Feb 1, 2008 at 4:39 pm #1227051
There are a lot of fans of the Trangia system out there, so I would like to know if anyone has tried the cone with the Trangia stove. I theory it should keep the advantages of the stove it self ( reliability and no-waste fuel storage) as well as at least some of the stability and wind/winter performance of the Trangia stand/windscreen but at a much lesser weight and volume. Someone asked that question already but I have not seen a reply to it.
BTW I am not saying that the Trail Design stove is not reliable or inefficient…Feb 1, 2008 at 5:05 pm #1418743
@ryan_hutchinsLocale: Somewhere out there
I haven't used the two systems together, but have used both separately. From conversations with Russ at Trail Designs, the height of the pot bottom to the top of the trail designs stove is specifically engineered for maximum burn efficiency. I am not sure how the Trangia differs in height, or if it matters for that stove, but if it is similar, I suspect it would work just fine. On a side note, I have had good luck reclaiming unburned fuel from the Trail Designs stove by simply pouring it back into the measuring cup and then to my fuel bottle.Feb 1, 2008 at 8:22 pm #1418760
I haven't tried the Trangia, but I have tried the Feather Fire stove. It is similar in that you can recover unused fuel and turn it down to simmer (from outside the cone, which is a bonus over the Trangia). It works great with the cone. The only downside (compared to the Trangia) is that the feather fire is no as robust.
I've found there is really no way of knowing how a particular stove will perform in a cone without just trying it.Feb 2, 2008 at 12:58 pm #1418822
Allison, I wonder if that new featherfire XL would work a little better.
As mentioned, I suspect you're going to lose some thermodynamic efficiency using a Trangia, however the ease-of-use and recovery of full gains may (depending on your hiking style) more than make up for it.Feb 3, 2008 at 10:41 am #1418931
The thermal efficiency of the Feather Fire was as good as any other stove I've tried in the cone. Without cone it took 12g to boil 2 cups. With cone it took 9g. This was with a two quart pot and cone, I have yet to try it with a smaller kit, but I suspect the smaller cone/pot combo will not be as efficient. I'll let youknow tomorrow.Feb 4, 2008 at 1:53 pm #1419083
Thank you all for the comments. Still waiting for the TiTri to come back in stock.
The Aussie that suggested diluting Ethanol was me, I'm actually an Italian born Kiwi who resides in Melbourne. I picked that idea up from some Scandinavian fellow, I think that they use it over there to reduce the heat output but as a side effect it reduces the spread of the flames.
FrancoFeb 4, 2008 at 2:07 pm #1419087
Franco and others
Tomorrow is a public holiday here, and (amongst other things) I plan to do some more testing. Thanks to Franco, I have reason to believe that slightly watering down ones alcohol *may* increase fuel efficiency. It could also be considered as a way to more approximate a simmer, or reduce flame spread for use on smaller diameter pots. I will try this with and without a cone, and will include the featherfire (which is close to Trangia in function).Feb 4, 2008 at 4:07 pm #1419114
@tbeasleyLocale: Pigeon House Mt from the Castle
Hi Franco, Alilson,
I have done some tests with Australian Methylated spirits (95% ethanol) and water mixes and up to 10% water there is not much reduction in performance but above 10% water the performance drops off dramatically. I have seen no evidence of better performance, I still need to do some more tests to complete the series.
I used my no 27 Trangia for these tests
TonyFeb 4, 2008 at 4:27 pm #1419117
Keep in mind that I used that with the White Box, a pressurized stove, not an open flame like the Trangia. However it may work with the Trangia/Caldera Cone or Featherfire/Caldera Cone combo.
Just noticed that my metho also is 95% Ethanol, I was sure that I had 97% with another brand…Feb 6, 2008 at 2:16 pm #1419426
@tbeasleyLocale: Pigeon House Mt from the Castle
I think the Tangia is considered an open top style pressure stove.
I will be very surprised if any amount of water added to alcohol in any alcohol stove makes it more efficient, my extensive testing has not shown this to be true in any way so far but I will do some more testing to try and find out what is happening.
With Australian Methylated Spirits I have done a search of what is in the other 5 or so percent is made up of and most manufactures only give basic information for the last 5%
For example from Diggers Metho http://www.diggersaust.com.au/files/Methylated%20Spirits%2095.pdf
Ethyl alcohol 64-17-2 95%
Water and denaturants balance
Denaturants may be one or more of the following: Methyl isobutyl ketone, fluorescein, methyl alcohol* or denatonium
(I suspect mostly water)
So it is very hard to know exactly how much water there is in Metho fuel when extra water is added.
BTW I just got 2 Nikon D300 for work and can't put them down, awesome cameras, I wish I could take them walking.
