Skip to main content

Vargo vs Toaks "meths" Stove

I recently purchased a Vargo alcohol stove and windscreen because there were a few features/functions that resonated with me. But before I get too far ahead let's look at the head to head.

Both of these syphon stoves need to get up to temperature before the alcohol gasifies and squirts out the jets. The Toaks does not really have a minimum fuel requirement... put as little or as much as you like. The Vargo is a variation of the penny stove and requires that the stove be filled to capacity. You can always extinguish and pour off the excess.

Both stoves can be inverted and use gel or solid fuel in addition to the alcohol. I filled both stoves with the same amount of fuel and lit them. The flame was clear and difficult to see in this environment. Once it gasifies it should be a blue flame.

Due to it's wider opening the Toaks sported an orange flame in addition to the jets (in blue).

The Toaks gasified in the first few minutes and the Vargo took 60-90 seconds. The Toaks exhausted it's 2oz of fuel in 10 minutes and the Vargo continued.

I tried to boil some water with the remaining fuel on the Vargo and while I managed to get hot water for an instant coffee or tea... maybe a ramen dinner it never got to a rolling boil as the Vargo ran out of fuel at about 18-19 minutes... Since I had the windscreen around it I could not determine when the flame went out.

The kits are quite different. Where the Vargo is just the three items (750ml pot, windscreen, stove) the Toaks has a bit more and frankly packing the Toaks is a pain.

In conclusion I think the Vargo is the better stove and there are many reasons why. First of all the fuel efficiency. Fewer parts. One thing I did not mention was that the Vargo is meant to have it's legs pressed into the ground for a lower center of gravity and overall stability. While the Toaks can be secured with stakes it's even more things to bring. The "20" minute burn time means that I could boil a greater volume of water without having to re-fuel.


Popular posts from this blog

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.

UPDATE 2017-10-30: With gratitude the CoreOS team has provided updated information on their pricing, however, I stand by my conclusion that the effective cost is lower when you deploy monster machines. The cost per node of my 1 CPU Intel NUC is the same as a 96 CPU server when you get beyond 10 nodes. I'll also reiterate that while my pricing notes are not currently…

eGalax touch on default Ubuntu 14.04.2 LTS

I have not had success with the touch drivers as yet.  The touch works and evtest also seems to report events, however, I have noticed that the button click is not working and no matter what I do xinput refuses to configure the buttons correctly.  When I downgraded to ubuntu 10.04 LTS everything sort of worked... there must have been something in the kermel as 10.04 was in the 2.6 kernel and 4.04 is in the 3.x branch.

One thing ... all of the documentation pointed to the wrong website or one in Taiwanese. I was finally able to locate the drivers again: (it would have been nice if they provided the install instructions in text rather than PDF)
Please open the document "EETI_eGTouch_Programming_Guide" under the Guide directory, and follow the Guidline to install driver.
download the appropriate versionunzip the fileread the programming manual And from that I'm distilling to the following: execute the answer all of the questio…

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…