What's the best stove for *all* conditions?.

It's kind of a general post, but as you read through it, you may get an idea of what stove makes the best choice for what conditions.

Enjoy,

HJ

P.S. Sorry I haven't been around as much lately. We discovered bed bugs a few weeks ago. That's a survival story of another type. Let's just say that my camping equipment came in really handy. I hope to write up a blurb at some point as my time gets freed up. In the mean time, a word to the wise: Learn about bed bugs before you next travel. They're back, and they're bad.

Jim! How could you discuss this subject and not mention the good old Trangia? I have used it for years whenever I wanted a simple, dependable, reasonably lightweight stove. I have some reservations about cold weather performance, although if it's good enough for the Swedish Army, it ought to be good enough for me.

Good to hear from you HJ. Sorry to hear about your "home invasion," hope you get that worked out. Take care of you and yours and hopefully we'll hear from you soon.

About the blogpost, I was reading about your personal stoves and noticed you mentioned "capable of simmering" for one and "difficult to simmer" for a lot of the others. I assume you mean difficult to simmer as in for cooking purposes, but as I am pretty ignorant about stoves I thought you might be referring to something else. Does it mean what I think it means, or is this "stove talk" for something else?

Wow Jim that sucks. Hope you get it all worked out. It would be interesting to know how you dealt with them. I've read that extreme heat and diatomaceous earth are the only things that kill them. And then there's preventive stuff like matress encasements, etc. Good luck.

Thanks Jim. The MSR XGK is high on the list, but I also like the MSR Dragonfly and Whisperlite Int'l. Possibly a bit less than the XGK for robustness, but both are fairly tough and reliable multi-fuel stoves. The Dragonfly simmers quite well.

For all conditions? That's very open ended -- some limitations are needed.

The Trangia 25 and Trangia 27 are indeed fabulous, highly reliable cooking systems. I wouldn't exactly call them light weight though, and they are bulky.

Exactly. The question posed to me was "What's the Best Stove for *all* Conditions?" I personally can't feel comfortable recommending an alcohol stove for cold weather. For snow melting, alcohol takes an absurdly long time. It's not really practical. In really cold conditions alcohol is slow to vaporize. Remember, you're not burning liquid alcohol; you're burning vapor.

Hmmm. Well, first recall the KAP Arctic stove, the "Holy Grail" of extreme conditions/extreme cold weather stoves, was developed for the Swedish military precisely because alcohol stoves were inadequate.



Second, recall that for cold weather cooking in conditions less extreme than those calling for a KAP Arctic, the Swedish military often used the Optimus 111.

Yes, the primary issue for the Swedish military was a larger-than-civilian Trangia burner with a distinctive Swedish military mess kit, but even the Swedes themselves didn't try to use them in the dead of winter, particularly in the far north.

HJ

Thank you, Mark. They're a huge hassle. Don't know if we've beat them yet. I will definitely post something about them soon.

lol. No secret jargon here. Simmering means simmering.

From Wikipedia: "Simmering is a food preparation technique in which foods are cooked in hot liquids kept at or just below the boiling point of water." In other words, in order to truly simmer, a stove has to be able to hold the temperature below a roiling boil. With many stoves, it's all but impossible to operate the stove without going into a full roiling boil.

In the back country, a lot of people just prepare meals that require boiling water, but to a true cook, nothing less than a stove capable of truly simmering will do.

HJ

Precisely right. If you read my blog post, you will notice that I listed 12 different stoves. This is my somewhat subtle way of suggesting to the person who posed the question that there is no one right stove for all situations.

The Dragonfly is an excellent simmerer. I enjoy cooking with it very much. It's also very easy to prime because of it's easily adjustable flame. HOWEVER, the Dragonfly is a good deal "touchier" than either the XGK or the Whisperlite and requires more careful use and more frequent cleaning. Dragonflies have let me down a couple times in the backcountry over the years. Fortunately neither time was at a critical juncture. Still, it's a bit of a pain. As much as I like the Dragonfly, it is not on my list of best stoves, unless you are car camping and have a backup stove.

The Whisperlite Internationale is definitely a good stove. I actually prefer the Internationale over the regular Whisperlite if for no other reason than it's priming wick. The Internationale also has the very desireable quality of being able to burn unleaded gasoline or kerosene (with a jet change) in a pinch. HOWEVER, one should be prepared to clean the stove more frequently. Unleaded and kerosene will not burn as cleanly, particularly if you prime with kerosene. Alcohol is the preferred priming fuel in general but most especially with kerosene. On the Internationale, it's best to burn white gasoline whenever available since white gasoline will burn the cleanest and cause the fewest clogs. Unleaded and kerosene should be limited to those times when white gasoline simply isn't available.

