The Stove Report Sea Kayaking and Marine Natural History, WB2009 Dave Craig Rationale I began this little experiment in assessing stoves and cooking techniques as a result of feeling frustrated with the constant tinkering necessary to keep our MSR Whisperlites functioning during expeditionary field courses. Over the years I ve used Whisperlites during sea kayak expeditions, it has become clear that our students are not terribly adept at consistently keeping sand out of the stoves. The result has been clogged fuel lines that delay meals, thereby delaying curriculum and other activities. The beach environment has posed the additional challenge of keeping the stoves level and stable when they are used on sand or gravel beaches; I ve seen far too many spilled meals. We ve adapted to this challenge by using the MSR Trillium stove bases, but even these have their limitations. I began looking for alternatives to the Whisperlites in 2008. As I conducted my informal research on stoves, I discovered an additional point against our continued use of the venerable Whisperlite the repair of these stoves by the PC warehouse personnel consumes a huge amount of time and energy. According to Martin,... it takes between 20 minutes and an hour and a half for the Whisperlites [to be repaired]. It seems that Whisperlite stoves are often returned to the warehouse in damaged or inoperable condition due to a variety of reasons including exceeding the weight limit of the stoves, poor technique, inattention to maintenance needs and uninformed attempts at conducting field repairs. Method Our course consisted of a sixteen-day coastal, sea kayaking field expedition with two ration periods. The ration periods were divided into 9 breakfasts, 9 lunches and 8 dinners and 7 breakfasts, 7 lunches and 7 dinners, respectively. We instructed the students in the proper use and maintenance of each stove type, taught them how to make and use pot cozies, and we offered them information on efficient meal planning that included one-pot recipes. The group of nine students was divided into 4 cook groups of 2 with one student who roved from group to group during meal times. The student groups switched stoves every couple of days. Our instructor team cooked and planned food as individuals. We cooked and ate in the same area as the students most nights. The solo student expressed an interest in planning his meals using an efficient freezer bag method of cooking that none of the other students would buy into. He was allowed to cook on his own using the other groups stoves during dinner as well as a personal stove for breakfasts. We tested four stoves during the course: The Optimus Hiker+; the MSR Whisperlite Internationale; the MSR Windpro; and, the Trangia 25 series alcohol stove and pot set. Information about the group The students ranged in ages from 20 to 35. Most of the students were ages 20-22. The average age was 23. 7 of the students described themselves as, I cook a lot at home. The students had a range of experience with field cooking in terms of days in the field, number of field courses at PC previous to this course and the variety of camping stoves they had used prior to this course as follows: Estimated days of field cooking experience in the past two years: 35, 50, 50, 60, 60, 70, 100, 145, 200 # of field courses at PC: 1,1,1,1,3,3,5,6,7 # of types of stoves used previously: 1,2,2,2,4,4,4,4,7 (field experience in- & outside PC) 1
Stove Comparisons MSR Windpro MSR Whisperlite Optimus Hiker+ Trangia 25-8 UL/HA (shown open and packed 2
Weight Comparisons (as outfitted for field does not consider actual fuel consumption*) Whisperlite (rt.); Windpro (lt.); Trangia (below) Stove Type Description oz MSR Whisperlite Stove (bag, two pumps, wind screens, repair kit) 16 Total Utensil Kit (spatula, pot grips, spoon, scrubber, bag, stove base) Fry Bake with Lid Stainless 2 pot set (2qt and 1qt with lids) 1 Liter fuel in MSR bottle Pot Cozy 7lbs 5oz 12 28 27 33 1 117 Stove (bag, repair kit, wind screens) Fuel (2, 8 oz canisters - weight 12 oz ea) Fry Bake with Lid Utensil Kit (spatula, pot grips, spoon, scrubber, bag, stove base) Stainless 2 pot set (2qt and 1qt with lids) Pot Cozy 6lbs 6oz 10 24 28 12 27 1 102 MSR Windpro Total 3
