Talk:Beverage-can stove

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
WikiProject Backpacking    (Inactive)
WikiProject icon This article was within the scope of WikiProject Backpacking, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject icon A version of this article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.
Former featured article Beverage-can stove is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 17, 2004.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
November 4, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted
April 14, 2007 Featured article review Demoted
Current status: Former featured article
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7 (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Note icon
This article is within of subsequent release version of Engineering, applied sciences, and technology.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Discussion from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates[edit]

Soda can stove[edit]

Spare and sweet. Colorful 3-D rendering leaves nothing to the imagination. Top link in the references shows you exactly how to make one. +sj+ 00:09, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Minor objction. How did it came to be called "Pepsi can stove"? Why wasn't it called simply "soda can stove"? Revth 02:28, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • The requested article link was "Pepsi can stove", i didn't think about a better name but maybe should have. FWIW Google shows 1130 hits for "Pepsi can stove" (with quotes) and 594 for "soda can stove". Duk 03:00, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Yup, I checked myself and "Pepsi can stove" is the popular name and couldn't find out why that name stuck. It's most likely that no one knows. Support. Revth 15:22, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • The name is not unexpected, because the pepsi can makes the best upper half, and when you look at one you can see the brand. Orcrist 17:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Would still like to see some more depth in some areas, but I am not sure the information is out there to find. Martyman 21:46, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC) Objection1) There is no mention of the commercially available stoves that are almost identical in design such as the Trangia. 2) Was the Pepsi stove a copy of the commercial designs, and when was it invented/adapted. Martyman 03:07, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Good article, but far too short to be featured. Ambi 10:39, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Disagree with the objection (i) No subject is unfit for featured status. If the article's short because there's not much of interest to be said, then so bit it. It can still be a good short article. (ii) Reason is not in itself actionable. jguk 13:39, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • I didn't say the subject was unfit for featured status. It is. The article, however, is just simply not detailed enough to be a featured article. If this were accepted as present, it would be by far the shortest featured article we have. With that in mind, I believe it's an entirely fair objection, and one that should be actionable. Ambi 13:53, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • Say what it's missing. That's actionable. Just saying it's short, isn't.jguk 13:57, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
          • I don't know. Cultural references? Other designs? Potential uses? Surely more can be said than simply how to make one and how to then use it. I'm not an expert on the topic. But if this were to be featured, it would set a really terrible precedent, because up until now, nothing this short has been featured - and any old ones that were this short have since been weeded out. Ambi 14:04, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
            • As a further example, the history section is terrible, and Securiger gives further examples of ways this could be expanded below. As there are ways of expanding this, there is then no excuse for having such a short article. Ambi 11:22, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
              • The article has improved significantly, and though it's still a little on the short side, I think that's quite forgivable, considering the topic. Changing to support. Ambi 07:25, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
              • The reason there is little history is probably that nobody knows the history. This stuff all emerged on long-distance hiking trails, and most of the people who were around at the time were not using online journals to report their inventions. A truly word-of-mouth invention is hard to track. Orcrist 18:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Nice concise well-written article. jguk 13:57, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Fascinating, well written article frittered away a whole afternoon for me! - although it is much imporved by the new history section. BTW, some of the external links indicate that there are numerous other designs around. Ideally the article would mention the number of designs, compare top models, and perhaps trace when it became popular for hikers to experiment with them. But that's a heck of a lot of work and I wouldn't withhold my vote waiting for it. Securiger 05:20, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Wow.--Josiah 06:00, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object, incomplete. Even the links there provide a fair amount of material that is not covered in the article. Specifically (but not limited to) burn time of fuel, ie how much less efficient is it? More details on the construction. I didn't really get an idea of how it worked until I read the external links. Variations on the construction. Is JB weld the only option for building the stove? One of the links refers to foil tape. I could go on, but I only looked at a couple of the external links and found all this. - Taxman 14:31, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)
    • You don't need JB weld or flue tape if you make the stove perfectly under the standard design. But that can be challenging, so they both are very useful.Orcrist 18:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Recent edits have improved the completeness though I see a bit more that needs to be covered. Also, after the additions the organization of material is a bit awkward. Especially the construction section. Aluminum should not be used, but is the best choice? More could be said about both of those and about the windscreen, why needed, etc. Also some clarification is needed on the variations. What are the "internal" lines in the drawings there for? I think it would be clearer without them, I have no idea what they are trying to show. Is the side burner version more efficient since it blocks the fuel vapor from coming out anywhere but the burner holes? - No problem on that one if there is no data to tell either way, but in general the info on each variation could be epanded. Especially interesting is the more powerful sealed version. - Taxman 01:53, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
      • The problem with this is that many of us have taken the time to build these things but have not published or produced high-quality webpages illustrating the results. Holes on the side are comparable in efficiency to holes on the top. Aluminum cans are good because they don't rust (much) and they are light weight. Steel cans are not so good. The sealed version is interesting, but perhaps it should get its own page, since the design is both more complicated as well as more difficult to make. Orcrist 18:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Objections: The history section is too short to be a section, we should expand it. There are no references. The images could use better captions. The variations section should should be expanded and turned into flowing prose. ✏ Sverdrup 23:07, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • One very, very small objection: I think this should come with some sort of safety warning/disclaimer. -Litefantastic 21:31, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
good idea, is there a tag for this? I couldn't find one. If not, how is one made?Duk 21:32, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The following comes close: CAUTION: USE WIKIPEDIA AT YOUR OWN RISK! I'll paste it onto the article, thus resolving my own objection. -Litefantastic 12:05, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
An explicit link to Wikipedia:Disclaimer or Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer too? My only concern would be, does this impliedly mean that unarticles without an express disclaimer are somehow "safer". -- ALoan (Talk) 12:13, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
In the sense that the person unertaking actions based on stuff he-she learned from reading things here is totally resposible for whatever happens. All things considered, we really ought to pay more attention to safety. -Litefantastic 18:42, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I removed the warning first without seeing this obection. Yet after reading this here, I still believe it should be removed -- the purpose of having all articles link to the general disclaimer is so that individual articles do not need them -- that's why we took them all out months ago. →Raul654 20:08, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
As you see fit. -Litefantastic 15:38, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Page has been updated with many of the suggestions here. Clear and concise. Duk 05:07, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - this is much better than it was! -- ALoan (Talk) 13:55, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Can melting[edit]

