View Full Version : This stove gets no respect...
I'm not selling these or proselytizing for the Zip stove, but I've carried one for several hundred miles. It doesn't seem to get much mention, and I've never seen a thru hiker carry one. Anyway, it's a curious little beast, and mine served me well. I'm posting this "FYI". It's not an endorsement, and I'm not going to defend the stove or argue about it.... others may do as they wish, or maybe Sgt. Rock would like to add this to a FAQ somewhere. Here goes...
Zip Stove Summary
Advantages
* No need to carry fuel
* burns almost anything (pine cones, knots, etc.)
* Infinite cooking time (make elaborate meals)
* "personal campfire" on cold, wet days
* generally reliable
* very high BTU output, once it's going
(boils water quickly)
Disadvantages
* tough going when it's been raining for days
(solution: carry fire-starter materials)
* requires fire-starting skills
* requires constant attention while cooking
(feeding more fuel into stove)
* time required to gather fuel, start the
stove, and cool it after use
* your cookware will be covered with soot
(and most likely so will you...)
* Needs AA battery
* Weighs 18 oz, including battery
Summary
The Zip stove offers the advantage of
needing no fuel other than that which you
collect at camp, off the forest floor.
It uses a small fan, powered by a single
AA battery, to create a very hot and
surprisingly clean-burning wood fire.
Fuel is reduced to pure ash. One battery
provides several hours of cooking time.
Its main disadvantage is that it's fussy
and dirty. It takes time to collect fuel
and start the stove, and once it's lit,
you must feed more fuel into the stove
every couple of minutes. This stove will
help hone your fire-starting skills!
If you spend a lot of time in camp and
like to do a lot of cooking, it's not a
bad choice.
The "personal campfire" feature is not
to be dismissed, and really needs to be
experienced. No other stove offers this.
URL and more info
http://www.zzstove.com/
Good post, TT.
I, too, like the advantages of a wood stove. I've experimented with a number of them; even built a few of my own.
This week I received a BushBuddy (http://www.bushbuddy.ca/). It's a work of art; impeccable craftsmanship. I hope to test it this coming week. Got any experience with it?
This week I received a BushBuddy (http://www.bushbuddy.ca/). It's a work of art; impeccable craftsmanship. I hope to test it this coming week. Got any experience with it?
No, but it would be interesting to compare with the Zip. The BushBuddy appears to be passive (no fan) and 7 oz. lighter. I'm guessing it would not burn as hot or as cleanly as the Zip. (The proof of that is what's left or not left in the burn chamber after you're done cooking.)
FWIW, there is a lighter, smaller, Ti version of the Zip stove as well, but I haven't seen or tested it. Thanks for the link to BushBuddy. I didn't know about this one, though I know of other passive wood-burning camp stoves.
this type of stove would be great on extremely long, un or barely supported hikes. There the extra weight of the stove would be compensated by the reduction of alcohol (or other fuel) weight
this type of stove would be great on extremely long, un or barely supported hikes. There the extra weight of the stove would be compensated by the reduction of alcohol (or other fuel) weight
It's far removed from the notion of fast & light hiking, Jardine-style. OTOH, it's not a bad choice for section hikers who enjoy camping as much as they do "making miles." ;)
Amigi'sLastStand
12-24-2006, 11:26
I've heard of this thing, but never seen one. I'm quite interested in buying one. I've made hobo stoves all my life before the small reliable stoves came out. Kinda brings me back to my boy scout days. I doubt I would carry one on a thru, but sectioning around Fl like I do these days, this thing would be great.
For all you tinkering engineer types, the ultralight zip stove...
http://www.monmouth.com/~johno/ZIP.htm
I've heard of this thing, but never seen one. I'm quite interested in buying one. I've made hobo stoves all my life before the small reliable stoves came out. Kinda brings me back to my boy scout days. I doubt I would carry one on a thru, but sectioning around Fl like I do these days, this thing would be great.
Why not carry a Zip on a thru hike? I found the Zip to be an excellent choice for my walk home from Georgia in 1993. I found I could start a fire and have water boiling about as quickly as anyone I camped near.
The Zip's advantage is the freedom from worry about fuel. For philosophical and budget reasons I tended to eat a lot of unprocessed rice that required 20 minutes of cooking. For that a Zip is unsurpassed. One load of wood brought the water and rice to a boil. After than only a simmer is required, achievable with the occasional introduction of a few twigs.
I never found a blackened pot any problem. Just keep the pot in one of those free plastic bags every store insists on giving you.
IN addition to a personal camp fire, more importantly, a Zip provides a personal smudge for keeping bugs away.
Weary
Too late, but I was going to predict Weary would be here shortly!
StarLyte
12-24-2006, 11:53
Too late, but I was going to predict Weary would be here shortly!
HA ha yes!
Two Speed
12-24-2006, 11:58
Weary or terrapin_too, can you give some kind of estimate of how long a battery lasts? That always struck me as the Achilles Heel with those critters.
Weary or terrapin_too, can you give some kind of estimate of how long a battery lasts? That always struck me as the Achilles Heel with those critters.
Many hours. The manufacturer says 6 hours, my experience was even longer. It uses a single AA battery.
Weary or terrapin_too, can you give some kind of estimate of how long a battery lasts? That always struck me as the Achilles Heel with those critters.
Don't mention achilles. He's put me on crutches for two months. But batteries have never been a particular problem. I never did bother to count the burn hours. But I fired my Zip at least twice a day -- sometimes when it was cold three times (nothing like hot soup for lunch.) Plus I often boiled two quarts of water for use the next day.
I remember batteries lasting at least a week or more. When I ran out, I'd borrow from my mini-mag flashlight or my tiny radio.
Weary
PS. Here's an email I just sent to the Zip stove folks. FWIW.... AA batteries come with ratings up to about 2700 mAH, so even with my "suspect" stove, that's well over six hours' use, at the high setting.
---------------
Good day.
It seems my Zip isn't running as efficiently as it used to. I may have banged the fan to where the motor shaft is slightly bent. Fan still turns, but is noisy... and the stove eats batteries quickly.
I measured approximately 400 mA in "HI" setting, 200 mA in low setting. What is the expected value here? Are these readings within normal range?
If not, could you kindly provide me with a quote and ordering information for a new motor and/or motor assembly? Thank you.
Raphael Bustin, Happy Zip Stove user
aka "terrapin"
ref: http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?t=19866
I mostly agree with terrapin's advantages and disadvantages of the Zip. In fact my partner and I started out with a Zip in 2000. The thing burned like a blast furnace and boiled water in short order. However, after a couple of weeks we dumped the Zip for a Whisperlite. Soot from the stove got on everything (even though we were careful), the initial smoke made us virtual outcasts at shelters and campsites (visible smoke is not a problem after it starts burning hot) and dry fuel can be a problem. A good idea, but not for me.
I mostly agree with terrapin's advantages and disadvantages of the Zip. In fact my partner and I started out with a Zip in 2000. The thing burned like a blast furnace and boiled water in short order. However, after a couple of weeks we dumped the Zip for a Whisperlite. Soot from the stove got on everything (even though we were careful), the initial smoke made us virtual outcasts at shelters and campsites (visible smoke is not a problem after it starts burning hot) and dry fuel can be a problem. A good idea, but not for me.
Roland Mueser attributes the Zip's obscurity to the "fuss factor." And that's what eventually caused me to set it aside. There's something to be said for "energy independence" on the trail, but after one tires of the soot and black fingers and smudge.
First, thank to Terrapin for the Zip stove info he PM'd me. I'll have to update my doc to make mention of this stove.
(As a side note..when people say I'll PM you, have to do a double take. My initials are PM. (Paul Magnanti) :) Anyway...)
The benefits of the zip stove are great for a wooded environment, but think the stove can be problematic for alpine and desert hiking. If there is a fire ban, suspect the stove would not be kosher to use.
So many stoves...so many choices!
Johnny Swank
12-24-2006, 15:35
I'd love to think that I could use one for every meal, but I know I'm too lazy for that. I did cook a few of my meals over a small cook fire the last trip I was on, and would probably go that route again on another thruhike. Having an alcohol stove for backup when the weather was ratty helped tremendously though.
