HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jreece@sousa.intel.com (John Reece)
Newsgroups: rec.backcountry
Subject: Re: Coleman Apex Stoves (was Re: Info on Whisper Lite Stoves)
Date: 26 Jan 93 18:26:56 GMT
Reply-To: jreece@sousa.intel.com
Organization: Intel - Information Technologies

In article <lxIks*vB1@stile.stonemarche.org>, me@stile.stonemarche.org (Mark Eklof) writes:

> 	So, how well does it work?  The Campmor catalog mentions that
> it elimininates the need for a pre-heating priming cup with some
> system that always delivers atomised fuel to the burner.  Does this
> mean that one needn't pre-heat the stove, and can avoid the flare?

The pump does the trick exactly as in other Coleman gasoline stoves.  
However, you almost certainly need to prime when using kerosene.

The Apex is mostly Peak 1 Multi-Fuel components rearranged.  You can shield it
from wind more completely since the fuel tank would be outside any 
windscreen setup.  I figure the Apex vs. XGK so:

	Weight:		About the same.

        Bulk:		About the same.

	Boiling time:   XGK numbers are about 25% faster.

        Simmer:         Apex, hands down.  This can save more fuel than
                        one might think.

        Noise:		Apex, hands down.       

        Convenience:	Apex.  No priming with gasoline, and the base
                        tends to insulate the burner from whatever it's
                        sitting on, like your tent floor.

	Robustness:	XGK.  You need two tools to fiddle with the
                        Apex/Multi-fuel generator.  The presence of
                        a built-in cleaning needle and the need to hook a 
                        cam in the valve just so make generator/jet fiddling
                        much more delicate.  And the valve can't be
                        completely disassembled.  On the other hand,
                        the XGK pump has more plastic.

        Versatility:	XGK.  The Apex doesn't come with
                        the kerosene generator, and Coleman doesn't
                        claim it could use diesel, jet fuel, etc., 
                        though it probably could.  Apparently the
                        Coleman fuel bottles are threaded differently from
                        the Sigg/MSR ones.

Incidentally, I was wrong about the reason for separate generators.  
My XGK manual says kerosene needs a smaller jet opening because it's
more dense than gasoline, whereas I was assuming it needed a larger
opening because of less volatility and higher viscosity.  So much
for common sense.

-- 
John Reece			"This lifeboat is full"	
Not an Intel spokesman
From: beckman@cs.indiana.edu (Peter Beckman)
Newsgroups: rec.backcountry
Subject: Re: do you want a new group -- rec.camping?
Date: 25 Jan 93 12:11:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1993Jan25.171147.5453
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington

trzyna@CS.ColoState.EDU (wayne trzyna) writes:
>> I agree with the proposed new group format!
>> rec.outdoors.splunking and rec.outdoors.repelling might be choices.
>Right, and rec.outdoors.camping.3persontent.groundcloths.  In fact we
>can do away with the Subject field alltogether.  Every time you want
>to start a new thread of discussion, just start a new newsgroup.

Amen! Although I think rec.outdoors.repelling might be a nice place
to forward articles on "Fido & Backpacking", "Heli-skiing", and "How
to kill a grizzly with a .38 special".  -Pete
Newsgroups: rec.backcountry,news.groups
From: eugene@wilbur.nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya)
Subject: Re: do you want a new group -- rec.camping?
Organization: NAS, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 02:55:14 GMT

In article <Jan25.195501.14178@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>
trzyna@CS.ColoState.EDU (wayne trzyna) writes:
>In fact we can do away with the Subject field alltogether.  Every time you
>want to start a new thread of discussion, just start a new newsgroup.

Hey, I was the person on April 1 to purpose we abolish all news.groups and have
a single one named "general."  We're still waiting to discuss that.
Now if I show an isomorphism between "general" and starting a new group,
can we have it?

Not going to Usenix eh?

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@orville.nas.nasa.gov
  Resident Cynic, Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers
  {uunet,mailrus,other gateways}!ames!eugene
Second Favorite email message: Returned mail: Cannot send message for 3 days
A Ref: Mathematics and Plausible Reasoning, vol. 1, G. Polya
From: alan@elroy.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Alan S. Mazer)
Newsgroups: rec.backcountry
Subject: Re: how do you feel about large groups (was Re: Redwood National Park)
Date: 28 Jan 1993 01:02:30 GMT
Organization: Image Analysis Systems Group, JPL
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: cogswell.jpl.nasa.gov

In article <1993Jan27.230948.6407@emr1.emr.ca> jagrant@emr1.emr.ca (John Grant) writes:
>How do you feel about large groups (i.e. > 5 people) in the
>backcountry?

