Black Packing Light
  • Sections
  • Podcast
  • Webinars
  • Boot Camp
  • Treks
  • Gear Swap
  • Forums
  • Deals
  • Gear Reviews
  • Subscribe
  • Sign In
  • Subscribe
  • Home
  • New? Start Here
  • Newsletters
  • Calendar
  • Articles
    • Recent Features
    • Gear Reviews
    • State of the Market Reports
    • Gear Guides
    • Skills & Techniques
    • MYOG
    • Science, Technology & Testing
    • Stories
  • Learn
    • Podcast
    • Webinars
    • Online Course
    • Guided Treks
  • Community
    • Forum Index
    • Recent Forum Posts
    • Trip Reports
    • Film Festival
  • Gear
    • Guide’s Gear Recommendations
    • Gear Reviews
    • Gear Swap (Buy/Sell)
    • Gear Deals
    • Find Gear on Sale
    • Gear Lists
    • Make Your Own Gear
    • Gear Forums
  • Write for Us
  • Submit a Product for Review
  • Advertising Info
  • Jobs
  • Help / Support / Contact
  • Policies & Terms

Backpacking Light

Pack less. Be more.

You are here: Home / Science & Technology / Testing & Research / Comparative Fuel Efficiency and Carry Weight for Six Lightweight Backpacking Cooking Systems: Part IAssembling Comparable Cooking Systems and Test Data

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

by Will Rietveld on July 5, 2006 Testing & Research

ADVERTISEMENT

Introduction

Have you ever pondered the question: If I chose the lightest stove in each category and used it as efficiently as I could, how would the cooking system carry weights compare for different usage levels and trip lengths? My inquisitive mind couldn’t resist the challenge, so I rounded up the lightest/most efficient white gas, remote canister, top mount canister, integrated canister, alcohol, and fuel tab stoves commercially available and pursued answers to the following questions:

  • What is the real carry weight of stove plus fuel for different cooking systems?
  • How do I calculate the amount of fuel I need for a trip?
  • How much does fuel efficiency make up for stove weight on a longer trip?
  • What is the comparative cost for stove plus fuel?
  • Considering the fuel cost, which cooking system is the most economical and weight efficient?

These are, of course, difficult questions. There are many variables involved, and the answers depend on the type of trip you are taking and its location. No matter. This project provides a lot of insights into the issues, and will increase your understanding of how the weight and efficiency of different cooking systems compare, how they affect the weight you carry on your back, and how they affect your wallet. In this article you will find information to help you choose the cooking system(s) that meets your needs, and dial in the amount of fuel that you actually need to take on your trips.

Cooking Systems Compared

What’s a KiteScreen?

The KiteScreen is a fabric windscreen that engineer and backpacker, Jim Wood, invented as a safe alternative to using an aluminum windscreen with a canister stove. It works! Read about it on Jim’s website (http://jwbasecamp.com/). In my companion articles on windscreen dynamics, I present some test results comparing the KiteScreen with conventional windscreens for different stoves.

In this section I describe the cooking systems I chose for comparison. Their weights are summarized in Table 1 below.

Fuel Containers

For comparison, the weight of each cooking system needs to include a fuel container. Three bottle sizes are available for a white gas stove – the “11-ounce bottle” has a fill capacity of 10 fluid ounces, the “22-ounce bottle” holds 20 fluid ounces, and the “33-ounce bottle” holds 30 fluid ounces. Fuel canisters for canister stoves generally come in 4-ounce and 8-ounce sizes, although there is some variation among different brands of fuel. For comparability, I included the empty weight of the fuel canisters as part of the cooking system. In the alcohol cooking system, I listed the 375 milliliter Platypus Little Nipper and 0.5 liter and 1 liter Platypus flasks, all with a red dispenser cap. The fuel tab stove does not have a fuel container, other than the packaging for the individual fuel tabs, which can be left at home and the fuel tabs carried in a plastic bag.

