speed or effeciency

Post your new stove ideas here! All stoves welcome.
countydjrick
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 7:54 pm
Location: Aroostook County, Maine

speed or effeciency

Post by countydjrick » Sun Feb 20, 2011 10:02 pm

When designing a stove. whats better? Long lasting fuel or fast burn time. Have one stove in the works now as seen in the welcome forum, (I know, wrong place.) Thats boils 2 cups in around 4-5 minutes, but uses 1 ounce of fuel. So far Ive put 14 bottles of HEET through it and no melting yet.

User avatar
zelph
Posts: 15822
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 1:53 pm

Re: speed or effeciency

Post by zelph » Sun Feb 20, 2011 10:12 pm

It's everyones personal preference.

If your only going out for a few days fuel weight is not an issue.

If you use your stove for making lunch on a construction site you might want the "fast" boil.

So many time on forums the question is always asked "how much does it weigh" weight always being an issue.

Here, we are split on preference :D
http://www.woodgaz-stove.com/

User avatar
ConnieD
Posts: 2042
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 10:53 pm
Location: Montana
Contact:

Re: speed or effeciency

Post by ConnieD » Sun Feb 20, 2011 11:04 pm

I think just let people know what they are getting: remove the mystery.

It is so hard to know if these stoves are any good, speaking from before I purchased one.

The person has to decide "good for what". Most people care either for fast boil or simmer.

Some look for a long stove time, because they want to melt snow: winter campers or winter hunters.

I would say, encourage people to decide what they want the stove to do, then, offer stoves that do it. The safest bet, is to offer every kind of stove. I say that, because I haven't seen one stove that will do it all without a simmer ring, or, letting the wood fire burn down to coals for example.

In other words, technique is important. In fact, technique can make the difference: No windscreen, no lid on the pan, no boil.

Fast boil "one pot method" can work well, if you have your meal in stages. Hot drink, followed by the next course, and another.

Fast boil and simmer, can work well if the meal is planned around it.

Simmer only can work, if you have clean water and you are only going to saute or "heat-and-serve" a precooked ready-to-eat entree.

I would say, encourage people to decide what sort of food preparation they will do, then, choose a stove.

Me?

First, I chose the cooking pot, then, I chose the stove.

Now, I choose the cooking method, then, I choose the stove.

Right now, I am looking at stoves for an "optimum" stove for baking.

I think the biggest mistake stove-makers make, is not telling what their stove will do. Really.

Fast boil stove! Simmer stove!

This is the most fuel efficient stove for a long trip!


and it will still boil water in a reasonable amount of time... set up your shelter, while the water boils.

Like that. Tell people.

If it never boils water, it is a simmer stove, so, take two stoves: one fast boil and one simmer stove.

User avatar
ConnieD
Posts: 2042
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 10:53 pm
Location: Montana
Contact:

Re: speed or effeciency

Post by ConnieD » Sun Feb 20, 2011 11:17 pm

There is something else.

Does it flare up? Does it spill out?

Does the base get too hot?

It is really smoky?

Like that.

realityguy
Posts: 5948
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 2:20 am
Location: slightly north of Seattle,WA

Re: speed or effeciency

Post by realityguy » Mon Feb 21, 2011 1:29 am

Speed or efficiency?...both if possible..depends on what you use need it for or who uses it.Let people decide if they want your stoves or not by how/what they cook.If you have a variety of stoves,all the better..people may buy more than one if they want one that boils quick and another for other purposes.Some people want lightweight,others don't care about an oz difference in the weight of a stove if it functions better for their needs.
I'd only want an alcohol stove that will simmer and boil.. both..and/or both during the same burn depending on how I fuel the stove..therefore I make my own stoves that do just that.I want options for cooking whatever I want to cook.I want a stove that will fire up fast,get up to a boil..then auto change to a simmer mode for the rest of the cooking..Mine do that.
Fuel efficiency?..not really important to me because I only have time for 1,2,3 day hikes.12 ounces of heet in a bottle will get me by for that duration of time.
Weight..1/2oz to 2oz is fine..as long as it does what I want above...A 1/2 oz stove doesn't mean squat if you have to carry a hypodermic,funnel,special fuel bottle,priming pan,and measuring cup to fill the stove.To me that's all part of the weight you have to pack and should be included in the weight of the stove.Most need a windscreen,so i don't include that in the weight of the "stove".
I don't want to spend 10 minutes prepping/fueling a stove that will boil water in 3 minutes..that just doesn't make sense in saving time!I pour straight out of a bottle until I see "wetness" and I know that stove portion is full(and the amount of fuel that section holds,say 3/4-1oz of fuel) and what to expect from the stove..no measuring,no fuss!If I want a two stage burn..I estimate the first(for a timed high heat/boil) and the second simmer stage is a "wet" fill for an additional 40-50 minutes which usually gives me time to bake..or have coffee and do dishes after eating what I cooked earlier in the high heat stage.For a meal,I usually do the high low with a 50 minute or so total burn...just let it go so I don't have to relight/refuel...try to keep a pot on it cooking or heating water all during that time.I can take my time eating the main course..and "simmer a boil" for 15 minutes so I have hot water when I need it again..or more water..or bake a dessert. :dinner:
Each person has different requirements in their stoves..Some will want that ultralight stove that will do nothing but boil water on 1/2oz of fuel because they need a fuel miser for a long trip.
Hiking today..I used a "Dan stove"..all I was doing was "pressing coffee".Image
It was the perfect stove for the job at hand today..That's what's important to me.In the picture about 14oz water was boiling right at the top of a 16oz press(1/4" down from the top,holds 18oz to the rim).I poured about 3/4 oz of fuel out of a 4oz bottle that has marks on the side..and it burned awhile longer than the boil to warm our hands.I used a sock for a cozy and we had a handwarmer and hot coffee for about 2 miles back down the trail.Unfortunately..the wife forgot the Kahlua and I forgot the flask of Courvoisier... :cry:
Image
..Don't worry..it was a second pair of "small holey" ones I took along in case my feet got cold for over the first ones..didn't need to!(about 25 degrees at the bottom of the trail and 41 at the top,about 8miles round trip)..but they do make good cozies for the hot-pot-press,doubler sock,or even for a mitten for trek poles,or a hot pad...Lots of uses...
The views and opinions expressed by this person are his own and not the general consensus of others on this website.Realityguy

User avatar
zelph
Posts: 15822
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 1:53 pm

Re: speed or effeciency

Post by zelph » Mon Feb 21, 2011 2:10 am

Dual purpose socks :D Every item we carry should be dual purpose :o
http://www.woodgaz-stove.com/

countydjrick
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 7:54 pm
Location: Aroostook County, Maine

Re: speed or effeciency

Post by countydjrick » Mon Feb 21, 2011 11:53 am

The stove im working on now is fast boil then. Sucks of fuel. Have an idea for another that is only 1 inch tall. Kind of a pressure type can.

User avatar
Blue52
Posts: 60
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:28 pm

Re: speed or effeciency

Post by Blue52 » Mon Feb 21, 2011 12:22 pm

countydjrick wrote:When designing a stove. whats better? Long lasting fuel or fast burn time. Have one stove in the works now as seen in the welcome forum, (I know, wrong place.) Thats boils 2 cups in around 4-5 minutes, but uses 1 ounce of fuel. So far Ive put 14 bottles of HEET through it and no melting yet.


Efficiency will bring you both. How much fuel is needed is not a good indication of efficiency. I have two different stove designs both will boil slow with 20ml of fuel 2 cups in 6min,and boil fast 40ml of fuel 2cups in 3min. Boil 2cups in3min. or 4cups in 6min That to me seems pretty efficient. I have ran gallons through each none worse for the ware.

Take it outdoors in the wind and test, let us know if it still boils between 4-5min. Efficient wind protection and stove performance is the marriage of delight...;)

And when you get it right even with a video most won't believe.

Blue52

realityguy
Posts: 5948
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 2:20 am
Location: slightly north of Seattle,WA

Re: speed or effeciency

Post by realityguy » Mon Feb 21, 2011 5:57 pm

countydjrick..take a look around the homemade stoves area here..you might find a LOT of new and unique ideas here..
The views and opinions expressed by this person are his own and not the general consensus of others on this website.Realityguy

User avatar
Ridgerunner
Posts: 5275
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 9:08 pm
Location: SW, Ohio
Contact:

Re: speed or effeciency

Post by Ridgerunner » Mon Feb 21, 2011 8:26 pm

One other thing to consider is fuel weight. If you are a gram wienie, you may be willing to wait an extra few minutes for a boil if you only need half as much fuel. Personally, time is not an issue as I am usually socializing while cooking anyway. If it takes seven or eight minutes to boil instead of 4 or 5 minutes, that is no big deal to me. I would rather carry less fuel to get the job done than have to pack the extra weight to save a few minutes cooking. Besides, I need the extra weight allowances for those luxury items! :lol:
"Many of lifes failures are people who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up".....Thomas Edison

"Live Life....Love Life....Ask More !

Post Reply