I think it's tons of fun.  I go with such groups (7-15) several times a year.

>In short, they can do everything
>'right', according to the books, but they are still very
>visible as a large group.

To tell you the truth, we almost never see anyone else where we go so I think
this is a moot point.

>...and it still doesn't change the fact that there is a group
>of people all tramping around the same camping area and
>generally injecting a high density of people per unit area
>into the backcountry.  I think 3 groups of 15 people can
>have a greater impact on the ecosystem than 9 groups of 5.
>Perhaps those numbers aren't good examples, but you
>get the general idea.

I get the idea, but I'd sure like to see some justification.

>For groups like Scouts and other clubs, I think it would
>be better for the ecosystem, better for the people who
>encounter them along the way and better for the members of
>the group itself, if they split up into several smaller
>groups and went their separate ways.  Perhaps it will
>require more trip leaders, but don't you think the experience
>of a smaller and quieter group would be more worthwhile?

Well, all large groups I've been in have split up almost immediately.  Some
people simply walk faster than others.  And I personally have come to enjoy
being part of a larger group (something I never _thought_ I would enjoy
before I tried it).  I don't understand the attitude of regulating such things
because people will enjoy it more properly or in a "more worthwhile" way. 

>A smaller group
>would listen and hear more things and would have more time
>and fewer distractions so they could see and understand
>more of their surroundings.

But why regulate this?  Why force me to enjoy the wilderness someone else's
way?

>So, what do you think?  Should group size be limited?  What
>should the limit be?  What should the limits be on a large
>group that has fulfilled the technical obligations by
>splitting into several smaller groups?

Unless there's a problem (obviously there is in the Adirondacks) I would be
against any limits on group size, especially in established areas that are
already well-worn.
-- 
 
-- Alan                        # Mountain Dew and doughnuts...
   ..!ames!elroy!alan          # because breakfast is the most important meal
   alan@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov     # of the day.
From: damouth@wrc.xerox.com (David E. Damouth)
Newsgroups: rec.backcountry
Subject: Re: Light Weight Back Packing?
Date: 27 Jan 93 14:08:10 GMT
Reply-To: damouth@wrc.xerox.com
Organization: Xerox Webster Research Center

A year or two ago, there was an (highly controversial) article in Backpacker by some guy who claimed that for most people, it was dumb to take food on a backpack trip.  His point was that most people carry a little excess weight all the time anyway, that periodic fasting is a time-tested tradition in many cultures, that our genes provide built in support for fasting, as a result of our species' hunter-gatherer origins, and that almost anyone could thrive, even benefit, from a week with no food.  

So the ultimate lightweight backpack trip is to leave the food, stove, pots, etc. home.

I haven't personally tried it yet, but intend to.  

Talk to your doctor first, and if it kills you, blame him, not me.
---
/Dave
David E. Damouth
Xerox Webster Research Center
damouth@wrc.xerox.com
voice: 716-422-3186
fax: 716-265-7133
Newsgroups: rec.backcountry
From: JB <jbl@mesaadm.cre.nt.com>
Subject: Re: Costa Rica??
X-Xxdate: Wed, 20 Jan 93 08:14:51 GMT
Organization: NT/BNR
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d9
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1993 13:09:43 GMT

In article <01010064.o317qw@titipu.resun.com> Edward Reid,
ed@titipu.resun.com writes:
>JB, this is pretty rude.  There's enough traffic in rec.backcountry that
we
>don't need postings of things that should be in email.  

1..2..3..4..5..6..7..8...........sorry if I offended you and yes, it is
bizarre that I am allowed a news feed and not an e-mail feed.  But that's
the way the corporation bounces.  We are working on the e-mail thing but
I'm not about to lose my news. I need my daily fix.
***************************************************************
************ Laissez le bontemps rouler ****  JB  *************
* no e-mail address, but if you feel inclined: 919/992-2489 * 
***************************************************************
Newsgroups: rec.backcountry
From: chinson@chin (Chinson Yi)
Subject: Re: do you want a new group -- rec.camping?
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 93 01:04:14 GMT

: 
: >rec.outdoors.misc (formerly rec.backcountry)
: >rec.outdoors.camping (as proposed in the original post)
: >rec.outdoors.hunting (formerly rec.hunting)
: >rec.outdoors.climbing (formerly rec.climbing)
: >rec.outdoors.boats (formerly rec.boats)
: >rec.outdoors.boats.paddle (formerly rec.boats.paddle)
: >rec.outdoors.windsurfing (formerly rec.windsurfing)
: >...