Trangia 25 Stove (includes burner, 1.75L pot, 1.5L pot, fry pan/lid.9l tea kettle, stove base/windscreen) 36 Fuel (32 oz alcohol in reused, plastic water bottle) 28 Utensil Kit (spatula, pot grips, spoon, scrubber, bag) 9 Pot Cozy 1 Total 4lbs 10oz 74 Fuel Use* Ration 1: Isobutane White gas Alcohol 2 stoves approx 1.75, 8 oz canisters each (total 28 oz) 2 stoves approx 27 oz each (total 54 oz) 2 stoves approx 32 oz each (total 64 oz) Ration 2: Isobutane White gas Alcohol 2 stoves approx 1.5, 8 oz canisters each (total 24 oz) (students) 1 stove (Brunton Flex) approx 1, 8 oz canister (instructor) 2 stoves 26 oz each (total 52 oz) 1 stove 34 oz Student Feedback on the Stoves We asked the students to consider several aspects of stove performance and suitability including their preference of stove for coastal kayaking, their preference for 3-season backpacking, ease of use, and dependability. The Trangia stove emerged as the clear favorite in all categories. It was very clear that the Optimus Hiker+ stove was not in the running for anyone s favorite stove as we considered the stoves. It was dropped from the survey, as it seemed unsuitable for most PC course types. Stove preference for this course (Coastal Sea Kayaking winter Sonora) 0 1 8 0 Student comments on their preferred stoves: Trangia Positives: Stable, well-sized, Swedish, low fuel consumption, economical, low fuel smell, efficient, sturdy pots, simple, noiseless, light, easy to set up, nesting, dependable, easy to level, no flaws, teapot. Trangia Negatives: Limited group size (2-3 persons) Windpro Positives: Boils quickly, small, hassle free, more compact than the Trangia. Windpro Negatives: None. 4
Stove preference for 3-season backpacking: 0 3 6 0 Student comments: Trangia Positives already stated for the Trangia make it worth the extra packed size, alcohol is environmentally friendly/renewable fuel, no empty canisters, nesting. Windpro Smaller/more compact, fuel efficient, better for diverse meal types. Ease of Use The students were asked to rate each stove s ease of use on a 5-point scale as follows 1-very difficult to use; 2-difficult to use; 3-average usability; 4-easy to use; 5-very easy 3.1 4.4 4.6 3.3 Dependability The students were asked to rate each stove s dependability on a 5-point scale as follows 1-not dependable/always needed attention; 2-usually needed attention; 3-average dependability; 4-usually dependable/seldom needed attention; 5-always dependable/never needed attention 2.3 4.4 5 3.3 Additional information: The Whisperlite was the most susceptible to clogging the students often had to clean the stove before cooking. The Windpro stove lost a bolt at the top of the burner that affected the flame pattern and output; the students also felt that it was difficult to tell if they had sufficient fuel before starting a meal this sometimes resulted in delays to find a cartridge. The Trangia has no moving parts and no maintenance issues; the fuel level is easy to visually check before cooking. The Optimus Hiker+ suffered from one clog during the course and the handle of the pump lost the end knob. General Cooking The students rated each stove s ability handle the typical meal tasks for this expedition (including simmering, boiling water and cooking a variety of meals) on a 5-point scale as follows: 1-poor for general cooking tasks; 2-barely usable; 3-average for general cooking; 4-good for general cooking; 5-exceptional stove no concerns 5
3.4 4.2 4.5 Not rated Additional information: The Whisperlite was rated an average score because students found that it didn t simmer well and it required more attention than the other stoves. The Windpro was rated highly due to its flame control and wide pot supports. The Trangia lacked fine flame control, but the included simmer ring easily controlled the relatively low heat output it produces. In addition, the students appreciated the Trangia s ability to deal with windy conditions and its stability. Frying The students were asked to separately consider each stove s ability to deal with the task of frying foods. The Trangia cookset included a 22 fry pan. The other stoves were equipped with a standard Banks Fry Bake. 1-poor for frying; 2-barely usable; 3-average for frying; 4-good for frying; 5-exceptional for frying. 3.2 3.8 4.3 Not rated Additional information: The students generally felt that the Trangia had superior pan support for frying. Notes on Isobutane Canister Stoves In discussing the option of using isobutane (canister) stoves with other faculty, staff and students, I discovered a bias against canister stoves due to the supposed wasteful nature of the canister fuel. Apparently, many people are under the impression that canisters must be disposed of as trash. This is not true. Canisters can easily be recycled after some minor preparation. Please read the following summary of information that I ve gathered regarding gas canisters. Isobutane canisters are constructed of ferrous metal that can be recycled in the same fashion as other common metal containers such as canned food containers. While it is true that unprepared gas canisters must be disposed of as hazardous waste (due to explosion risk), preparing the canisters for recycling is simple and safe. 6