HJ

No Esbit stove ?

The "all rounder" that us dinosaurs have used for years is the Svea 123 and its clones - partly because it was all there was. But I have used in winter, down well below zero, as well as in summery Arizona desert conditions, where you barely needed a stove at all. A bit on the finicky side, but it always worked. And you had plenty of "Boy Scout firestarter" for a wood fire, if you needed it.

+1 on the Svea 123 and the like. Yes, it has its limits, like everything, but it covers just about all the bases at least adequately, even if not outstandingly.

Although I also use a Coleman propane stove when car camping, I like a liquid fuel stove for, among other reasons, the fact that I can always easily tell how much fuel is left by opening the tank. More difficult with a propane or other gas canister.

You'll get no argument from me!! If you look in my list of "personal" stoves (the stoves I use repeatedly out on the trail and don't just sit in my closet), I believe it's the first on the list. I've got a 60's Svea 123 (original style -- before Optimus bought the rights to the Svea line of stoves and changed the design), and it's still running strong. It's probably the second most often used out of all of my stoves.

Of the stoves that came out in the 1950's, only one, the Svea 123, is still in production. OK, now it's the "R" version, but it's still a Svea 123. Such longevity speaks volumes as to the Svea 123's reliability and great combination of features. For a stove from the "brass age" of stoves, it's weight is surprisingly competitive with modern liquid fueled stoves. The idea of using the tank as part of the exterior of the stove was quite an innovation at the time (most stoves came in some kind of steel box) and significantly reduced both the bulk and the weight of the 123 compared to other stoves of its class (Optimus 8R, Primus 71, Optimus 80, etc.). The Svea's use of a cup as the cap to protect the burner was a very early example of dual use and again quite an innovation. The Svea's design has stood the test of time.

The one thing I might fault the Svea 123 for is it's ability (or lack thereof) to handle strong winds. Strong winds really mess with the flame on the Svea 123. Yes, you can use an external windscreen, but you'd best be danged careful about it. Over heat (and therefore over pressure) the full tank and you could get the flaming fireball of death.

Yet I still reach for my old Whisperlite even before the Svea 123. The Whisperlite has been very reliable for me, and I like the full windscreen. The full windscreen not only stops wind but also (and nearly as importantly) protects the fuel from the heat of the burner. It's low slung, giving it a low center of gravity and making it a very stable stove. It handles larger pots well.

If the weather is moderate and I'm out by myself or with one or two other persons, then I tend to grab the Svea 123. If it's windy, a bit colder, or I'm out with more people, I tend to grab the Whisperlite.

HJ

For cold weather? For strong wind? For melting snow? No, I wouldn't recommend a hexamine stove for those conditions or applications. For *all* conditions, hexamine just wouldn't enter my mind.

For "fast and light" fair weather trips? Sure. And it'll do a danged good job. I consider hexamine to be very competitive with alcohol stoves, although alcohol will burn much more cleanly. Hexamine is nice in that it's very easy to see how much you're using and that it can't spill.

The place where I see hexamine stoves having a real advantage is in their stability and "shelf life." I carry a hexamine stove in each of our family cars and my office BOB. The fuel is very durable if reasonably well packed. It won't leak, it isn't volatile, and it will last for years. Hexamine stoves are light and compact which, when combined with their stability and good "shelf life," makes them ideal for caches, cars, office BOB's, etc. Just make sure you pack a good wind screen with them.

HJ

I like the Svea 123 a lot. Once you get a hand for starting it it is quite reliable and dependable. Doesn't simmer worth a damn. Using a 'burner gauze', a bit of wire mesh with some fireproof fiber on it that spreads out and mellows the heat, helps but it never gets below rolling boil. Svea 123 really only has three settings: off, medium, and 'blast furnace'. It also only likes to run on white gas.

For urban bug-ins, car kits, power outages and other short term use a single-burner propane unit stores well, is quick to set up, completely un-finicky, and very reliable. You can quickly and easily melt snow, prepare hot drinks, and simple meals with minimum fuss and muss using standard propane bottles that are widely available. All at a very reasonable price. Add a single mantle propane lantern and you have warmth, cooking, and light.

These low-end propane units are heavy for hiking but perfect for car and canoe camping.

Playing with metaphors I suspect the 'best stove' is the human body. Stuff food and water in and you get warmth and energy.

I would probably go for the Esbit CS2350HA alcohol stove system with the Trangia Multifuel X2 adapter burner Artno: 750001 (basically the guts of a Primus Omnifuel Stove).

Well, yes and no. Some Svea 123's simmer better than others. My old, beater Svea 123 does a pretty fair job of simmering. Now, in all fairness, I probably need to replace the tank cap gasket. I suspect that my hardened (and therefore not quite as air tight) gasket has a lot to do with the ability of my Svea 123 to simmer. I've deliberately not replaced the gasket. Svea 123's have a lot of "personality" and vary widely from unit to unit.

The wire gauze trick you mention works well with Svea 123's (and indeed most stoves) that don't simmer well. There are a variety of simmer plates that will show up from time to time on eBay. MSR used to include a simmer plate (basically just a tin can lid) with its Model 9 line of stoves (now called the XGK).

HJ

Jim,

Isn't the Svea 123 more or less a lineal descendant of the first Primus stoves, dating I believe, from the late nineteenth century? It just seems like they are a classic design, very simple and durable...

The Svea 123 has many things in common with the Primus No. 1: Both are made of brass which machines well, conducts heat well, and does not rust. Both use a "roarer" type burner, which is a very simple yet reliable design with good wind resistance. Both are "upright" type stoves with the burner mounted directly atop the fuel tank. This upright design allows for thermal feedback where the heat of the flame is conducted back to the fuel to vaporize the fuel.

But there are significant differences too. Recall that Primus stoves run on kerosene. The great breakthrough of Frans Lindqvist, the designer of the Primus, was his double tube burner design which allowed for complete vaporization of kerosene.


By contrast, the Svea 123 has but a single tube. Gasoline is much easier to vaporize than kerosene, so Lindqvist's design, brilliant as it is, is unecessary.


Another important difference: Flame control on a Primus is accomplished by means of an air screw. To reduce the flame, one reduces the pressure in the fuel tank by opening the air screw. Now since kerosene has a high flash point, the mixture of air laden with kerosene vapor doesn't burst into flame as it rushes out of the tank. Try running a Primus stove on gasoline, and it's likely to be the last thing you ever do. If you open the air screw to vent the tank while running on gasoline, well, let's just say I hope your life insurance is paid up. You did want to win a Darwin award, didn't you?

The Svea 123 on the other hand has a needle valve. The flame is controlled opening and closing the valve.

While both stoves operate to some degree by means of thermal feedback, that is the heat of the flame is conducted by the brass of the stove's burner assembly to the fuel tank where the heat vaporizes the fuel, a Primus needs a pump in order to achieve full operating pressure. A Svea 123 with its gasoline fuel does not need a pump. Gasoline's volatility alone pressurizes the stove. Note: An optional mini pump (straight) or midi pump (angled) can be used, along with a special tank cap, on a Svea 123. The pump is not necessary but can be helpful in cold weather.

In short, while the Svea 123 does have some similarities to classic Primus stoves, there are some significant differences. To my mind, the Svea 123 is more of a distant cousin to the Primus No. 1. The Svea 123 is a direct descendant of the gasoline powered Campus No. 3 which came out in the 1930's.


HJ

Thanks Jim, nice piece of practical camping stove history.

For myself I've decided that a combination of the bushbuddy ultra & the burner from the Trangia Mini. The Trania burner has a simmer ring to adjust the temperature. Adjusting the temperature on the bushbuddy is done by type & amount of wood.

The trangia stores inside the bushbuddy...which nests inside the snow peak trek 900. This allows me to burn alcohol or wood, both of which are cheap and plentiful.

Weight with the trangia empty: 428grams.
Cost: $210 Canadian

Trangia burner=~$13
Trek 900=$67
Bushbuddy Ultra=$130

You can replace the bushbuddy with a homemade hobo stove which will cost you little except time. The Trek Pot/Pan combination could also be replaced with a cheap option that fits around your hobo stove.

According to Google, the Svenia: costs $90 & weighs 510 grams. The problem is if you need to use it more than lets say 7-10 times you run out of fuel.

Having an indefinite fuel supply (wood) is good. I can have both the pot and pan going at the same time, since I have two burners for the same weight. As you can tell, I am concerned with weight and not cost.

Great post Jim.

I posted a link to it from my blog to yours.

I look forward to more from Adventures In Stoving!!

Blake

www.outdoorquest.blogspot.com

Thanks, Blake. Much appreciated, and it reminds me that I haven't visited your blog for a while -- a problem I intend to remedy very soon.

HJ

There are very few Esbit items readily available in the US. I haven't seen an actual CS2350HA, but it looks fabulous on the Esbit website.

If you combine the CS2350HA with the burner from an Omnifuel, then you've got a stove very similar to the CAP Arctic that I mentioned earlier, a stove that should work in the coldest, windiest conditions that a stove can possibly work in.

Do you have any photos of yours that you'd like to share with us?

HJ

Here is a site that compares stoves, so each of us can make their own decisions:

http://zenstoves.net/StoveChoices.htm

There is no perfect stove, buy what suits your needs...and level of knowledge I suppose.

First, let me say that a wood stove in an area where wood is plentiful and where wood fires are safe and ethical makes a lot of sense.

I didn't recommend such a stove because a) wood fires are often impractical in desert regions, high altitude regions, high latitude regions, etc, and b) because wood fires, even in a stove, are sometimes unsafe. Here in California, we have something called the Santa Ana wind. It's a hot dry blast furnace that can carry embers for miles, igniting multiple spot fires, each that can be come a conflagration. If I caught a person having a wood fire during a Santa Ana wind and they wouldn't immediately put the fire out, I'd report them, or if the danger were immediate, I'd take action to physically stop them.

Then there's the ethical question: am I in an area where I might cause ecological harm? In high altitude or other fragile areas, I personally don't think wood burning is ethical. Let the scarce wood lie, and let nature take it's course.

Indefinite? Maybe. But I've been on hikes where I've had a hard time finding suitable wood, particularly in arid regions. And don't forget about fires. I went through a burn zone in Northern Arizona a few years ago. There was about as much wood as the surface of the moon.

And don't forget about places like the Olympic peninsula of the United States which is essentially a rain forest. Getting wood ignited can be done, don't get me wrong, but it's not as easy as it might be else where.

Again, let me say that a wood stove in an area where wood is plentiful and where wood fires are safe and ethical makes a lot of sense. But don't grab a wood stove thinking I'll be "set" every where I go, no matter the time of year, the weather, or the elevation. There's a bit more to it than that.

Well, yes, but how is that different from a Trangia or any other stove? Most Trangia users I know cannot fill their Trangia burner and go on a week long hike. They have to carry a bottle of additional alcohol from which they periodically refill their burner. The Svea 123 is no different. On trips where I will need more fuel than will reasonably fit in the tank of my Svea, I bring a bottle with additional fuel.

Whether wood, alcohol, solid chemical fuel, gas, gasoline, or kerosene, you'd better make sure you are going to have enough fuel for your needs.

HJ

Very good and timely points, Jim. We came across this same situation today in a very dry/arid and ecologically fragile area. Temps were in the 90's along with a good wind kicking up. If a wood fire took off in these conditions today, it could possibly burn for weeks before it was brought under control. Due to these conditions, we carried (as always) our MSR Pocket Rocket stove for lunch and tea today.

Zen stoves is a *great* resource. I've referred to that site time and again.

This particular page (http://zenstoves.net/StoveChoices.htm) has a lot of good content, and like all sites and pages has its limitations. Well worth the read and hopefully along with this thread and other internet (or other) resources will do just what you suggest: allow each of us to make our own decisions. My "ulterior motive" if you will in answering a somewhat naive question is to start dialog and to get people to think. I'm sort of the evangelist of stoves. lol.

HJ

Occasionally conditions will be so dry that forest officials will not allow the use of liquid fueled stoves; your only option then is a canister stove. When things get that dry, I personally feel it is time to not have any kind of fire at all and to consider going somewhere else where conditions are better.

Wow! Now that's dry. I have seen entire forests closed to any entry during high fire danger periods. They allowed people to drive down the highway, but all the turn outs were cordoned off, and rangers were patrolling.

Here where I live, the closest national forest is Angeles National Forest. There's a standing order: no fires except in developed campgrounds. Here, wood fires aren't really practical in the back country -- unless you want to be a scofflaw.

In the nearby San Gorgonio and San Jacinto Wildernesses, wood fires are completely banned. I think the bans in the San Gorgonio and San Jacinto Wildernesses are more based on the popularity of the location. Allow wood fires in those two popular wildernesses, and you'd soon have the whole place stripped bare.

Again, though, if you're in an area where there's plenty of wood, the forest isn't a tinderbox about to go up in flame, and there aren't any ethical misgivings, wood stoves make a lot of sense.

HJ

Good stuff over on your blog, Blake. Having an interesting conversation with someone there about (what else?) stoves.

HJ