Jul 15, 2014 at 1:00 pm #1318960
@maiaLocale: Rocky Mountains
Companion forum thread to:Jul 15, 2014 at 1:57 pm #2119978
I don't think I will be getting one antime soon. 27oz+ is way too heavy.Jul 15, 2014 at 2:04 pm #2119980
But not to bad if you're with 5 others doing group cooking.
It's the right tool for that job.
But that's not My job.Jul 15, 2014 at 4:03 pm #2120007
and in the winter when the inverted canister would be very usefulJul 15, 2014 at 4:50 pm #2120022
Ya know, I usually only go with myself and sometimes one other person I call me.Jul 16, 2014 at 9:30 am #2120209
Wow. It's a bit expensive too. $200 at http://www.rei.com/product/868190/jetboil-joule-group-cooking-systemJul 16, 2014 at 9:39 am #2120213
Roger Caffin's inverted canister stove cost me $144.00, and I still need to supply my own pot (such as the Primus ETA 1.8L pot for $55.00)
The MSR Reactor is also a $200.00 stove.
An MSR Dragonfly white gas stove would cost $140.00. A Primus 1.8L ETA heat exchanger pot would cost an additional $55.00
I'd say this is right in line with similar products on the market designed for winter use.Jul 16, 2014 at 1:32 pm #2120273
@danepackerLocale: Mojave Desert
How does its fuel efficiency compare to other canister stoves?
THAT'S the real question for longer group trips.Jul 16, 2014 at 2:45 pm #2120300
@morte66Locale: Surrey flatlands, England
9.5g of gas for a liter of water seems pretty good. My cheapo gas stove uses 7g for half a liter.Jul 16, 2014 at 2:50 pm #2120304
average upright canister stove was 11.6 g/L, four Jetboil models were between 8.5 and 9.5 g/L, Reactor was 10.5 g/L
From this (Ryan's) article Jetboil and Reactor were 9.5 g/L
So Roger and Ryan are pretty consistent on the Jetboil (although Roger didn't measure the inverted Jetboil). Roger measured Reactor 10% higher than Ryan.
In Roger's article, the Jetboils used about 20% less fuel than average upright.
You got to read the article – has a bunch of different stoves…
I think this measurement is tricky. Hard to compare two different experimenters – any difference might just be the way they measured it. Roger's measurement where he uses same test set-up to measure different stoves is more valid.Jul 16, 2014 at 4:03 pm #2120340
There are a lot of variables that can effect the efficiency numbers. Oxygen content of the air will effect the efficiency of the burns. Humidity. Ambient temperature. Surface you put the stove on. Height of the burner/pot. Etc… 10% is within tolerance. I usually give these numbers a spread, min, max and average. I call 15% a significant deviation to account for the crudity of most tests. For example, depending on weather you have a burner on high, medium or low, but there is no set definition for these terms. People eyeball the medium setting. High is the maximum for a stove, but this can vary between 4500BTU and 11000BTU. Low can sit there forever without boiling a liter of water, yeilding inconclusive results. Some stoves will not run evenly on lower settings (Simmerlite for example.) And, how low is low? Too low will drive *up* fuel consumption.
I usually try for a 10-12 minute burn for a half liter. This usually produces the best fuel efficiency. Longer means more heat is radiated out. A 20 minute burn for one liter is barely tolerable, though. If you want a 10 minute burn, you will use more fuel. This is assuming all else remains the same: pot, lid, distance, heat screen, etc. For 2 Liters, the numbers can get worse. At least with the Joule, it will make a good cold weather stove(<20F) for a larger group(>4 people.) I think this is where Ryan is headed with this. For me, myself and I, well, we have no use for it. But it is interesting to read about these little toys.Jul 16, 2014 at 4:23 pm #2120346
Roger's stove is probably better for really cold temps. If you don't want to fiddle with putting canister in a bath of water or … It weighs less and you'll never make up for the added weight with improved efficiency on the Jetboil
For 1/2 liter or 1 pint, I figure 3 minutes on fairly high, or turn to medium and it takes 5 minutes but saves 10% of the fuel
"For me, myself and I, well, we have no use for it."
Interesting how many solo hikers there are on BPL. Reaction to working in "the Dilbert world"?Jul 16, 2014 at 5:36 pm #2120357
@jbcLocale: Cascade Mountains
I will be very interested in seeing how the Joule actually performs in cold weather. It could well be the ultimate snow melting machine! The time difference with the Reactor shown here is astounding.Aug 12, 2014 at 6:23 am #2126876
@tjaardLocale: Minnesota, USA
The other feature that seems promising for winter use is that the burner is high above the ground, so you could hopefully use a less heat resistant stove base as well as having less melting of the snow under the stove.
It also looks like it could work well as a hanging stove.
The big question for me when looking at the design is how well the flame control works in cold weather, since it is on the liquid fuel line, not on the vaporized part at the top.
However, for winter use I don't do a lot of simmering or fine cooking, so as long as it can be turned down far enough to prevent the snow from scorching, it's acceptable to me.Oct 25, 2014 at 4:19 am #2144222
@iagoLocale: Boston & Galicia, Spain
There's an alpinist hanging kit for $20 that includes a windscreen. Would also be interesting to see if the wind screen afects CO2 performance.Jan 10, 2015 at 6:17 pm #2163494
@icensnowLocale: New England, USA
How useful is a regulator on a liquid feed stove like this? Could a significant amount weight and $$$ be saved by eliminating it?
Thanks for the review, looking forward to the cold weather assessment.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.