Yes, vote on these proposed groups.
--
   /\~ /\      O\_  "I think my golf ball landed around here."
 ~/\/\/  \~  +--\\\                          
~~ ~~~~~ ~~  |  /|@       
/      \   \ !  \ \  Chinson Yi (chinson@cs.ucla.edu 310-206-3584)
From: hall@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Hal F Lillywhite)
Newsgroups: rec.backcountry
Subject: Re: how do you feel about a group of 1!
Date: 28 Jan 93 16:39:02 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.

In article <1993Jan28.142114.15883@scott.skidmore.edu> pvonk@scott.skidmore.edu (Pierre VonKaenel) writes:

>On the flip side... how about a group of 1?  I started backpacking
>last year (after a 10 year interruption), and enjoy going by myself.
>Now I get flack from aunts, friends, even wife, about how dangerous
>this is.. I *should* go with at least one other.  So,... how many
>people backpack by themselves?  What's the advice on this?

Just for completeness, one addition to my previous response to this
post.  You are married.  I don't know if you have children.  When
deciding if you will take a risk it is wise to remember that widows
and fatherless children have a tough row to hoe in this life.  Do
you want to leave your family without you?  This would fit into the
category of staying well within your limits when alone, one more
item to consider.
From: ggww@sjfc.UUCP (Gerry Wildenberg)
Newsgroups: rec.backcountry
Subject: Hawaii, information request
Date: 23 Jan 93 18:50:50 GMT
Reply-To: ggww@sjfc.edu (Gerry Wildenberg)
Organization: Saint John Fisher College, Rochester, NY

I have heard a good deal about the scenic wonders of Hawaii
But I have heard very nothing about the possibilities
of backpacking there. Can anyone answer some of these questions
for me:

1. Are there sufficiently long trails to warrant a backpacking trip
   (as opposed to trails suitable for day hikes)?

2. Is backpacking with a tent permitted? sensible? possible? practical?

3. Are there possibilities for hotel to hotel or hostel to hostel or
   B&B to B&B backpacking trips?

4. Are there any special factors that even an experienced backpacker
   would need to know about?  I have in mind dangerous mammals, dangerous
   reptiles or amphibians, insects, water, campsites.

5. Is transportation to trailheads a. easy by public transportation?
   b. barely possible by public transportation? c. possible only by
   private car?



Gerry Wildenberg                         
St. John Fisher College                  
Rochester, NY 14618                      ggww@sjfc.edu

-- 
Gerry Wildenberg                         
St. John Fisher College                  
Rochester, NY 14618                      ggww@sjfc.edu
From: alpope@acacia.Eng.Sun.COM (Alan L. Pope)
Newsgroups: rec.backcountry
Subject: Re: Light Weight Back Packing?
Date: 28 Jan 1993 05:36:56 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: vichon

> So the ultimate lightweight backpack trip is to leave the food, stove, pots,

I wouldn't suggest all food but one can
cut down without depravation.

Around 1970 I spent a week on 27 lbs.
Took some fishing tackle and license,
a tube tent (that I made of polystyrene),
no stove, no fuel (except matches),
no mattress), no water filter.    Also only
took two clean socks and two clean shorts,
no etxra pants or shirt, and one down jacket.
Had to go to bed early cause it was pretty
cold.

Of course, on the down side I had a wood
pack frame and an 8 lb dacron sleeping bag.

While the pack frame is repeatable, the w/o
stove and water filter are not.  And yes, I
did pack out my tube tent.
-- 
Excess on occasion is exhilarating.  It prevents moderation from acquiring
the deadening effect of a habit.--W. Somerset Maugham <alpope@Eng.Sun.COM>
From: arden@aerie.Eng.Sun.COM (Michelle Arden)
Newsgroups: rec.backcountry
Subject: N. CA/X-country backcountry skiing instruction
Date: 22 Jan 1993 18:09:48 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: ca
Reply-To: arden@aerie.Eng.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: aerie

My husband and I would like to take a day or two of backcountry
x-country skiing instruction, possibly in conjunction with an
overnight "hut" stay. We would want to stay in N CA - Sierra
assumed, although we would certainly consider going further
north to Lassen area/Trinity Alps area.

We would probably want a private lesson - 
we are both advanced beginners/intermediate x-country skiers,
and primarily want to develop better skills in going downhill,
plus some tips for skiing with full packs.

I'm looking for any suggestions/insight on places that people
have gone that might fit the above requirements. I'm considering
Kirkwood, or a place near there called the "Cody Hut".