Isn't there a possibility that the aluminium will melt? ✏ Sverdrup 20:24, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have not found this to be a danger, sterno cans are aluminium too.
Duk 23:21, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Shouldn't happen. Until it runs out of ethanol, the temperature of parts in close proximity to the fuel will not rise much above the boiling point of ethanol (78.4°C). And once it does run out of fuel, it stops producing heat! There is a possibility that peripheral parts immersed in flame, but a long way from the fuel reservoir, could get much hotter. However if operated correctly this will not happen to any part. Securiger 05:34, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The melting point of aluminum is 933.47 K (660,32 °C or 1220.58 °F) It is a very good conductor of heat (which is one of the reasons it can be used instead of copper), and exchanges heat fairly well with air (that's why it is used for Heatsinks in Computers) so you'll need a little more than 1.8 kW of heat for a few seconds to melt it.--Deelkar 14:29, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Featured article[edit]

There are some good suggestions from the featured article nomination that I hope people can help with; Duk 19:19, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Article name[edit]

is the current name appropriate? Is a more generic name better?

  • "Pepsi can stove" (1130 google hits)
  • "Soda can stove" (594)
  • "Pop can stove" (226)

How about including alcohol in the name?

Commercial models[edit]

What commercial models are available? so far;

Fuzzy (author of above photos and related stove web pages)claims it is Simmons Safesport Alcohol Stove, however my stove, box nor instructions mention simmons in any way and years ago when I did a search there was a Safesport Co in SC I think that was no longer in business.
Does your packaging or stove have any patent references? Duk 20:24, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The claim "This advantage may be lost on very long hiking trips, however, because the stove is less efficient and requires more fuel, especially when cooking for more than one person." seems to be somewhat inaccurate depending on the definition of "efficient". Fuel wise a btu is a btu and these stoves are very much the equals of commercial pressure stoves at converting a fuel btu into heat via the flame. The ability to get these btus into a pot or pan is another measure of efficiency and can also be very high.
In competition with pressure stove boiling a cup of water from cold stove and cold fuel, this design often wins as it has the advantage of flame on immediately after pouring the fuel.
If efficiency of stove seems to often be confused with the btu rate of the stove and in this regard these can stoves are limited in btu per minute where some commercial designs using other fuels are capable of much higher btu rates.
If big pots are the question, simply use several cans. I have used three to support and heat a large pot on numerous occasions.
Fuel consumption is very low and my experience is that careful metering of the fuel to the task minimizes the fuel requirements. However the much heavier high pressure stove and fuel tank design can be valved off as soon as the cooking need is met vs this soda can stove design burns until the fuel is exhausted or the stove extinguished.
I suggest the article lose this particular sentence as it is technically inaccurate and judgemental.
Yes, good point, that statment could be better. Later in the article is the following; a longer cooking time means more heat lost to the surroundings compared to a more powerfull stove, and Fuel usage (by weight) is about fifty percent greater than a Peak I or MSR Pocket Rocket. (i'll try to dig up this reference for external links). Duk 20:24, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)


