# Portable camp cookers vs Dakota fire pit?



## siafulinux (Jun 17, 2010)

*Just realized I posted this under "Articles & How To Guides"; sorry about that. If a moderator can move this it'll be appreciated.*

After coming across the Dakota fire pit a while back, I began wondering just how necessary it is to carry any sort of cooker into the field? At some point, regular fuel based cookers will eventually run out of said fuel and one would have to resort to picking up wood; why not just go that route to begin with?

There are some excellent stoves out there, including the hobo stove, that work extremely well burning wood but the fire pit does too.

I'm thinking it's best to focus on a good mini-shovel instead?

Either way, the "pit" is an extremely useful thing to know. It conceals the fire from visibility at just about any distance if done correctly, generally produces less smoke as the fuel burns more efficiently, easier to put out (just dump the sand you dug out), and can be made just about anywhere except really hard, rocky places.

Any thoughts on this?





 (This is not my video, just one I found to show what it is for those who don't know).


----------



## mikesolid (Aug 24, 2011)

All I know is I have a MSR pocket rocket stove that takes little cans of propane. It's nothing big like burning wood or anything but it can boil water and cook a smaller things. I love the thing. Yea sure I'll make fires/fire pits. But if I ever can't I'll have my MSR. It works fantastic and doesn't take up alot of space in my bug out bag. A nifty little trick for carrying one is if you have a pot/pan in your BOB (which I would advise) you can put the propane in the pot/pan and keep it like that in your bag. saves a little space.


----------



## siafulinux (Jun 17, 2010)

mikesolid said:


> All I know is I have a MSR pocket rocket stove that takes little cans of propane. It's nothing big like burning wood or anything but it can boil water and cook a smaller things. I love the thing. Yea sure I'll make fires/fire pits. But if I ever can't I'll have my MSR. It works fantastic and doesn't take up alot of space in my bug out bag. A nifty little trick for carrying one is if you have a pot/pan in your BOB (which I would advise) you can put the propane in the pot/pan and keep it like that in your bag. saves a little space.


Hi Mike, thanks for the reply. I can definately see needing something to cook over if faced with a more urban environment where digging may not be possible for whatever period of time. For example if one was held up in an abandoned building for an extended period of time.

Still, I feel as though I don't want to get trapped into relying on modern equipment so much. If I can do the job without it then whatever I do actually bring along is a nice luxury that makes life just that much easier; Until it runs out of course.  And then it also reduces the extra weight that I may have to carry.

As for using propane how much of a burn time do you get out of one of the little 16oz cans?


----------



## drhwest (Aug 7, 2009)

I think that both serve a purpose. It is great to learn how to dig and use a Dakota fire pit, but most state parks frown on you digging holes on their land. A fuel based system is great for emergencies or bugging out. If it is raining hard or you don't want someone smelling the smoke, a fuel based system may be your only viable option. The Dakota fire pit is better for a fixed camp where you have a little more time to prepare. Just my two cents.


----------



## BillS (May 30, 2011)

It still gives off smoke. I'd rather use a kerosene stove or a camp stove for as long as I can first. Unless wood was an issue. Then I'd burn wood while it's still easy to gather and save my liquid fuel for the winter.


----------



## mikesolid (Aug 24, 2011)

siafulinux said:


> Hi Mike, thanks for the reply. I can definately see needing something to cook over if faced with a more urban environment where digging may not be possible for whatever period of time. For example if one was held up in an abandoned building for an extended period of time.
> 
> Still, I feel as though I don't want to get trapped into relying on modern equipment so much. If I can do the job without it then whatever I do actually bring along is a nice luxury that makes life just that much easier; Until it runs out of course.  And then it also reduces the extra weight that I may have to carry.
> 
> As for using propane how much of a burn time do you get out of one of the little 16oz cans?


Well I can't give you an exact burn time. But with the pocket rocket it has adjustable flow. (with a surprising high blast) All I can accurately tell you is I went on a 4 day camping trip- and boiled about 2 pots of water (was enough water for 3 backpacking meals and some soup) DAILY. And about 2 of those days I ALSO made some snack stuff with it. All with the same canister. so:dunno:
That is a good question though, I may just try that sometime, leaving it on full blast to see how long it lasts.


----------



## BayouShaman (Aug 17, 2011)

Having just bought my first two Coleman propane cans like that today after looking them over and reading the ads there, it said that on low a can could last about 9 hrs, and on high about half that, though it can vary (usual qualifier and caveats).


----------



## siafulinux (Jun 17, 2010)

mikesolid said:


> Well I can't give you an exact burn time. But with the pocket rocket it has adjustable flow. (with a surprising high blast) All I can accurately tell you is I went on a 4 day camping trip- and boiled about 2 pots of water (was enough water for 3 backpacking meals and some soup) DAILY. And about 2 of those days I ALSO made some snack stuff with it. All with the same canister. so:dunno:
> That is a good question though, I may just try that sometime, leaving it on full blast to see how long it lasts.


That's actually pretty good going; for some reason I thought it would be less.



BayouShaman said:


> Having just bought my first two Coleman propane cans like that today after looking them over and reading the ads there, it said that on low a can could last about 9 hrs, and on high about half that, though it can vary (usual qualifier and caveats).


Nine hours is not bad at all. I guess a lot of food doesn't need to be cooked on high anyway.


----------



## Davo45 (Apr 29, 2011)

*+1 9 hours burn time on a single burner stove.*

I've used my 2 burner propane stove with the small bottles on several camping trips as well as during power outages at home (with the kitchen windows opened for ventilation) and have gotten 6 solid hours using both burners at times. I'd say 9 hours for a single burner in a low altitude would be about right based on my experience.


----------



## BillS (May 30, 2011)

I have a Coleman camp stove that takes Coleman fuel. I like liquid fuel better because liquids are denser than gases. You'll get more cooking time with a liquid than with the same volume of gas. And because I think liquids are safer to store than gases.


----------



## BayouShaman (Aug 17, 2011)

BillS said:


> You'll get more cooking time with a liquid than with the same volume of gas.


Not to argue, I simply have a lot to learn and do not know. How do we know the liquid fuel burns longer for the same amount? How much longer? As I am just now buying things along this line it would help me to know.

Thanks.


----------



## BayouShaman (Aug 17, 2011)

I found this site talking about fuels for Colemans compared, but it seems to suggest a way lower burn time than I'd thought, and does not really compare head to head the burn times of propane vs white fuel 

But, some interesting opinion anyway What Coleman Stoves Fit Your Needs? Reviews And Tips.


----------



## mosquitomountainman (Jan 25, 2010)

You might consider a "pocket cooker" instead of a Dakota Hole. Around here you'd need a pick or jackhammer to make a Dakota Hole but you can set up a pocket cooker in seconds and boil water in minutes. We used ours in Nevada last spring and loved it. They'll burn pine cones, paper, twigs, anything that's flammable. They have two models on the website below. We have the cheaper one. It works great the only drawback is that it's heavy (but still lighter than carrying a stove and fuel). The upper one is light weight and
works great.

Stoves available from Survival Resources, including the Pocket Cooker, Esbit Stove Cookset, Vargo Stoves,


----------



## Tirediron (Jul 12, 2010)

BillS said:


> I have a Coleman camp stove that takes Coleman fuel. I like liquid fuel better because liquids are denser than gases. You'll get more cooking time with a liquid than with the same volume of gas. And because I think liquids are safer to store than gases.


The propane in the little canisters is 80% liquid when the canister is full, so the volume difference isn't as big as you might think, but propane is lower in BTU s per weight or volume so most liquid fuels would have more capacity anyway.
the chances of making a propane tank leak are very small, they are tough compared to a liquid fuel container.

And now back to the OP , a simple rocket stove rocketstoves.org :: twig powered cooking * might be a good answer, little or no smoke, efficient and uses twigs etc for fuel.


