Stove Thoughts & Comparisons

[nsherry61]

I just spent the afternoon playing in my kitchen with some different stoves and fuels, and I thought I'd share my observations. I doubt they are all new. But, what the heck. Maybe some people will still find it interesting.

Stove systems:
1) BSR300T with MSR Titan pot and windscreen & empty canister = 255g (stove alone = 25g)
2) JetBoil MiniMo system with empty canister = 400g
3) Fancy Feast stove with IMUSA 12 cm pot & foil lid & windscreen with empty fuel bottle = 150g (stove alone = 14g)

Observations of time to boil 2 cups of tap water:
1) 2.5 minutes
2) 2.125 minutes
3) 5.5 minutes with denatured alcohol (6.5 minutes with Heet).

Fuel to boil 1 L of water (estimated as 2x the 2-cup fuel use):
1) 16g
2) 12g
3) 30g

Thoughts on weight over time, assuming the user boils 1 L of water per day and any canisters only have the exact amount of fuel in them needed for the number of days out.

- The lightest option by far is the Fancy Feast stove and IMUSA pot set-up, until you are carrying more than 7 days of fuel.
- After 7 days, the BRS becomes the lighter option, but, it is only lighter until you have less than 7 days left, then because you use more alcohol each day, the alcohol is lighter again until the end of your trip or the next resupply.
- At the point you are carrying about 14 days of fuel, the JetBoil becomes a bit lighter than the Fancy Feast.
- At about day 35, the JetBoil becomes lighter than the BRS.

For the vast majority of people in the vast majority of cases, even one of the lightest canister stove on the market (BRS @ 25g) cannot be justified over alcohol for weight savings. . . if you start melting snow in winter, using, say, double the fuel, a canister would start saving weight over alcohol on about day 3 or 4.

A couple of other notes:
- The MSR Titan pot is a little smaller and roughly the same weight as the IMUSA 12 cm pot.
- The Fancy Feast stove I used was made with a Fancy Feast can, a Budweiser aluminum beer bottle, and paper towel as wick. My paper towel wick is going on about its 15th boil and still working just great. The paper just doesn't burn down below the lip of the Fancy Feast can and the little bit of black ash along the top edge doesn't seem to have any negative affect.

Finally, if I did my math right:
Esbit is about $0.50 per tablet so ~$1/L to boil water
Alcohol, either Heet or Denatured is about $0.01/g or ~$0.30/L to boil water
Canister fuel averages about $0.05/g or ~$0.75/L to boil water

One final note: Since Esbit is 14g per tablet and it takes about two tablets to boil a liter of water, and my Esbit cooking system is almost identical in weight to my Fancy Feast system, you can almost replace all the Fancy Feast numbers above with the name Esbit, and not be too far off . . . except boil time of course, which is a bit longer with Esbit.

[Kaptainkriz]

For 1 and 3, those are generally the numbers I see (assuming 4 cup boils vs 4.2) with maybe a little better performance on the alcohol side. I'm using the Zelph 550 setup with caldera cone (115g includes pot, cone, lid, modified starlight burner, cuben sac, and fuel bottle) vs BRS with MSR 110 on same pot (63g pot/lid, 25g burner, 101g empty canister = 189g). Break even weight is approx 6th day...coincidentally about the time the 110g canister runs dry at that rate...so there really is never a break even with the small canister. If I'm cooking for two, I prefer the iso just because of speed to boil double the water.

[colorado_rob]

Interesting topic, but my numbers are quite different on the Jetboil, I use approx. 6 grams for 2 cups, but I'll re-run my tests as it has been many years and I've been meaning to. Good stuff to put numbers to!

[nsherry61]

. . . my numbers are quite different on the Jetboil, I use approx. 6 grams for 2 cups . . .

Interestingly, that is exactly what I got. Then I doubled it to 12g as an estimate of the per-liter fuel consumption. My numbers are also for the MiniMo stove burner which runs hotter and I assumed may or may not be as efficient as the Flash or Sol burners that are lower power.

[Leo L.]

Thanks for this comparison.
I'm going with Esbit for various other reason, and your numbers give me confidence that I'm not carrying exess weight.

[colorado_rob]

Interestingly, that is exactly what I got. Then I doubled it to 12g as an estimate of the per-liter fuel consumption. My numbers are also for the MiniMo stove burner which runs hotter and I assumed may or may not be as efficient as the Flash or Sol burners that are lower power.

Woops! I read too fast, sorry. Still, I did my tests 8-9 years ago now and have been wanting to repeat with my Sol Titanium Jetboil. I also think it's important to do this outside with 50 degree water. Since it has been around 80 degrees in Denver for most of October, hopefully November will allow better testing conditions.

Again, good topic.

[nsherry61]

. . . I also think it's important to do this outside with 50 degree water. . . hopefully November will allow better testing conditions. . .

Oh yeah, this is definitely hack science. No thermometers used. My eyeballs' definition of a rolling boil. Single treatments, not duplicates with statistics.

BUT, I would argue informative comparisons in a broad brush way that can be useful.

I'm not sure why 50 degree water outside is helpful. Why not 40 degree water or 60 degree water. In the end, water requires exactly the same amount of heating to go from 40 degrees to 41 degrees as it does from 200 degrees to 201 degrees. So, if the water I used was maybe 60 degrees, and you want to know heating time from 50 degrees, well 212-60=152 and 212-50=162, so it would take the water about 6% longer to boil if it were 60 instead of 50 degrees. I suspect that my error in timing and fuel weight is almost that large. If I had a thermometer I trusted and tested starting water temperature, that might be useful. But starting water temp +/- a few degrees doesn't change boil time all that much.

As for the "proper" way to test stoves, we'd need to carefully define our question and then test that narrow little feature of performance.
Testing outside is far less consistent conditions for comparing the differences between stoves.
Testing inside doesn't provide the variety of difficulties that stoves encounter in the real world.

I could have stepped outside into fall weather and gusting winds to test my setups with windscreens and numbers would be all over the place - great for testing the range of boiling times one might encounter with a particular stove system, but almost useless to separate out a system's performance from variability in outdoor conditions, including wind, from one minute to the next.

If we wanted to compare stove performance in wind, we would put a fan indoors and provide consistent wind. But, that might be more windscreen performance than stove performance. And, it would only test windscreen performance with a constant wind from a single direction.

I'm not sure why testing stoves in fall weather is more relevant than testing them in summer conditions. When will you be out there using your stove to cook with? Until temperatures get below freezing, all the stove systems I was testing perform pretty consistently. With the right techniques, they all actually perform reasonably well, well below freezing.

Make sure to share what you find with any testing you've done. It would be interesting.

[Uriah]

For the past year or so I've been experimenting with a homemade wood-burning stove, but I keep going back to alcohol (in summer) and a canister stove (in winter). I camp alone and cook for one, though the chipmunks have yet to learn.

The wood-burning contraption is, by far, the cheapest option (when cost is considered), and it is also one of the lightest set-ups: fuel is virtually everywhere, even here in the desert, so carrying it is rarely required.

Where the wood-burner fails, I've found, is in its efficiency or lack thereof. (Not to mention burn bans, etc.) The time it takes to boil a quart of stream/river/spring water (cold water, that is) can border on glacial. A windscreen is always helpful, no matter the set-up, but simply building a decent fire takes time, especially when I'm involved. A fuel tablet or alcohol helps speed up fire-building, but then we're crossing over to a hybrid set-up, which takes much more analysis than I'm capable.

Note Paul Mags's write-up HERE and Adventures in Stoving HERE. Paul has other links at the bottom, for further studies.

The bottom line: there's no "best" answer, and there are lots of good answers.
Different folks (and conditions), different strokes...

[KDogg]

Didn't do any sort of testing but I ended up buying a "flash lite" in PA on my thru hike. There was some real issues with getting canisters (everybody was out at one point!) and my other stove (MSR) was going through them pretty quick. I cooked three times a day for the entire trail. The Jetboil used far less fuel and boiled so much faster than my other setup. You can quote all the numbers in the world but ,IMHO, for ease of use and quickest time to get the food in my belly, Jetboil wins in my book. Sometimes the weight numbers just don't matter when it comes to eating.

[-Rush-]

I have a 1lb setup using a 750ml titanium pot/cup and everything fits inside of it including the small (full) fuel canister. I can boil water in 2 minutes or less with simple setup/cleanup/storage. I tried the alcohol stoves, but I got tired of fumbling around with windscreens, fuel in a bottle, pouring fuel, wasting fuel, 5-7min boils, etc. when I wanted a cup of coffee on the rocks before an epic sunrise. The only thing I miss is that they are more quiet, but I can stand the small amount of noise of a canister/burner for 1-2 minutes.

[-Rush-]

The wood-burning contraption is, by far, the cheapest option (when cost is considered), and it is also one of the lightest set-ups: fuel is virtually everywhere, even here in the desert, so carrying it is rarely required.

I liked the idea of the wood-burning stove, but the reality for me was that they are a huge mess and a PITA to keep clean.

[AfterParty]

I have a zelph ff. Love it. Also have a whisperlite and love it too.

[garlic08]

Very nice comparison, well-written as usual.

One criterion not included in the scope of the study is cost. A dirtbagger can make a Pepsi can stove for no cost (and one can argue that it's better than free because it takes a couple of cans out of the waste stream). Foil windscreen, tent stakes or rocks as a pot stand, an old grease pot, it's by far the cheapest option for cooking. And one can make a new stove at any road crossing with a pocket knife. Alcohol is often available in hiker boxes on the AT.

[nsherry61]

. . . A dirtbagger can make a Pepsi can stove for no cost . . .

That's why I wanted to play with the Fancy Feast stove and IMUSA pot. Yeah, it costs a couple bucks for cat food and beer, but wow, I'm really impressed with the FF performance compared to all the various other two dozen different pepsi can, penny, super cat or whatever other stoves I've built and played with.
I'm also blown away with how well paper towels work for the wick!

So, stove $2 for beer and cat food, paper towel free (napkin would also surely work).
IMUSA pot $3
Lid and windscreen made from scrounged, used, lasagna pan foil. Free.
Fuel, $0.30 for every liter boiled.
Fuel bottle, well, all different sizes scrounged from other uses. Free.

[DuneElliot]

Despite longer boil times with the alcohol stove I have come to value its lightness and simplicity. I generally stop and eat a hot meal at lunch instead of dinner anyway which forces me to take a longer break at that time, which I usually need. A few minutes extra boiling time isn't that big of a deal for me at that point...but the weight is always a big deal to me since I am very petite and really have to watch what I carry. I am upgrading from a homemade FF stove to the one Zelph makes as it is more efficient on fuel and works better for the size of pot I carry.

[Recalc]

A stove’s ability to heat food for an extended period of time and not leave food burns on the pot put me on a mission to upgrade from my Super Cat. Wanted a design that even I could make and the ability to boil 2 cups of water with 15 ml of alcohol.

The search led me to build a version of SRG Rock’s Ion Stove, which was used for my hike through Maine. This was a very good stove, provided you are not in a big hurry for the initial boil.

https://backpackinglight.com/forums/topic/79082/

[theinfamousj]

IMUSA pot $3

Where did you find the pot so cheap? Around here they are $5+. Granted, still inexpensive. But not Heineken Keg Pot inexpensive like you quoted.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[colorado_rob]

Oh yeah, this is definitely hack science. No thermometers used. My eyeballs' definition of a rolling boil. Single treatments, not duplicates with statistics.

BUT, I would argue informative comparisons in a broad brush way that can be useful.

I'm not sure why 50 degree water outside is helpful. Why not 40 degree water or 60 degree water. In the end, water requires exactly the same amount of heating to go from 40 degrees to 41 degrees as it does from 200 degrees to 201 degrees. So, if the water I used was maybe 60 degrees, and you want to know heating time from 50 degrees, well 212-60=152 and 212-50=162, so it would take the water about 6% longer to boil if it were 60 instead of 50 degrees. I suspect that my error in timing and fuel weight is almost that large. If I had a thermometer I trusted and tested starting water temperature, that might be useful. But starting water temp +/- a few degrees doesn't change boil time all that much.

As for the "proper" way to test stoves, we'd need to carefully define our question and then test that narrow little feature of performance.
Testing outside is far less consistent conditions for comparing the differences between stoves.
Testing inside doesn't provide the variety of difficulties that stoves encounter in the real world.

I could have stepped outside into fall weather and gusting winds to test my setups with windscreens and numbers would be all over the place - great for testing the range of boiling times one might encounter with a particular stove system, but almost useless to separate out a system's performance from variability in outdoor conditions, including wind, from one minute to the next.

If we wanted to compare stove performance in wind, we would put a fan indoors and provide consistent wind. But, that might be more windscreen performance than stove performance. And, it would only test windscreen performance with a constant wind from a single direction.

I'm not sure why testing stoves in fall weather is more relevant than testing them in summer conditions. When will you be out there using your stove to cook with? Until temperatures get below freezing, all the stove systems I was testing perform pretty consistently. With the right techniques, they all actually perform reasonably well, well below freezing.

Make sure to share what you find with any testing you've done. It would be interesting.

I realize the severe limitations of this kind of testing at home, yet I also feel it is important to somewhat simulate "field" conditions. Most of the water I have heated/boil over my 50 years of backpacking has been cooler than tap water, hence why I feel it is important to use cooler water for this, because this will significantly alter the overall conclusions, given that the ratio of fuel weight to other component weights is much different in a jetboil vs. an Alchy or pocket-rocket type setup.

Altitude and the temperature of the fuel are also considerations. I live above the altitude of all but a small part of the AT, for example, but below most of the PCT/CDT/CT. So, I'm actually at a good average for this kind of testing.

Finally, when I did this test many years ago I included an Alcohol stove that I no longer have, so I cannot repeat that part of the testing, but I want to repeat the conditions I used so I can directly compare my numbers. Turns out I use approximately 60 degree water and did the tests in approximately 55 degree air temps. Finally I can re-simulate those conditions without getting up at 2am...

FWIW, my results were stated as a function of liters per day boiled, not just one liter per day. I typically boil about 1.5-2, as I love my morning coffee (When my wife is along we boil maybe 4 liters per day, making the use of a jetboil a non-brainer in terms of weight efficiency). Your 1 liter per day results are vastly different than 2 or 4, of course, in terms of which kind of stove is most weight efficient. I realize lots and lots of folks only boil a couple cups per day, but some boil much more. To me it is a no brainer that an Alchy setup is the most weight efficient for the 2-3 cup folks that resupply every 4-5 days, but there is a definite point where the jetboil setup is more weight efficient, and for folks that boil 2 liters per day, that point is way less than 14 days worth of fuel per my previous testing, which I need to update for my own reasons, and I'll share when I do.

[cmoulder]

When all water is obtained by melting snow — i.e. no running water available — requires a robust system that can crank out some major BTUs and about 3x the fuel normally needed for 3 season.

Alcohol ain't gonna cut it.

Melting snow at 4°F with a JB Sumo:sumo melting snow on slide_edited-2.jpg

[colorado_rob]

My memory is sometimes (most of the time?) a bit fuzzy, but after bringing up my old spreadsheet from years ago when I tested my old Jetboil, an alchy stove (some REI bought little thing which I sold, I cannot remember the model, starts with a "v" ?) and a MSR pocket rocket with a 0.9L Ti pot, my numbers and conclusions are quite different from yours, Nsherry. Turns out I was boiling 3 cups, not 2, and used 6 grams of fuel in the jetboil for 3 cups (not 2), meaning approximately 9 grams per liter for my jetboil.

I repeated my experiment this morning for my much newer Jetboil Sol Ti, and got essentially the same numbers as with my old (and much heavier) original Jetboil: 4 grams for 2 cups, 6 grams for 3, boil time for 2 cups consistent at 1:55 (just under two minutes). I started with a half full canister (the small 110 gram snow peak), water at approximately 65 degrees, and did this on my deck where it is about 55 degree air temp. I did 6 individual boils, and all results were consistent (4 2-cup boils, 2 3-cup boils).

I won't go any further than this on this thread, I might start my own if I feel like it later, really not much point though, but the bottom line for my Jetboil (Sol Ti, 8.9 ounces total weight) vs Alchy total carried weight tradeoff is 6 days for me solo, and half that when my wife is with me. In other words, if I'm solo and only out for up to about 5 days, using an alcohol stove saves me up to a couple/few ounces of carried weight.

This is all based on boiling 1.5 liters of water per day per person, more than a lot of folks, but again, I love my morning coffee and evening tea.

My old pocket rocket and small pot was somewhere in between; it used 30% more fuel, but the stove/pot weight is 2 ounces lighter than my jetboil. I actually sometimes carry this combo for 1-2 nighters.

Boil times are approximately 5 minutes for two cups in the Alchy stove I used vs. under two minutes for my Jetboil, so it just plain isn't ever worth saving a couple/few ounces for that extra boil time. I realize a lot of folks do not mind this extra time at all, and I get this.

And as cmoulder says, we do a lot of cold weather backpacking, melting snow for water, Alchy setups are useless for that situation. A buddy of mine carries a Jetboil Joule for winter, that setup is impressive for a small group in the snow.