I will summarize and post responses to the net.

Thanks for any responses.

Michelle


Newsgroups: rec.backcountry
From: jahn@guinness.Idbsu.EDU (Greg Jahn)
Subject: Re: Heavy Weight Backpacking (was Re: Light Weight Back Packing)
Reply-To: jahn@guinness.Idbsu.EDU (Greg Jahn)
Organization: Boise State University
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 21:35:58 GMT

In article <1k6ol1$bl3@agate.berkeley.edu>, ho@helen.CS.Berkeley.EDU
(Kinson Ho) writes:
|> What are the unusual (and RARELY USED) items people carry when they
|> go *heavy* weight backpacking?  
|> 
|> For example: elaborate repair kits (what?), signal flares, IV sets,
|> satellite phones etc.

Hey, this is more like it, ... am I the only one here that lives by the
'if the pack has room in it then I don't have enough stuff yet' rule?
Fortunately there's always some six-packs of beer around to toss into
the irresistable emptiness of the top of my pack.  I also highly recommend
adding a lawn chair ... one bungie cord always holds it on just fine, and as
you peel off warm clothing it's convenient to stuff it between the chair and
pack.   Beer and lawn chairs are NOT rarely used items, however, ...
unless you're with a friend and you don't pay attention.

Among rarely used items,  it seems that the best candidate for that
are all the extra clothes that I include just in case someone else 
didn't bring enough.

--
Greg Jahn Boise State Univ.| "Spoils of war are spoils of war,
/ jahn@guinness.idbsu.edu /|  says junk man, owner of the junk. 
/ dosjahn@idbsu.bitnet    /|  Grafitti man's got something to
/ (208)385-3891.thephone  /|  say. "   - John Trudell

Newsgroups: rec.backcountry
From: rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg)
Subject: Re: do you want a new group -- rec.camping?
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
Date: 21 Jan 93 11:12:09 CST
	<11791@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>
In-reply-to: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu's message of 21 Jan 93 14:56:56 GMT

In article <11791@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
   In article <RIGG.93Jan19112702@osnome.che.wisc.edu> rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
   >In article <1993Jan19.152726.9265@netcom.com> derich@netcom.com (Scott A. Steinbrink) writes:
   >
   >   I'd like to form a new newsgroup - focusing only on camping.
   >   Camping supplies, equipment, sites, activites, cooking, etc can
   >   be included.
   >
   >    Do you think it's a wise idea for rec.camping to be formed?

   Did you intend that this group be mutually exclusive with rec.backcountry?

   That is, would this cover camping in big motor homes where you do not 
   need to hike into the wilderness?

   A charter that guarantees lots of cross posting will not solve your 
   perceived problem, which must be that the camping issues of concern 
   to you are lost in a wash of politics and hiking posts.  If the load 
   on this group is too heavy -- and it does not seem that bad -- it 
   would make more sense to create r.b.camping and r.b.backpacking 
   plus r.b.misc to handle the political discussions.

   But without a proposed charter and a call for discussion as per the 
   group creation rules, and discussion is pretty pointless. 

I agree.  I was just getting a feel for the net.opinion.  I'll sendout
a "real" RFD (Request For Discussion) later today.

   >Actually, I think we should completely restructure many groups related
   >to rec.backcountry.  A new group rec.outdoors.fishing was created
   >about a 6 months ago.  Rec.backcountry should be moved over to the
   >rec.outdoors heading.  A new set of groups might include
   >
   >rec.outdoors.misc (formerly rec.backcountry)
   >rec.outdoors.camping (as proposed in the original post)
   >rec.outdoors.hunting (formerly rec.hunting)
   >rec.outdoors.climbing (formerly rec.climbing)
   >rec.outdoors.boats (formerly rec.boats)
   >...

   A vote on this would fail. 

I am not so sure.  I am quite certain a vote to transfer rec.hunting
would pass.  I do not read the other groups enough to know their
feelings. 

tim
--
    ...  Then they came for me,
	   and by that time there was no one
	     left to speak up for me. (Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945)

Newsgroups: rec.backcountry
From: trzyna@CS.ColoState.EDU (wayne trzyna)
Subject: Re: how do you feel about large groups (was Re: Redwood National Park)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 00:34:57 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Colorado State University, Computer Science Department

In article <1993Jan27.230948.6407@emr1.emr.ca> jagrant@emr1.emr.ca (John Grant) writes:
>
>How do you feel about large groups (i.e. > 5 people) in the
>backcountry?

There is nothing more obnoxious or offensive (except maybe a large
group on snowmobiles.)  You asked how I felt, so I told you.


-- 

-Wayne Trzyna
 trzyna@CS.ColoState.EDU
Newsgroups: rec.backcountry
From: sherod@news.Colorado.EDU (Scott Herod)
Subject: Re: Light Weight Back Packing?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 22:19:33 GMT

In article <Jan27.213029.31327@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>, trzyna@CS.ColoState.EDU (wayne trzyna) write
|>
|> But on the other hand coffee is not a matter of contingency planning at all.
|> It is a basic necessity, like, food, water, shelter, donuts, and beer.
|> 
|> -- 
|> 
|> -Wayne Trzyna
|>  trzyna@CS.ColoState.EDU

I know its really bad but a good idea is to carry two day supply of instant
in your first-aid kit.:)  It is even possible to drink it cold.

More seriously, I find my heaviest stuff is always food.  I would usually
rather start a little heavy with some good food rather than have to go
on less than 3500 cal a day. (Although the three weeks in Jellystone on
2000 cal/day made for some serious weight loss.)

As for forgetting essentials, you should hear my Guanella-Pass-willows-
in-the-dark-with-no-flashlight story.

Scott
From: rhm@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Bob Miller)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 18:22:55 GMT
Subject: Re: Light Weight Back Packing?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: rec.backcountry

I've been intrigued by this as well. It seems like 20 pounds for two nights
oughta be possible if 

 1) you forego *all* non-necessities, e.g. "comforts"

 2) you restrict your ability to cope with contingencies (e.g. bad weather)

Note that the latter is not necessarily dangerous if you are not so far in 
that the "bail out" option is still available. And if you take a stove as a
source of heat, you still have a bit of safety margin if the bail-out option
fails you. On the other hand, I'd go with others or somewhere well-traveled or
somewhere disgustingly safe and/or predictable.

Also, if you are going somewhere you are familiar with, you could take 
advantage of that knowledge to reduce the load, e.g. a hidey-hole in a 
boulderfield to eliminate the tent, etc.
From: bg213@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark A. Stoffan)
Newsgroups: rec.backcountry
Subject: Re: HIKING IN MAINE -- INFO REQUESTED
Date: 26 Jan 1993 20:36:16 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bg213@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark A. Stoffan)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, x90watz@gw.wmich.edu () says:

>Netters,
>
>	My mind has been wandering lately in the direction of Maine........ My
>roommate and I are seriously considering taking a trip there immediately
>post-graduation from this wonderful university ;-)  I want to know anything
>which is pertinent to hiking there..........places to go, weather to prepare
>for, etc.  We will be going in late April/early May for approximately a week. 
>	Anything which can be relayed will be much appreciated......and I'll
>even post any shareable wisdom if there is enough response.  Thanks in advance!

Greetings.
Maine has quite varied hiking opportunities, ranging from Katahdin in
Baxter State Park and the Appalachian Trail to lower hills along the
coast at Acadia and Elsewhere.
Be aware that at the time of year you plan to visit, the higher peaks
will still be subject to winter conditions, and the woods may still hold
considerable snow, especially on north-facing slopes. I've personally
found hip-deep drifts as late as Memorial Day weekend.
	The daytime temps will range from the 40's to the 70's on sunny
days. Nights will be cold-prepare well with plenty of warm clothing if
planning to sleep outside. Also, it's likely to be wet - both from rain
and from melting snow.
	Having said all this, you should have a good time if you prepare
for the conditions you'll find. The notorious black flies will not yet
be out in force and you'll encounter fewer people on the trails.
	If you give me some specifics as to what type of hiking you
want to do, I'll be glad to suggest some trips.
	Happy hiking.

--
-- 
Mark Stoffan		mark@BTSgateP.caps.maine.edu
Portland, Maine		mstoffan@nlbbs.UUCP

Newsgroups: rec.backcountry
From: sartre@iastate.edu (Michael J. Wendling (515) 294-6186)
Subject: Patterns/hints for making clothes?
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 04:11:50 GMT


I was wondering if anyone had sucessfully made there own jackets or
pants out of nylon and gore-tex.  A friend and I are thinks about
making jackets and pants to save the $400 it would take to get the
North Face things we want.  Especially I would like hints on zippers,
seam sealing and type of outer fabric to use(nylon?).

Thanks in advance of course :-)
Mike

-- 
 Michael J. Wendling
 A410 Phys & Astronomy		     
 Iowa State University	  			Internet: sartre@iastate.edu
 (515)294-5440		 			Bitnet:   ISUMMA::WENDLING
Newsgroups: rec.backcountry