Talk:Portable stove

The title of this subject is Portable stove, yet all the material seems only to be about back-packable things. At least the History ought to be less restrictive. Before the 1950s, in Europe (well England) we were taking Primus stoves, made by Primus AB of Sweden, to picnics on the beach etc. They had an integral pressurizing pump, and either burned paraffin (kerosene) started by methylated spirit (denatured alcohol), or they burned petrol (gasoline). I feel pretty sure these Primus stoves were around before 1939.

But what brought me to Wikipedia here was a startling thing I read in a recent Wellington biography (Christopher Hibbert, HarperCollins 1997): prior to about 1812 the British army used heavy iron camp-kettles, transported by mules. During the winter of 1811-1812 Wellington had made for his army in the Peninsular "light tin kettles, one for every six men, to be carried by ONE of the men, each having a small cooking machine of tin besides."

"Tin" must of course have been tinplate. But it seems (unsurprisingly) that Napoleon's armies had long since been better equipped with something for cooking (personally I've no idea what), which made their stops for meals quicker than those of the Brits and their Portuguese and Spanish allies.

So there's scope for much more in the History section. But are there any scholars around to produce it? Edetic (talk) 00:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

What you've written (above) should be incorporated into the history section. You even give a source for some of the information. Fuzzform (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

How come the portable stove article mentions nothing about pumping up the pressure in the stove with the little rod pump thing? Rmhermen 16:45 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I was just trying to get the heat transfer mechanism right. I think using a pump on a stove is a dangerous way to start it and the pump is one more thing to pack. (I'm a weakling.) Rich J 23:43 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I don't get it. You need pressure in the fuel canister to force the fuel out into the burner. With liquid fuel, you need to use a pump to generate this air pressure. -Smack 19:38, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

A pump is one way to do it. What you have to get up to the burner is flammable vapor (liquid would quench the flame). This may be done by filling the trench at the bottom of the burner neck with gas, lighting that and judiciously opening the valve. The trench flame heats the burner which heats the neck. When you open the valve the chimney effect takes over. If you filled the stove properly (ever wonder why the fuel port is not at the high point?) there is a lot of vapor just waiting to rise. This vapor is ignited by the flame from the trench. The plate on the top of the burner captures part of the heat, returns it via the burner to the neck and everything rolls along merrily (until you let it burn at high heat too long and the stove explodes).

I still don't get it. I don't fill no stove - I fill a bottle and hook it up to the stove with a hose. -Smack 21:22, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I don't get it either. The liquid stoves I am familiar with have an integrated pump. You couldn't leave it at home. RichJ -take a look at [1]. The little white knob on the right of the tank is the pump handle. Are you talking about some other kind of stove? Rmhermen 13:02, Aug 13, 2003 (UTC)

Now I'm thoroughly confused. I've never seen a camping stove that uses liquid fuel, and neither have I seen the type of fuel tank shown in the picture. The tanks I'm familiar with are just metal cans with screw-on tops. When you decide to use the tank, you remove the top and insert the pump in its place. -Smack 23:02, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Your problem, fellas, is that you're just too damn young. You probably have never seen a vinyl LP record, an 8-track tape player, or a wringer-top washing machine, either. -Quicksilver^{T @} 06:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Types of camping/backpacking stoves.

In Europe, mainly they use stoves that run on butane canisters, which are convenient and don't require a pump. These are not used very much in the USA because in many parts of the USA it gets too cold for the butane to vaporize. This is what Smack is talking about.

Also in Europe, they use liquid-fuel stoves that run on kerosene (mineral spirits). These look like coleman-fuel stoves, but are much safer, though they are difficult to light. Most of these have integral pumps. A few have detachable pumps.

In the USA, propane stoves are used by the car-camping people. They are like butane but will work in colder weather. Only trouble is the cylinders are heavier because the walls must be thicker to endure the higher vapor pressure.

In the USA, you can get the European kerosene stoves but nobody uses them. Instead they use Coleman fuel. It's dangerous. I've seen tents burn up in a second. But, it is easy to light compared to kerosene. Some of the coleman fuel stoves self-pressurize from the heat of the flame; but most have pumps.