3 stakes in the ground to hold up the pot, a handfull of twigs, and a few minutes later the water was boiling. Not too bad.
Amigi'sLastStand
12-24-2006, 18:11
Why not carry a Zip on a thru hike?
"Fuss Factor":( , "Soot Factor":mad: , "Fear Factor":eek: , "Nuclear Reafactor":rolleyes:
FWIW, I got a reply from someone at ZZ stove today -- yes, Christmas morning. A new motor is $7.25 plus $7.00 shipping, and can be ordered from their website. She didn't comment on my motor-current measurements, but reiterated the six-hour cooking time spec. I ordered the new motor and will take new measurements when it arrives.
wow, i pressed the purchase button on the BUSHBUDDY becuase I was sure I wanted it. Then i seen the $85.00 price tag and am now conviced they are absolutely mad!
Not trying to hijack the zip stove thread. I have one optimus stove and three pepsi can stoves and I would love to smell the smoke of wood burning on my hikes while I cook up some grub. Problem is, a battery for a wood stove, in my mind, negates the entire idea. oh well. I should get off my lazy arse and try to make my own hobo stove.
Problem is, a battery for a wood stove, in my mind, negates the entire idea. oh well. I should get off my lazy arse and try to make my own hobo stove.
I understand your apprehension, but the fan is what makes this stove burn so cleanly. You can do a lot of cooking on one AA cell.
I understand your apprehension, but the fan is what makes this stove burn so cleanly. You can do a lot of cooking on one AA cell.
And a double A weighs less than an ounce. The alternative is a pint or more of alcohol or white gas -- think 16+ ounces.
Weary
but the fan is what makes this stove burn so cleanly
Can you explain to us how it is that the fan makes this stove burn so cleanly.
Thank You
Can you explain to us how it is that the fan makes this stove burn so cleanly.
Fire = heat + oxygen + combustible material. The fan and the stove's design enhance the first two parts of that equation.
The burn chamber is double-walled. The fan draws cool air in from the top of the burn chamber into the space between the double walls. That air is heated as it moves downward along the sides, and the hot air is reintroduced from the bottom to burn the fuel in the burn chamber.
It may burn cleanly to reduce wood to ash but it certainly doesn't burn cleanly enough not to soot the bottom of pots.
It may burn cleanly to reduce wood to ash but it certainly doesn't burn cleanly enough not to soot the bottom of pots.
It does burn cleanly to reduce wood to ash.
It does soot the bottom of any cookware placed on it.
That has been my experience.
A trick we used to use when we only cooked on wood to help keep the bottom of the post clean was to take some soap (doesnt have to be a lot) and wipe it on the bottom and lower sides of pot. after cooking is done, a little water takes the soot right off.
And a double A weighs less than an ounce. The alternative is a pint or more of alcohol or white gas -- think 16+ ounces.
Weary
Hmmm. What is the weight of the stove?
A pint, 16 fl ounces, of alcohol weighs 13 ounces.
If you boil 1 pint twice a day you need to carry ~1.5 oz/day so 13 ounces is fuel for ~8 days.
One's stove & wind shield can weigh an ounce or less.
How does that total 14 ounces compare to the zip stove's weight?
On none of our long trails do we need resupply longer than 8 days & usually much less. Crossing the Arctic tundra by foot, perhaps, or extending the CDT walk northward beyond Waterton Lakes the fuss & soot factor would (might?) overcome the weight disadvantage.
But burning wood/cooking certainly smells far better, looks far better, and probably even feels far better than metering out .5 oz alcohol and firing it up to cook one's grits & whatever:D
Hmmm. What is the weight of the stove?
That question was answered in the first post of the thread.
That question was answered in the first post of the thread.
Sorry. It weighs 18 ounces, I see. The extra weight carried for the inconvenience would become a factor for some, no matter how much better it smelled. It makes me wonder, though, whether a lighter variant might begin to narrow down the Zip's preponderant weight disadvantage. Alternatively, whether that simple hobo stove would compare even more favorably. There is something decidedly more 'romantic' about gathering one's fuel as one went along, rather than just pour it out of some little plastic bottle.
Sorry. It weighs 18 ounces, I see. The extra weight carried for the inconvenience would become a factor for some, no matter how much better it smelled. It makes me wonder, though, whether a lighter variant might begin to narrow down the Zip's preponderant weight disadvantage. Alternatively, whether that simple hobo stove would compare even more favorably. There is something decidedly more 'romantic' about gathering one's fuel as one went along, rather than just pour it out of some little plastic bottle.
Well, there are certainly are lighter alternatives. There's a lighter/smaller Ti version of the Zip stove, or the hacked version that Sly linked to, or the passive wood burner stove that Roland mentioned.
I think this kind of stove has appeal for those who put as much stock in camping as they do hiking. Less so for hikers who want to move fast with a light load and spend minimal time at camp.
Two Speed
12-26-2006, 11:13
The zip is intriguing, but for me the major disadvantages are:
Batteries. I'm trying to reduce the number of batteries I carry, not increase them.
Moving parts. Got enough of that scene taking care of my old Peak 1 Multi-Fool. Yeah, I know the zip isn't as much of a pain as the Peak 1. Could be that I've got an allergic reaction to that sort of thing.
Soot. Methyl alcohol burns a lot cleaner. Yes, I caught the tactic of using a grocery bag, but the fact that soot's running around means you will get some on your gear. I have enough trouble staying reasonably clean without all that.
That said, I'm coming to view the zip as being in the same class as a JetBoil. If a hiking partner wants to carry one that's cool with me. The idea of a little campfire every night does have it's appeal, kind of like the good coffee a JetBoil will punch out.
TT, if we ever hike together, please do bring your zip. I see an opportunity to argue about the merits of the various stoves while enjoying a small campfire every night and working up a decent cup of coffee on the Trangia every morning. Life is good, no?
Happy Trails!
That said, I'm coming to view the zip as being in the same class as a JetBoil. If a hiking partner wants to carry one that's cool with me. The idea of a little campfire every night does have it's appeal, kind of like the good coffee a JetBoil will punch out.
The JetBoil and the Zip couldn't be more different. But oddly, it was seeing the JetBoil in action at Glen Brook shelter that finally caused me to abandon my Zip stove. There were a couple of thrus there with me (Stick and Flying Turtle) who each had a JetBoil. They had cooked and eaten, and were putting away their stoves... just about the time I'd finished boiling the water for my Liptons on my Zip stove.
I think this kind of stove has appeal for those who put as much stock in camping as they do hiking. Less so for hikers who want to move fast with a light load and spend minimal time at camp.
I guess I'm not much of a camper. I don't move very fast, but I like to lighten my load where possible.
What do "campers" do when they're not hiking, that they couldn't do while hiking?
A zip weighs four ounces more than a homemade alcohol stove plus typical fuel weights. But it produces 10 times the BTUs. The extra BTUs really don't matter if all you need is a cup or two of boiling water.
The Zip comes into its own only if you are boiling water to do some low cost real cooking using generic rice and other ingredients, or sterilizing water to drink on the trail the next day.
The soot is a non issue as far as I'm concerned. A blackened pot is a more efficient pot. After a few days the soot hardens so that very little rubs off anyway. Anyone bright enough to keep a sleeping bag dry on a long distance hike, surely can figure out how to keep soot from the contents of a pack.
Weary
Two Speed
12-26-2006, 12:05
What do "campers" do when they're not hiking, that they couldn't do while hiking?Listen to their iPods? :D
Listen to their iPods? :D
LOL... You almost read my mind. I was waiting for "read a book" which to me is about the same as listening to music or another form of 'escapism" on the trail.
What do "campers" do when they're not hiking, that they couldn't do while hiking?
Nap. Read. Take pictures. Hang out. Drink. Smoke. Play hackey-sack. And eat hot food -- not necessarily limited to Liptons. ;)
Two Speed
12-26-2006, 12:10
. . . Anyone bright enough to keep a sleeping bag dry on a long distance hike, surely can figure out how to keep soot from the contents of a pack.
