Topic

2L pot vs. 1L pot


Forum Posting

A Membership is required to post in the forums. Login or become a member to post in the member forums!

Home Forums Gear Forums Gear (General) 2L pot vs. 1L pot

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1303696
    M G
    BPL Member

    @drown

    Locale: Shenandoah

    I've been using the same pot almost exclusively for 13 years whenever travelling with a companion. A 2L MSR Titan pot @6.6 oz. I have always considered sharing gear such as stove pot and shelter a key way to cut weight.

    I've been reconsidering many of my assumptions lately and wanted to check the logic of boiling one big pot (2L)
    of water using a canister stove and windscreen to rehydrate food, make soup and tea for 2pax. I've been looking to drop weight in this system but not finding a lower weight 2L aluminium pot, any advice there? I'm not really looking to go stoveless or heat less water, those are all worthy options but not what I am considering at this time.

    Another option is a smaller pot and multiple boils? Is this more fuel efficient? My gut feeling is no, but I'm wondering what is the most efficient way to get 2L of hot water out of a canister stove ( supplemented by fire when legal and safe)?

    I've been on trips with pairs sharing a single jetboil and needing to do multiple boils and this seemed possible, just wondering if thus is more fuel efficient over a 5 day trip.

    Thanks.

    #1992546
    Mark Fowler
    BPL Member

    @kramrelwof

    Locale: Namadgi

    There are arguments on both sides as to whether you will save fuel doing 2 boils rather than 1 but the fuel savings of one method over the other will be very small compared to the savings if you change to a 900ml Ti pot under 4 oz. My pot is 3.2oz with cozy. I find this size works well for me and my partner preparing relatively simple meals and hot drinks. Mornings are 1 boil and evenings are 3 – one for each course.

    #1992557
    Rick M
    BPL Member

    @yamaguy

    del

    #1992577
    J C
    BPL Member

    @joomy

    The Reactor is damn efficient but the question is whether or not you can make up the extra weight by carrying less fuel. So it depends on length of trip etc. My gut feeling is that for shorter trips the extra weight of the Reactor would outweigh the benefit of taking less fuel. However for longer trips the 25% (or whatever it is) fuel you save will eventually add up to many hundreds of grams.

    #1992687
    Mark Fowler
    BPL Member

    @kramrelwof

    Locale: Namadgi

    I happily agree that the Reactor is a very efficient stove for extreme conditions but when you do the maths it doesn't really stack up as a low weight option. It may stack up if you require other aspects of its design and weight becomes a lesser factor in the decision.

    The 1 litre Reactor weighs 417 grams vs a light weight canister set up (including windshield) at under 200 grams including a pot cosy that the Reactor doesn't have. A difference of 217g or more.

    At 30 grams of gas per day for 2 people with a conventional setup the Reactor may save 7.5 grams per day. It would take 25 days to get the weight of the extra gas to match on day 25 and so about 50 days to equalise the average weight carried. Even examining the issue of times when you carry two canisters with the standard setup vs only one with the Reactor (trips of about 8-9 days) a 100g canister is still lighter than the weight difference of the stoves. Most people don't go much past this between resupplies so for the vast majority the Reactor will always be the heavier option.

    I believe the weight efficiency argument used by all the makers of heat exchange cooking systems is just marketing spin – true but not of a magnitude that warrants taking it into consideration if weight is your primary interest. There have been quite a threads on this subject.

    #1992697
    M G
    BPL Member

    @drown

    Locale: Shenandoah

    OP here.

    Not considering heat exchangers at this time. They do not make sense in this context as I will be ressuplying at 5 day intervals. Trying to reduce weight by downsizing to a lighter smaller volume pot or lighter similar volume aluminium pot. Looking for replacement suggestions( weight, volume, cost, material, availability )and any numbers on boiling times when water volume is the controlling factor. May need to conduct the experiment myself but would rather not have to if this has been documented before.

    Thanks again.

    #1992716
    James Marco
    BPL Member

    @jamesdmarco

    Locale: Finger Lakes

    "Another option is a smaller pot and multiple boils? Is this more fuel efficient? My gut feeling is no, but I'm wondering what is the most efficient way to get 2L of hot water out of a canister stove ( supplemented by fire when legal and safe)?"

    For any two pots, the heating efficiency is the number of calories of heat absorbed by the water devided by the fuel used. So, no, it doesn't matter. What does matter is the cooling inbetween, ie, cooling of the pot when emptied, and, cooling of the water as you drink one cup, and it sits there waiting for you to pour a second before adding your food. These approximatly break even, though this depends on how hot you like your drink. Off hand, I would call it a wash and simply stick to the standard JetBoil pot.

    Heat exchangers only capture extra or excess heat. If you are using an aluminum pot at 75-80% efficiency inside a caldera cone on a slow alcohol burner, they will NOT help you. If you are using a JetBoil they do. At least they will save fuel if not time to boil. (That depends on the output of the stove used for comparison.)

    You can think of heat exchangers as increasing the surface area of the bottom of the pot. This is exactly the same as using a larger pot (but without the radiant heat losses of a larger pot. The JetBoil pot has a sleve over it.) Note that once the flame is out, the fins will transfer heat AWAY from the water just as fast as they added it. Cover these ASAP to keep the water hotter.

    Material makes a difference. Example: HE fins are never ti. It does not conduct heat well. Aluminum conducts heat very well.

    #1992730
    Jim W.
    BPL Member

    @jimqpublic

    Locale: So-Cal

    We have done 4 person family trips with a single 1 liter Jetboil. It works fine as long as you are just boiling, not cooking. It's more efficient to just boil the water you need right now, not for the whole meal. As long as your system works well for multiple successive boils a small pot should be fine.

    #1992798
    Peter Fokkinga
    Spectator

    @nitto

    Locale: the Netherlands

    Trangia has a 1.75 liter hard-anodized pot that is specified as being 120 grams (4.2 oz). The 1.5 liter is 110 gram, 115 gram on my kitchen scale. These come without lid or gripper. Hard-anodized skillet is 90 grams on my scales (the non-stick will be heavier), this also serves as a lid. The gripper is 45 gram and is usable for both pot and skillet.

    I have used the 1 liter hard-anodized pots from Trangia for two years now and I like them. There are two slightly different versions so the slightly smaller one nests inside the larger one and are about 85 gram each.

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Forum Posting

A Membership is required to post in the forums. Login or become a member to post in the member forums!

Loading...