Kat 00:08, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

What do you mean by "Coleman fuel"? -Smack 02:30, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Coleman fuel is naphtha. As a fuel I think it is only used for camp stoves. It is a liquid a little lighter and more volatile than kerosene. However Kat is wrong in saying that kerosene and mineral spirits are the same. They are different also. This page or this one lists various names by country.

Some of this needs to end up in the article. I am leaving tonight on a two week camping trip (with my isobutane/propane mix stove). Rmhermen 13:54, Aug 22, 2003 (UTC)

Some of my changes need justification. I renamed "I removed the word "tin" from the description from the description of portable fireplaces because tin melts at 232 degrees C, and any self-respecting wood fire would turn the middle of such a stove into a puddle of molten metal. Not good. I renamed "portable wood stoves" to "portable fireplaces," even though I have no knowledge of such an item, because I find the original name to be not very descriptive. I have removed the claim that a disadvantage of gas fuel is the cost of the container. Where I live, 450g bottles of propane are available for one dollar, while liquid-fuel bottles (apparently empty) cost nine dollars. -Smack 01:44, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

But you only buy the refillable container once. You have to keep buying propnae containers. At least they are not refillable where I live. Rmhermen 18:07, Oct 13, 2003 (UTC)

I'm having a go at (another) major rewrite of this page, which will take a day or two probably. Specifically, I want to include material on the Trangia and other liquid-fuel stoves which have no external tank or controls. I think the existence of these is a problem so far as the current article structure goes. I'm also looking at incorporating more history, for example of the coleman-type pressurised burners, and the influence on design of the second world war. Feel free to send me a message concerning any of this. Andrewa 03:47, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

OK, the first bite at this is there... it's a bit messy but at least the information is there. Feel free to continue to integrate the new stuff and the old, and pretty up the links, or I will as I find time. Andrewa 05:47, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

One disadvantage of gaseous fuel is the impossibility of transferring fuel from one container to another,

Thats not right. Basicaly, tthere are three main types of containers

• heavy steel gas bottles for 2kg, 5kg and 15kg of gas - see

http://www.meva.cz/3x.html

They are completely reusable, you return emty bottle and get full. This form of buying fuel is very cheap - 1kg < 1USD.

Bacause of weight theyre used when camping.

• small aluminium gas bottles with screw mount of stove - see

http://www.var.cz/?var=plynove-kartuse

These containers are ligt and manufactured in sizes from 150-500g.

Its forbidden to "do-it-yourself" refill them from mentioned larger ones, but can be done easily. Manufacturers usualy collect emty bottles ans somehow recycle them. Stoves and bottles are in most cases compatictible (at least linked VAR is compactible with MSR and Primus and many other manufacturers)

• one-use aluminium gas bottles

When stove is attached, the bottle is penetrated and stove can not be dismounted, until bottle is empty. Its technically impossible to reuse them.

or of gauging how much fuel remains in a container with any degree of precision.

It can be measured exactly by weighting the container. Easy way is to shake container and hear splashing of liquid gas.

Gaseous-fuel canisters are heavier than liquid-fuel bottles,

No. light bottles are much lighter than liquid-fuel bottles.

because it must be stored under greater pressure.

Not exactly. Gas is stored in liquid form. Pressure is from fuel vapors,

dependence of vapour pressure on temperature for different fules is not simple

and in no direct relation to thickness of bottle.

I'll admit that my knowledge of portable stoves is hardly exhaustive, but I'm quite familiar with basic chemistry and physics. Propane is a gas at room temperature; that means that its vapor pressure is greater than atmospheric. Substantially greater than atmospheric, AFAIK. --Smack 07:46, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

When a canister runs out, it becomes hazardous waste. Canisters tend to deteriorate and leak if stored for several years.

Usualy sealing deteriorates, and thats also true for liquid-fuel canisters.