WearyMaybe I'm not smart enough. Or I just don't feel like putting in the effort. Could be I happen to find my Trangia good enough for me. Hard to tell, ain't it?
Of course that leaves batteries and the moving parts issues. Those could be problems for me due to a lack of intelligence or it could be that I've chosen to solve my cooking problem with a different method.
I'd start a flame war regarding intelligence but I think I've got a better way to solve this: I'll extend the same offer to you as TT. If we ever hike together, please bring your zip, etc, etc, etc.
Two Speed
12-26-2006, 12:12
LOL... You almost read my mind. I was waiting for "read a book" which to me is about the same as listening to music or another form of 'escapism" on the trail.Okey dokey, you got me there. I thought long distance hiking was a form of escapism. :-?
Okey dokey, you got me there. I thought long distance hiking was a form of escapism. :-?
Well of course it is, but sometimes you need a vacation from your vacation, especially when the vacation last 5-6 months.
I remember a dialogue I used to have my group on the CDT once we got in town and after we did all our chores. "So, what are you going to do this weekend?" "I hear there's good trail near here, let's go hiking!"
Two Speed
12-26-2006, 12:29
Mmmm, dealing with the essential paradox of life, are we? Dang, I thought we were arguing about stoves.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: if anyone decides to go hiking with me please don't be shy about bringing your zip. This argument will probably never be settled, which could make it the perfect trail debate!
This argument will probably never be settled, which could make it the perfect trail debate!
What argument? The one about stoves? I think any serious hiker... should have at least one of every kind. :cool:
max patch
12-26-2006, 12:38
My Zip has the optional grill attachment which I've used to grill pork chops on.
Zip is a great stove to take on short hikes. As mentioned by others, I wouldn't use it on a thru due to the fuss factor. My Svea was 100% reliable on my thru with a fuss factor of zip (pun intented).
Maybe I'm not smart enough. Or I just don't feel like putting in the effort. Could be I happen to find my Trangia good enough for me. Hard to tell, ain't it?
Of course that leaves batteries and the moving parts issues. Those could be problems for me due to a lack of intelligence or it could be that I've chosen to solve my cooking problem with a different method.
I'd start a flame war regarding intelligence but I think I've got a better way to solve this: I'll extend the same offer to you as TT. If we ever hike together, please bring your zip, etc, etc, etc.
All I'm saying is resolving the soot problem is easy, and except for those with a foolish aversion to a natural phenomenon that humans managed to live with for millennia.
I know that for most Americans cleanliness has become more important than godliness. I'm just saying it shouldn't be, especially for long distance hikers.
As for which stove to carry, that is a personal decision, but one that ought to be made on the basis of facts -- weight, convenience, time. Add soot to the list if you want. I just never found it to be a problem, probably because I grew up in a family that had a wood fire going all winter. And my wife and I still use a wood-burning kitchen range, circa 1918, for many of our winter meals, and for supplemental heating.
Weary
Two Speed
12-26-2006, 13:18
All I'm saying is resolving the soot problem is easy, and except for those with a foolish aversion to a natural phenomenon that humans managed to live with for millennia. . . Okey dokey, now I'm foolish? I don't believe I've been so proud since Baltimore Jack called me moosecock. :banana
Okey dokey, now I'm foolish? I don't believe I've been so proud since Baltimore Jack called me moosecock. :banana
Only if you have an unantural aversion to a substance that humans lived and prospered with for most of human existence on this earth. Blackened pots began to disappear when Ben Franklin invented the iron stove, but soot remained an everyday occurence in most homes until sometime in the 30s and 40s when electric and gas stoves became popular.
WEary
Two Speed
12-26-2006, 14:43
Weary, from my standpoint you've got an unnatural attraction to soot. However, each to their own, and I'm sure this debate could be much fun should we ever get a chance to hike together. Besides, you never know: after seeing how you handle the critter I might come around. Probably not, but it's possible.
Fire = heat + oxygen + combustible material. The fan and the stove's design enhance the first two parts of that equation.
The burn chamber is double-walled. The fan draws cool air in from the top of the burn chamber into the space between the double walls. That air is heated as it moves downward along the sides, and the hot air is reintroduced from the bottom to burn the fuel in the burn chamber.
The only way I see the fan having an influence on the stove being clean is the fact of the volume of air passing over the fuel and taking away the ash that is being produced as the fuel burns. The fan is blowing the ash up and into the surrounding area, thats why you don't see it in the burner bowl. The lack of ash in the burner bowl is not an idication of burning cleanly!!!!!
There is alot of testimony here that it burns dirty, even you state that in your opening summary and I quote:
It uses a small fan, powered bya single AA battery, to create a very hot and surprisingly clean-burning wood fire. Fuel is reduced to pure ash. One battery provides several hours of cooking time.Its main disadvantage is that it's fussy and dirty. It takestime to collect fuel and start the stove
I also believe the introduction of hot air for better combustion is untrue. I believe cold air has more oxygen per volume than hot air. The more oxygen, the better the burn. Some of you have read my statements that say never deprive your stove of oxygen.
I believe the double walled design to be insignificant to the performance of the zip stoves that are of that design.
The instruction sheet that came with my SIERRA gives no indication that it burns cleanly, it does indicate that the use of the small plastic "T shirt" bags that you get at the grocery store can be used to put the stove into before you put it into the kettle to keep the kettle clean. It also states that if you use wood as fuel, the volitiles in the wood will blaken the pot(I agree whole heartedly that it does do that.) and when you get home you can spray oven cleaner on the stainless steel kettle to clean it.
To say that zip stoves burn cleanly in my opinion is "Urban Legend"
Sgt Rock, Skids and Maker have recently done tests on a zip type stove, maybe they can give some info on wether or not that particular stove burned cleanly.
I believe the double walled design to be insignificant to the performance of the zip stoves that are of that design.
Where are you coming from, with this? Do you own one of these, or are you just surmising? Did the designers of the Sierra Zip Stove just pull this idea out of their butts?
Look, I started this thread saying that I wasn't here to defend the stove. But I am quite familiar with its strengths and weaknesses, from personal experience, on the trail. What I know is that, once the stove is going, you can throw almost any kind of "wood" into it... and that when you're done, what's left is .... ash. I can also tell you that very few other stoves can match its heat output, once it's going. It's quite the little blowtorch.
I also do not deny for a moment that "soot happens" with this stove.
LOL... Yeah I also agree the stove doesn't burn cleanly, perhaps efficiently but not cleanly...
Not my words, but from Sierra's website:
Why does the SIERRA work so well?
Fuels burn better with hot air. The air for combustion in the SIERRA is preheated to high temperatures before it enters the burner bowl by circuitous routing within the burner. This gives the good combustion. The air flow has another important function; it cools the burner bowl to assure long life. Under cold conditions, it becomes very important to preheat the cold air coming into the combustion chamber. It may be necessary to use the low speed or cycle the fan on and off to reduce the air flow or to use extra dry wood to get a good fire started.
I kindof doubt that you'll see anyone out here in the PNW using a zip stove this time of year. You'd have to call in an airstrike with napalm first, just to dry things out. It'd be a whole lot easier to light my Trangia for a hot meal.
I kindof doubt that you'll see anyone out here in the PNW using a zip stove this time of year. You'd have to call in an airstrike with napalm first, just to dry things out. It'd be a whole lot easier to light my Trangia for a hot meal.
I did cite that as the first disadvantage. :D
Ironically, I found myself carrying a few oz of denatured alcohol as emergency firestarter. Throw some kindling in a baggie with a 1/2 oz. of alcohol. Swish it around for a bit. Pour the drunken twigs in the stove, touch it with the lighter... and WHOOOOF. In dryer conditions, I made it a point to find a bit of birch bark each afternoon/evening while approaching camp.
Two Speed
12-26-2006, 18:22
Zelph, couple of thoughts for you: reaching WAY back into the NETS 81/21* at Georgia Power, where us idiot Laborers were introduced into coal power plant design it was impressed on us that bringing the incoming charge of fuel and air as close as possible to combustion temperature, but not over that limit, before introduction into the firing chamber was essential to efficient combustion. I have little doubt that this is Sierra's strategy and it tracks neatly with what little I know of boiler design. Next, per volumetric unit cold air would have more oxygen. That can be more than compensated with by inducing a larger volume. Yep, per cubic foot there's more oxygen, but the presence of the fan means there's a lot more of them cubic footsies.
*New Employee Training School, Class 21, 1981. Impressed that I can use acronyms like that? No? How about the fact that I remember that crappola from more than 20 years ago?
You can get a replacement motor for the zzip at Radio Shack for about three bucks if I remember correctly.
Did the designers of the Sierra Zip Stove just pull this idea out of their butts?
Ohhh Myyyy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Please do us a favor, send an email to them and ask them where they got the idea from.
Thank You and please be nice.:banana
P.S. I'll be baaack this evening to answer some of your questions.
Ohhh Myyyy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Please do us a favor, send an email to them and ask them where they got the idea from.
No need, Zelph. See messages #56 and #53. I'm surprised you're still trying to argue your case.
If you're splitting hairs over my initial description of the stove (" surprisingly clean-burning") that's maybe another matter.
Some photos taken just now of the stove in use...
stash of "fuel" for cooking (http://www.terrapinphoto.com/zipstove/fuel.jpg)
primed and starting to heat water (http://www.terrapinphoto.com/zipstove/early_burn2.jpg)
cooking pot, before use (http://www.terrapinphoto.com/zipstove/clean_pot.jpg)
cooking, good flame in burn chamber (http://www.terrapinphoto.com/zipstove/burn_with_pot2.jpg)
boiling (http://www.terrapinphoto.com/zipstove/boiling.jpg)
ash left in burn chamber, after use (http://www.terrapinphoto.com/zipstove/after_use.jpg)
cooking pot, after use (http://www.terrapinphoto.com/zipstove/dirty_pot.jpg)It took just under eight minutes to bring a quart of water to a rolling boil. If I'd been more attentive, and fed fuel more regularly, it probably would have taken a minute or two less. I'm a bit out of practice with this thing. ;)
I really like this thanks for the photographs. I don't think the soot would be a problem for only me. just the battery and fan. :( I am going to go find how much this stove costs right now though.
Zelph, couple of thoughts for you: reaching WAY back into the NETS 81/21* at Georgia Power, where us idiot Laborers were introduced into coal power plant design it was impressed on us that bringing the incoming charge of fuel and air as close as possible to combustion temperature, but not over that limit, before introduction into the firing chamber was essential to efficient combustion. I have little doubt that this is Sierra's strategy and it tracks neatly with what little I know of boiler design. Next, per volumetric unit cold air would have more oxygen. That can be more than compensated with by inducing a larger volume. Yep, per cubic foot there's more oxygen, but the presence of the fan means there's a lot more of them cubic footsies.....
Soot is a natural product of combustion in almost all wood burning devices. It is simply unburned carbon because the flames lacked the oxygen for full combustion, or because the unburned ingredients of smoke condensed out on the bottom of a cooking pot. The one exception was the wood burning boiler invented by University of Maine Professor Richard Hill 35 years ago. I used one to heat my house for 18 years.
The Hill boiler used forced draft to heat burning logs to 2,000 F temperatures and required that all the smoke (think soot) pass through the 2,000 degree part of the boiler before escaping to the chimney. The high temperature burned everything that could possibly be burned in the smoke. As a result, three months after I had the boiler in operation, a neighbor asked me when I was going to hook my boiler up, since he had never seen smoke come out of my chimney.
The Hill boiler solves the common problem of wood, which is the delay between lighting a fire and the need for warmth, and the tendency of a wood fire to keep producing heat long after the heat is no longer needed. His solution: Send all the heat to a thousand gallon insulated tank of water and draw heat off the stored hot water rather than flames directly.
The Zip stive is a primative version of the Hill boiler. It burns wood, pine cones, newspapers, whatever is combustible, under forced draft.
The difference is the Zip has no way of funneling the smoke through the hottest portion of the fire. When the fire hits a pot full of liquids (maximum temperature 212 +/- degrees) the soot condenses out on the bottom of the pot.
As I've said several times, that doesn't pose a particular problem for me, I just keep the pot in a free plastic bag. Others less discerning or with a more paranoid adversion to black stuff, may think that too complicated, but I never found soot a problem. IN fact I welcomed soot on my pot as a way of increasing the efficiency of the tranfer of heat to my rice and vegetables.
BTW. the last I heard, Profession Hill, Professor emeritus, University of Maine, is now in his 90s and is still alive and active. He submitted testimony to the LURC commission in opposition to the Redington wind power proposal, claiming, rightly, that there were far better ways of harnessing the energy of the sun, i.e. burning a natural product of the sun, wood.
Weary
generoll
12-27-2006, 22:25
Hmm, so if you burn wood (cellulose) at a high enough temperature you don't release CO2 ( a greenhouse gas I believe)? Not that it has anything to do with Zip stoves, but since we seem to have gotten a plug in against windmills while talking about Zip stoves I thought that perhaps some clarification was in order.
FWIW, I used and still have an old Zip stove. It worked fine, but it's not practical for use in a tent and I have a floorless tent in part so that I can cook in my tent on rainy days. An open tarp might be a possibility, but that's an entirely different topic.
applejack
12-27-2006, 22:26
i carried the titanium zip to katahdin in 03 and i love the thing. 9oz or so, the battery will be replaced about every 3 weeks. soot on the pot? dir, my titanium pot came with a nylon sack the inside of which gets coated soot black, but nothing gets any tinting outside the sack. the stove came with a nylon sack too. ya learn what tinder burns best and pick it up trailside 10 minutes before you stop to use it. never could i not get it started, in wet weather just use a bit more of zip corps' firestarter and more wood to keep it burning hot. breakfast, dinner, hotdogs on a stick, inside shelter wood stove fires, it's all good! they're safe- all them burn rings in shelters and picnic tables ain't zips, it's the wisperlites n alcohol stoves. i don't go to the woods cause i wanna whiff coleman fuel hangin in my pack's side pocket! well over a thru-hikes time of use on this one and much more than that to come!
p.s.- the crimps that hold the unit together eventually would let the unit fall in two pieces when dumping ash, i just got a rivet gun and put 3 in the upper rim and 3 in the lower- problem solved. up there with the most valuable pieces of my hiking gear -applejack, gloucester mass.
I'm surprised you're still trying to argue your case.
Not me, I'm just enjoying your thread and sharing some information.:)
[quote]
Do you own one of these, or are you just surmising?
Yes, I own one. I stated in one of my posts that I did. Read my posts in their entirety:)
Here is a photo of it and it is flanked by two "StarLyte" fuel cells (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v228/obijiwa/starlyte066.jpg)setting on their sides with one fluid ounce of denatured in each all ablaze. Notice!!!!!nothing spills out, totaly spill proof.
Where are you coming from, with this?
A friend of mine is into high performance engines, he talks my ears off about how he improves performance. He is the one that educated me to the importance of the air being cool when introduced to the fuel. Here is some information that supports my way of thinking and where I'm coming from:
Colder is Better
By Karl Brauer
Email | Blog
While reading through the last few columns of Tech Center, you may have noticed a trend relating to cold air. Specifically, colder is better. When discussing the function of drum and disc brakes, it was stated that disc brakes are superior because they dissipate heat more rapidly, thus keeping the brake system cool and providing improved stopping power. A similar statement was made in regard to turbocharging, in which an intercooler is used to cool the compressed air after it leaves the turbo and before it enters the intake manifold. Finally, in our column discussing the workings of nitrous oxide, a specific mention was made about the tremendous "cooling effect" nitrous oxide has on the intake charge and why this effect helps increase horsepower.
With all this cold air blowing around, it might sound like we should just pack our bags and move to Fairbanks, Alaska, so our cars can finally operate at peak efficiency. From a pure automotive performance standpoint, it's not a bad idea. But it's tough to enjoy serious automotive performance in such a snowy climate (not to mention the dreadful guy/girl ratio up there), so a less drastic alternative seems in order.
One of the more common methods of improving vehicle performance, with regards to cooler temperatures, involves directing cold, outside air into a vehicle's engine compartment. This differs from the use of intercoolers in the sense that an intercooler is a container, much like a radiator, that passes air through it to reduce the temperature. In a cold-air system (or fresh-air system as they are sometimes called) a passageway (or series of passageways) is used to provide a cooler, oxygen-rich air charge to the engine. In an ideal system, the air is funneled directly into the engine's intake system for maximum efficiency.
As with the intercoolers used on turbocharged vehicles, the cooler outside air offers a more dense mixture of oxygen and a more powerful explosion when combined with fuel. It's this promise of increased horsepower that compels many current street racers to either hack open their hoods or to purchase aftermarket hoods with a "scoop" already installed. This is somewhat laughable since the use of cool air for increased horsepower has become standard procedure for new cars and is already utilized on most models, whether performance oriented or not. Though it rarely involves a hole in the hood, close inspection of the lower grille or bumper area will often reveal an opening that feeds into a system of pipes and eventually stops at the intake manifold. There are exceptions, of course, like the current Camaro SS with a hood that bumps performance (both perceived and actual) with its gaping maw.
An interesting bonus to cold-air induction relates to its effect at higher speeds. Depending on the location of the initial opening and the efficiency of the system, it's completely possible to get a "ram" effect from the force of the incoming air. In other words, at higher speeds the incoming air will actually start to compress in the combustion chamber during the intake stroke, creating a supercharger-like effect. (This ram effect is the basis for the "Ram Air" nomenclature that has been used on performance Pontiacs since the late 1960s.) No, you're not going to see a 30-40 percent increase in power just by letting cold air into the engine compartment and driving 100 miles-per-hour. However, an effective cold-air system can improve quarter-mile times by as much as three-tenths of a second; not a bad result for just letting some cool air into the engine. And since cold-air systems involve no drain on the engine, unlike turbochargers and superchargers, they cause no reduction in gas mileage or increased engine wear. Except for the small cost to design and install the cold-air piping, it's about the closest thing to free horsepower you'll find on modern automobiles.
Like we said, colder is better.
http://www.edmunds.com/ownership/techcenter/articles/43839/article.html
Here is more information:
Mechanics
All cold air intakes operate on the principle of increasing the amount of oxygen available for combustion with fuel. Because cooler air has more density for a given volume, cold air intakes generally work by providing cooler air from outside the hot engine bay. http://www.answers.com/topic/cold-air-intake
A little more:
http://lists.osourcery.com/pipermail/bricks/2004-October/008698.html cold air versus hot
As I find more I'll post them. I'm not wrong to give my opinion on the statements that are made by stove makers.
This information pertains to cold air being introduced to a fuel. Form your opinions, I have. No need to double wall a wood burning stove!!!!!!!!
It's OK to add a fan to supercharge it:banana , I love that oxygen, never deny your stoves oxygen.............
Hmm, so if you burn wood (cellulose) at a high enough temperature you don't release CO2 ( a greenhouse gas I believe)? Not that it has anything to do with Zip stoves, but since we seem to have gotten a plug in against windmills while talking about Zip stoves I thought that perhaps some clarification was in order.
FWIW, I used and still have an old Zip stove. It worked fine, but it's not practical for use in a tent and I have a floorless tent in part so that I can cook in my tent on rainy days. An open tarp might be a possibility, but that's an entirely different topic.
The products emitted by a Zip Stove are identical to the products emitted by decaying wood. A Zip over time, neither increases nor decreases the emissions that produce global warming.
For the chunks of wood I burn to heat my house, I shorten by a few decades the natural recycling of carbon. The tiny twigs, cones, bark and fireplace ends I burn in my Zip have zero impact on the climate. All wood eventually decays, releasing CO2 and other pollutants. The half decayed wood found on the forest floor that I burn in my Zip speeds the process by at most a year or two.
It matters not to the planet whether my Zip fuels decay today from heating my supper, or next summer from the natural decay engendered from laying on the damp forest floor.
Weary
generoll
12-27-2006, 23:11
Kinda skipped over the issue of windpower versus wood burning for heat or energy production didn't you? But then this thread is about Zip stoves and not windmills or heating your house with wood.
Just as an aside, the first time I used my Zip stove it was a rainy day and the wood was wet. I thought my pot had sprung a leak because of the water droplets that I saw forming on the bottom. I first thought it was leakage, but as I watched it I realized that it was the water vapor from the wet wood which was condensing on the still cold bottom of the pot. As the water warmed the drops disappeared. If my memory serves, the original Zip stove instructions claimed that after the fire was going you could turn off the fan and it would sustain itself just from the draft created by the flame. Never worked for me, although it was a practical way of simmering if reduced heat was what you were looking for.
As I find more I'll post them. I'm not wrong to give my opinion on the statements that are made by stove makers.
This information pertains to cold air being introduced to a fuel. Form your opinions, I have. No need to double wall a wood burning stove!!!!!!!!
It's OK to add a fan to supercharge it:banana , I love that oxygen, never deny your stoves oxygen.............
OK, I'll give you credit for doing your homework. But most of your articles pertain to internal-combustion engines. I googled on "coal furnace operation" and quickly found this (http://www.meyermfg.com/woodchuck.html) link, wherein I read, "studies also show that combustion air should be preheated before entering the firebox." Hmmm.
TwoSpeed quotes some convincing evidence from his coursework and professional experience. My knowledge of chemistry is limited, but I seem to recall that nearly all reactions (and particularly oxidation) occur more readily at elevated temperatures.
If I understand you, you are saying that the designers of the Zip stove (as I quoted earlier) are either mistaken or even lying. To me, the bulk of the evidence appears to support their claims... but -- I'll admit some doubt, as to the theory involved, and as to the actual routing of airflow through the Zip stove.
Johnny Swank
12-27-2006, 23:16
I might could be talked into a titanium zip or something equilvalent. 9oz for a stove that doesn't need fuel makes Johnny a happy boy.
I'd still carry some alcohol for really crappy days, but I could possibly see me using something like that on a long hike. I picked up a dremel tool a few weeks ago, and am planning on building a Nimblewill stove for kicks. If that goes well, I might seriously consider doing more wood cooking.
I googled on "coal furnace operation" and quickly found this (http://www.meyermfg.com/woodchuck.html) link, wherein I read, "studies also show that combustion air should be preheated before entering the firebox." Hmmm.
I don't want to cook food with coal. Not in the next 10 years anyway.
Two Speed
12-27-2006, 23:37
. . . The Hill boiler used forced draft to heat burning logs to 2,000 F temperatures and . . . Haven't won me over, but the zip does have some interesting design elements. I think it'd be fun to hike with someone who's using one just for comparison purposes. Probably still wouldn't win me over, but you never know.
I don't want to cook food with coal. Not in the next 10 years anyway.
Charcoal briquets work good in a Zip. Does anyone make coal briquet's anymore? I suspect they would work also, though I find there is always a surplus of Zip Stove fuel on the forest floor.
Two Speed
12-27-2006, 23:46
TwoSpeed quotes some convincing evidence from his coursework and professional experience.TT, my days at Georgia Power were before I started my engineering degree. Georgia Power was trying to educate a largely ignorant force about how the plants they worked at functioned, so that they would eventually make better boiler operators. My interest stems from the fact that my father was deeply involved in aircraft turbine research and design in the 60's and 70's, exposure to coal plants and a little coursework in thermodynamics in college. Pretty much a dog's breakfast; I make no claim to being a thermodynamic engineer. That's some wicked physics.
All of this has reminded me of a quote from "The Hungry Hiker's Book of Good Cooking." Something along the lines of "the campfire is the grand daddy that taught all the little stoves how."
Just as an aside, the first time I used my Zip stove it was a rainy day and the wood was wet. I thought my pot had sprung a leak because of the water droplets that I saw forming on the bottom. I first thought it was leakage, but as I watched it I realized that it was the water vapor from the wet wood which was condensing on the still cold bottom of the pot.
I think it's even more fundamental than that. The product of perfect combustion is CO2 + H2O. Ever noticed the water dripping out of the exhaust pipes of cars? Same stuff. It's pure distilled water (well, in this case mixed with exhaust gases...)
Footslogger
12-28-2006, 00:01
TT, my days at Georgia Power were before I started my engineering degree. Georgia Power was trying to educate a largely ignorant force about how the plants they worked at functioned, so that they would eventually make better boiler operators. My interest stems from the fact that my father was deeply involved in aircraft turbine research and design in the 60's and 70's, exposure to coal plants and a little coursework in thermodynamics in college. Pretty much a dog's breakfast; I make no claim to being a thermodynamic engineer. That's some wicked physics.
All of this has reminded me of a quote from "The Hungry Hiker's Book of Good Cooking." Something along the lines of "the campfire is the grand daddy that taught all the little stoves how."
================================
What are you doing up this late ??
'Slogger
Dances with Mice
12-28-2006, 00:07
Unless there's a chemical reaction along the way the oxygen content of the air isn't going to change between the time it's drawn from outside the stove until it gets to the fire chamber inside the stove. What goes in must come out. The ratio of oxygen in the airstream could also change if oxygen and nitrogen differ in the rate they expand as they are heated. I very much doubt that's significant.
If anyone wants to run the numbers, go for it: I see no reason why the conditions aren't Newtonian so PV = nRT should fly, you'd just have to make some assumptions about how much the air is heated along the path or measure the airstream temperature increase experimentally. Somehow.
Edited to add: PV=nRT would explain why its best to inject cold air into car cylinders - to maximize the amount of oxygen (n) in a constant volume (the cylinder) you either have to increase the pressure (which the turbo does) and / or decrease the temperature, right? If the pressure is constant (can't afford a bigger turbo?) the way to improve its performance is to cool the air. But in an open system where the volume of gas can freely expand with temperature the amount of oxygen (n) present at any measured volume (do I need to explain that?) would decrease with increasing temperature. So heating the air on the way to an open combustion chamber would decrease the number of oxygen molecules per unit volume compared to cold air.
Then there's also a heat balance to fidget with - cold air goes in, hot gases come out, so calories have to be expended to heat the cold air and those calories have to come from your fuel. No big deal if the fuel is high octane gasoline, bigger deal if the fuel is half a pine cone. Also, in an auto engine heat is an unwanted by-product of combustion, it represents chemical energy that did not convert to the desired kinetic energy. It has to be gotten rid of or the cylinder will over-heat and prematurely detonate (knock, knock!). Efficient engines are cool, man. Very efficient engines would have cool exhaust gasses. Efficient stoves wouldn't.
I expect whatever difference in oxygen ratio the air temperature makes is blown away (heh!) by the volume of air provided by the fan relative to the size of the combustion chamber. IOW, oxygen content differences caused by airstream temp changes won't affect the performance of the stove by a significant degree because the fan's blowing in more than enough volume. The higher the volume of air provided, the better it would be to preheat the air before it encounters the fuel. For open combustion, that is.
The double wall also distributes the air evenly inside the combustion chamber of the stove so it doesn't matter to the stove which way the wind blows. Wind direction matters to the stove user because that's the way the smoke goes.
i carried the titanium zip to katahdin in 03 and i love the thing. 9oz or so, the battery will be replaced about every 3 weeks.
AppleJack, where'd you find a 9 oz Zip stove? Seriously hacked? Or is this the Sierra titanium model (they list it at 10 oz.)?
Dances with Mice
12-28-2006, 00:14
Charcoal briquets work good in a Zip. Does anyone make coal briquet's anymore? I suspect they would work also, though I find there is always a surplus of Zip Stove fuel on the forest floor.And even when it'd been raining all day, I could always find enough fuel for supper laying high and dry underneath the shelter.
applejack
12-28-2006, 09:52
AppleJack, where'd you find a 9 oz Zip stove? Seriously hacked? Or is this the Sierra titanium model (they list it at 10 oz.)?
uh, do i need to reply? i think the line you quoted answers the line you wrote:rolleyes:
Two Speed
12-28-2006, 11:59
================================
What are you doing up this late ??
'SloggerI was going to sleep.
DWM, that was an excellent explanation of the difference between the two devices. I'll probably steal it and pretend I thought of it.
Dances with Mice
12-28-2006, 17:37
DWM, that was an excellent explanation of the difference between the two devices. I'll probably steal it and pretend I thought of it.No problem. It's just another in a long line of threads I've killed.
But maybe I can revive it. So I know all the theoritical stuff, right? Blame education. And I still screwed up my Zzip. Want to hear how?
Background: Me & my 16 yo son & 18 yo daughter were going to hike the GA AT one spring break. This was the year we met Moxie, whenever he did his AT thru-hike. I can eat enough for 2 hikers, my son for 3 and my daughter for one. So I needed a cooking setup for 6. Seriously. That's how I planned the hike. I had a 2 quart aluminum pot and the Zzip, a 1 quart saucepan and a Trangia. The main meal was prepared in the big pot, hot drinks in the little one. Worked pretty well, actually.
About the Zzip: It worked well, there is the downside of getting my hands cleaned to cook then having to go around scrounging wood bits and breaking them into small pieces. When my hands were wet (a lot - it rained 4 days straight) bits of bark and dirt would stick to them just from feeding the fire. Not a plus. With a 2 quart pot of water the damn thing was way top-heavy and tippy. And some people enjoy it, but I really don't like the smell of woodsmoke. And with a Zzip your clothes will be saturated with woodsmoke. Not a plus for me, for some it is.
I liked the Trangia for hot drinks in the morning. I left it just outside the tarp so I could reach a hand out of my bag, grab the stove and unscrew it, place it under the pot and throw a match at it then lie in my bag and wait for the water to heat for hot chocolate. To use the Zzip I had to get out of my bag and get dressed and fiddle with it. After the second day I learned to leave a stash of firewood under an edge of the groundcloth when we went to sleep. That helped.
So one morning I got up in the dark and tried to start a fire in the Zzip. The fan wouldn't work. Battery dead. No prob, I fumbled thru my pack to get a fresh one, took off the battery/switch cover and dumped out the old then stuck in the new. Now the fan ran but everytime I switched it on it blew out the fire! I tried and tried to get the fire to stay lit. It was dark and rainy and cold and this was way too much trouble. I finally gave up and used the Trangia to cook in two batches.
Later we stopped for lunch at Hawk Mtn shelter, still cold and wet and hot soup sounded great. I couldn't get the Zzip to stay lit! I'd get the fire started, flip the switch and watch the flames die. I was very ticked off at the damn thing.
I had the same problem that night at the next shelter. Someone lent me their stove so we could cook supper. I was REALLY ticked. The next night we made Neels Gap and our scheduled night off the trail in Helen. When I washed the Zzip the double wall was packed with debris! Then I saw what I had done: I'd installed the battery backwards! The fan was also running backwards, pulling air down on top of the fire then back through the stove. There's a reason production crews don't allow engineers to touch anything.
So. Live and learn. It worked fine the rest of the trek but I never used it much after that. I finally gave it away.
So. Live and learn. It worked fine the rest of the trek but I never used it much after that. I finally gave it away.
Nice story, DWM, though I guessed the punchline pretty early on. ;)
Last time I used the Zzip on a hike was June 2005. For this year's section I went back to my trusty old Whisperlite. I've turned into a bit of a gram weenie, so next year it'll be something else again.
I'm still a tiny bit puzzled why the Zzip isn't more widely used by thrus; I'd guess mostly it's the weight and the fuss-factor. The idea of an "electrical" component (a motor :eek:) in a stove probably scanres a lot of people off.