Windscreens

I experimented a lot to find the “perfect windscreen” for each stove, which of course doesn’t exist. In the process I managed to fry a top mount canister stove by using a tight windscreen with it, and I discovered the KiteScreen invented by Jim Wood (http://jwbasecamp.com/Articles/KiteScreen/index.html). Read more about what I learned about windscreens in my companion articles Stove Windscreen Dynamics and Design: Part I Wind Effects on Stove Performance and Part II Practical Applications for the Field. For this project I chose to use the manufacturers’ aluminum windscreen and heat reflector with the white gas and remote canister stoves, the KiteScreen for the top mount canister and integrated canister stoves, and a traditional tight aluminum windscreen and heat reflector for the alcohol and fuel tab stoves.

Part I - Assembling Comparable Cooking Systems and Test Data - 1
White Gas. At 8.7 ounces (burner + pump), the MSR SimmerLite is the lightest of the white gas stoves. The total weights in Table 1 include the MSR windscreen and heat reflector (2.3 ounces), and an MSR fuel bottle (three sizes available).

Part I - Assembling Comparable Cooking Systems and Test Data - 2
Remote Canister. A remote canister stove puts the fuel canister safely off to the side, so you can use any type of windscreen you want. I chose the MSR WindPro stove, which at 6.9 ounces (burner and fuel line) is the lightest available. I used the windscreen and heat reflector (2.3 ounces) that came with the stove, which are identical to the ones that come with the SimmerLite. The burner is also identical to the SimmerLite, but the fuel line has an attachment and valve for canister fuels. For comparability with other stoves, I included the weight of an empty fuel canister as part of the cooking system.

Part I - Assembling Comparable Cooking Systems and Test Data - 3
Top Mount Canister. The mini-canister stove is as simple and light as a canister stove gets. The canister itself serves as a base, and the burner attaches directly to the fitting on the canister. I chose to use the Coleman Exponent F1 Ultralight (2.7 ounces), which was the top performer in my canister stove tests (Performance Comparison Testing of Lightweight Canister Stoves: Controlled Data Evaluating Key Variables of Temperature, Wind, and Windscreen Use). For comparability with other stoves, I included the weight of an empty fuel canister as part of the cooking system. I used the KiteScreen (18 inches high x 60 inches long, 1.2 ounces) for wind protection and to avoid the problems and hazards with using a conventional aluminum windscreen.

Part I - Assembling Comparable Cooking Systems and Test Data - 4
Integrated Canister. The Jetboil Personal Cooking System is the only stove in this category right now, although the MSR integrated canister stove is on the way. The Jetboil is well-known for its superb fuel efficiency and wind resistance. The complete system weighs 14.9 ounces, which is a bit hefty. However, for comparability with the other systems (which do not include a cook pot and drinking cup), I deducted the weight of the pot and cup, which pared the weight of the Jetboil system down to 8.6 ounces. The cooking system weight does include the pot cozy and heat exchanger, which are essential parts of the Jetboil system that help account for its efficiency, and also includes the weight of an empty fuel canister. To further increase the Jetboil’s fuel efficiency I used the KiteScreen (1.2 ounces) for wind protection.

Part I - Assembling Comparable Cooking Systems and Test Data - 5
Alcohol. I chose Gossamer Gear’s Fire Fly stove (1.0 ounce for burner and pot stand) for this project because it is a good balance of stove size/weight, heating rate, and fuel efficiency. For wind protection I used a traditional close-fitting light aluminum windscreen and heat reflector (0.8 ounce) to maximize stove heating efficiency. The cooking system also includes the weight of a fuel bottle.

Part I - Assembling Comparable Cooking Systems and Test Data - 6
Fuel Tab. The lightest fuel tab stove available for purchase is the Esbit Wing Stove (1.3 ounces). I used it with the same windscreen and heat reflector used for the alcohol stove (0.8 ounce). I burned 0.5-ounce Esbit hexamine fuel tabs, which are individually packaged. A fuel tab stove has no fuel container as such, especially if you leave the packaging at home.

