The Solo Stove

[Tarrel]

(30 April 2013, 14:39)Hex Wrote:

(30 April 2013, 09:29)TheFalcon Wrote: Yeah ive wanted one of these for a long time but they can be pricey this is the cheapest ive seen that isnt home made
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/WOODGAS-STOVE-...4ac33c9bc8

isnt that just a paint tin with some holes in it?

No, it's double-skinned. Air is drawn in to the space between the skins, heated by radiant heat from the fire and then exits above the fire where it mixes with the unburnt products of combustion which then re-ignite. So, you get secondary combustion above the main fire.

---

(30 April 2013, 17:35)Mortblanc Wrote:

(29 April 2013, 23:32)Grumpy Grandpa Wrote: I wonder if anyone's had the opportunity to try one of these backpacking, woodburning stoves? They look light and efficient and seem to take away the need to carry fuel. I'd be interested to know...

Over the years have used a half dozen different backpacking stoves that required fuel and 3-4 of these wood burning designs.

I am not a big fan of the wood burners. They combine the worst features of a stove with the worst features of an open fire.

Thing is, when you need a stove you need a stove. You are usually working in an area that prohibits open fires and a stove is required. Often these wood burners do not meet that requirement and are viewed as any other open fire.

The fuel stoves work, no matter if they be sterno, petrol, paraffin, or alcohol. They will give you a fire right now, when you need it no matter if the twigs and bracken and tinder in your area are soaked, if you are soaked, or your pack is soaked.

Yep, you have to carry fuel, but 4-6 oz of fuel will last a weekend and eliminates that part where you stop to heat up the water for the evening and pray to whatever you believe in that the stove will work with the wet wood you have on hand.

The wood stoves are fantastic in the back yard, with dry fuel, under an awning, with no wind, plenty of tinder, wood that is the perfect size and patience enough to work with them for 30 minutes to boil a pot. In other words, they are nice under ideal conditions, but worthless when something in your world goes wrong.

Then, after you have used them they are black, soot covered, bulky and heavy, and you have to wrap them in something and tote them along. I would rather cap my fuel bottle, drop my stove in its little plastic sleeve and be on my way without worrying about the soot covering my hands and everything I touch before the wash up.

I like to cook over an open fire, and do so every chance I get, but these stoves are not as controllable as a well tended campfire with a good bed of coals and a cheery flame to bring the body and soul together.

And they are not as efficient as an expedition stove that will give you a cup of tea in 3 minutes flat with no soot, no cleanup, and no hunting for dry wood, and the distinct advantage that you can fire one up inside your tent for a boil up in the pouring rain.

My favored stove, and also used as a backup on any trip I make, is an old Coleman Expedition. Its tank holds fuel for 10 meals, It always works and it burns either regular petrol, unleaded petrol or paraffin. It also fits neatly inside the tin billy I prefer as my main, and often only, cooking utensil.

That is my opinion, did not cost you anything and is worth what you paid for it. Ignore it if you wish.

Wot he said.

A good test of a backpacking stove is a wet wildcamp in Scotland, where the heather and/or peat don't give you a flat, stable surface for the stove, the wind gusts all over the place, irrespective of where you put your windshield, and the rain soaks everything instantly. In that case it's a Trangia for me every time. The ultralight aluminium 27 weighs less than 800 grams minus the kettle.