I decided to geek out and get to the bottom of the true tank volume of some different 1 pint stoves, after I noticed that my 1 pint stoves seemed to be distinctly different in tank size, when sitting side by side. I thought a "1 pint" stove was actually 1 pint. But is it? In fact No. But still yes. Check out what I discovered about my 1 pint stoves here: Hipolito No. 0 - A little bigger than your typical 1 pint "camper" stove? | Classic Camp Stoves
Part of the problem is that there are 2 ''Pints''. In US Customary Measure [Standard] a Pint is 16 Oz. In British Imperial units, a Pint is 20 Oz. But an ounce is the same in each system. [I think.] US Pint = .473 L UK Pint = .591.5L This is a ''ballpark'' conversion.
Hi, @SveaSizzler - You are absolutely right, even if I do not recognise your conversion of the UK pint to Litres (I went to university in the UK, and have a very strong relationship to the volume of a UK pint, haha!). And please don't take my following comments the wrong way; I am a big fan of the USA, but I have a bit of an issue with the pointlessness of non-standardised and non-metric units in general, be they US, English or Japanese, so please humour me while I geek out on this topic: As you say, there are several pints, just like there are several ounces (measuring weight). For example, I once worked in the mining industry, where one Oz of gold is 31.104g, which is not the same as the Oz on your kitchen weight, which is 28.3g per oz, but they are bot annotated as "oz". That said, outside of the USA I am not aware of any application of the US pint (or the "quart" for that matter) for anything whatsoever. The same goes for fl.oz; I lived in the UK for seven years and never came across a fluid ounce anywhere. In fact, to this day I must admit I don't even have a conceptual idea of how much an ounce is in terms of liquid volume. I guess there is a reason why both NASA and the US military rely exclusively on the metric system for their engineering and design work, right? Where 0.1 x 0.1 meter = 1 Liter of volume = 1 Kg, and where everything has actual decimals, not fractions to signify smaller differences? Sooooo much better in every respect, whether you are a housewife in the kitchen or a NASA engineer. And while we are on the subject of units; how about the irony of the US insisting on the "independence" of their uniquely antiquated and disconnected units of measurement while in fact, as former colony, insisting on preserving what is by history and in actual name, a set of "imperial" units? The British, now completely converted to the metric system, must be very appreciative of how the US pays the price for sustaining British imperial tradition. (Again; wink-wink, tounge-in cheek, friendly smile; not trying to be anti-American here.) Actually, the UK is not 100% metric, but generally speaking, i.e. for everything except some oddities like the traditional pint of beer (wich is more of a standardised beer glass size and not used to measure anything else), as well as measuring body hight in foot and inches and body weight in stone (yes, not kg, not pounds, but "stones", where one stone is 14 pounds or 6.35kg). Unlike when I was a student, these days even a pound of meat at the butchers will be measured and priced in grammes/grams or kg (even if you could still ask for "a pound of minced beef" and get just under half a kilo wrapped up and handed to you with a smile, without any reference to the 454g on the butcher,'s weight). As far as I know, one Imperial Pint is 0.57 liter, or 0.568261 to be exact. That is at the outset what I would expect the tank volume a "1 pint" stove to be. (Not to be confused with a US pint, which is a dirrerent measure at 0.473 liter, as you say.) However, from my measurements as described in the post, stove pints are definitively imperial pints. But the more interesting point is that I found that they are far from the same size, which I did not notice until I put them side by side, and then had to measure the volume to establish the difference. The "1 pint" label seems to be merely nominal and just about category of size and type, not an exact measurement of tank volume. With this additional knowledge, I now have a choice between larger and smaller 1-pint stoves, which will depend on the size of bag, length of trip, and time of year. Do you have many 1 pint stoves, and do they vary in size and tank volume? All the best, T
Interesting, but as a maths teacher, I believe 0.1 m times 0.1 m results in an area measurement and not a volume. OK so I know you meant 0.1 * 0.1 * 0.1. Do tanks get measured in -- total capacity, i.e. full to the brim. -- Full to the filling point -- 'Full' to the recommended fill (being often say 3/4 of the fount? I'm not buying into this as many blowlamps are classed as 1 pint and some of them also make stoves and I thought the ones I am aware of used US pints. I'll sit back and watch this thread. PS It's academic for me as I just fill them to where I reckon it should be and rarely measure the fuel amount.