Table 1: Summary of Cooking System Components and Weights
Cooking SystemFuel Container Capacity/Container Weight Empty (oz)Total Weight (oz)Cooking System Total Weight Includes:
White Gas10 fl oz/ 314Burner, empty fuel bottle, pump, windscreen, heat reflector
20 fl oz/ 516
30 fl oz/ 6.817.8
Remote Canister4 oz/ 4.113.3Burner, empty fuel canister, windscreen, heat reflector
8 oz / 4.613.8
Top mount Canister4 oz/ 4.18.0Burner, empty fuel canister, KiteScreen
8 oz/ 4.68.5
Integrated Canister4 oz/ 4.113.9Burner, cozy, heat exchanger, empty fuel canister, KiteScreen
8 oz/ 4.614.4
Alcohol13 fl oz/ 0.62.4Burner, pot stand, fuel flask, windscreen, heat reflector
17 fl oz/0 .82.6
34 fl oz/ 0.92.7
Fuel Tab0.5 oz/ 02.1Fuel holder/pot stand, windscreen, heat reflector
Note: Each total weight includes an empty fuel container. Three fuel bottle sizes are available for the white gas stove, with capacities of 10, 20, and 30 fluid ounces. Canister fuel container sizes are typically 4 and 8 ounces (113 or 225 grams), and that refers to the weight of the fuel inside. Alcohol containers included are the Platypus Little Nipper and 0.5 and 1-liter Platypus flasks.

Highlights

  • The white gas stove with fuel container was the heaviest of the lot, followed closely by the integrated canister stove and then the remote canister stove.
  • The top mount canister stove with fuel container was intermediate in weight.
  • The alcohol and fuel tab stoves were by far the lightest cooking systems.

Stove Testing Procedure and Results

I lab tested the stoves under a set of standard conditions to ensure that the data are comparable. In each test I measured the time and fuel consumption to boil 1 pint (0.47 L) of water. I subjected the stoves to the following test conditions:

Optimal Conditions – 70 °F air and water, calm

Cold – 40 °F air and water, calm

Wind – 70 °F air and water, 12 mph wind from a box fan

Part I - Assembling Comparable Cooking Systems and Test Data - 7
Stove testing setup shown with the KiteScreen protecting a top-mount canister stove (left). Measurement equipment included an analytical scale, signaling digital thermometer, stopwatch, wind meter, and box fan.

I used a 1.5 liter MSR titanium pot 6 inches in diameter for tests with the white gas, remote canister, and top mount canister stoves, the Jetboil cup for Jetboil stove tests, and a 0.85 liter MSR titanium pot for the alcohol and fuel tab stove tests.

Tests were conducted at 6,650 feet elevation, where the boiling temperature of water is 201 °F. Boiling was measured with a signaling digital thermometer at 197 °F with the temperature sensor placed in the same position each time. I used 197 °F for my boil tests so I did not have to contend with the Latent Heat of Vaporization, which takes additional time and energy to overcome, and adds complexity and potential for error. The pot and stove were cooled between test runs.

Fuel for the white gas stove was a fresh can of Coleman fuel. Canister fuel was MSR IsoPro. I used Kleen Strip S-L-X Denatured Alcohol for alcohol stove tests, and Esbit hexamine for the fuel tab stove. Boil time/fuel consumption test procedures are as follows:

