Skip to main content

I ordered a new stove

There was a time when I was convinced that an alcohol stove was the way to go and it's possible, depending on the hike, that it might still be the better choice.

For the alcohol stove

  • quiet
  • easily snuffed
  • easily replaced stove - hole puncher and a tuna can

For the canister stove

  • fast boil
  • variable temp
  • windscreen not always needed

For the tab stove

  • quiet
  • light per boil or near boil
  • smaller - one stove has build in windscreen
  • packs small
  • 1 tab is smaller than the equivalent alcohol

In summary, while I'm still thinking about food in terms of calories per ounce I think the same can be said in terms of fuel source and heated water. And as calories can be categorized in protein vs carbs so can the stoves be compared will it boil or just warm.

But there are some real cons too. The biggest complaint of the canister stove is that unless you exactly how much fuel there is in the can you're either carrying around too little or too much. And it's the too much that upsets the UL hikers.

Buying alcohol on the trail is curious. My latest purchase was 1L. So where can I buy 8 ounces and would I really want to pay a premium for that. Then there is the potential for leaks an such.

The tab is said to have a smell since it's a chemical burn. I cannot imagine that would actually effect the task of the water but it is worth testing.

The one real pain of all of these systems is that they are not permitted on airplanes. Sure you can carry the stove but you will not be permitted to carry any fuel. And so I would prefer to have a SOL firetab kit forwarded to me at some postoffice. It's said that all of these fuels are available along the AT, however, the FT is a lot less forgiving.

NOTE it has been suggested that a full boil is not really needed to re-hydrate meals. That also needs some testing. Certainly this is true of mashed potatoes as the flakes re-hydrate quickly where Mac N Cheese requires more time and that means heat too.

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…