Comparative Fuel Efficiency and Carry Weight for Six Lightweight Backpacking Cooking Systems: Part I
Assembling Comparable Cooking Systems and Test Data

OK I’m gonna have to pony up and become a member…

Is there any numbers on how efficiency is affected by pot shape (tall skinny mugs/beer cans vs wider pots/pans of equal volume) or composition (Ti doesn’t conduct as well as Al)?

Part 2 is here: https://backpackinglight.com/comparative_fuel_efficiency_and_weight_of_stoves_pt2/

After reading this article, there are a couple of statements that do not quite make sense to me.  According to the data regarding isobutene; integrated stoves have the highest efficiency followed by canister top (29% -33% higher) with remote stoves being the worst of this class (~50% higher).  While I don’t have an integrated stove, testing the latter 2 configurations I have found consumption can be in the 5-6 gram range (YMMV).  The key to fuel efficiency to understand how your stove works with your pot/mug/windscreen.

What really jumps out is the comparison of white gas stoves (11 grams per pint).  This number seems to be off to be.

Finally, there is a comment about alcohol stove performance dropping off in the Highlands.   I am going to assume that this is because of the particular stove that you selected (as well as windscreen).  I have done substantial testing in the area and have not found this to be the case (with our stove designs anyway)

My 2 cents

Yes, as far as stove use goes, isobutane, WG/Diesel are within fractions of each other.
The actual fuels are quite similar: About 19700BTU/lb for butane, and about 19300BTU/lb for WG. There is no way his figures can be correct for WG using about 11gm/16oz and canister gas giving about 7gm/16oz (roughly 50% more WG for the same heat.)

While I have been using the remote canister stove for up to two weeks out at a time, the savings are basically only in the actual stove. The SVEA goes about 17oz, not counting the cup and windscreen. No pump, no long fuel tubes to empty, and fairly quick to prime (it takes just about a gram or two to warm it up to operating temp.) It gets only about a gram or two less efficient for boiling 500ml (~1pt.) Of course, most of this depends on the wind screen/pot set up, ambient temps, and, of course, your overall techniques. Any extra fuel usage would be due to priming. And, I have use for WG besides fuel on the trail. It can remove sap, etc from your hands, gear and cloths. It can dilute DEET as needed. In a pinch, it makes a good fire starter on a tight bundle of tinder, and so on.

I agree, I would not use diesel (kero) if possible to avoid. It takes a LOT to heat these up. I would guess it takes close to 5gm of fuel just to get the things to operate. Other WG stoves, are often in the same category and have tubing/pumps, and take 3-7gm just to get them to go. The XGK, and the SimmerLight both burn overly hot for solo use, resulting in a LOT of wasted fuel. Sort’a like burning a canister on high all the time.

Old School rocks!

Gun nuts aficionados sometimes say “Beware the man with one gun” because, presumably, he will be very adept with the only weapon he ever trains with.  I think about that as I rotate between stoves for different trips – usually upright canister stoves, but sometimes a remote canister stove for its lower profile on a large group trip when I use larger pots, alcohol when I can’t get/ship canisters to a remote location, and sometimes even propane for snow camping because vapor pressure matters more than water when you’re pulling a sled across a frozen lake.  Then there’s Manfred with his alcohol set-up or Nick with his SVEA-123 and they have it all dialed in.  Exactly how much fuel to pack, how much to use for each meal, and how to start the stove as efficiently as possible.  The other arena I consider that concept in is tents: I pick a tent for a particular trip, but I’m sure that a thru-hiker coming off the PCT is far better at utilizing their Z-Packs Duplex than I am with any particular tent I have.

I agree with Roger’s summation of the inefficiencies of WG stoves and they match my experience even when I was regularly using MSR WhisperLite.  It still took some fuel to light it and I tended to leave it running on low to avoid restarting it later.  So it took me a decade too long to switch over, but now I find the lack of any possible smelly fuel leak and that I let my kids do more unsupervised cooking with a canister stove to be additional advantages.

What about the cost of all that elbow grease since 1971 used to keep the brass on the Svea 123 nice and shiny?