To prepare an isobutane canister for recycling: 1) Use all remaining fuel. Verify that the canister is completely empty by shaking the canister (no noise should be heard) and by connecting the canister to a stove and attempting to use the stove as normal. This step should be conducted at the same altitude and with room temperature containers whenever possible. 2) Extinguish all cigarettes and open flames before proceeding with step #3. 3) Puncture the empty container with a sharp nail, awl, punch or other sharp object. The easiest and safest place to puncture the container is just outside the stove fitting on the canister. There is a shallow divot that surrounds the stove fitting that helps to prevent the sharp tool from slipping and causing injury. A small amount of gas may escape as the container is punctured. 4) Crush the empty canister with a hammer or heavy stone. Eye protection and footwear should be used. 5) Place the crushed canisters into an appropriate metal recycling container. Appropriateness of Isobutane for PC Courses Given the appropriate environment and operation according to instructions, isobutane stoves are perhaps the most efficient of all stove types. On our course, the canister stoves used less than 16 oz of fuel compared to approximately 28 oz for the gasoline stoves. Another common criticism of isobutane stoves is that they cannot be used in freezing environments. In fact, isobutane stoves like our MSR Windpros (all stoves with preheating tubes) can be used in sub-freezing environments with some simple adaptations in technique. Finally, as with all stoves, and isobutane stoves in particular, wind screens are necessary for the best fuel efficiency. It is also important for students to understand that running any stove wide open (with flames running up the sides of the pot), wastes fuel and does not reduce the time to boil. Why not cook in groups of two? In order to accommodate the diversity of stoves we wanted to test, we chose to have the students work in cook groups of two people each. For previous sea kayaking courses, I had always considered groups of 3-4 to be the minimum group size. I had assumed that this arrangement for cooking would result in lower overall gear and fuel weights along with less fuel consumption and a reduction in the space needed in the boats for packing multiple stoves and sets of cooking gear. I now wonder if those assumptions were correct. The students responded very positively to working in teams of two. They highlighted the relative ease of food planning for two people as opposed to 3, 4 or the whole group. Special diets were more easily accommodated. One student expressed the concern that it seemed more expensive to shop for two, but she also acknowledged that she had not taken our advice to coordinate a group food purchase. Her concern also seems to be a non-issue when buying food in bulk from the warehouse, New Frontiers or Basha s the price per pound is the same regardless of the group size. 7
My concerns about fuel use and the space needed for the additional equipment seemed unfounded. This course used the same amount of fuel I ve issued for larger cook group sizes. In fact, we used less, something I mainly attribute to our use of pot cozies. However, I am also wondering about the fuel efficiency of heating smaller amounts of water in smaller pots using multiple stoves as opposed to cooking in larger vessels on a single stove. Water has a high heat capacity and I would not be surprised to discover that larger quantities of food or water require vastly more heat input and fuel. This seems like a simple experiment to design and undertake. We used only one additional stove for the student group and this was a stove that I would normally have included as a back up anyway. The 2 smaller pots issued to each cook group (2L and 1L) appeared to be easier to pack in the boats as they could occupy a greater variety of locations due to the reduced size. On reflection, we discovered some additional benefits of two person cook groups: Small cook groups involve more students directly in developing menu plans, operating stoves and practicing cooking skills. This seems like an excellent outcome for an educational institution. Small groups can easily combine forces to prepare meals for the larger group by simply using smaller pots to cook the same overall volume and menu items. In this arrangement, there would not be any additional workload in