  • What is the history of this design?
  • Was the design a knock-off of commercial models (or contrawise)?
  • What is the history of commercial models?
  • Design is more popular or has a longer history in Europe for backpackers?
  • History of pop can design, when did it become popular for hikers to experiment with.
  • Cultural references

Information to add[edit]

  • Potential uses
  • Other designs
  • Burn time of fuel, how much less efficient is it
  • More details on the construction
    • (should this article be a how-to?)
I think the construction details are better left to the external links. Duk 04:47, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • A better description of how it works

Constructive criticism[edit]

  • Need better captions
  • History section needs to be longer
  • References
  • Variations section should be turned into flowing prose
  • The article claims that the pressurized version is more difficult to construct that the double-walled type. This is definitely not the case. The hardest part of building one of these things is cutting out the bottom of the can for a double-walled type. The next hardest is fitting the inner wall. The pressurized version does away with both steps. It's much easier. You can make a pressurized type in about a quarter of the time and with fewer tools. Shall I edit the article?
yes, edit away! --Duk 06:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Original design[edit]

I have been doing a bit of research into where the design originated, and unfortunately it seems to evolved from a very old design. The patent linked to above is for a similar design from 1892. The burners where used extensively as fondue burners for fondue cooking. The differences I can see is that the pepsi can and trangia stove both don't use absorbent material in the lower half and they don't have wire mesh across the top of the opening. The design of the internal wall to transfer heat (shared by pepsi can and trangia) must have originated somewhere? This more recent patent references many other alcohol burning stove patents. patent link

The trangia company started in 1925 and claims the trangia stove has been sold since 1951, the trangia stove includes the interlocking wind shields and pots as well. I have uploaded a photo of a trangia burner if it will be of any help to anyone. Martyman 23:59, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Trangia Burner

History of design[edit]

I looked for history of this design as characterized by double wall gas generator, vapor vents from gas generator chamber, and central preheat chamber;

There were several foreign patents I ran across but none earlier than these.

Still looking for history of pop can usage. Duk 03:26, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Safesport stove claims to be Pat No 55308, it is stainless steel design and is an excellent stove.

In answer to Duk question of history, here is what I know User:Eagle

It was spring of 2000 when I was scoutmaster of a new troop without camping equipment. The stainless steel "safesport" stove (box claims Patent no 55308) I had taken on a woodbadge trip to Philmont seemed perfect, however a source was not forthcoming as the company seems to be out of business. That search for an inexpensive backpacking stove did turn up various sites featuring tuna can and tomato paste (steel) can stoves which as the commercially available Trangia stove worked on the same principle as the "safesport" stove.

While waiting for a Trangia to arrive via REI, I began experimenting with the can stoves as a potential project for the boys in the troop. Such a project is suitable for metal working meritbadge and stimulate the boys to consider how to make and modify their own camping gear rather than simply purchasing it.

These experiments included various aluminum can designs that seemed to be new to the web at that time. I was not satisfied with several aspects of the existing design as 1- it required two cans to make one stove and 2- required a separate pot support. A couple of days experimenting resulted in a design that overcame both those limitations, a stove that could be made from one can and that would self support a cooking pot. An unanticipated benefit was that the pot snuffed the central flame causing a higher pressure burn of the alcohol vapor jetting thru the holes only.

I have used three stoves to support a large pot for patrol cooking.

This turned out to be a wonderful scout meeting project as the aluminum of the cans is soft enough that ragged edges do not cut young skin and a boy can actually make a first stove in 20 minutes. One technique is to have the older boys learn how to make the stoves with adult instruction, while the younger boys received instruction on rank advancement, then have the older boys teach the younger boys how to make the stove. Many boys continued to practice their stove making skills at home, some becomming quite profecient.

This design was then taught to other troops and staff at summer camp and camporees over the next couple of years and in 2001 was a roundtable project for other leaders complete with a printed "how to" handout. The top of the can becomes the top of the stove with holes punched using the plastic topped bulletin board pins.