Dances with Mice
12-28-2006, 18:43
Nice story, DWM, though I guessed the punchline pretty early on. ;)
Last time I used the Zzip on a hike was June 2005. For this year's section I went back to my trusty old Whisperlite. I've turned into a bit of a gram weenie, so next year it'll be something else again.Y'know, I have to retract part of my story already. I didn't have a Trangia on this trip. When we met Moxie he showed us the first alcohol stove I'd ever seen. The next trip we did I took a Trangia and the Zzip. Then just the Trangia. Then a home-made alcohol stove.
The hikes all run together sometimes.
lucky luke
12-30-2006, 09:58
hi,
i had a zz... and gave it back for refund after 3 months.
i hated the dirty fingers and soot all over eventually.
but it simply fell apart on me. all parts came loose. it did not really break, but nothing stayed in place with loose rivets. it would wiggle enough to throw the pot of when the water was boiling hard.
that is if i got the stove to work. dry weather all was well, but after 3 rainy weeks in the olympics i gave up. 2 nights i could not get a fire going with all the wood beeing soaked. it ate batteries like crazy, and i got much better results carefully building a small campfire using a small iron crate and a few rocks .
i hike a lot in bad weather and snow, and i did not like the fact that i had to cook outside my tent. instead of lying in the sleeping bag i had to stay outside, because of the smoke, freezing.
unless its summer cooking inside rulez! my priority...
greets
lucky luke
i gladly carried my whisperlite instead. and if i would go with a wood stove again i´ld make a paintcan style stove. here in germany open fires aren´t a hit. so i always use my dragonfly. if i am by myself i recently swapped to alc stoves, but have little experience on longer trips and cold trips with them.
i hike a lot in bad weather and snow, and i did not like the fact that i had to cook outside my tent. instead of lying in the sleeping bag i had to stay outside, because of the smoke, freezing.
OK, serious thread drift, but I could never understand the logic of cooking in a tent. I can understand the desire to do so, in bad weather, but it just seems so dangerous and illogical, for any number of reasons.
OTOH, if you must cook in a tent, the Zzip is probably the worst stove for that purpose, bar none. ;)
SGT Rock
12-30-2006, 10:43
I think one reason it hasn't caught on is the average weight over time.
See, if you have a 19 ounce zip stove it is always a 19 ounce zzip stove. IT always weighs more than a pound, it always takes up a lot of space, and it is always dirty. Sure you could burn wood forever with it, but if you want to burn some wood, there is always a fireplace around or you can make one with a few rocks. And when you are done, the dirty, smelly mess is left in camp instead of packing it up in your pack.
Compare that to an alcohol stove and fuel bottle. You can start with a 1 ounce stove, 0.6 ounce fuel bottle, then add 8 ounces of fuel and have a start weight of 8.2 ounces. As you burn the fuel, the weight of your system drops - so by the end of a four day section, your weight is down to about 1.6 to 6.6 ounces (depending on how you cook). And with this, when you burn alcohol it is a simple pour and light system since you already have the best fuel with you - there is no searching for fuel in camp and the fiddle factor of having to light wet wood at times.
Even if you decided to start with a full 20 ounce fuel bottle of alcohol to get your base up to about 18 ounces (close to the zip) the weight goes down with every virtually clean burn you do. So even if you were a fuel hog over that same 4 days section, you would still be down to 9.8 ounces of weight.
Two Speed
12-30-2006, 10:48
I think one reason it hasn't caught on is the average weight over time. . . Got into a little discussion with Mags via PM about that. I think we called it daily average haul, but the concept's the same. BTW, in civil engineering there's a concept of mass haul when performing earthwork calculations. Similar concept, the farther you have to haul a given weight the more diesel (read "energy") required. Far larger weights and volumes, but I believe the concept applies to weight considerations in backpacking. Pretty much the same idea as eating your heavier food items first.
Still, if Weary or TT wants to bring one I'd like to see one in operation. Very low probability of finding one in my pack but always interesting to see how other folks handle the ordinary challenges, so to speak.
SGT Rock
12-30-2006, 10:58
Well I gotta agree with this, and I am supprised it hasn't caught on as an idea more by some of the engineers around here when it comes to things like fuel consumption - I've pointed this out a whole heck of a lot of times about some stove systems. For example I will pick on the darling of some, the JetBoil...
The JetBoil is more fuel efficient than other stoves out there, but that amount of extra efficency is actually not that much greater than some cheaper stoves out there. This was discussed by BPL, the biggest gram weenies on the planet. And they came to about the same conclusion that I did, the Coleman F1 ultralight makes a better choice when it comes to this in so many ways. Yet JetBoil people tend to go off on a tangent about how "Easy" the system is when you point out the flaws in the accertation that the JetBoil is the lightest and most efficient. Examples:
Example 1:
Coleman F1Ultralight
Stove 2.7oz
Evernew pot 4.0 ounces
Scripto Lighter 0.6 ounces
Pot Cozy 0.9 ounces
Fuel cannister ~ 8.0 ounces
Total: 16.2 ounces
Example 2:
Compare to the Jetboil with fuel:
Stove 6.0 ounces
Lower burner cup protector 0.9 ounces
Cup and cozy 7.4 ounces
Lid 1.1 ounces
Fuel Canister 6.8 ounces
Total: 22.2 ounces.
(data from http://www.backpackgeartest.org/rev...itial%20Report/)
The weights are close starting with the Jetboil being almost a half pound heavier. But the average weight over a secion of the two systems will be 14.2 for the F1 and and 18.8 for for the JetBoil. This fuel useage is based on BPLs tests using similar conditions for both stoves.
So now you have a stove system that replicates all the functions, is slightly less fuel efficient, but it gets a lower start weight and since it does use a little more fuel, it's weight decreases faster over the same span of time than the JetBoil.
Hmmmm....
Come on engineers. Why is start weight considered more important to some people when figuring this than average weight? Seems that would be the better way to judge the weight of this sort of equipment.
Two Speed
12-30-2006, 11:19
Come on engineers. Why is start weight considered more important to some people when figuring this than average weight? Seems that would be the better way to judge the weight of this sort of equipment.You're asking the wrong crowd. Maybe Orange Bug could help.
You did ask, though, so I'll take a shot. Psychosis?
Come on engineers. Why is start weight considered more important to some people when figuring this than average weight? Seems that would be the better way to judge the weight of this sort of equipment.
Way kewl stove weight calculator (http://www.kzpg.com/Backpacking/Stove/Stoves.htm). Have at it, Sarge.
The reason the argument goes on (and on, and on) is that weight isn't really the sole figure of merit -- for stoves or anything else.
Two Speed
12-30-2006, 11:20
Yep, psychosis. :D
SGT Rock
12-30-2006, 11:26
Gotta be psychosis. :sun
The privledge carry a heavier stove and to eat out of a narrow cup that by most folks account tends to burn food at the bottom when you could be eating out of a real pot that could even be used over a fire if you wanted to without burning your food. :rolleyes:
But it does snap together really neat and it does look cool. you can even get neato coozies - sort of like a hiker's Swatch (remember those?):p
But it does snap together really neat and it does look cool. you can even get neato coozies - sort of like a hiker's Swatch (remember those?):p
Why is it necessary to disparage others on the basis of their gear choices? Pretty childish, IMO.
Lone Wolf
12-30-2006, 11:33
Why is it necessary to disparage others on the basis of their gear choices? Pretty childish, IMO.
Do you feel guilty for having trendy gear?:)
SGT Rock
12-30-2006, 11:34
Yes it is. But it does get a rise for some reason. It is only a stove, but some folks act like the JetBoil is the perfection of cooking systems without naming all the drawbacks. At least I admit my system is slow.
Got into a little discussion with Mags via PM about that. I think we called it daily average haul, but the concept's the same.
You know, I never did update my doc to make the more clear. I am working a 1/2 day today. (Just as well, it is supposed to snow until ealry afternoon!). May as well do something useful on the company dime. ;)
Do you feel guilty for having trendy gear?:)
You mean like my 19 year old Camp Trails Adjustable II? It's been called lots of things, Wolf, but trendy isn't one of them. ;)
Yes it is. But it does get a rise for some reason. It is only a stove, but some folks act like the JetBoil is the perfection of cooking systems without naming all the drawbacks. At least I admit my system is slow.
When I was on the CDT this past year, someone e-mailed me blasting me for for taking a view that while the JB can be convenient, it does have some drawbacks. I mean, this e-mail was HUGE. Went on and on, basically called me an idiot, that my conclusions were wrong and took a very belligernt tone.
Needless to say, did not bother really arguing with him. Told him bascially, glad you like the JB for ease of use and convenience (which I said in the doc), that I really don't have time to argue via e-mail because I am thru-hiking a freakin' trail! Used a politer tone. The dude never did write back.
Now, I don't know if JB users are fanatic...but writing a guy while he is in the middle of a thru-hike to tear him a new a-hole due to a difference in opion over a stovee seems rather...odd.
Yes it is. But it does get a rise for some reason. It is only a stove, but some folks act like the JetBoil is the perfection of cooking systems without naming all the drawbacks. At least I admit my system is slow.
I'm an engineer, Rock. The JB is heavier than it ought to be, but only a bit heavier than most canister stoves, when the weight of the pot is considered. I think most confusion surrounding the JB is because it's quite a bit more than a "stove." At the very least, it is a stove and a pot. The JB can't be justified or rationalized on the basis of weight alone.
I've got no religious attachment to my JetBoil, Zzip, Whisperlite, TinMan, or any other stove. Silly to invest emotion into a stove discussion.
SGT Rock
12-30-2006, 11:50
Then why take it so hard?
Anyway, the examples I list above took all the functions and extras of the whole system together. Basically you add about 6 ounces of weight to save about 1-3 grams of fuel per boil. Still doesn't make sense when you consider all the fuel in the JetBoil canister when full doesn't add up to the extra weight added in an attempt to save a few grams per burn, add to that it isn't all that faster and is, by the accounts of many users, not so good at cooking, better at boil-in-bag, which negates some of the other stuff about the JEtBoil anyway.
Amigi'sLastStand
12-30-2006, 11:59
HYOH, ppl.
I look at the whole package, Rock. And I re-evaluate when new facts or options appear. Each of these stoves has its good points and bad. If I didn't spend way too much time on hiker forums, or talk to (and observe) other hikers on my treks, I'd still be blissfully, ignorantly, using my 18 year old Whisperlite. That blessed Whisperlite was what I took on my last section. Who knows what I'll take on the next one? ;)
SGT Rock
12-30-2006, 12:05
Oh I am in to HYOH (never told anyone that speed hiking was disrespectful) but for a few years now I have been writing gear reviews and some of the worst I have ever seen are the odes to the JetBoils. The funny thing is whenever these sorts of flaws are pointed out, the person that points them out is suddenly trying to be a mean spirited poster or hiker (see Mag's experience).
As for my gear, lets see, the hammock is a bear piniata with too little room and hard to stay warm in, the Gearskin takes a little more time to pack to do it right than a normal pack, and alcohol stoves use more fuel and are slower. Never got my feelings hurt by any of that.
Then why take it so hard? .........
So another post can be submitted?:D;)
Amigi'sLastStand
12-30-2006, 14:11
Oh I am in to HYOH (never told anyone that speed hiking was disrespectful)
I know bro. But here we are in another JB thread. My only point was, whatever works for you, dont step on what works for someone else. I know you feel the same way.
Two Speed
12-30-2006, 16:40
. . . Went on and on, basically called me an idiot . . .More than a little odd? Oh, yeah. Idiot? I sincerely doubt that.
I'm an engineer . . . That's what makes it so much fun to pick at you. :D
BTW, so far the zip seems to have recieved plenty of respect and some interest, so I'm gonna dispute the title of this thread. Are "zippies" somewhat of a cult. Little doubt about that. Would "zippies" be fun to hike with? Probably. Do I use a zip stove? No, I'm a Trangia cultist. Should I stop asking myself questions and then answering them in public? Probably should.
That's what makes it so much fun to pick at you.
Happy to amuse you. ;) Actually, I love these forums 'cuz it's nice to see so many folx even more anal than me. Makes me feel almost normal.
SGT Rock
12-30-2006, 17:51
Happy to amuse you. ;) Actually, I love these forums 'cuz it's nice to see so many folx even more anal than me. Makes me feel almost normal.
I think you finally figured us out. You are going to fit in fine around here LOL.
you getting soft in your old age. sgt.
I would love to be a "zippie"!..but to me the zip stove is a little bit pricey for someone that is not sure he is gonna like it....Hmmm...what to do? :-?
Has anybody built and used the Penny Wood stove (http://www.csun.edu/~mjurey/pennywood.html)?
I think this stove is going to be my next project :D
But in an open system where the volume of gas can freely expand with temperature the amount of oxygen (n) present at any measured volume (do I need to explain that?) would decrease with increasing temperature. So heating the air on the way to an open combustion chamber would decrease the number of oxygen molecules per unit volume compared to cold air.
I expect whatever difference in oxygen ratio the air temperature makes is blown away (heh!) by the volume of air provided by the fan relative to the size of the combustion chamber. IOW, oxygen content differences caused by airstream temp changes won't affect the performance of the stove by a significant degree because the fan's blowing in more than enough volume.
Those are my thoughts exactly "Dances With Mice". I believe we will all agree that the zip is an open system
My original statement was that I thought the double wall(to heat incoming air) to be insignificant to the performance of the stove.
I've taken apart my zip and will reconfigure it to eliminate most of the double wall and utilize the remainder to deliver the forced air to the burn chamber. Will take before and after photos to post with some info on preliminary burn tests....
For those of you considering bying a zip, hold off, shop around for a single walled hobo, reconsider bassed on the above findings and other things.
The single most important thing for using this type of stove is your ability to choose the correct fuel and be able to prepare your fire bed. Don't use pine cones and knots:eek:
For those of you considering bying a zip, hold off, shop around for a single walled hobo, reconsider bassed on the above findings and other things.
What a riot, Zelph. Here's a design that's been around for 20 years, and you're seriously advising folks to hold off buying one until you've figured out how to improve the design? LOL.
Laugh all you want!!!!!:D I am!!!!!
"Dances With Mice" gave some seroius and convincing information up there. Don't close your eyes to it, be an opened minded engineer, "Dances With Mice" is.
I said
"reconsider bassed on the above findings and other things."
I did not say
"until you've figured out how to improve the design?"
I'm a "STOVIE" I'm a stove engineer:banana
Laugh all you want!!!!!:D I am!!!!!
Zelph, all your arguments are based (IMO) on a dubious extrapolation from automotive "know how" to a wood-fired camping stove. You're still hung up on the idea of oxygen being the end-all (ie., this is why "cold" air makes IC engines more efficient.) But the fact is that temperature is a major determinant of the rate of chemical reactions. Availibilty of oxygen is only part of the equation. The Zzip folks state this clearly on their FAQ page but you continue to insist that they're wrong. :-?
One more time, from classic "fire department" propaganda:
Fire = oxygen + heat + combustible material
BTW.... I know you own a Zzip, because you showed us a photo. But I have reason to doubt you've ever actually used it. It's much too clean. There isn't a trace of soot on it. ;)
4eyedbuzzard
01-04-2007, 18:27
the hammock is a bear piniata with too little room and hard to stay warm in
LOL @ bear piniata. I'll bet the bear would find it quite comfortable after beating you out of it. Nice soft insulation for the den.
....The single most important thing for using this type of stove is your ability to choose the correct fuel and be able to prepare your fire bed. Don't use pine cones and knots:eek:
White pine cones tend to be too large for easy burning in a Zip Stove, but other pine varieties with smaller cones, as well as spruce and fir cones work great at least for getting a fire going. A few dried cones atop a bit of birch bark and augmented with a few twigs as the fire starts to burn works quite well.
Nor once a fire is started, should one avoid popping in a few knots. The fuel most scarce on the trail are relatively large diameter chunks needed for long burn times. Once a Zip fire is burning well, pop in any burnable stuff you can find that will fit in the fire box, including stubs of wood found in trail fire places, knots and all.
Weary