Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 14:01:00 -0800 (PST) From: Robert Bedichek To: pct-l@backcountry.net Subject: Re: [pct-l] Bic Stoves On Sun, 7 Mar 1999 Montedodge@aol.com wrote: > Butane stoves are just glorified Bic Lighters with grills on top. These are i realize that the poster likes to bait people here. i'd like to add some facts to the excellent responses already made. 1. propane and butane have significantly higher energy density than white gas, about 35 btu's per gram as opposed to about 25 for "coleman fuel". that means that you don't have as much weight on your back for the amount of potential heat energy you are carrying. 2. everest expeditions use propane/butane (i've seen their used gear for sale in namche bazaar at 12,500', about 15 miles from the west buttress, and along with a lot of other sturdy high altitude gear are left over propane/butane stoves and canisters.) so along with the "good for girl scouts, etc.", please add "everest expeditions". 3. the hottest burning backpacker stove that i know of is the titanium primus. i have one and it is much hotter than any MSR i've used. in fact, i sometimes boil water w/o full throttle. with a small pot, the flames are so hot it can make it a little difficult to handle the pot. 4. as others have pointed out, temperatures on the pct may-octover, even in the worst conditions don't prevent propane/butane stoves from working. let me add that i have nothing against all the other stoves. i'm not telling anyone what kind of stove they should take. "hike your own hike", etc. some general comments about people giving advice: 1. when someone says "you are crazy to do X", i turn off. if they instead say "i've tried X or seen someone do X and the outcome was Y" (where Y is not good), i take it more seriously. 2. different people have different levels of acceptable risk and that will results in different decisions. 3. people who cast blanket criticisms on ray jardine's book haven't read it. people who have read the book realize that jardine was not making an unqualified and simple statement that all hikers should carry eight pound packs. he was showing how he and his wife did the trail and how others might learn something from it. 4. people who have hiked the whole pct in one season tend to favor light packs. 5. people who take a lot of gear (perhaps for the good reason that they need it to achieve their safety/goal/comfort tradeoff) have an emotional investment in their decision. this leads a few of them to criticize others for making different decisions. i recall climbing three fingered jack (in oregon) w/o helmets and getting "attitude" from some group climbers who were all wearing helmets. this was a climb where there was minimal exposure to rock fall. it wasn't crazy to either have or not have helmets. it was a personal decision. and for a group it made more sense to use helmets. i have seen plenty of people unprepared for extreme situations (e.g. winter camping in upstate n.y.) and i've only made a (friendly) comment once. that was when a father was using unsafe rock climbing technique with children. the children were correctly terrified. other climbers were also distressed by what they saw. together, we gently suggested to the unsafe leader/father that he not do what he was doing. 6. just as there is a risk of needing something you don't have, there is also a risk in taking something you don't need. jardine makes this point well. personally, i found ray's book interesting. like a number of people who have read the book, i have lowered my pack weight, but i don't go nearly as far as jardine himself does. i'm sure jardine would say "that's great, glad you found my book useful". i'd like to thank folks on this list for some great advice. rob bedichek http://www.arctic.org/~robert
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 00:33:59 EST From: Montedodge@aol.com To: pct-l@edina.hack.net Subject: [pct-l] Time to kick the Dead Horse once again I promise this is it on the butane kick but this last guy Robert is out to lunch. Butane and propane is way hotter than white gas and lighter? (Your dream,n) When was the last time you took a ride in a converted auto or truck that ran on propane? I bet that,s a nosebleed! F-16 fighter jets run on basicly superfiltered kerosene which is tops on energy per weight of all camping fuel followed closely by white gas. Maybe the Navy will make a propane jet-fighter just for you Robert. Or a butane burning tank . You can use whatever to cook with on the PCT, No big deal, but go peddle your propane story to the Junior High Chemistry class, you might get some takers. * From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List | http://www.backcountry.net *
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 08:46:49 EST From: Slyinmd@aol.com To: pct-l@backcountry.net Subject: Re: [pct-l] Time to kick the Dead Horse once again In a pinch, I've used auto fuel in my Whisperlite Internationale. I used high test, although it didn't burn as clean as colemans fuel (white gas?). In the olden days, when I had my Optimus (the one in the blue metal box, is that right?) I used Amoco high test which was unleaded even back then and it seemed to work fine. At that point in time we called it white gas. To the point, I've been told or read somewhere that it's actually better to burn low octane gas, is this true? Would it burn cleaner, hotter or what? It seems like I have some misconceptions on liquid here. Thanks, Sly * From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List | http://www.backcountry.net *
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 00:00:12 -0800 From: Brick Robbins To: pct-l@backcountry.net Subject: Re: [pct-l] Time to kick the Dead Horse once again I am going to take issue with some of the stuff Montedodge@aol.com posted. > You can use >whatever to cook with on the PCT, No big deal, but go peddle your propane >story to the Junior High Chemistry class, you might get some takers. Computing the energy density (energy/weight) of hydrocarbons is pretty tricky because the fractions vary from refinery to refinery, and gasoline varries from season to season. Most of the numbers I found were adjusted for engine efficiency, which doesn't count here. I dug up the numbers below from several references. I'm not sure exactly what is in white gas, except that it has much more naptha than gasoline, and I couldn't find any numbers for it. I'm not a petro-chemist, but here is the best I found: Fuel Energy density (MJ/Kg) ***** ************* Hydrogen 138 Diesel (kero) 57 Gasoline 50.4 Propane 47-51 So Hydorgen is the best, and Kerosene (Diesel) is the best Hydrocarbon, but Propane and Gasoline are about the same, with Propane a little less. LNG is a mixture of several fractions (lots of methane), and is less energy dense that pure Propane. > F-16 fighter jets run on >basicly superfiltered kerosene which is tops on energy per weight of all >camping fuel followed closely by white gas. This is really quite misleading, since fuel density measured in energy/volume is as important in aircraft as energy/weight. In backpacking, energy/weight is mostly what we care about. Also combat aircraft have to worry about leaks and exposions from combat damage as well so this analogy doesn't apply. If energy/weight was the only concern then F-16s would run on Hydrogen (like the Shuttle does). Considering volume only, Propane is about half as engery dense as kersene. LNG is worse. FWIW, Ive used both types of stoves, and find the propane ones easier to use, but I cary my ancient MSR-KG when I travel because it will burn almost anything, and I can fly on airlines with it as long as the tank is empty. I'm gonna put on my list Admin hat and ask everyone involved in this thread to be a little more polite. Hike Your own Hike. -Brick * From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List | http://www.backcountry.net
Last updated March 11, 1999