Hi @Sedgman - my bad, 10cm3 is 10dl or one litlre, of course. I never gave it much thought whether the pint size was UK or US pint, but having measured one Swedish and one Portugese stove, I think it is safe to say that they are much closer to a UK pint: Hipolito No 0: 0.65 liter - or 1.14 pints Optimus No 00: 0.59 liter - or 1.04 pints As far as US stoves or blowlamps go, I cannot say, and they may well be US pint size. My point of interest was the fact that there is quite a variation to the actual size - tank full - of the 1 pint stoves. Some manufacturers say 3/4, some say 2/3, but like you I just fill them up just about right, and never measure. That said, I do pay attention to the temperature; in freezing conditions the risk of damage or spillage from overfilling is significantly reduced, and in summer and strong sunlight there is a more critical need for air space to pich up the fluctuations in fuel volume from heat expansion under transport. And yes, the true size of the tank is a point of pure academic interest, but hey, in here we geek out on all kinds of minor details and finer points :-) T
Americans do not use "Imperial" units; they use English units. Britain wasn't yet into "Imperial" designations during the period of the settlement of North America, and certainly not in 1776. Things must have changed since last I was there, which has been about 10 years now. I've driven many, many miles around Great Britain; amounting to several weeks overall. From Land's End to Inverness, spread over several trips.... If GB doesn't have miles anymore, I will be sad to find it out. We've had lots of lively discussions of the topic over the years here at CCS.
A standard pub dram when I was young was a quarter gill , though the dreaded transition to a fifth of a gill was underway . In England the standard measure for spirits was a sixth of a gill . When in England we always asked the bar staff why the glass was wet . Oh how they laughed at our celtic mirth
The United States officially requested some measures as guides for implementing the Metric System in 1793. Joseph Dombey, a French Naturalist, was dispatched in a French-flagged vessel, along with some specie gram weights and a ''golden rule'' meter stick. Unfortunately for Dombey, the ship was captured by English ''privateers,'' the specie cut up for booty shares and Dr Dombey held for ransom on the island of Montserrat. No one was eager to buy his freedom, and the poor Dombey 'died of fever' after 3 years. When some of the documentation was later returned to the United States, a different administration was in office -- one who saw no need for foreign gimcracks like a new-fangled system of measure to further confuse men of commerce, and no desire to perpetuate the policies of the previous administration -- and it was quietly dropped into some government archive. Thus, we Americans are stuck with the old English measures which pre-existed to a 1823~ reform that led to the British Imperial Measure that became standard in an Empire, 'We the People' were no longer part of. So we can blame English pirates. And a Fluid Ounce is 30 ml -- ask any bartender. [Although an Imperial Fluid Oz is slightly more.] I'm familiar with Troy Weight, but we are discussing liquid measure, not precious metals.
@SveaSizzler - I didn’t know any of this, thank you for sharing! As with so many major and minor events in history, they are often celebrated as the outcome of a well executed and thoughtful plan, but in actual fact they are often the results of random and fortunate (or unfortunate) turn of events, and remembered by their outcomes as if they were meant to be, often ignoring at the time equally possible and plausible outcomes.
I have a replica Royal Navy Grog Tot measure, in copper. It's appropriately stamped with the Broad Arrow and Cross -- making an Anchor, on the base. On the side, it's stamped: GI 1/2 LL, for a half Gill. Filled to the brim, it yeilds 75 ml in a graduated beaker. I've always considered it a 2 Oz shot. [Perhaps that's 2 Imperial Oz ?] Twenty years of exposure to that old known corrosive, Rum, has worn off the silver lining. In the Days of Sail, the Lads would get issued their tots twice a day.
A colorful story, and however true the tale may be, it doubtless has little to do with the non-adoption of metric measures in the young US. In 1793, Washington was President. In 1798, Adams was. Neither was sympathetic to the French Revolution and its works. I suspect the Frenchman's quest would have come to naught, even without piratical intervention.
Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State on Geo. Washington's cabinet was a known Francophile, and he instigated the query. After Dombey's death the artifacts remaining were brokered to the US. Adams, a Frog-Hater, would have none of it.