Not all wrong. The fuel is only stored as a liquid because it is pressurized which requires a heavier container than fuel which is liquid at normal temperatures. The dependence of vapor pressure on temperature is quite simple. While it may be possible to refill new-style backpacking cannisters yourself, I doubt it is legal most places. Large cannister are refillable of course - I'll check the text for that and the measuring how much is left line. Rmhermen 01:55, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

Possibly I wasn't bold enough in my earlier refactor. A lot of work was done on the original article, but unfortunately some of it was wrong. Some of the authors seem to have relied on their own experience with a very limited number of stoves and their guesses as to how they worked, and had generalised these practical experiences to apply to all stoves. The article as it now stands has a lot of inconsistencies and things that may still be wrong. For example although it is certainly possible in some circumstances to get a badly maintained pressure stove, or one using the wrong fuel, to work by continually pumping to repressurise the bottle, it's not recommended for any of the stoves I've met. It may even be dangerous if the problem is a leak or a badly clogged burner. But, I can't claim to have used all stoves available, it may be OK for some.

I will get back to this one day and clean it up, but it would be great IMO if someone else had a go. Andrewa 19:32, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The article seems to classify liquid as a solid fuel? This confuses me as I have always thought solid fuel meant naptha blocks, wood, etc etc Julianp 06:10, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"This is a stove and its container" Uhh... I'd like to see it fit in there. >.>

note: the fuel cannister does not fit in the container with the stove, does the caption really need to say this?--Duk 17:35, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Has anyone here used Esbit? One person I've talked to says that it works like a charm. However, I watched someone else use it once, and it seemed to work very badly. --Smack (talk) 03:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

First: "Primus stove" redirects here, but nowhere is it explained what this stove looks like, what fuel it uses, etc. It isn't even mentioned in the article. Second: The image in the "Solid-fuel stoves" section is of a charcoal starter - it's not a stove at all. I suppose you could use it as a stove, if you really wanted to, but it doesn't even have a surface to put a pot/pan on. If you just plopped a pan on top of it, the airflow would cease, and thus the fuel wouldn't be able to burn. So... it's not a stove. Fuzzform (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Page was completely re-done to address many of the concerns noted below, inaccuracies in the original article, and verification/attribution gaps.

Note that the reference below to the history of stoves in military use is probably well-suited to a separate page. Alexis Soyer (inventor or the first portable kerosene stove in 1849), also developed a large field stove for military use in the Crimean War, which was still in use by the British during the first Gulf War in the early 1990s. WW2 saw a number of portable stoves for individual or small group use, by both the Allies (notably the Coleman "pocket stove") and the Germans (the Juwel No. 33). —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Fogarty (talk • contribs) 15:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Coleman warns that Canadian gasoline shouldn't used with "dual fuel" stoves and lanterns due to an additive that will gum up the works. I imagine that other pressurized liquid fuel stoves would have the same problem. I'd add a note, since it would be an unpleasant surprise for, say, an American on a Canadian camping trip, but I haven't been able to find a useful cite for that. AndroidCat (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

The section "In the early 1970s, Mountain Safety Research (MSR) designed" reads like an advert. AndroidCat (talk) 06:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

My understanding of stove history of that the MSR XGK design was a significant advance. While the fact that a current company is listed, it's often the case that inventions are manufactured by companies and we can't avoid naming them. It gets less space than the also-important Primus stove, which is mentioned by name.   Will Beback  talk  21:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hmm. A lot of that text could apply to, say, a classic Coleman liquid fuel two-burner at least as old as I am. AndroidCat (talk) 07:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that's another important stove which should get appropriate coverage in the article.   Will Beback  talk  07:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

My two sources suggest that CR Nyberg invented the blowtorch and Primus stove. The article gave a different inventor, but this wasn't sourced. I removed it. Not having been there, I don't know for certain who invented the thing.

Also, I added some information regarding early stoves & changed things a bit regarding when very small stoves became accepted by campers. It happened in the 19th Century, except in North America.

Calamitybrook (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've re-added Frans W Lindqvist as alternate inventor, but without sourcing.