The handout is a corel 3 file. Here is a photo: Canstove.jpg

Links to this article[edit]

This article should be linked from more article, such as hiking or camping or stove. SweetLittleFluffyThing 07:01, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)


I can understand using the american spelling of words like aluminum but the new title of the design setion "Pop cans" means nothing to me, not being from the US. The term "pop" is not used at all in Australia and I am guessing that it isn't used in Europe either. We call them soft drinks here in Australia, but the same cans are also used for beer, so maybe "carbonated drink can" would be more emcompassing. Wouldn't a better title for the section be "Construction" and you could add the word "detailed" to the see external links line. Martyman 23:22, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

agreed Duk 04:47, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I've heard of 'soda pop,' but even that phrase smells strongly of the 1950s. We just call it 'soda'. I propose that the article be renamed to 'soda can stove'.
I have no problem with the article being called "Pepsi can stove" as "pepsi can" translates better across international boundaries than anything else will. Also it has already been shown that the general name in use is "Pepsi can stove". Martyman 04:30, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I just renamed the article to Soda can stove, maybe I should have waited for more consensus (I didn't see Martyman's comment till after). While the name pepsi can stove is most common, the web pages of building indsructions use all kinds of cans. Duk 04:45, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"Soda can" is still pretty much an Americanism. Aluminium can stove should be used (using IUPAC naming for aluminium). Dysprosia 05:48, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Aluminum is the official American spelling and is therefore acceptable for use. The trouble with using "aluminium can" is that it doesn't specify the specific type of can that is used (drink can). There are other types of cans manufactured from aluminium. Martyman 06:00, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The American spelling is not "therefore acceptable for use", unless it was originally titled as such. We have an acceptable standard (IUPAC). Regardless, how about "soft drink can stove", as per below. Dysprosia 07:46, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The article is written by an american author (guessing) and already included the word aluminum in it. I would have thought policy would dictate not changing away from the american spelling. Martyman 08:29, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
We're not talking about the content of the article, we're talking about the title. The proposed change in spelling (if it's to be implemented for this article, that is! I am preferring "soft drink can stove" from the arguments proposed here, now) is not a change towards a British spelling or an Australian spelling or any other regional based spelling, it's changing to an internationally agreed upon standard spelling. Dysprosia 12:46, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh and just for reference in Australia the only thing refered to as "soda" is soda water which is plain carbonated water. Anything that is fizzy, sweet and flavoured is called a soft drink. Martyman 06:02, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm all for a name that makes the most internationl sense, but am going to leave a page move to someone else next time :) Duk 20:56, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Not vital to conversation, but I'v always though of "pop" in this sense as being from Britain, especially here oop naarth.

Here's a map of pop vs. soda (vs. coke) for the U.S.; I haven't seen an international version. If the device is most often called a Pepsi can stove, whether made of a pepsi can or not, it should be named that. Excellent article. --Ben Brockert 02:42, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)


Why does this article have NOTOC? Joe D (t) 05:47, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

the article was originialy intended to be very short and lean with no TOC required, but has grown due to many suggestions. I'll turn the TOC back on and see how it looks. Duk 20:56, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Moving[edit]

When renaming an article it should be moved rather than just copied and pasted to the new name. Otherwise all editing history is lost. Unfortunately I moved teh talk page over now so it is even more complicated. We will need to get an administrator to remove the current "soda can stove" page and move a reverted copy of the "Pepsi can stove" over here. Martyman 05:52, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

User:Dysprosia has now fixed this, thanks. Martyman 05:57, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
But we lost at least two edits to the current page. Changeing the name in the first parragraph and renaming the "pop can" section. Martyman 06:05, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Sorry for screwing up the move. Duk 20:56, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hey, you did most of the work on the article, don't be apoligizing to us. Things like that are always easily fixed by an administrator. Martyman 22:44, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)


From the fac page, does this article need a warning/disclaimer?