  • I fueled each stove and recorded the weight of the fuel container plus fuel to the nearest 0.01 gram.
  • I started timing when the stove was lit. Priming time for the white gas stove was not included in the boil time.
  • I used a moderate flame (very subjective) for the white gas and canister stoves to conserve fuel.
  • When boiling (197 °F) was reached I immediately stopped the stove and reweighed the fuel container (or alcohol burner and remaining fuel, or remaining fuel tab). The difference between starting and ending weights was the fuel consumption.
  • I repeated each test at least two times until I obtained consistent boil times within 30 seconds under optimal conditions and within 1 minute under windy conditions.
Table 2: Cooking System Test Results
Cooking SystemAverage Boil Time (minutes:seconds)Average Fuel Consumption (grams)
CalmColdWindCalmColdWind
White Gas2:383:113:4811.011.915.7
Remote Canister3:286:174:017.67.211.9
Top Mount Canister3:313:232:346.26.59.2
Integrated Canister2:386:252:414.85.15.2
Alcohol7:549:208:5010.913.924.2
Fuel Tab7:416:478:258.411.920.7
Note: Test results (boil time and fuel consumption) are for the stoves and windscreens pictured above. Note that there are a few inconsistencies because a moderate flame (which is subjective and hard to duplicate each time) was used for all of the white gas and canister stove tests.

Highlights

  • Under optimal conditions, boil times for the white gas and canister stoves were in the 2.5 to 3.5 minute range, while alcohol and fuel tab stoves were around 7.5 minutes.
  • Cold air and water extended boil times for most stoves, especially the remote canister stove and Jetboil stove.
  • Wind (with a windscreen) resulted in somewhat extended boil times for most stoves. For the alcohol and fuel tab stoves, the extra oxygen increased combustion, so the boil time is close to calm conditions but fuel consumption is greatly increased.
  • Fuel consumption of the white gas stove under optimal conditions was about the same as the alcohol stove. Priming of the white gas stove consumed about 0.1 ounce of fuel.
  • The integrated canister stove was the most fuel efficient of the canister stoves, followed by the top mount canister stove.
  • The alcohol and fuel tab stoves consumed much more fuel in windy conditions compared to the other stoves.
  • The white gas and fuel tab stoves had the same fuel consumption in cold conditions.
  • The integrated canister stove (Jetboil) with the KiteScreen was least affected by wind.
  • Despite the use of windscreens, turbulence within the aluminum windscreens (used on all but the integrated top-mount canister stoves) was a persistent problem, which resulted in reduced heating efficiency.

Extrapolating Cooking System Test Results to Field Conditions

Now that we have assembled cooking systems that are as comparable as possible, and lab tested them under controlled conditions to obtain comparable fuel consumption data, we are ready to tackle the challenging task of extrapolating the data to the field. In Part II of this article I will address the questions posed at the beginning of this article, and deal with some of the tricky issues of estimating fuel usage under field conditions and determining how much fuel efficiency compensates for cooking system weight. I even take a shot at estimating the stove plus fuel costs for the life span of the stoves.


Related Content


Get ultralight backpacking skills, gear info, philosophy, news, and more.

Comments

Home › Forums › Comparative Fuel Efficiency and Carry Weight for Six Lightweight Backpacking Cooking Systems: Part I

Viewing 25 posts - 1 through 25 (of 32 total)
1 2 →
ADVERTISEMENT
Login to post ($7.00/yr Basic Membership required)
  • Author
    Posts
  • Jul 4, 2006 at 11:37 pm #1218948

    Cat Jasins
    BPL Member

    @catjasins

    Companion forum thread to:

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

    Jul 5, 2006 at 1:22 am #1358968

    Summit CO
    Member

    @summit

    Locale: 9300ft

    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)?

    Jul 5, 2006 at 5:39 am #1358973

    Will Rietveld
    BPL Member

    @williwabbit

    Locale: Southwest Colorado

    Good questions. The short answer is there is lots of discussion on this forum and elsewhere on the effects of pot shape, metal conductivity, windscreen design, etc . A really interesting new windscreen design is the Caldera by TrailDesigns; check it out at http://www.traildesigns.com/products01.html. Roger Caffin and I will be trying their new windscreen systems out in the field and will have some comments/analysis on them later on.