----------



## wkrbee (Jul 29, 2010)

The simplest I've seen is a tuna/catfood can with two rows of holes,one near the top and one 2/3rds of the way down.One 0z.of 90% alcohol, light,let it warm up,(I use a titan kettle put a small pot on that,(I use a titan kettle),that covers the top of the can.The flames will come out of the top row of holes like a gas stove-no smoke.Will run for 5 minutes-long enough to heat water to a boil. for a quick hot meal"on the run"...


----------



## flyguy8555 (Oct 3, 2011)

wkrbee said:


> The simplest I've seen is a tuna/catfood can with two rows of holes,one near the top and one 2/3rds of the way down.One 0z.of 90% alcohol, light,let it warm up,(I use a titan kettle put a small pot on that,(I use a titan kettle),that covers the top of the can.The flames will come out of the top row of holes like a gas stove-no smoke.Will run for 5 minutes-long enough to heat water to a boil. for a quick hot meal"on the run"...


I made a similar alchohol stove using a pop can, a Guiness can, and some JB Weld. If you check on youtube I'm sure there are instructional videos for this. I carry the stove, a small bottle (old Hoppes #9 bottle) of denatured alchohol, a homemade windbreak/pot stand, matches, and a spoon all in a German Army cook kit. Lightweight and easy to use.


----------



## siafulinux (Jun 17, 2010)

Tirediron said:


> The propane in the little canisters is 80% liquid when the canister is full, so the volume difference isn't as big as you might think, but propane is lower in BTU s per weight or volume so most liquid fuels would have more capacity anyway.


So would liquid produce a quicker boil than propane as well? If so, then I'd think it's better to carry liquid fuels than propane; correct?


----------



## siafulinux (Jun 17, 2010)

siafulinux said:


> So would liquid produce a quicker boil than propane as well? If so, then I'd think it's better to carry liquid fuels than propane; correct?


So I looked up a couple of burners to answer this question for myself and found:



> *Coleman Stove Dual Fuel 1 Burner:*
> •One 10,500 BTU burner
> •Smaller size is easy to store and pack
> •Powered by 1.1 pints of Coleman Fuel or unleaded gas
> ...





> *Coleman 1 Burner Propane Stove*
> •10,000 BTU burner
> •Cooks for up to 2.2 hours on high and 9 hours on low (on one, 16.4 oz. propane cylinder)
> •Boils a quart of water in 4 minutes
> ...


Seems as though the burn-to-boil is about the same at 4 minutes each, but the propane burns for a longer period of time and does so with slightly less BTU's. The propane burner is also cheaper to purchase. Not sure how much the Coleman Fuel is, but two 16.4oz propane tanks are just a little over $5 where I'm at.


----------



## siafulinux (Jun 17, 2010)

mosquitomountainman said:


> You might consider a "pocket cooker" instead of a Dakota Hole. Around here you'd need a pick or jackhammer to make a Dakota Hole but you can set up a pocket cooker in seconds and boil water in minutes.


Another option instead of the pocket cooker or fire pit that would be useful for rocky areas is to make a "Swedish/Norwegian Fire Torch/Candle" as long as wood is available.

This involves cutting a log down the center almost all the way through in a cross pattern. What's nice about this is the outer wood holds while the inner part burns. You can place a pot straight on top of this and use it like a burner. The more cuts you make the quicker it burns as the fire inside gets more oxygen. If cutting it down isn't an option one can always split the log and just put them back together like a 3-d Jig Saw Puzzle.  A spin off of this is to use a bunch of smaller twigs and bundling them together.

I'm sure in rocky areas one can use either a log, as above, or use some rocks to hold this type of bundle together. Problem is keeping it steady enough for a pot. If one has a saw using a log is probably best.





 This vid is just an example of one, but check out some more vids of this on Youtube to get other ideas.


----------



## lickit (Oct 6, 2011)

*solidfied paraffin CAN'T leak, is $1 a lb on the net.*

the hobo stove to use it, you make yourself in 10 minutes, with just a club and nail to poke the vent holes, the 2 cans, one fitting inside of the other, and some rocks to put between the bottoms of the cans.


----------