Duk 22:05, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Such as what? If there are serious safety issues, they should be covered in the article. If it's something like "Danger: this can stove can get hot", then no:) jguk 22:27, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Since wikipedia is not a do-it-yourself guide or a howto, we shouldn't need to have disclaimers of this type. ✏ Sverdrup 16:26, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Seriously, I think some kind of warning could be in order. It's a device dealing with flammable materials/fluids. Accidently tipping the device can cause spills of burning fluid.. which in turn can cause flash burns (and a reason for tipping it may be that you try to pick it up while it's hot). Making mistakes when contructing it may cause internal perssure build-ups until it ruptures/explodes. Placing it on something that is sensitive to heat may cause burn marks or even fires. All of these risks should be adressed in the article. --J-Star 20:11, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)

J-Star, I am going to revert you edit because a disclaimer for the article has already been discussed on the FAC discussion (I copied the discussion here for reference). Please see above. Duk 22:05, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well concider the discussion reopened then.
The whole purpose of Wikipedia is to spread the knowledge and information... not to sit and say "You should have figured this one out by yourself you dunce". It is true that we have no obligation or no responibility to educate people into a safety mindset. But we also had absolutely no obligation to participate in Wikipedia either. If we were to spread and/or promote the "We don't have to do this"-mindset we are effectively counter-acting one of the foundations of Wikipedia.
I volontarilly choose to add cautionary information. I don't see this information adding any harm. I see no reasons for the removal. The argument "People should be more safety concious" is not a valid argument. I think that argument rather speaks for keeping the information; the argument "If we add a caution section here we have to do it everywhere" is an illegal use of slippery slope reasoning. We are not obliged to do anything. I choose to do it here; The argument "We have already put up the universal disclaimer" does not obligate removal of additional subject-specific cautionary information.
The information I added it not a disclaimer which you have erronously called it. It's information about risks. The arguments in the FAC discussion spoke about how we don't need to add individual disclaimers... which is true. But none of them argued for an obligation to remove risk information. So that's what I what I would like to hear: arguments that speak for active removal of cation information that elevates risk awareness. What are your arguments for spending effort to remove that kind of information if someone has volontarilly such? --J-Star 09:34, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)
J-star, please don't put words into my mouth. I did not say "You should have figured this one out by yourself you dunce". I certianly meant no disrespect, and thought I was being polite. And I made the effort to dig up and include the previous discussion on this topic from [Wikipedia:Featured article candidates|FAC]]. Duk 14:59, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Duk, I did not say you called me a dunce. Please do not feel offended by the remarks above because they were not targeted at you, nor were they meant to be insulting. Quotes was perhaps a bad choice by me since a common interpretation of those is that they indicate someone actually said those words. See your talk-page for more details.
You dug up the FAC discussion, I read it thuroughly and my answer above is a direct answer to the arguments and mindsets presented in that discussion. Please read the arguments I presented for keeping the caution section and reply what you think. With best regards --J-Star 15:37, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)
OK, sorry I got excited and misinterpreted your note.
I didn't voice an opinion last time on this discussion. I sympathize with people wanting to add a caution/disclaimer note, and I understand that notes like these have previously been removed from pages in favor of a general disclaimer linked to each page. My thoughts;
  1. If an exception is made for this page, where do you draw the line for other pages.
  2. If an exception is made for this page, then the discussion should be taken up regarding the previous efforts that Raul mentioned.
  3. If we have a section on operation, how do we rationalize not mentioning safe operating procedures (maybe we should).
Duk 18:19, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think it's a fundamental flaw if a Wikipedia policy obilgates removal of information just to promote a certain layout/style. We are here because we want to share information with our peers. If Wikipedia then says "Sorry, but you cannot share that information", I think that a policy that is destructive to Wikipedia. We cannot keep defending a policy just for the sake of keeping it. We must examine the reasons for having the policy and weigh that against reasons for abolishing or modifying it.
I also think the Wikipedia disclaimers do not serve any purpose other than being just that... disclaimers. They are not informative in that they only say "Some things are dangerous". That's not helpful. Only knowing there are things to be afraid of but not knowing which they are could have a wide range of effects on my risk awareness, from paranoia to not caring at all.
Then again I think what I wrote above is a moot point because I differ between disclaimers and risk awareness information. As far as I can see risk awareness information has no home on Wikipedia. There is no place to put it... which in turn means that with the current policy of suppressing that kind of information in the articles means that information cannot be shared through Wikipedia. In my opinion, disclamers and risk information are two distictly different things and therefore caution sections are not affected by the disclaimer policy because such sections are not disclaimers.
Some articles' very foundation is risk awareness information. See for instance the article on Gun safety. If risk awareness information is not to be allowed, then that article should be removed. I don't think that is reasonable.
Then there is the NPOV issue. Can an article that speaks of the advantages of a certain item without describing the risk(s) of the same be concidered NPOV? In the case of the soda can stove article, it speaks many times of the advantages of these stoves but there is no mention of risks. Is that really NPOV?
To answer your questions:
  1. The line is drawn between saying "If you get hurt it's not our fault" and saying "These specific issues present the following hazards/risks. And these behaviours are unsafe". The first is a disclaimer. The second is information. These two are not the same or mutually exclusive. They complement each other.
  2. All information relevant to the subject should of course be concidered.
  3. Agreed. Policys that suppress information is in my opiniuon counter-productive and defeats the purpose of Wikipedia itself.
But we better reach a conclusion about the caution section quickly because this article goes on as the featured article in less than 3 hours. So what do we do? Bring back the caution section or let it be until the day after tomorrow? --J-Star 21:29, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)
I am against having a Disclaimer/Caution section, especially if it is large, breaks up the article and duplicates the linked disclaimer already there.
I don't think relavent information should be omited just because it regards safety, for example;...Unsealed alcohol stoves can be inherently dangerous, however, since spilling is possible and the fuel burns with a nearly invisible flame.
Duk 03:15, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
In the Trangia instructions the main thing they go on about is to not refill the stove until it has been allowed to fully cool. This is to avoid accidental flashback into the fuel bottle. Trangia now sell fuel bottles with anti-flashback auto shutoff pourers on them. Martyman 21:49, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This sounds like relevant information that can be added to the Comparison to other stoves or Operation subsections. Duk 18:19, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Interestingly the only saftey warning on the Trangia instructions are to only use alcohol NOT PETROL and to wait for the stove to cool before refilling. It also has some info and amounts of fuel used to boil water and running times. Oh and a suggestion that thinning the alcohol 10% with water will reduce or stop sooting on the base of the cooking pots. Martyman 21:45, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, do not include a disclaimer. We used to have individual disclaimers, and when we got the general one, we took all the old ones out because they're redundant and they pollute articles with meta data. →Raul654 03:11, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not talking about including an individual disclaimer. I'm talking about adding subject relevant risk information. That's something completely different. Saying "If you hurt yourself, we're not to blame" is a disclaimer. Saying "Unsealed stoves can be dangerous if tipped. They should be placed on a secure spot to prevent this" is risk awareness information. These two are different. Related, yes, because a disclaimer usually accompanies risk awareness information. But they are not the same.
So what I want to know is: what do we do with risk information that is relevant to an article? See my argument to Duk above.--J-Star 09:12, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)

