[pct-l] Alcohol vs. Gas stoves

[ROYROBIN at aol.com (ROYROBIN@xxxxxxx)]

Unsubstantiated estimate by others, which I think is fairly accurate:  About 
50 percent of thru- or long-distance hikers on the AT in 2002 used an alcohol 
stove.  On the PCT, the percentage was probably close to 70 percent.  

Fact:  A gas stove produces about twice as much heat per ounce of fuel as an 
alcohol stove.  So why does anyone carry an alcohol stove?  

Fact:  An alcohol stove of efficient design is adequate to heat water for the 
typical long-distance hiker's meals.  (If you're cooking pasta for eight, use 
an Optimus 111B, or similar.)  

If either a gas or alcohol stove will do the job for a thruhiker, then it 
boils down (sorry) to weight.  The weight of an alcohol stove plus fuel for a 
week is less than the weight of a gas stove plus fuel for a week.  (Thruhikers 
will normally resupply about once a week.)  Either fuel is available along the 
trail now and, if necessary, alcohol is less of a hassle to ship.  

Add that an alcohol stove has no moving parts to lose or break, and that you 
can actually carry on a conversation while cooking with an alcostove, I wonder 
why anyone still packs a gas burner.             
_____

Steven.Setzer@Colorado.EDU writes:

> I'm trying to figure out what is potentially wrong with alcohol stoves.
> Up to this point I've always used an MSR Wisperlite.  However, I'd like to
> use an alcohol stove to save on weight and to cut back on
> maintainence/repairs.  So far they look great.  Am I missing something?
> Are a lot of thru hikers using these?  It seems like the only disadvantage
> is a lower heat output.  But it seems like this doesn't matter for boiling
> smaller portions (one liter/quart or less).  Is the fuel easy to get at
> re-supply stations?
> 
> I'd appreciate any pros and cons from people who have used them.
> 
> Thanks!
> Steve
>