    Cheers!
    Will

    Aug 12, 2018 at 7:56 pm #3551104

    Anthony Dohrman
    BPL Member

    @lightanthony

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

    Aug 12, 2018 at 8:14 pm #3551108

    ken
    BPL Member

    @here

    Part 2

    https://backpackinglight.com/comparative_fuel_efficiency_and_weight_of_stoves_pt2/

    https://backpackinglight.com/forums/topic/3507/

    Aug 12, 2018 at 9:31 pm #3551115

    Jon Fong
    BPL Member

    @jonfong

    Locale: FLAT CAT GEAR

    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

    • This reply was modified 6 months, 1 week ago by  Jon Fong.
    Aug 12, 2018 at 9:50 pm #3551118

    ken
    BPL Member

    @here

    We know more twelve years later

     

    Aug 12, 2018 at 11:01 pm #3551124

    James Marco
    BPL Member

    @jamesdmarco

    Locale: Finger Lakes

    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.)

    Aug 13, 2018 at 9:17 am #3551190

    Roger Caffin
    Moderator

    @rcaffin

    Locale: Wollemi & Kosciusko NPs, Europe

    All those fuels are long-chain hydrocarbons, although the exact carbon/hydrogen ratio varies a bit. That does not really matter much because most of the weight is in the carbon atoms, and they also give most of the energy. So IN THEORY (and in the lab) the fuels will behave fairly similarly.

    That’s in the lab; in the field it is a very different matter. Lighting a canister stove takes a couple of seconds and you are cooking immediately. When you take the pot off the stove good practice is to turn the stove off. However, with liquid fuel stoves life is much harder, and especially with kero. Priming the stove and getting it hot enough for the fuel to vaporise takes time and fuel, and you are not cooking in that time. Then when you have finished cooking one thing the temptation is to leave the stove running, albeit at low power, until you are ready to cook the next thing, to avoid the hassles of priming and starting.

    In practical terms, in the field, you can be using anywhere from an extra 50% to an extra 100% of liquid fuel for the same amount of cooking. Been there, measured the fuel consumption.

    Cheers

    Aug 13, 2018 at 12:18 pm #3551197

    James Marco
    BPL Member

    @jamesdmarco

    Locale: Finger Lakes

    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.

    Aug 13, 2018 at 4:03 pm #3551214

    Nick Gatel
    BPL Member

    @ngatel

    Locale: Southern California

    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.

    How much fuel use for priming? Very little as you stated. What I typically do is to burn a few scraps of paper from my consumed snacks and hold the stove over the flames to build pressure in the tank. Sometimes I will hold a lighter under the tank for a few seconds to build up pressure. Then I open the valve, a few drops of fuel will dribble down into the priming bowl, I turn off the valve and light the fuel. Just before the fuel completely burns and if I time it right, I open the valve and light the fuel at the burner — it takes just a few seconds to get to operational mode.

    Sometimes I take a little plastic straw, stick it into the tank and then place my finger over the top of the straw, then place the straw over the priming bowl and remove my finger from the top of the straw to fill the priming bowl, close the valve and light the priming bowl.

    I have two 123 stoves, not the “R” model and have been using them for 45 years or so. So what is my dollar cost average per year of the purchase, given the stoves cost something like $12.50 in 1971? Twenty-eight cents per year without adjustments for inflation. If we take inflation into consideration, $12.50 in 1971 is about $77 in 2018. How much does a Caffin stove cost? IIFC around $150 or more. Too expensive! Will it last 45 years of use? I don’t know, but I suspect it won’t. I’ll keep my Svea stoves and continue using them until I die and then bequeath them in my will to my kids.

    Once I retired, I did an analysis on fuel cost per day. Alcohol and liquid gas win by a huge margin. I use alcohol most of the time but still often take my Svea, especially on longer trips in cooler weather so I can have a hot drink several times during the day and evening. Can I afford the more expensive fuel? Sure, but when I show my wife how much money I am saving I was hoping she would stop buying so many pairs of shoes… that didn’t work :-(

     

    Here’s the article.