--J-Star 09:12, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)

It should be noted that the Platinum and Petrol articles have caution/danger sections. --J-Star 14:29, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)

It might be worth mentioning that sometimes people make the mistake of trying to "blow out" the standard design stove, which doesn't work and is a good way to start a messy fire. The stove "goes out" when it runs out of fuel. One could cover the stove to cut off oxygen, but that's uncommon, since one may not have an extra pot or lid available when hiking due to size/weight considerations. This is the sort of notice that only applies to stoves similar in design to the Pepsi Can Stove and consequently does not appear elsewhere. But then, I wasn't part of the above discussion, so perhaps others have opinions on this issue? Orcrist 18:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Cross sections in diagrams[edit]

I noticed a comment on the featured article candidate page complaining about the yellow lines on the Variations figure. I find the cross section inclusion useful and interesting. The caption should make the diagram easy enough to understand especially with the link to a definition of cross section. Martyman 02:24, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I too am a fan of the cross sections. However (and please forgive me if I am overlooking something obvious), I can't see what the difference is between the standard model and the side burner model. Could that aspect possibly be made clearer? Thanks. Doops 17:29, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The side burner has the holes in the side, the "standard" model at the top. I agree however that this can be a little hard to spot at first. --Deelkar (talk) 17:59, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps add some stylized flames in the diagrams? --Deelkar (talk) 18:01, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Interesting article, hadn't noticed it until it became featured. Good work everyone! --fvw* 00:56, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)

Free advertising?[edit]

Was this article written by some imaginative bod at Pepsi marketing?

Nice article but I never heard of anyone using ethanol as fuel for these things. Ethanol is drinkable and so you have to pay liquor tax in order to buy it ($$$). Stove fuel is usually methanol (wood alcohol), which is toxic.

If you can back it up with a reference, please update the article, that's what Wikipedia is all about. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 10:15, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
Denaturated fuel ethanol is not drinkable (well, you can drink but you will get ill, which is the purpose of the denaturation) and should therefore be exempt from liqour tax. --J-Star 10:26, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)

In Australia the typically used fuel is Metholated spirits, which I think is almost exactly the same thing as denatured ethanol. It is something like 95% ethanol with 5% methyl alcohol added to make it un-drinkable and therefore not liable for extra taxes. Methanol is not generally easily availble to the public here. Martyman 12:09, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Denaturated ethanol is also used as shellac thinner, and is sold in most hardware stores. Duk 00:35, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)


We use pure ethanol at work as a cleaning solvent. I believe that we don't have to pay any taxes on it but that it's sale is regulated. I have been told that the main reson for regulating the sale of it is not because you can drink it, (it tastes very strong, but would porobably be OK with a mixer) but because it is used in a proccessing step in drug manufacturing. I can't remember which drug this applies to. Martyman 03:38, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Other construction materials[edit]

I've re-inserted the text regarding other possible construction materials (cat tins, juice cans, etc), since they are essentially the same design. They aren't Buddy Burners, since they use the same principal of operation (two-walled construction) and fuel, and just use slightly different materials. Indeed, most sources I know of show the denature alchohol "cat stove"[1] predating the soda can stove. A good overview of various denatured alcohol stoves of similar design is at [2]. -- Kaszeta 17:50, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The first paragraph is getting kind of bloated. Can we mention these alternatives in #Aluminum can construction, maybe? Duk 18:54, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Sounds good. Done. -- Kaszeta 21:52, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Are cat tins actually used in Pepsi can design? Also, maybe worth mentioning stoves made from Red Bull cans [3], which I have seen and made. They weigh about 1/8 oz less than Pepsi can stoves and are roughly the same in efficiency. Orcrist 17:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Article Name Change[edit]

One of my Wikipedia peeves is the use of the word soda instead of soft drink. People in many regions of the United States not only use different regional slang to refer to soft drinks (i.e. Pop or Coke), but take offence when they see soda used that way in print. It is offensive to insinuate that one region's non-standard slang term should replace its equivalent in another region. Furthermore, words from the general English lexicon should preferred over regional slang terms in Wikipedia. Lastly, since such a stove could be fabricated from a beer can or an iced tea can, a less specific term for such a can would be more appropriate.

I propose that this article be renamed to either Beverage can stove or Aluminum can stove. Since it has been a featured article and has an extensive edit history it would be inappropriate for me to unilaterally blank and re-direct without community input. I won't touch this article for a week while awaiting community input. Also, an Admin should copy the edit history as part of the move. --Casito 11:24, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I suggest Can Stove. --J-Star 09:03, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
I suggest Aluminium Can Stove for the reasons named somewhere above: no brand name, international spelling for the element. --Christian *Yendi* Severin 20:22, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Merge suggestion[edit]

It was recently suggested that this article be merged with Hobo stove. I'm against this since the hobo stove is a very different design. --Duk 22:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Good lord, no. A hobo stove and beverage can stove are completely different things. They burn different materials, work on different principals, exist at a different scale. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) .

Agreed, not a good merge candidate. --Martyman-(talk) 22:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Fuel economy[edit]

The article speaks of the can stove requiring more mass of alcohol fuel than the propane/butane fuel used by a different stove. I don't know the respective chemical energies of either of these fuel mixtures, but I'm pretty sure they're not the same. Thus the article's assertions about fuel economy are highly suspect. Matt Gies 18:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I have done informal tests -- and read of others who have done the same -- and we all note the same thing. Say you're out for 10 meals. Let's compare a Pocket Rocket[4] using MSR isobutane fuel to a pepsi can stove using denatured alcohol. The Pocket Rocket outweighs the soda can, but 10 days of alcohol outweighs 10 days of isobutane. A rough calculation goes as follows. Let one meal consist of boiling two cups of water and keeping it at a boil for seven minutes, since that's what it takes to make many popular instant pastas. Now, according to REI, an MSR IsoPro [5] canister weighs 8 oz. Two of them is enough to last more than 10 meals (it should last 13 or 14 meals). The Pocket Rocket weighs 3.2 oz. That's 19.2 oz. An alcohol stove takes approximately 2 oz. of fuel per meal. 20 oz. of denatured alcohol weighs roughly 21.3 oz (denatured alcohol is comparable in mass to water, and a liter of water mass of 1 kg). The soda can stove weighs .2 oz. That's 21.5 oz, not counting a stove stand or wind screen which are desirable for the soda can stove but perhaps not for the Pocket Rocket. This calculation is not precise, but it should clearly illustrate the result. Orcrist 18:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
It also doesn't count the container for the alcohol. . But 20 fl. oz. of ethanol only weighs 17 oz. (density is 0.789, not 1.0) Still it gives a breakeven point of 11 or 12 meals if you use a very light container for the ethanol. Rmhermen 18:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Propane, butane and kerosene all give more BUT's per pound of fuel than does ethanol. See Heat of combustion and [6]. So you have to carry more ethanol by weight to do to same job. Eventually, the weight savings of the beverage can stove is eaten up by the extra weight of the Ethanol. A four day trip seems to be the break even point for me (subjective estimate.)
My weights;
  • Beverage can stove + windscreen/pot stand (1.35 oz) + empty plastic fuel bottle (1 oz) = 2.35 oz.
  • Snowpeak ultralight stove w/pezio ignition + case (4.5 oz) + empty isobutane canister (4 oz) = 8.5 oz.
--Duk 07:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


I feel that there should be less references to Pepsi. The first one saying that they are often referred to as Pepsi can stoves is fine, but it seems that all after that should say can stove or beverage can stove. As such, it doesn't feel like it holds NPOV. Does that sound weird? Zepheus 02:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I can only wonder how it originally came to be called the "Pepsi can stove". However we have opted to call it the "Beverage can stove", so we should use that when the full name is required after noting the "Pepsi" name. -Will Beback 08:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
It was called that because that is what the external links call it - as the Pepsi can was the best size to use to effectively construct one. Rmhermen 17:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I've made the changes (there aren't many). I do understand that Pepsi-brand cans have a different design than other brands that allows them to function better as stoves, so I've noted that next to a relevant external link. Still, according to the article, one can make the stove out of most any aluminum can, so the fact that Pepsi-brand cans work better is simply a side-note. Zepheus 17:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I just call it a soda can stove. Uber-Awesomeness (talk) 23:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

External link to a new design....[edit]


I inadvertantly violated some rule with my post of an external link to the homemade soda can stove page. Can I add the following link?

This is a free access to a design that is my own. I want to make it available to anyone who would like to make one or two of these stoves. I am also beginning to market a polished can version at another site. There is no reference to this site, or any commercial site on the above link. Does this meet the rules?

Please let me know. Thanks!

Ray —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rjprince (talkcontribs) 04:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. I'm not an administrator, but I'm pretty certain that this isn't the right forum for this type of material per Wikipedia's guidelines - I recommend a blog or web-hosting service. RJASE1 Talk 12:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't you think its a bit silly that people are spending hours on here, arguing about the naming of it. I came looking for an alternative fuel absorber for the bottom of the can, but i've just found people discussing the european, australian, and american namings for the "pepsi can stove" do these things really matter? So could somebody please just give me a coherent answer, what other fuel absorbers are there that I can use, it needs to be something household as i live in the UK and don't keep a lot of perlite or vermiculite on my person. Thank you.

-Chris, 15

urmm, all those hours of discussion took place years ago. Accusations of silliness serve what purpose in your quest? Where do you get the idea that an absorber is needed? The article mentions neither perlite nor vermiculite, but you might ask at a greenhouse or plant nursery, since they are used for lightening potting soil. The article does mention fiberglass insulation... __ Just plain Bill (talk) 17:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


A quickeval for 0.7: added to the top.

BSA ban[edit]

Don't know if it is worth mentioning. The Boy Scouts of America now prohibits "Equipment that is handcrafted, homemade, modified, or installed beyond the manufacturer’s stated design limitations or use. Examples include alcohol-burning “can” stoves, smudge pots, improperly installed heaters, and propane burners with their regulators removed."[7] ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

In light of the Boy Scout photo earlier in the article, I'll add this to the article (although it sounds like a liability thing :-)). Thanks! Wi2g 16:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
When this popped up on the SCOUTS-L discussion list, there were several anecdotes passed on. It appears that it a poorly built stove can have problems. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 17:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Something weird about that PDF. It appears to open in Evince here, but closes spontaneously on mouseover. First time I've ever seen anything like that. I was able to read it by importing it to the GIMP. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 18:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Confusing information about isopropanol[edit]

At the top (paragraph 3), it says that isopropanol delivers the most energy. In the bulleted list under "Comparison with other stoves" it says, "These stoves operate marginally on 90% isopropyl alcohol" Aren't isoproponal and isopropyl alcohol the same? Is the point that vou need a higher percentage than 90%? Because it's not like you can have 100% pure isopropanol, because if it's exposed to air it dilutes itself (at least that is what I was taught--I can't prove it). And anyway, what is the information about the effects of different fuels on this stove doing in the "Comparison with other stoves section? The article doesn't say much about the fuels used in other stoves. It may be that all of the information is correct, but some explaination of the apparent discrepancy would be welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)