Good point. I’ve only thoroughly cleaned and polished the stoves once, about 10 years ago. Also replaced the wick and cap gasket (I found a bunch of Viton gaskets on eBay for really cheap). The graphite packing is still good in both stoves.

I have been using the old 123 for over 45 years. Yeah, it is fairly well dialed in.

WG is a mixture of a lot of different stuff, mostly heptane, hexane, pentane and some other stuff in the ene family (and even a bit of octane.) I believe that the original fuel had no additives which is what gave auto gas the colors (depending on the additive & dye.) Anyway, this is why it was called “white” gas according to an old mechanic I had the pleasure of working for back in my teen years. But it was and is just a fractionated, low volatility fuel. They don’t bother cleaning it up much (except to remove benzine and other highly carcinogenic compounds I believe, but they may skip this since it will just be burned) nor are they that accurate with temps/filtering during distillation. What dissolves in usually stays in. So, it likely does have some butane, isobutane, and stuff we normally think of as gasses.

WG is a mixture of a lot of different stuff, mostly heptane, hexane, pentane and some other stuff in the ene family (and even a bit of octane.) I believe that the original fuel had no additives which is what gave auto gas the colors (depending on the additive & dye.) Anyway, this is why it was called “white” gas according to an old mechanic I had the pleasure of working for back in my teen years. But it was and is just a fractionated, low volatility fuel. They don’t bother cleaning it up much (except to remove benzine and other highly carcinogenic compounds I believe, but they may skip this since it will just be burned) nor are they that accurate with temps/filtering during distillation. What dissolves in usually stays in. So, it likely does have some butane, isobutane, and stuff we normally think of as gasses.

When I was young I used to sell WG where I worked both in gallon cans and in bulk for 35 cents a gallon! It was branded as Chevron Blazo fuel. From what I remember it was gasoline without the additives and the benzene was removed. Back in those days all gasoline for motor fuels contained lead compounds to help with ignition and engine performance, but that gasoline would foul up stoves. Today you can use motor gasoline (not as well as WG) in many liquid stoves. IIRC, White gas had a very low octane rating around 50. Today regular unleaded has an octane rating of 87, although that number is calculated differently than in the good ol’ leaded days.

Here’s a link to the 1987 MSDS for Chevron Blazo fuel

http://www.hazard.com/msds/f2/bbr/bbrcy.html

Used a “self-cleaning” Svea 123 for several years on leaded regular gas – it worked, I didn’t know any better, and it was cheap and readily available for resupply. Ever try pumping gas-station gasoline into a Sigg fuel bottle? Messy.

As a teenaged gas station attendant, pumped a lot of $0.259 per gallon gas during “gas wars.” Until I learned to recognize them, got showered with leaded gasoline by a few cars that “burped” if you pumped too fast.

Which probably explains a lot. Some parts of the good old days weren’t so great.

— Rex

“I believe that the original fuel had no additives which is what gave auto gas the colors (depending on the additive & dye.)”

Tetra-ethyl lead has a yellowish color to it.  It was first used as a dye in some General Motors research engines to watch its passage through the fuel system and they found that the engines knocked less at high compression when TEL was used.  That was patented by GM and ESSO and they formed the Ethyl Corporation to market TEL as a fuel additive.  TEL is yellow-colored and gave leaded gasoline a yellow tint which was later enhanced with additional yellow dye, partly for marketing purposes.

Mid-grade unleaded motor gasoline was dyed pink to (originally) avoid confusion with leaded gasoline.  I’ve pumped some (60,000 gallons) of spilled gasoline from off of the groundwater that was so fresh that it still had that pink color to it.  I put 8 gallons in my Toyota Corolla and it drove fine.

By the late 1990s, with no leaded motor fuel in use anymore, states began dropping their requirements to dye motor gasoline.

The four grades of aviation gasoline each have their own dyes both because of their taxation and, more so, to be able to confirm the proper fuel is in the airplane’s tanks.

So, yes, un-dyed / un-taxed gasoline was called “white” or “clear” to distinguish it from dyed varieties.

It’s the reverse for diesel: un-taxed diesel fuel is dyed red and is legal to use in heating and farm equipment but not in motor vehicles on public roads.