    Aug 13, 2018 at 4:45 pm #3551216

    Jon Fong
    BPL Member

    @jonfong

    Locale: FLAT CAT GEAR

    Old School rocks!

     

    Aug 13, 2018 at 5:14 pm #3551220

    David Thomas
    BPL Member

    @davidinkenai

    Locale: North Woods. Far North.

    ”What I typically do is to burn a few scraps of paper from my consumed snacks and hold the stove over the flames to build pressure in the tank.”

    I just light farts to pre-heat the tank, thereby allowing me to burn paper scraps sooner and save literally hundreds of gram-meters (they’re like pound-miles, but much smaller for serious ULers).

    Aug 13, 2018 at 6:45 pm #3551228

    David Thomas
    BPL Member

    @davidinkenai

    Locale: North Woods. Far North.

    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.

    Aug 13, 2018 at 7:23 pm #3551232

    Bruce Tolley
    BPL Member

    @btolley

    Locale: San Francisco Bay Area

    @ Nick

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

    I polished mine up and presented it to my son right before his first backpacking trip.  He declined it as an antique and ended up with a isobutane burner.

    Aug 13, 2018 at 7:41 pm #3551234

    Nick Gatel
    BPL Member

    @ngatel

    Locale: Southern California

    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.

    Aug 13, 2018 at 10:01 pm #3551245

    Roger Caffin
    Moderator

    @rcaffin

    Locale: Wollemi & Kosciusko NPs, Europe

    re priming: getting a WG stove going in warm/hot weather is miles easier than kero. Some WG even contains iso-butane.

    Cheers

    Aug 14, 2018 at 1:01 am #3551288

    James Marco
    BPL Member

    @jamesdmarco

    Locale: Finger Lakes

    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.

    Aug 14, 2018 at 1:09 am #3551289

    Roger Caffin
    Moderator

    @rcaffin

    Locale: Wollemi & Kosciusko NPs, Europe

    Old (1960s?) advertising jingle (in Oz) for some brand of petrol or other:
    “It’s got butane, iso-pentane and toluol too”
    I assume there was some truth behind this.

    Cheers

    Aug 14, 2018 at 2:48 pm #3551335

    Nick Gatel
    BPL Member

    @ngatel

    Locale: Southern California

    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

     

    Aug 14, 2018 at 3:25 pm #3551339

    James Marco
    BPL Member

    @jamesdmarco

    Locale: Finger Lakes

    Hey, ha, I remember gas being available for 27.9C/a gallon as I pumped it…. $5 was a lot of gasoline!
    Yeah, Blazo worked good but burned relatively fast compared with Coleman fuel. In a pinch, you can use toluene as a fuel in a Svea, but it burns very hot and overheats easily. This works well for very low heat outputs and still maintains pressure in the stove. Or in winter. I sometimes added a pint of toluene with a gallon of white gas in my 2 gallon mower can. Then pour it back in the bottles for use. You can also mix <10% ethanol or methanol for improved heat/combustion characteristics in summer and/or to stretch your fuel supply. I might be wrong, but I think the biggest octane boost to unleaded fuels comes from the addition of 10% alcohol, slowing the combustion rate down in the engine without changing carburation at all.

    Aug 15, 2018 at 6:23 am #3551441

    Rex Sanders
    BPL Member

    @rex

    Locale: Central California Coast

    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

    Aug 15, 2018 at 2:17 pm #3551476

    James Marco
    BPL Member

    @jamesdmarco

    Locale: Finger Lakes

    Rex, yeah, you can run the 123r on unleaded fuel. Even the old stuff only required extra cleaning. But, it doesn’t burn real hot, nor, real clean. Hard to hold a low flame that doesn’t produce a lot of soot and hard to get going. I have tried to pump into a SIGG bottle. Worse, is the “coke” bottles I later switched to. Notice I said “tried.”