planning or purchasing meals. Food would likely be cooked more efficiently with fewer burned meals and spilled dinners. Small groups can more easily disperse impact in sensitive areas. Small groups can use lighter stoves and cookware than would be suitable for larger groups. In particular, alcohol stoves work very well for 2-3 persons, but their efficiency drops off dramatically for larger groups. Cooking in smaller groups does not exclude having the group experience of cooking, eating and preparing meals as a full course. We cooked and ate as a group most evenings. However, students who wanted to eat later or earlier to accommodate other activities were free to do so. Two person cook groups are the most likely kitchen scenarios our students will be cooking in following Prescott College cooking at home, on small personal wilderness trips and cooking in instructor teams. Pot Cozies The students learned to use pot cozies on this course. We demonstrated how to make and use cozies made out of Reflectix duct insulation. The students in each cook group made cozies to fit their pots. After some initial reluctance, students fully embraced the pot cozy cooking method. They discovered that foods were easily cooked in the cozy without having to attend to the stove. It is impossible to burn meals in the cozy, there is no chance of a pot boiling over and any simmering task involving boiling is easily accomplished. Students cooked the full range of boiled items, that would have normally required several minutes of simmering or boiling, including potatoes, rice, quinoa, pasta, dehydrated beans and soups. At the end of the course, every student enthusiastically agreed that they would continue to use cozies in other field courses. Overall, they rated the cozies as highly effective. It was clear that we had used very little fuel during this course as compared to other field courses in the same season. Whether this was directly attributable to using pot cozies or smaller pots, or a combination of the two, the result was impressive. Using the gasoline stoves as a point of 8
comparison, fuel consumption was less than approximately 1/8 liter of stove fuel per day, rather than the ¼ to 1/3 liter of stove fuel usually used on these courses! Conclusions This experiment leads me to suggest several ideas for consideration by the PC AE program: Our students could benefit from using several different stove types during their time at Prescott College. Many types of stoves are used successfully throughout the world in institutional settings. It doesn t seem appropriate for a higher education program to produce students who have limited experience with the range of options available. Rather than attempting to use one stove type for all of our field programming, we should consider using a variety of stoves that are appropriate for a diversity of course goals and environments. PC faculty, instructors and students should be encouraged to implement the most efficient field kitchen practices possible in order to reduce overall pack and vehicle weight. Transporting greater weights to the trailhead decreases gas mileage this is the single largest environmental impact our program should be concerned about mitigating. We and our students should gain a clear understanding of the actual benefits and drawbacks of various stove types and cook group arrangements rather than relying on traditional modes of operation and potentially erroneous assumptions. We might consider developing a planned educational progression that exposes students to a variety of ration planning models and field cooking techniques. The AE program might adopt a set of outcomes for all students regarding field cooking. It would be efficient and possible to insert a expedition cooking curriculum into the 18-credit courses. It might also be interesting to develop a shorter course (1 semester unit). Regardless of the stove type chosen, the following practices might be considered for implementation: o All stoves should be carefully inspected before they leave for the field. This inspection should not only include lighting the stove, but also a careful inspection of fittings, o-rings and other failure points. o All students on every course should receive an orientation on stove use and safety from a qualified person either the course instructor or a designee who has recently and carefully read the particular stove s instruction manual. o Stoves should only be operated according to the manufacturer s instructions. o Stoves should be returned in working condition to the warehouse or repaired by the course in town under the direction of the warehouse manager. 9