Hi all, I've been wondering for a while now what the advantages versus disadvantages are for kerosene pressure versus wick stoves. Why would a person pick one over the other? As a reference, here is the webpage for St. Paul Mercantile that has both types of stoves: http://stpaulmercantile.com/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=73 Thanks! Christine
ever seen nor heard of a wick stove that didn't soot up the bottom of the pot. Wasted fuel for given heat. much better fuel air mix in a pressure stove. If in good nick, NO soot. Dale
The limitation is basic combustion dynamics and the rate you can convert liquid fuel to it's gaseous state to rapidly convert, the chemical decomposition of carbon as quickly and efficiently as possible. Combustion dynamics is a continuing field, if you could get a wick to transport liquid fuel in sufficient quantities and get the oxygen flow correct there is no reason you couldn't construct a gas turbine.. Soot is due to poor maintenance of the wick or it supplying more fuel than the airflow allows for efficient combustion. The pressure liquid fuel stove/lamp has been developed to optimise gaseous flow to available oxygen, hence efforts to obtain the blue flame. The yellowing will also produce soot due to incomplete combustiion products, the remaining carbon element.
Both can produce a good cooking flame. The wick stoves have the advantage of quick lighting with only a match without the need to preheat the burner. A disadvantage is they always produce a little black smoke on startup. Wick stoves were intended for indoor kitchen use. Pressure stoves were invented for indoor use too and were marketed as "smokeless" stoves. It didn't take long to discover they worked great outdoors and the size made them easy to carry around. And the clean blue flame is just a thing of beauty to behold.
@christine_b_1967 It's not about a stove sourced from the supplier you've provided a link for evidently but HERE is what struck me at the time as a very good appraisal of a wick stove the CCS member who posted it had bought. Mind you, that's an example of an underperforming wick stove, just as there are a few pressure stoves that don't make the grade because of poor manufacturing quality and/or materials. A good example of either type (I pictured a couple of wick stoves I'm happy with in that thread) is a pleasure to use, with their own unique attraction. I couldn't dispute the soundness of the others CCS members' comments above but the other element to consider, logic apart, is the fun factor. You've put your question in the context of a site for stove enthusiasts and for such it's not always about functional efficiency but the fun of coaxing a hot meal or a brew from a number of stove types and models. Efficiently windshielded a wick stove can be used outdoors without disappearing under a mound of soot, I've found, making the food/drink prepared on it all the more enjoyable - but that's a stove enthusiast for you! John
In the site you posted the link to there is also a third category: gravity fed, not pressure stoves (the ones with the side inverted glass bottle tank. They are very good, smokeless, indoor kitchen tools (used a couple of them for years in my "unihut" (corrugated steel sheet barrack) that was my office, kitchen and living room in Solai, near Nakuru, Kenia. They have only one problem: is water out boils or is anyway spilled on the lit burner, they fiercely fireball. in fact they were often referred to as "quick shavers"
Paraffin wick stoves have been well represented on CCS over the years. They are certainly not presented as much as pressure stoves. There are many reasons for this, mainly because pressure stoves produce a much hotter flame. When it comes to wick lighting, over at our sister site, CPL, they are known as 'wickie crap'! However, as far as stoves are concerned there are a number of wick stoves that I would love to own.
What about pressure stoves that have a wick, what are they considered? Ex Svea 123, Optimus 8, etc Jerry
@Metropolitantrout I wouldn't count them as wick stoves - The wick is not burning/exposed to flames (Just a means of ensuring fuel transport).
Hi all, This is great. I had tried to search for "wick stoves" before posting but I guess I missed the other posts. As such I appreciate the answering of my question! Your comments make sense to me. I suspected that a pressure stove could more easily produce more heat and a cleaner flame. According to data from elsewhere on CCS, my silent burner is capable of producing about 8200 BTU. This is comparable to the wick stoves but in a little bit smaller package. BTW The comment that a pressure stove would be more fun to use is not lost on me! :-) I have made many meals on my Optimus 45 mounted in a Sea Swing on my 16 foot mini cruiser sailboat. Best, Christine
Christine, Looks like you're living the dream! As someone who used oil wick lamps for light as a kid growing up, I was (am ) amazed at getting a blue flame from coal oil with a pressure stove. (We cooked and heated with wood) But I am surprised at how many different designs and variants there are in Kero stoves. Fire's a beautiful thing! Ivan