Calamitybrook (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Should Sterno and similar emergency stoves be mentioned? -- Syzygy (talk) 06:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sterno is mentioned under "Single burner alcohol stoves" because it's basically jellied alcohol. Sterno puts out so little heat that it's not very effective at bringing water to a boil - it's better at keeping a chafing dish warm.   Will Beback  talk  07:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I had missed that, lame me. I know that Sterno is not exactly a nuclear furnace, but for outdoor uses its advantage over alcohol stoves is that the jelly will burn without pre-heating even at low temperatures. Is that worth mentioning? --Syzygy (talk) 08:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

We currently mention the preheating in the table "Advantages and disadvantages of different liquid fuels". Sterno isn't a liquid fuel, so we wouldn't mention it there. Right now the sentence on Sterno says:

• An even simpler system is the Sterno heater, in which the can that contains a jellied fuel also serves as the burner.

Maybe add to that something like, An even simpler system that does not require preheating in cold weather is the Sterno heater... BTW, do we have any sources for this?   Will Beback  talk  08:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Plenty of mention in outdoor forums etc., and plenty of mention that Sterno is used for pre-heating different cookers. But as yet I couldn't find anything quotable which explicitly stated that Sterno itself did not require pre-heating... :-/ --Syzygy (talk) 10:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately, unsourced statements seem to be the norm for this article. It's probably OK to add this and if anyone contests it they can demand a source. But I doubt it'll be contentious. Go for it.   Will Beback  talk  21:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

OK, I gave it a shot. -- Syzygy (talk) 13:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Looks good. Thanks.   Will Beback  talk  21:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sterno is made by combining;

• water
• ethanol
• methanol
• gelling agent

Sterno burns cooler than pure alcohol due to the added water as it is designed for keeping food hot.
2605:A000:160D:A02C:204B:670E:80A1:C443 (talk) 23:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

the table at the end says it's both Clean burning and May produce sooty smoke — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.103.148.54 (talk) 00:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Alcohol fuels have a low-flammability limit (LFL) that is higher than hydrocarbon fuels, which means they do not catch fire easily, even when spilled. They are extinguishable by water and are not prone to explosion like LPG (propane and butane). Alcohol burns cleanly, producing only carbon dioxide and water vapor, and none of the soot or toxic chemicals produced by solid fuels and kerosene. Alcohol fuels are clean (with particle emissions far below the WHO levels).^[1] When paired with an efficient stove, alcohol fuels can drastically improve indoor air quality, and thus improve respiratory health and quality of life by reducing the global burden of disease." ^[2]

• Can someone comment on on the alcohol purity requirements for stoves. I understand that using less then pure alcohol is not efficient since you are wasting energy to cook off elements like water in the fuel.

2605:A000:160D:A02C:204B:670E:80A1:C443 (talk) 01:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

2605:A000:160D:A02C:204B:670E:80A1:C443 (talk) 22:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

1. British Army issued No12 multi fuel stove. Using a pressurised tank system it can run on Petrol, Diesel, Paraffin or Kerosene.
2. The Optimus 111 stove burns white gas (Coleman fuel) or kerosene.

• Kerosene flashes at about 65C but Biodiesel needs at least 150C. Many stoves do not have a large enough evaporator, thus only use biodiesel at full blast.

2605:A000:160D:A02C:A9EE:C98A:C6E3:A497 (talk) 18:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• PortableGasolineStove PreHeat.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

There is some confusion on Soyer's stove on this Wiki page. Chevalier Lemolt came to see Alexis Soyer in 1849, to get funding with a small stove, but there were issues with it. Soyer then made and patented his Magic Stove and Lilliputian Apparatus in the same year. He also refers to it as his Magic bivouac-stove in his book, A Culinary Campaign. The talk about the Crimea isn't until 1855, where he comes up with a design for a boiler stove - for British army cooking - again in his A Culinary Campaign book. Having previously been to Ireland, there is no doubt that he would have seen the potato boilers, made by Phoenix. His Soyer's Field stove is very similar in design to that potato boiler, but a lot lighter. It is this Soyer's Field Stove that remained in use and held in reserve by the British Ministry Of Defence. It is known that a lot of the Soyer Field stoves were lost when the Atlantic Conveyor sunk during the Falklands conflict. But there is photo evidence of Soyer or Ludgate copy stoves in use during the first Gulf war. The Civil Defence, including the Woman's Voluntary Service, (now called the Royal Voluntary Service) had Soyer field stoves, and Ludgate copies - most of which appear to have been sold off at the end of the 1960s. Darzet boy (talk) 23:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply