Skip to main content

camp stoves

I'm sitting at my desk watching my code boil and listening to a bushcraft guy talk about the Pathfinder alcohol stove. The first thing to note is that appears to be a break-in period. I do not know exactly why but I would imagine that it has something to do with the dual wall construction and the wick material between the two walls. He then described the capacity and burn duration. One filling would last 5+ hours and the kit included a second filling. Between the two reservoirs he estimated at least 5 days worth; which is a vague estimate since we do not know how many burns a day that is.

I have a Solo and Campfire from SoloStove and while I really like them because I do not have to carry fuel with me I'm starting to discover that they may not be permitted where I would normally be camping. I'm still researching the limitations and I'm getting to the point where butane may be the only way to go. Even for those thrifty AT hikers may be legally limited to something with an instant shutoff and that might be limited to butane.

Anyway, while researching I also discovered Esbit tabs. They are kinda pricey. $9 for 12 tabs or $11 for 6 tabs and a stove. Other brands include Redfuel, Coghlan. Boiling sample water with Coglan seems to require 3xtabs where Esbit requires 1x. The RedFuel seems to be more firestarter than cooking fuel.

Cost compare the unit of measure is boil:

The Esbit is one boil per tab and costs about $0.33 per tab in units of 20.

The Coglan is 3x tabs per boil and costs about $0.22 per tab or $0.66 per boil in units of 72 tabs

** it's not until you get into crazy quantities that you can save some money on the Coglan tabs. I suppose you can also slice the Esbit and use parts but who knows if there is any side effects or off gassing when the package is open and not use right then.

On thing I like about the Coglan is that if you know what you are doing then using exactly the right number of tabs means you can stretch your fuel needs. On the other hand neither tabs or gels are ubiquitous. You cannot fall off the trail and grab a bottle of denatured alcohol or 91% isopropyl alcohol and start cooking or warming. A stove like the one at Pathfinder give you better options and the trail pro kit means you have even more although you can assemble a kit yourself.

In the end a lot can go wrong. The butane or alcohol and leak. You can run out of tabs. Your kit can break to the point it's useless... but in the end you need to be able to make a fire when you need it. So make sure you the appropriate backup skills to offset these fancy products.

Lastly, one advantage of the Dragon Gel and alcohol is that they can serve multiple uses from warmth, heat for cooking and antibacterial when called upon.

Keep in mind you cannot do much else other than boil some water with these fuels. Cooking a steak on a skillet is just not practical or cost effective. These fuels are more about cooking something very simple or re-hydrating.

Popular posts from this blog

Prometheus vs Bosun

In conclusion... while Bosun(B) is still not the ideal monitoring system neither is Prometheus(P).


I am running Bosun in a Docker container hosted on CoreOS. Fleet service/unit files keep it running. However in once case I have experienced at least one severe crash as a result of a disk full condition. That it is implemented as part golang, java and python is an annoyance. The MIT license is about the only good thing.

I am trying to integrate Prometheus into my pipeline but losing steam fast. The Prometheus design seems to desire that you integrate your own cache inside your application and then allow the server to scrape the data, however, if the interval between scrapes is shorter than the longest transient session of your application then you need a gateway. A place to shuttle your data that will be a little more persistent.

(1) storing the data in my application might get me started more quickly
(2) getting the server to pull the data might be more secure
(3) using a push g…

Entry level cost for CoreOS+Tectonic

CoreOS and Tectonic start their pricing at 10 servers. Managed CoreOS starts at $1000 per month for those first 10 servers and Tectonic is $5000 for the same 10 servers. Annualized that is $85K or at least one employee depending on your market. As a single employee company I'd rather hire the employee. Specially since I only have 3 servers.

The pricing is biased toward the largest servers with the largest capacities; my dual core 32GB i5 IntelNuc can never be mistaken for a 96-CPU dual or quad core DELL

If CoreOS does not figure out a different barrier of entry they are going to follow the Borland path to obscurity.

Weave vs Flannel

While Weave and Flannel have some features in common weave includes DNS for service discovery and a wrapper process for capturing that info. In order to get some parity you'd need to add a DNS service like SkyDNS and then write your own script to weave the two together.
In Weave your fleet file might have some of this:
[Service] . . . ExecStartPre=/opt/bin/weave run --net=host --name bob ncx/bob ExecStart=/usr/bin/docker attach bob
In sky + flannel it might look like:
[Service] . . . ExecStartPre=docker run -d --net=host --name bob ncx/bob ExecStartPre=etcdctl set /skydns/local/ncx/bob '{"host":"`docker inspect --format '{{ .NetworkSettings.IPAddress }}' bob`","port":8080}' ExecStart=/usr/bin/docker attach bob
I'd like it to look like this:
[Service] . . . ExecStartPre=skyrun --net=host --name bob ncx/bob ExecStart=/usr/bin/docker attach bob
That's the intent anyway. I'm not sure the exact commands will work and that's partly why we…