wood burning ultralight stove
Not so much in Utah where you seem to be now. There are frequent fire bans in the backcountry in Utah and this device would be included.
Or many other places, where burning wood, whether in an open fire or contained, is either banned outright or considered unethical by hikers and backcountry campers.
Besides which, there isn't anything particularly new about either the concept or application. There have been other commercial versions (Phil---you remember the old Pyromid stoves?), though the years. And the Scouts have always made similar stoves by recycling metal cans.
Why yes, there are.
And generally a first time poster with links and plugging a product is spam. Not saying you are as your later posts have verified.
The stove isn't of interest to me in my situation as I pointed out. Too many fire bans. And there are plenty of similar DIY products for this as KYH pointed out. Sounds like discussion to me.
I'd say that's a given, Phil. Anytime you cook directly over wood flames you're going to get soot. That's why, in the old days, mess gear always had its own carrying sack---to keep the soot off everything else.
I also don't buy the justifications for it, that by eliminating the fuel canister you open up room for food or booze. First off, if you're using a liquid fuel stove, you don't need extra for a short trip. If using butane, the cans don't take up all that much space.
And as for being a two-burner type camp cook, gimme a break. If I'm alone the last thing I care about is gourmet cooking. On a solo trip there are other reasons I'm there, and food is, truly, just for sustainance. More often than not, on that kind of a trek, it's pitch dark by the time I stop, and I'm not looking to spend any more time than needed before hitting the sack. If it requires more than boiling some water it's too much trouble.
On the other hand, if I'm in a group (even a group of two), and food is part of the social experience, there's at least one more stove to call upon.
and heirloomer- justified or not, booze is way more important than fuel! (insert obvious sarcastic attempt at humor disclaimer here)
justified or not, booze is way more important than fuel!
And, after all, you did say you carry an alcohol stove.
Seriously, where did I even infer that carrying booze was unjustified. What I said, basically, is that fuel isn't all that space consumptive, and there's always room for the sippin whisky.
When I was very much younger than I am I did carry a cast-iron skillet. Everyone said I was crazy. But they sure enjoyed what got cooked in it.
Those were the days when sophisticated backpacking gear consisted of Army surplus from WW II. If you've never struggled buttoning together the two halves of a pup tent you have no idea who much modern gear has spoiled you.
Even when more modern gear started appearing it was nothing like today's strong, lightweight, ergo-engineered equipment. Even in the '60s, 45-50 pounds was considered a fair load for a big man. Nowadays we don't think anything of walking off with 65 pounds or more. What's more, when you carried 50 pounds in the old days you were constantly aware of it. With today's gear, you hardly notice the 65.
What I carry depends a lot on the kind of trek. Mostly, nowadays, when I'm out it's with other reenactors, and we carry what woods runners of the 18th and early 19th centuries did. And it has to fit in a haversack and possibles bag. At those times, my "kitchen" is a fire-starting kit (flint, steel, charcloth, tinder) and a small tin skillet with a folding handle.
That's one of the reasons I seem to be knocking the wood-burning stove. Personally, after having played with them in one form or another through the years, I think they're totally unnecessary pieces of equipment. If open fires are permitted, then just build a small fire and be done. If necessary, a small 4- or 5-wire grate is both lighter and less bulky than one of those stoves.
On a normal hike, with modern gear, I'll most likely be carrying my old Whisper-Lite stove a couple of small nesting pots, and, it goes without saying, a Sierra cup. The larger the group, of course, the greater amount of community gear we can carry, and that certainly affects cookware. In most respects, bicycling has the same restrictions as backpacking, except that bulk is more important than weight.
Canoeing, as you know, doesn't have many limitations, and that's when the cast-iron cookware comes out. I don't do backcountry ATVing, like Phil. But if I did I wouldn't hesitate to go whole hog, as he does. I've read most of the literature about backcountry travel, and nowhere does it say you have to be uncomfortable to enjoy the trip.
A lot also depends on the purpose of the trip. If our intention is backcountry fishing, for instance, we might carry different stuff than if we were out in a large group whose purpose is socialization.
The determining factors, always, are weight and bulk. Which is more important, and to what degree, depends on the mode of travel and the number of people available to carry it.
I like it!! And I do cook when I,m out in the back country even if by myself. I really liked your discription of the tastes. And your rite I your dont have a positive take why respond at all. ps great pics to.
I agree with Ky Heirloomer. I have camped for years, backpacking in. I carry no stove . If we can not have an open pit , which has only happened once, then we don't cook. I have pictures of people holding umbrella's, tarps etc over me and the fire protecting from the rain while I am cooking. My cast Iron skillet is my favorite. However in big groups and not real rmote camping, I really like it if I have my Dutch Oven. Everyone likes it when I unearth my dutch oven full of a fruit cobbler