TonyFeb 7, 2008 at 10:25 am #1419545
Pots size and windscreen both make a difference.
This is no surprise, and so far I've only trialled the FeatherFire stove with and without caldera cones, so things may change when I get around to testing smaller flame throwers…I'm usung the FeatherFire as a surrogate for the Trangia because they are both open flame, extinguishable stoves that allows me to measure exact fuel consumption by weighing the stove before and after. Starting fuel was always 25g.
1) Foster's can, no windscreen. Boiled 2 cups in 6'30". Used 18 grams of fuel. I did this test twice because the fuel seemed very high, but it came out exactly the same both burns. The flame was reaching almost halfway up the sides of the can by the time it reached full throttle.
2) Foster's can plus caldera cone. Used 16g fuel.
3) AGG 3 cups pan, no windscreen. Boiled in 6'00". Used 14g fuel.
4)Should have been AGG 3cups pot with caldera, but I didn't have a caldera to fit this pot.
5)AGG 2qt pot, no windscreen. Boiled 2 cups in 5'30". Used 13g fuel.
6)AGG 2qt pot plus caldera. Boiled in 7 minutes. Used 10g fuel.
7)AGG 2qt plus caldera, but using 90% methylated spirits (watered down 10%). Exactly the same as burn 6. So with this stove/pot/cone combo, fuel quality made no difference. I know from previous White Box stove experiments that it makes a difference with this stove. I suspect that watering the fuel down may also reduce flame size enough to improve efficiency on smaller diameter pots such as the Foster's.
As you can probably do the maths, the weight savings of using a small diameter pot without a caldera cone will quickly be swamped by the extra fuel you would need to carry. Depends on how long the trip is and how much water you boil, and this is not even taking wind into the equation. I suspect the extra weight of carrying something like the Trangia or FeatherFire will also cancel out over time as you really only need burn exactly the amount of fuel you need for the job, and can completely recover the left overs. The other beauty of these kinds of stoves is the ability to 'over-fuel' them to achieve optimal burning efficiency. Fuel performance drops off when the fuel is either too low or too high. I find around an ounce starting fuel to be about optimal for boiling 2 cups. YMMVJan 10, 2013 at 10:41 pm #1942760Jan 11, 2013 at 12:06 am #1942769
did you measue how much fuel used in each case?
IMO the one that uses the least fuel is the winner not the fastest… ?
3 minutes means little to me once stopped and resting…. – I can be doing other stuff.Jan 11, 2013 at 9:50 am #1942855
wouldnt that have to do with external temp – I can see how in 30~40F its not that critical cause it will boil at the end even if the heat output isnt so strong…but what about colder temps or stronger winds where you need that extra output to make sure you actually get to the temp you want (whether its actually boiling or just below
MJan 11, 2013 at 10:55 am #1942870
not sure Mike
possibly certain design of burners/windscreens might not work so well in the conditions you mention.
my point was that to me, the main 'winning' criteria for a backpacking stove is fuel efficiency as long as boil time is within sensible limits. After all, I have to carry the fuel whilst 3 extra minutes whilst I'm resting costs me nothing!
I used a Trangia for 15 years since '85, but have used a cone (homemade) for the last 3-4 years (the last 2 with a Starlyte, previously various homemade pepsi/redbull canstoves). I don't consider a Trangia burner UL – even used with a cone.
I haven't had a problem attaining a boil at acceptable fuel efficiency (I measure a dose from medicine cup per boil) with wind (cones are good for that) or problem wioth cold down to 18 deg F.
Having said all that, I've only ever done trips up to 2 weeks, so it's an ideal of efficiency I follow rather than a real necessity ;)Jan 11, 2013 at 2:47 pm #1942923
robert van puttenMember
@bawanaLocale: Planet Bob
"If anyone is interested I can post pictures of the test setup and my home made windscreen."
Daneil, yes please! My Trangia 25 is my favorite stove.
I think the burner is fantastic, and blows away the dozens of Cat and Soda Can stoves I've made over the years. I have been thinking I need to make a lightweight windscreen / pot stand for the Trangia, as the whole 25 kit, while a fantastic cook kit, is a tad heavy….Jan 12, 2013 at 7:37 pm #1943287Jan 12, 2013 at 11:12 pm #1943327Jan 13, 2013 at 12:05 am #1943338Jan 13, 2013 at 2:35 am #1943341Jan 13, 2013 at 2:35 am #1943345Jan 13, 2013 at 9:13 am #1943388
Ultimately it sounds to me like your personal objective is faster boil times and willing to pay a slight weight penalty for that. It all comes down to preference I guess, weight vs wait :)Jan 13, 2013 at 10:12 am #1943407
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.