WhiteBlaze Pages 2024
A Complete Appalachian Trail Guidebook.
AVAILABLE NOW. $4 for interactive PDF(smartphone version)
Read more here WhiteBlaze Pages Store

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 39 of 39
  1. #21
    Registered User 4eyedbuzzard's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-02-2007
    Location
    DFW, TX / Northern NH
    Age
    67
    Posts
    8,143
    Images
    27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wbaeric View Post
    Great answers and advice from everyone! Thanks so much for the information. I was looking at my setup at the moment: MSR Titan Titanium Kettle; Vargo Decagon and Vargo aluminum windscreen. Those three pieces weigh a total of 6.7 oz, a Jetboil SOL Titanium is under 9 oz from what I have seen. Anyone know where I can find a used SOL Titanium?
    Quote Originally Posted by wbaeric View Post
    Great answers and advice from everyone! Thanks so much for the information. I was looking at my setup at the moment: MSR Titan Titanium Kettle; Vargo Decagon and Vargo aluminum windscreen. Those three pieces weigh a total of 6.7 oz, a Jetboil SOL Titanium is under 9 oz from what I have seen. Anyone know where I can find a used SOL Titanium?
    The weight difference between the aluminum SOL (10.5 oz) and the SOL Ti (9.8 oz) is less than a ounce. The Al version is actually a bit more efficient heating due to the better thermal conductivity of Al vs Ti, but water will also cool down faster in the AL version due to the same reason. The AL version doesn't have the issue of the burner ring separating (the reason the Ti version was discontinued), and you can cook food directly in the Al version, which Jetboil specifically recommends not doing in the Ti version. For both cost and reliability reasons, the Al version is probably a better bet.

  2. #22
    Registered User Venchka's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-20-2013
    Location
    Roaring Gap, NC
    Age
    78
    Posts
    8,529

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 4eyedbuzzard View Post
    The weight difference between the aluminum SOL (10.5 oz) and the SOL Ti (9.8 oz) is less than a ounce. The Al version is actually a bit more efficient heating due to the better thermal conductivity of Al vs Ti, but water will also cool down faster in the AL version due to the same reason. The AL version doesn't have the issue of the burner ring separating (the reason the Ti version was discontinued), and you can cook food directly in the Al version, which Jetboil specifically recommends not doing in the Ti version. For both cost and reliability reasons, the Al version is probably a better bet.
    I found a new old stock SOL Aluminum stove at Gander Mountain on their way out of business. It's a great stove. Something I've noticed about the pot+cozy: It stays mega hot far longer after I turn the stove off than my conventional aluminum pots. I actually get to eat HOT food. Very miserly on fuel. Call JetBoil and ask them which current model is closest to the original SOL.
    Wayne
    Eddie Valiant: "That lame-brain freeway idea could only be cooked up by a toon."
    https://wayne-ayearwithbigfootandbubba.blogspot.com
    FlickrMyBookTwitSpaceFace



  3. #23
    Registered User
    Join Date
    06-12-2006
    Location
    northern illinois
    Posts
    4,532
    Images
    2

    Default

    Alcohol stoves can be used at below zero temps. You'll see it at minute 6:20:


  4. #24
    Registered User Siestita's Avatar
    Join Date
    07-06-2007
    Location
    Frankfort, KY
    Age
    74
    Posts
    371
    Journal Entries
    1

    Default

    "I'm a fan of liquid stoves simply because I can carry the fuel I use, and there's less waste. No half-filled steel cans everywhere. Just buy a gallon of Coleman fuel (or in your case alcohol or use HEET bottles), and use only what you need." All Down Hill from Here

    I agree! And I suspect that for some solo hikers the 'break even point' when butane cooking becomes lighter than using alcohol is probably when trips last at least 6 or 7 days rather than merely 4 or 5 days.

    Here's how the math looks to me. I take others' word for it that when burned petroleum products such of butane generate twice as much energy, per weight, as does alcohol. But, one ounce of alcohol fuel (measured by volume) only weighs .8 oz. (Perhaps that discrepancy reflects the fact that alcohol is lighter than water.) So, our original poster's 5 day supply of alcohol, 15 fluid oz., actually only weighs 12 oz. And, to produce an equivalent amount of heat only 6 oz. of petroleum based fuel would need to be consumed. Posters on another thread here indicated that empty fuel canisters, both large and small, weigh 4 oz, in contrast to the 1 oz. plastic bottle that I use to carry fuel alcohol. So for a hypothetical five day trip, burning 3 fluid oz. of alcohol each day, the starting weight of the fuel and its container would be 13 oz. For that same trip the starting weight carrying butane would be 10 oz. (6 oz. of fuel to burn plus 4 oz. for the metal container).

