. Not the canister of today, but canisters that had to be pierced when attaching the stove, and could not be disconnected until the canister was empty. Very few liquid fuel stoves where on the shelves in my area.

MSR was well represented, and as I did some investigations, I was impressed by the ability to field maintain the stove. A maintenance kit could be purchased and carried. The fuel container could be attached, detached, refilled for each trip. I decided that I liked the Whisperlite International stove. I thought the ability to use kerosene was important since it was less volatile that white gas. I soon purchased the Whisperlite International stove.

Two decades later I still have that original stove. I have never had any field issues with my Whipserlite. I have used it in sub-zero weather, altitudes about 12,000, and one week long outings using less that 5 oz. of fuel. I have learned that using kerosene is not something I would recommend. It is messy. Priming the stove is difficult because kerosene need a higher temperature to vaporize. It leave a heavy soot on the stove. I would only use kerosene if no other fuel was available!

Until recently I had great faith in MSR and their product line. In recent years it seems that the product quality and product selection has diminished. I have no hard facts to back up the decline in quality, other than several product failures I have had in the last couple of years with new gear. I must note that MSR has been quick to replace the failed gear, but that didn't help much when my new water filter failed on the second day of what was supposed to be a four day outing! I like to blame this on their acquisition but a larger company, and on more worry about the bottom line as big companies seem to do. Don't get me wrong, their equipment is still better than almost any other equipment that I have compared it to. Just maybe not, in my opinion, what it once was, or still could be.

Would I recommend a MSR Whisperlite International stove? Yes, I would. The stove meets and/or exceeds expectations and is still my "go to" stove. At about 15 oz. (in the pack weight) it is not my lightest liquid fuel stove, but neither is it my heaviest, and I am not counting my Peak 1 stove.

3 1/2 minutes to boil 500 ml water using 1/2 oz. (15g) of white gas in a MSR Titan Kettle.

Note: Some time ago I started tracking my fuel use by weight, not volume. I made things simpler for me. I could weigh the fuel bottle or canister on any scale and know how many boils (meals) I had in the bottle and how much weight I was adding to my pack. No conversions to specific weight and volume required.  So when I say 1/2 oz. of white gas, that is by weight!

Learning from mistakes

As I was putting away my alcohol stoves, I began to reminisce. Sitting on the shelve were the stoves that I have acquired over time, beginning in the mid to late 1970's.

My first backpacking trip should have soured me to backpacking. As a scout, I was not involved with the planning, but as I recall we were supposed to hike every other day. Fishing on the off days. The first night out, the plans changed as the adults talked with people on the trail. We ended up hiking every day from daybreak to dusk. We went down a wrong fork for most of a day.

Instead of vowing to never go backpacking again, I realized how unprepared I really was for the trip. My pack was home made, and very heavy (without gear). Cooking on an open fire after extremely long tiring days was a bad experience.  Heavy sleeping bag. No map or idea of our planned path. The list could go on and on.

We lived in a small town and, looking back, I realize how tight money was for our family.  Even then my parents were able to get me a new pack for Christmas. Later they contributed a better sleeping bag, and even added backpacking tent. I still have all that gear. The bright orange pack never fails to remind me of the many trips I took as a youth.

Since water filtration was not a necessity at the time, the most important problem for me to solve was the cooking over a fire. It took significant time, blackened cook ware, and left a scare on the land. Without any knowledge of backpacking stoves and without ready access to any data to do research, and with only one sporting goods store in town, my choices were limited. The local store catered more to fishing and hunting than anything else. Everything in the camping section seemed to have the Coleman label. My older brother, by nearly a decade, was into scouting as a leader and had just purchased a Coleman Peak 1 stove. So I did as well, mostly because the Peak 1 was the only stove available to me at the time. The stove is heavy (1 lbs 14 oz. or 837 g)  and bulky. But this stove solved my dilemma at the time. The attached fuel chamber and pump work flawlessly. The Peak 1 also has a built in jet cleaner. The folding legs make a steady platform. Liquid fuel so I could use the stove in the winter

Coleman still sells a version of this stove today as the Sportster and markets it as a backpacking stove. While I bought this stove in my youth, I cannot recommend it for backpacking today. There are too many better choices and over the course of the next few post I hope to explore them.

Stove preferences

The last few days as I have posted about some alcohol stoves causing me to reflect on how my stove preferences have changed, yet remain the same.

When I first started using a stove, I did very little research and chose a stove because someone I knew had the stove.  Selection was limited at the time, research difficult (no Internet), and funds were tight. My selection was a Coleman Peak 1, now marketed as "Sportster II dual fuel™1-burner stove". Other than color, mine is black, the stove appears identical.  Now the Peak 1 is heavy and bulky, but after much use and many trips I began to get an idea why a stove was a basic backpacking necessity.

Cooking over a wood fire may sound fun, but it really is messy, difficult, and time consuming.  While a backpack stove is none of the above.  Of course today, fire restrictions are in place in most, if not all areas.

My next stove was another liquid fuel (petroleum) stove. I enjoy winter camping and the liquid fuel stove alternate, a canister stove, was not a viable option for temperatures at or below freezing. Canister stoves also did not perform well at altitude, and I backpack at or above 10000 ft regularly. I also regularly enjoy winter camping. So I bought a liquid fuel stove that has a remote fuel reservoir. Today almost all liquid fuel stoves utilize a remote reservoir.  The obvious exceptions being the Coleman stove mention above, and the Optimus SVEA.  The stove I bought was the MSR Whisperlite International.  My Whisperlite is several decades old and I have never had an issue.  I bought the stove because of the ability to use kerosene. The reality, after using kerosene a few times, I went back to white gas because it was less hassle to prime.

After years of using liquid fuel, I was planning a trip into the Grand Canyon (Havasupai) with some friends. I was looking for something small and light, for a warm climate. As a result, I purchased my first canister stove on the recommendation of the local shop. It was the Optimus Crux, and it folds and stores in the concave bottom of a 8 oz. canister. The ease of use and convenience of the canister stove had me wondering if I should change from my liquid fuel stove.  Some investigation showed me that canisters still had low temperature problems and some minimal altitude issues. FYI, the fuel in a canister stays a liquid at following temperatures, butane 31º F, isobutane 11º F, propane -43º F. So in a mixed fuel canister at 0º F, only the propane will be available to burn, leaving butane and isobutane in the canister. If you do the math, you see that an 8 oz. canister has very little fuel available to burn even though the canister seems almost full. Some vendors have started making a remote canister where the canister can be inverted. These stoves use the propane pressure to push liquid butane to the stove. The stove then functions as a liquid fuel stove. Of course you still need to be able to light them before inverting the canister. The MSR Windpro II and the Optimus Vega are two such stoves.

Then came my alcohol stove phase. These stoves have absolutely no moving parts. Nothing to break down in the field. Their drawback is the heat to fuel ratio, which translate to weight you must carry in fuel.  More fuel is required to boil than either the liquid petroleum, or canister stoves. And alcohol stoves are very sensitive to wind since the flame burns without pressure.  Think candle flame. The slightest air movement deflects the flame (heat) from your pan.  Ultralight, fun to build your own, but ultimately for me, not my go to stove.

Then came my stove system phase.  The JetBoil, MSR Reactor are examples.  Both stoves are great systems.  My testing showed that the JetBoil suffers from wind.  In fact, I have had this stove blow out on me multiple times.  The Reactor does not suffer from wind, but is more difficult to light. Both stoves have a regulator, that makes the stove work on a much lower canister pressure. This helps the stove perform better in colder weather, and higher altitudes.  It is my understanding that both stoves have an over-heat kill mechanism that is a "one and done" system. If the over-heat triggers, the stove will no longer work and needs to be replaced.  Both stoves are extremely fuel efficient. But I continually worry that the stove will kill itself during one of my extended "no resupply" trips.  So I always carry a backup canister stove. I have become enamored with the Reactor, and I prefer it to the JetBoil.  The new MSR WindBoiler reminds me of the JetBoil, only without the wind issue. I actually dislike the bayonet connection of the JetBoil. I backpack and this feature is just in the way for me. So the WindBoiler does not really have a place in my pack. However, I must note that the WindBoiler contains the same kill mechanism as the Reactor, but with one difference. You can reset it, once. My pack configuration with the Reactor is to carry the Optimus Vega as my backup since it is small, light, and with the inverted canister has some cold weather capabilities.  Why not just carry the Vega. My 1 liter Reactor boils water in about 70 seconds, wind screens are not allowed.  The Vega, three minutes, and the use of a wind screen is almost required.

What does all this mean?

My preferred stove, especially for extended trips and all winter camping, is still a liquid fuel (petroleum) stove. It just gets the job done! I always have a fuel bottle with enough fuel for my trip. No need to carry a second canister, and then need to carry out the empty canister. FYI, for an 8 oz. canister, the empty canister weighs at least 5 oz.

For shorter trips, only a couple of days and not in the winter. I may grab the Reactor with the Vega as backup.

For overnight trips in the summer.  I may grab the Crux because it is small and light.

I almost never take an alcohol stove.  Not by any conscious decision that there is something wrong with them. I normally carry either a liquid fuel (Petroleum) stove, or the Reactor, so I seem to just take either one of those stoves and my alcohol stoves sit idle. The reason may be that I use my liquid fuel stove so often, that I feel more comfortable with it than any other stove and the Reactor still has me enamored.

Habits are hard to break.

Alcohol Stoves (Fuel bottles)

Whether you use a canister stove, a petroleum fuel based stove, or an alcohol fuel stove you must transport your fuel.

Years ago, I purchased two red Nalgene fuel bottles, a 500ml and a 1000ml bottle.  The year was 1978, and I had just purchased my first stove and I was looking for a way to carry fuel for that stove. The Nalgene fuel bottle label states "You can safely store white gas, kerosene, gasoline or stove alcohol in this fuel bottle".  The bottle has a pour spout that stores inside the bottle mouth. Nalgene no longer produces these bottles which to me is sad, because they make excellent alcohol fuel bottles.

Apart from the now unavailable Nalgene fuel bottles, I have never seen a fuel bottle labeled for alcohol available in my area. In my area I can purchase MSR fuel bottles or Optimus fuel bottles.

MSR fuel bottles

First, alcohol and aluminum do not mix well.  Alcohol causes the aluminum to corrode to a white powder.  MSR bottles are unlined aluminum.  Do not use MSR fuel bottles for alcohol!

Optimus bottles

While made of aluminum, these bottles are lined, much like soft drink cans. For an experiment, I placed some alcohol in one of the fuel bottles and left it for six months. When I opened the bottle, there was white powder around the O-ring seal, and the green outside paint was bubbled around the mouth.  Apparently there is a gap between the interior coating, and the exterior paint.  I would not use Optimus fuel bottles for alcohol.

Plastic

I have seen disposable water bottles used to carry alcohol.  While this works, those bottles are now so thin that I would not feel comfortable using them.  I suppose that you could use sport drink bottles since they are a bit more sturdy.  But I have found a bottle and a cap that I like better that any alternative that I have found, and the cap is the reason.

Trangia makes a plastic bottle specifically for alcohol. The Trangia bottles come in 300ml, 500ml, and 1000ml sizes.  What makes the bottle different than the Nalgene bottles, (besides the fact that you can still purchase them). The pour spout. Every time you use your alcohol stove, you must pour fuel into your stove. The ability to pour without spillage is extremely important. The Nalgene bottle was great because of the included pour spout. The Trangia bottle is better.  For the Nalgene, you opened the bottle and pulled out the spout, reversed it, and placed it back in the mouth of the bottle. You always got some fuel on you hands. With the Trangia bottle you turn the top nob, to pour you depress the top. When the stove is filled, you release the top, and turn the top nob to tighten the seal.  No spills, no mess.

Note that the opening of the Trangia bottle is the same thread pattern and diameter as the MSR and Optimus bottles. I have never broken the Trangia cap, but for the more paranoid you could use a more rugged cap, and carry the Trangia cap for pouring. Plastic is the way to go, find what works for you.  For me, I will use a Trangia bottle.

300ml, 500ml, and 1000ml bottles
placed on a 8.5" x 11" carbon felt
to show relative size

Alcohol stoves, buy or build

Would I buy an alcohol stove, or build one?  The answer depends on my use.

BSA (scouting)

For BSA (scouting) you must purchase a stove. The BSA regulations for stoves explicitly prohibit "Equipment that is handcrafted, homemade, modified, or installed beyond the manufacturer’s stated design limitations or use. Examples include alcohol-burning “can” stoves, smudge pots, improperly installed heaters, and propane burners with their regulators removed." Notice how the BSA explicitly calls out "can" stoves. Because of the screw lid and snuff ring I would favor the Trangia or Esbit stoves, and add a separate wind screen and stand. The Trangia Triangle being very good candidate for a stand. I would add an aluminum wind screen similar to the ones that come with MSR stoves. You can find instructions on making your own wind screen on the web.

If I had the funds, I might consider purchasing the pricey Evernew stove set.  I would have to weigh the ability to conserve fuel to the lighter titanium stove. I am impressed with this stove system.

Use not including BSA

I would build a soda can stove, solve the pot stand problem, and use an aluminum wind screen.

To solve the stand and wind screen issue I am experimenting with the Vargo Hexagon Wood stove as combination wind screen and pot stand. The Hexagon works great as a stand. I believe the wind screen should shield past the division between stand and pot.  This keeps the wind from deflecting the flame away from the pot. Since the pot sits on top of the Hexagon, there is no protection at the division. I need to field use the Hexagon to validate the wind screen aspect.

There are other stands and wind screens, you can even make you own. I am still experimenting with the pot stands and will update this post when I reach a conclusion.

One of the reason I really like the Trangia 27 stove system is the stand, wind screen and pot design. The stove actually seems to perform better in a breeze than in absolute calm. The Trangia 27 is just too bulky and too heavy for me to want to carry.

Alcohol Stove (Vargo Triad)

Pros

• Integrated pot stand
• Lightweight

Cons

• Difficult to fill
• Difficult to light
• Small flame
• Long boil times

The Vargo Triad is the first alcohol stove I tried.  I was in a local stove, and the stove was on sale for a small price and I impulse bought it.  Even though the cost was low, I have regretted that purchase many times. Simply put, the stove fails to perform.

This small lightweight stove solves one of the problems with alcohol stoves.  That problem is where to set my pot.  The built in stand and the light weight are the only good things about this stove.  When filling the stove you must take care because the alcohol enters the small filling hole at a very slow rate. You must always fill the stove to capacity (2 oz or 60 ml) in order to light the stove. You fill the stove until a small amount of fuel remain at the bottom of the concave top.  You then light this small pool of alcohol and wait (and wait) for the stove to bloom.

I have devised a work around for faster lighting which I will explain.  But you will still need to completely fill the stove in order to boil 2 cups (500 ml) of water. In order to facilitate lighting the stove, I created a small "pre-heater" (inspired by the Trangia winter attachment) from one of the left over pieces from constructing a soda can stove.  I use the cut out, concave bottom to hold several drops of alcohol which I light, then push under the Triad, this starts the stove very quickly.  The concave "flash pan" then stores on top of the stove, being held in place by the folded pot supports.

On my one and only field use, the stove failed to boil water with one filling.  I had to refill the stove in order to achieve a boil.  Under ideal conditions, (no wind, 72° ambient), the stove took 9 minutes to boil 2 cups (500 ml) and consumed 1.8 ounces (50ml).  

Vargo Triad	Pre-heater
Pre-heater in position	Pre-heater stored. Stand and legs folded

Alcohol Stove (soda can)

Pros

• Lightweight
• Low cost

Cons

• Easily damaged

Soda can spirit burners are, in my opinion, where all the fun is at with alcohol stoves.  Made from two soda cans, these spirit burners work just like the commercial version.  Several web sites have good instruction on how to make these stove.  This site has some very good instructions with visual aids and templates.

With an abundance of empty soda cans, I made so many stoves that I started giving them away.  I experiment with the number of burner holes, the size of the burner holes, placement of the burner holes.  I even made some side burner soda can stoves.  I experiment with all the different variations. My observations were a little surprising in light of my expectations.  I found that burner count and holes affected the boil time and fuel consumption.  Larger holes burned more fuel, but did not decrease the boil time proportionately.  Same with more burner holes.  I finally just arrived at what I thought was the "best" combination.  More to do with ease of construction than science.

For my top burner stove, my boil time (using the Trangia Mini pot) were

Number holes	Boil time	Fuel
32 small	6 minutes	1oz. (30ml)
24 small	6 minutes	1oz. (30ml)
24 large	5 1/2 minutes	1.2oz. (35ml)
side burner	5 minutes	1.6oz. (45ml)

Soda can stove suffer the same drawbacks as other non Trangia stoves.  No way to snuff the flame, no way to conserve fuel from one use to the next use within the stove, no pot stand, and no wind screen. I must note that the stoves are sturdy enough to support a pot with 500ml of water.  Of course the only stove that will actually burn with a pot sitting on it is the side burner.  But the flames of the side burner, with the pot sealing the stove, shoot so far from the stove that most of the heat is lost past the width of the pot.

You will need a pot stand and wind screen for this stove.  I am currently using the Vargo Hexagon Wood stove for a combination pot stand and wind screen.  The jury is still out on the the Vargo Hexagon.  It flexes with the weight of a pot on it, but it has never failed.

Top burner 24 small hole	Top burner 24 large hole
Small hole vs. large hole side-by-side	Side burner

Alcohol Stove (Evernew TI DX set)

Pros

• Lightweight
• Pot stand
• Wind screen
• Fluid level markings
• Cold temperature configuration
• Compact, stove nest in stand

Cons

• Stability, especially with large diameter pot
• Wind screen performance
• No way to conserve fuel from burn to burn
• No obvious method to snuff stove

The Evernew TI is made from titanium.  The pot stand/wind screen is also made from titanium. Total package weight is 3.2 ounces (90 g). Since I already have a MSR Titan kettle I did not purchase the Evernew pot that is part of the Appalachian set.

One of the first things you will notice about the Evernew stove is that it has two rings of burner holes. When the stove is first lit, before the bloom, the flame burns from the large center hole, then jumps to the upper ring of holes, and immediately jumps down to the lower ring.  While burning, the upper ring of hole appear to not have any flame coming from them.  They appear to simply facilitate the bloom.

The time to boil 2 cups (~500ml) of water in the MSR Titan kettle was about 41/2 minutes.  This is faster than any of the Trangia stoves that I tested.  I also noted that the Evernew spirit burner used, by weight, the same amount of fuel as the Trangia stoves that I have tested.

One thing that I missed with the Evernew burner, was the ability to snuff out the stove. In a separate test, without the stand, I was able to place a pot over the stove and snuff it out.

Since there is not a lid for the Evernew spirit burner, the remaining fuel either needs to be poured out, or left to burn off. The two level nature of the burner made reclaiming the alcohol nearly impossible without a wide mouth jar or funnel to capture the liquid as it pours from two locations.  Burning the fuel off seems a better solution than reclamation. You will burn more fuel, than the Trangia, since you cannot conserve fuel from one use to the next.  I have found that predicting the fuel needed is also difficult since fuel use varies with wind and temperature.

The cold weather screen stores under the burner, and when in use is between the burner and the pot. The screen reflects heat back to the burner help maintain a good burn, plus radiates heat to the pot.  I found that the screen adds about 30 seconds to the burn, at the same temperature as the test without the screen. The screen also upped the fuel consumption.

On really odd thing to me, was the warning about refilling a hot stove.  This warning is stamped into the bottom of the stove and can only be read if you invert the stove.  The one place you cannot see if the stove is hot!

One other note.  I also purchased the Ti Cross Stand.  That was a major disappointment.  While small, light weight, and has a larger pot bearing surface, the boil times increased by about one minute.  I suspect it has to do with the distance above the stove that the pot is at, and the cross stand has the pot too close to the stove.  I have include pictures of the cross stand.

Note: The stove and stand are a dull silver/gray out of the box.  The blue you see in the photos is what happens to titanium when heated and then allowed to cool.  Adds a nice look, but does not effect the stoves performance.  Probably messes with the metal hardness, but I have not looked into the science of it, since I have not noticed any softening of the stove or stand.

Packed DX set	Stand base, stand upper (inverted), Ti spirit burner, and cold weather screen
Cold weather screen in storage position of lower stand	Burner place in lower stand. Note cold weather screen stored under burner
Assembled DX set w/burner	Assembled DX set w/burner and cold weather screen place into position.
Ti Burner w/disassembled cross stand	Assembled cross stand
Ti Burner with cross stand in position	Odd place for a warning

Dreams of a lighter pack vs reality

My plans for my major summer backpacking trip have yet to solidify. As I study maps of the area I plan to visit, I keep changing my route wanting to see it all.  One thing keeps coming up.  No matter which route I take or how many days I plan to stay out. Everything I will need I must carry in my pack.

Over the years I have gone through several phases on what to carry.  When I first started backpacking, back pack stoves were basically unheard of in my area.  I did not know a single person that had one.  We cooked over an open fire, carried relatively heavy equipment.  Dehydrated food was not very tasteful.  But I carried a relatively light pack, with just the bare essentials.

As the years went by, my equipment changed.  I also added a stove and water filter.  Dehydrated food quality improved. While I essentially carried more gear, the weight of the pack remained about the same.

Along the time line I married a wonderful lady, and our family came into being.  While my son was still quite young, I remember taking him back packing with me.  I also remember the 80 lbs. weight of the pack I carried.  I no longer carried just the essentials.  I also carried the 'just in case', and extra items that would make for a good experience for my son.

Later, when my son was in the BSA, and going on outings, I was invited along by the Scout Master to help out. Again, my pack contained extra stuff, 'just in case' some scout had problems.  While it did not weigh 80 lbs.  It did weigh 60 lbs. Then came the extended trip into the Wind Rivers of Wyoming.  For this trip, my son and I made some gear changes, and I decide that all the 'just in case' stuff that I had carried, and never used, would not be making the trip.  As a result, my pack weighed 34 lbs.

After my son aged out of scouting, and my professional life became quite demanding. I found that extended trips became nearly impossible to plan, and a simple over-night trip was about all I could manage.  During this time, my eight year old daughter asked if she could join me on my over-night trips.  Suddenly my pack went back to the 60 lbs range. As I carried extra gear, 'just in case', so that my daughter could have a good experience.

My daughter and I have been backpacking for almost 15 years now, and my pack has slowly diminished back to the 45 lbs. range.  While we split gear, I still have a tendency to carry the majority of the gear to lighten her load, but she is always pushing back to let me know that I can quit protecting her.

She is now in college, and our trips have become harder to orchestrate.  So I have started to solo hike. I have added a satellite phone, gps, and solar charger to the pack as safety devices.  This has added some weight, but not a significant amount.  What I have found is that I take more 'just in case' gear again, because I do not have someone else to rely upon for help.  To reduce that weight I have invested heavily in ultralight gear.  I now worry about ounces.  I check the weight of stoves, bags, filters, etc. before purchasing.  I have been able to keep the weight in the 45 lbs. range by doing so.

I have become a gear head. I still probably carry too much gear, but each solo trip trims unused gear from my pack. I hear of backpackers that go for a week (or more) with a sub 20 lbs. pack and I do not know how they do it. The area that I pack in is extremely remote, high altitude (above 10,000 ft), and on my last trip, I did not see another person for the entire trip.  The weather can change from sunny to snow, 80° F to 20° F in a matter of hours (if not minutes).  I must carry gear for all conditions, so I will continue to carry 45 lbs. and dream of a lighter pack.   Happy trails....

Alcohol Stoves (Trangia Triangle)

Pros

• Small
• Lightweight
• Stuff sack
• Trangia burner will also fit in stuff sack

Cons

• Mediocre wind protection
• Separate pot required
• No included burner

Unlike the previous two Trangia stoves I have written about, the Triangle does not come with a spirit burner.  Trangia clearly states the fact that the burner is not include on their web site.  The packed weight (with Trangia burner) is 9 ounces (254 g).  A Trangia burner can be carried in the same stuff sack as the Triangle.

Of all the Trangia stoves, this is the smallest and lightest.  The stove contains three flat stainless steel panels, a ring to hold the spirit burner, and a stuff sack.  The three panels nest and when disassembled lie flat. The whole thing, minus the burner is less than a 1/4 inches thick.  You should also note that unlike the other Trangia stoves, the Triangle does not include a pot.  The Triangle will not nest in a MSR Titan kettle, but will nest in the MSR Titan pot.

The boil test with 2 cups (~500ml) of water took 7 minutes. This is shorter than the Trangia Mini and I chalked this up to the slightly better wind protection.  Note that I used the Mini pot for the test. Where Mini has some deep cutouts that expose the burner to the wind the Triangle is a solid wall up to the tab that supports the pot.  The wind only chance in the small window directly below the pot. This is not complete wind protection, but significantly better than the Mini.

I am impressed with the Triangle.  The Triangle packs small, but when assembled is very stable. However, the fact that a burner is not included seems odd to me. Why sell what is basically a stove, but without the heat source?

Packed (I also placed a burner in the stuff sack)	What comes in the package
Stand assemble without stove holder	Assembled Triangle without burner
Assembled Triangle and burner ready for use