    I remember “gas” wars. We were told to pump as much as possible in every car. Overfull, ya know? Ha, hey, yup, I always went home smelling of fuel. I believe the owner was b!tching about the gas actually loosing money, but adding oil (whether the car needed a full quart or not,) air inflations (selling tires, patches and valve repair kits,) wipers and so on made up for all of it… We eventually opened a gas station when I was 17 and I worked every weekend, all weekend, sleeping in the storeroom for 24 hour service when it wasn’t busy. We would sell quite a bit between 0100 and 0400 on Friday and Saturday. All the bar rooms would close at 0200 and everyone would get gas on the way home. We also had a trucking company that would fill up the fleet for a nickle discount per gallon, at 40 gallons per tank on the bigger trucks…they had 4. Everybody was happy…

    Aug 15, 2018 at 7:11 pm #3551513

    David Thomas
    BPL Member

    @davidinkenai

    Locale: North Woods. Far North.

    “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.

    Aug 15, 2018 at 7:18 pm #3551514

    David Thomas
    BPL Member

    @davidinkenai

    Locale: North Woods. Far North.

    If you want motor gasoline from the filling station to be lower volatility like white gas, just leave it out in a shallow container for while.  The C4, and C5 compounds will evaporate more quickly than the C6-C10, less-volatile components.  Or do it in a taller container by bubbling air through it.  But if bubbling with something like an electric fish-tank bubbler, place any electrical equipment well off the ground (>18″) so as not to ignite the heavy gasoline fumes.  Also, it’s good practice to place such equipment and yourself on the upwind side.

    Any HDPE container is gasoline-safe and although 1-gallon milk jugs are HDPE, they’re pretty thin.  I prefer 1-gallon washer-fluid containers because they’re thicker walled but still translucent.  Rinse the container and dry throughly.  Mark the side of the container with the original fuel level and when it’s dropped 10%-20%, you’ll have removed a majority of the most volatile compounds.

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 25 posts - 1 through 25 (of 32 total)
1 2 →

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

ADVERTISEMENT

Learn About the Gear That Works

New! My Personal Recommendations: Lightweight Backpacking Gear from 2018
by Ryan Jordan, owner/publisher

Today’s Gear Deals

» Current REI Coupons & Rebates «

REI:

Patagonia:

Backcountry:

Sierra Trading Post:

Mountain Gear:

Cabela's:

Visit All BPL Gear Deals »

Subscribe Right Now

Receive new Members-only content, gain access to 2,000+ articles in the archives, and become a part of the most passionate community of backpacking experts in the world.
Subscribe Now
  • Backpacking Gear Reviews
  • Backpacking Skills
  • Backpacking Trips
  • Backpacking & Outdoor News
  • Outdoor Recreation Science & Technology
  • Backpacking Courses, Webinars & Other Events

Follow Us

Reduce your pack weight to less than 10 pounds right now.

Download our Printable Ultralight Backpacking Gear List & Watch our Core Principles of Ultralight Backpacking Video!

More @ Backpacking Light

  • About Us
  • Jobs
  • Advertise with Us
  • Write for Us
  • Submit a Product for Review
  • Sponsored Hikers
  • Help / Support / Contact
  • Terms & Policies

Call Us

Membership Sales & Support: 406-640-HIKE (406-640-4453) | About

© Copyright 2001-2019 BEARTOOTH MEDIA GROUP, INC. | U.S. Library of Congress Serial Registration ISSN 1537-0364
BACKPACKING LIGHT® and the FEATHER/MOUNTAIN icon are registered trademarks granted for exclusive use to Beartooth Media Group, Inc. Subscribe here.

  • Subscribe
  • Log In
  • My Account
  • Forum Profile
  • Private Messages
  • Newsletters
  • Help Desk
  • Unlimited Membership Portal
  • Help / Support / Contact