    So, the total "fuel plus container" weight carried during the first day of the five day trip would theoretically be 3 oz. less if butane is burned rather than alcohol. But, as the trip progresses fuel is burned reducing a butane users' pack weight somewhat and an alcohol user's weight even more. Walking out on the last day of the trip a hiker who has burned alcohol would be carrying a "fuel plus container" weight of just 1 oz. while a butane burning hiker would be toting the full 4 oz. of his empty canister.

    The example above assumes that with experience hikers can learn to take with them only the exact amounts of fuel that they will be using, thus ending their trips with empty fuel containers. I can almost accomplish that these days burning alcohol. But when I used butane stoves in the past I always finished trips carrying considerable unused fuel. And, on the trail I sometimes meet butane users who either carry a heavy extra canister with them, as a 'spare', or who have run out of fuel prematurely.

    Obviously, the efficiency of one's stove/windscreen/pot support/pot configuration affects fuel usage, using either butane or alcohol. And sometimes fuel consumption can be reduced simply by altering ones cooking style or menu choices. Those factors may affect pack weight more than precisely which stove one uses.



    Last edited by Siestita; 12-30-2017 at 20:52.

  5. #25
    Registered User
    Join Date
    11-01-2014
    Location
    Anchorage, AK
    Age
    62
    Posts
    2,500

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Venchka View Post
    . . . Call JetBoil and ask them which current model is closest to the original SOL.
    That seems a bit like calling up Ford and asking them which current car is closest to the Model-T because there were features of the Model-T you liked.
    I would ask why anyone would choose the JetBoil SOL if they have the ability to use a Mini-Mo or Micro-Mo instead? For a tiny weight penalty, the Mo's heats much faster (read burn hotter), while at the same time simmering with a reliably flame and continuing to cook effectively even in colder weather and with nearly empty (relatively low pressure) canisters. The regulator on the Mo series stoves totally rocks.
    I'm not lost. I'm exploring.

  6. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Siestita View Post
    "I'm a fan of liquid stoves simply because I can carry the fuel I use, and there's less waste. No half-filled steel cans everywhere. Just buy a gallon of Coleman fuel (or in your case alcohol or use HEET bottles), and use only what you need." All Down Hill from Here

    I agree! And I suspect that for some solo hikers the 'break even point' when butane cooking becomes lighter than using alcohol is probably when trips last at least 6 or 7 days rather than merely 4 or 5 days.

    Here's how the math looks to me. I take others' word for it that when burned petroleum products such of butane generate twice as much energy, per weight, as does alcohol. But, one ounce of alcohol fuel (measured by volume) only weighs .8 oz. (Perhaps that discrepancy reflects the fact that alcohol is lighter than water.) So, our original poster's 5 day supply of alcohol, 15 fluid oz., actually only weighs 12 oz. And, to produce an equivalent amount of heat only 6 oz. of petroleum based fuel would need to be consumed. Posters on another thread here indicated that empty fuel canisters, both large and small, weigh 4 oz, in contrast to the 1 oz. plastic bottle that I use to carry fuel alcohol. So for a hypothetical five day trip, burning 3 fluid oz. of alcohol each day, the starting weight of the fuel and its container would be 13 oz. For that same trip the starting weight carrying butane would be 10 oz. (6 oz. of fuel to burn plus 4 oz. for the metal container).

    So, the total "fuel plus container" weight carried during the first day of the five day trip would theoretically be 3 oz. less if butane is burned rather than alcohol. But, as the trip progresses fuel is burned reducing a butane users' pack weight somewhat and an alcohol user's weight even more. Walking out on the last day of the trip a hiker who has burned alcohol would be carrying a "fuel plus container" weight of just 1 oz. while a butane burning hiker would be toting the full 4 oz. of his empty canister.

    The example above assumes that with experience hikers can learn to take with them only the exact amounts of fuel that they will be using, thus ending their trips with empty fuel containers. I can almost accomplish that these days burning alcohol. But when I used butane stoves in the past I always finished trips carrying considerable unused fuel. And, on the trail I sometimes meet butane users who either carry a heavy extra canister with them, as a 'spare', or who have run out of fuel prematurely.

    Obviously, the efficiency of one's stove/windscreen/pot support/pot configuration affects fuel usage, using either butane or alcohol. And sometimes fuel consumption can be reduced simply by altering ones cooking style or menu choices. Those factors may affect pack weight more than precisely which stove one uses.



