Re: xxxx Wood versus liquid fosil feuls (Long)
Robert Lewis (rlewis3@IC3.ITHACA.EDU)
Sat, 31 Aug 1996 14:55:23 -0400
IMO, Liquid fuels are cause less impact to the enviroment in the short
run than wood. When in the backcountry, and practicing *Low Impact
Camping* you should not use open wood burning fires. They will require
you to build a fire pit out of stone with at leat 10 feet of clear ground
around it,not low impact at all. With liquid fuel stoves, you just need
to move some of the leaves away from the base of the stove.
Liquid fuel stoves are also easier to light, unlike wood fires which will
require at least a knife, and maby an axe/hatchet in wet weather.
There is also the problem of cleaning the post over a wood fire. If you
don't first soap the pots, you will be scrubbing to next year before you
get the pots clean on the outside. If you cook over coals though that
minimizes the charring on the pot.
Finally, there is one stove that is out there that burns wood. If memory
serves me right, it is called the Sierra. You must bring a couple of AA
batteries to run the fan that will keep the small sticks and twigs that
it runs on.
I personally use both wood fires, and liquid stoves on regular basis.
The wood fires when not in the backcountry or backpacking. I use liquid
stoves in the backcountry and while backpacking. If I do cook on a wood
fire, I will soap all my pots and will allways cook over the coals if
Sorry for the long winded post.
Robert M. Lewis Rlewis3@ic3.ithaca.edu
Eagle Class of '95 Brotherhood member Oratam Lodge #484
ASM T. 12 Baden Powell Co. NY ASM T. 88 Bergen Co. NJ
Terry Howerton Sakima Group, Inc. SCOUTER Magazine Kansas City