    Good post. Totally spot on

  7. #27
    Registered User Venchka's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-20-2013
    Location
    Roaring Gap, NC
    Age
    78
    Posts
    8,529

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nsherry61 View Post
    That seems a bit like calling up Ford and asking them which current car is closest to the Model-T because there were features of the Model-T you liked.
    I would ask why anyone would choose the JetBoil SOL if they have the ability to use a Mini-Mo or Micro-Mo instead? For a tiny weight penalty, the Mo's heats much faster (read burn hotter), while at the same time simmering with a reliably flame and continuing to cook effectively even in colder weather and with nearly empty (relatively low pressure) canisters. The regulator on the Mo series stoves totally rocks.
    Cheap. Half price.
    As I understand it, the SOL stove has an early version of the simmering regulator found in the Mini or Micro Mos. But I could be totally wrong on that feature of the SOL stove.
    It wouldn’t be the first time that the best parts of a product were carried over to a “NEW” product. In this case a slightly different pot and the previous burner becomes a new Mini or Micro.
    It’s plausible.
    I’m pleased with the stove I bought.
    Happy New Year!
    Wayne

  8. #28
    Registered User Venchka's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-20-2013
    Location
    Roaring Gap, NC
    Age
    78
    Posts
    8,529

    Default

    Hipbone,
    Petroleum products are also lighter than water. Or did I miss that in your analysis?
    Wayne

  9. #29

    Default

    Siestita's analysis...not mine...and oh God organic chemistry...yes fossil fuels are also lighter than water. It depends on the butane/isobutane/xxxane mixture that each brand uses (probably all made in the same factory?). However, it doesn't really matter about the weight of the canister fuel because you cannot fill it only with what you need...the weight is the weight.


    I like either type of stove really, the weight savings in a canister stove would be greater of you could dial in the exact amount of gas and make the container lighter. If you could carry exactly 3 days of fuel in a smaller canister then canister stoves would get really efficient.


    The main reason I usually use alcohol is because my trips (or resupplies) are usually less than 6 days. Fuel+container would be container + .6 ml alcohol per day= 3.8 oz total or:


    (.6 ml per day x .78 x 6 days) + 1 oz for storage container = 3.8 oz


    On my last day my fuel weight is simply the weight of the vessel.


    I haven't weighed an empty gas can but I think they weigh 4 oz (I got that number from here on white Blaze). Basically my fuel and container for 6 days weighs less than the canister stove canister.


    I will also say that the BRS titanium stove has reduced the Gap somewhat on the weight of canister stoves versus alcohol stoves (I have one but have not tested its efficiency)


    There are other reasons I do prefer an alcohol stove also. I like the fact that I don't have to try and recycle the steel canisters (I have found is almost impossible on a thru-hike). I like the fact that most alcohol stoves are up cycled soda cans. I also like the fact that alcohol stoves are really quiet in the woods. I like the fact that and alcohol fuel container is infinitely reusable.


    I have included a picture for clarity. I could reduce the weight overall if I use a smaller container also (110 grams=3.8 oz)

    alcoholstove.jpg

  10. #30

    Default

    also holy hell does anybody wanna buy an alcohol stove? I have 15 sets sitting around and probably 50 alcohol stoves that I haven't made windscreens and pot stands for. Pot stand, stove, vapor barrier, and wind screen weighs less than 1 ounce. I've used these stoves on the long trail and the colorado trail and they're pretty efficient. I started a thread to see if there was any interest at the link below. I sent 1 out to a forum member to test and a triple crowner used one of them on her CDT thru hike this year to complete her triple crown. She said it held up the whole way and is ready for at least a few more thru hikes

    https://whiteblaze.net/forum/showthr...for-sale-maybe

  11. #31

    Default

    apologies, the above equation should read .6 oz, not .6 ml

  12. #32
    Registered User Kaptainkriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    06-28-2015
    Location
    Leonardtown, Maryland
    Age
    55
    Posts
    650
    Journal Entries
    57
    Images
    19

    Default

    Great points on the weight of alcohol. I've mostly transitioned to Alcohol (Modified StarLyte @ 17g) except in very cold weather - not because it does not work, but because I have not learned to us it well in cold weather. I use BRS3000 in cold weather, which can run with a small flame if desired to increase efficiency. That being said, I want to comment on a couple of your points - This is not for everyone, but I've been using the same MSR 211g canister for almost 2 years now. I put as much fuel in it as I need using a high quality fuel transfer valve and source from a larger container. As you note, the empty vessel weighs about 4oz (mine is 100g or 3.5 oz) and does weigh more than your whole setup. I'd love to try an adapter on a travel size hairspray container...they are tiny...I just have not had time.

    Quote Originally Posted by hipbone View Post

    edited by Kaptainkriz for brevity:
    However, it doesn't really matter about the weight of the canister fuel because you cannot fill it only with what you need...the weight is the weight.

    I like either type of stove really, the weight savings in a canister stove would be greater of you could dial in the exact amount of gas and make the container lighter. If you could carry exactly 3 days of fuel in a smaller canister then canister stoves would get really efficient.
    I haven't weighed an empty gas can but I think they weigh 4 oz (I got that number from here on white Blaze). Basically my fuel and container for 6 days weighs less than the canister stove canister.
    I will also say that the BRS titanium stove has reduced the Gap somewhat on the weight of canister stoves versus alcohol stoves (I have one but have not tested its efficiency)
    Plaid is fast! Ticks suck, literally... It’s ok, bologna hoses off…
    Follow my hiking adventures: https://www.youtube.com/user/KrizAkoni
    Follow me on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/alphagalhikes/

  13. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaptainkriz View Post
    Great points on the weight of alcohol. I've mostly transitioned to Alcohol (Modified StarLyte @ 17g) except in very cold weather - not because it does not work, but because I have not learned to us it well in cold weather. I use BRS3000 in cold weather, which can run with a small flame if desired to increase efficiency. That being said, I want to comment on a couple of your points - This is not for everyone, but I've been using the same MSR 211g canister for almost 2 years now. I put as much fuel in it as I need using a high quality fuel transfer valve and source from a larger container. As you note, the empty vessel weighs about 4oz (mine is 100g or 3.5 oz) and does weigh more than your whole setup. I'd love to try an adapter on a travel size hairspray container...they are tiny...I just have not had time.
    I'd be interested in your travel size hairspray container thing...if you get to it post us up

  14. #34
    Registered User anakeesta's Avatar
    Join Date
    08-07-2008
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Age
    68
    Posts
    2

    Default

    Nnnnmm






    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  15. #35
    Registered User
    Join Date
    06-12-2006
    Location
    northern illinois
    Posts
    4,532
    Images
    2

    Default

    Small jet type lighters are a must for lighting esbit and alcohol in frigid temperatures. Photo shows size comparison to mini bic:

    DSCF3615.JPG

  16. #36
    Registered User
    Join Date
    11-13-2015
    Location
    Orangeville, Ontario, Canada
    Age
    73
    Posts
    441

    Default

    I’ve been out of this WhiteBlaze thing for too long …

    But I do have some thoughts on this matter of stove weight. Those thoughts are that there’s perhaps more grams to be saved in the food packaging than in fussing about remarkably slight differences across stove types and styles.

    Weigh the packaging that you bring out after a trip. How many plastic bags? How much aluminized plastic foil? … What ways can you come up with that reduce the weight of your packaging?

    Furthermore, I’m also aware of the volume and space I saved by replacing my kitchen setup from a Trangia system with DIY components to a much more expensive but more fuel efficient Caldera Cone TiTri that is hugely more efficient, that burns alcohol and solid fuels and also wood, and is significantly lighter. The new system also takes about half the pack volume of my old Trangia setup.

    So complicate your spreadsheets by including other aspects of your total food approach, as well as volume considerations.

    … ducks and runs …

  17. #37
    Clueless Weekender
    Join Date
    04-10-2011
    Location
    Niskayuna, New York
    Age
    68
    Posts
    3,879
    Journal Entries
    10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zelph View Post
    Small jet type lighters are a must for lighting esbit and alcohol in frigid temperatures. Photo shows size comparison to mini bic:
    You may be right that's an easier approach.

    In real cold, I've always primed my Penny Stove from below. I use a third pop can bottom as a stove stand/primer. A few drops of alky and possibly a wisp of TP to serve as a wick produces enough of a flame to warm the stove. In fact, it usually produces enough flame for the stove to be an impressive fireball when it blooms. It settles down when the primer burns out.
    I always know where I am. I'm right here.

  18. #38
    Registered User foodbag's Avatar
    Join Date
    08-08-2003
    Location
    Bradenton, Florida
    Posts
    241
    Images
    3

    Default

    I prefer alcohol stoves, even if the fuel is heavy. No working parts to contend with, and little chance of failure. I learned my lesson when trying to troubleshoot an MSR Whisperlight stove back in the day. Thankfully I was not on a long-distance hike in the middle of nowhere. I was unsuccessful in repairing the stove in the field.
    Long-distance aspirations with short-distance feet.... :jump

  19. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zelph View Post
    Fancee Feest alcohol stove weighs very little, 1/2 ounce fuel will boil 2 cups with proper windscreen:

    Exactly.
    With a windscreen, it's almost foolproof.
    It's almost silent until your water is boiling.
    No moving parts, almost no opportunity to fail.
    Easy to find fuel.
    Can be made with minimal tools (although zelph's look 100x sexier than my hack-job, he'll get you taken care of).
    Shug recommended. Need I say more?
    Also fits my ideal of a flexible cooking option at home if the occasional ice storm knocks out power for a few days. Three camping trips and the initial learning curve and still haven't burned through my first purchase of a 4-pack of heet.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
++ New Posts ++

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •