25gram canister stove? Brs-3000t. Is this the new lightest canister stove?

[Bob Gross]

It seems to me that the standard water volume is always either 500ml or else 16 fluid ounces, not 300ml.

–B.G.–

[Peter Nash]

I'm not aware of canister stove testing standards, although it would allow easier comparison of results. There are lots of variables: Starting water temp, water volume, pot used, gas burn rate, fuel mixture, ambient temp, wind, etc. For my tests I used cold tap water. I don't think the amount of fuel used per liter of water boiled would be significantly different for different volumes of water in most typical situations.

In my test, 4.3 grams of fuel brought 300 ml of 55 F degree water to a boil with the BRS stove. That works out to:

14.34 grams fuel to boil 1 liter
7.16 grams to boil 500 ml
6.78 grams to boil 16 oz.

Edit: In light of Harald's test above, I should have used 500 ml water starting at 69 degrees, to allow for a direct comparison. But doing the math shows that the results are roughly similar for fuel needed to raise a given amount of water to a boil. His test shows 14 grams of fuel would bring 1 liter of 69 degree water to a boil; my test shows 14.34 grams of fuel would bring 1 liter at 55 degrees to a boil.

[Bob Gross]

"I'm not aware of canister stove testing standards, although it would allow easier comparison of results."

Exactly.

If you intend to test and publish results on every stove there is on the market, then you can choose any water volume you want. However, if you are testing and publishing on only one and you use an arbitrary volume, then the information is hard for anybody else to use. A direct comparison between stoves is difficult.

Also, it is nice if you state the primary finding of the test. For example, are you looking for the fastest boil time? Are you looking purely for fuel efficiency?

–B.G.–

[Robert Blean]

Some of that could be simplified if we'd get away from the time to "boiling" and use the time to raise a standard amount of water a standard number of degrees. That avoids such things as the subjective judgment of just what "boiling" means. For example, raise 16 oz of water 120F degrees should be pretty meaningful, and also achievable with water of most starting temperatures.

–MV

[Peter Nash]

The reason for my test was simple, to compare the new BRS stove with my current stove, the Fire Maple. So for this purpose, my test was valid. Essentially I wanted to know if I could replace my Fire Maple for the lighter BRS stove without sacrificing performance. After the test, I conclude that I probably can.

My primary concern when comparing stove performance tests is how much fuel is needed to boil a given quantity of water, i.e., fuel efficiency. I don't really care about boil time, except as it relates to efficiency. (Which uses less fuel, a fast burn rate or slow?)

Robert, you're exactly right about the best way to measure and compare stove efficiency. That can be computed from the numbers I posted.

Edit: Rather than the time to raise a given amount of water a given number of degrees, the amount of fuel needed to do it is more useful, I think.

[Bob Gross]

Some high-tech stove manufacturer needs to get on the ball and introduce a fuel economy gauge onto the fuel tube of some stove. A liquid fuel would be easier, but a gaseous fuel might be possible. It could be graduated in grams of fuel per minute, or cubic centimeters per minute, or something like that. It would make stove testing a lot easier.

–B.G.–

[Sam Farrington]

Bob, maybe put the canister on a good scale and compare change rates during different stove functions.

[Bob Gross]

"put the canister on a good scale"

Ahhh, while the stove is burning.

But what would be the fun in that?

–B.G.–

[Roger Caffin]

> put the canister on a good scale and compare change rates during different stove functions.

Been there, done that: see

http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/canister_stove_efficiency_p1.html
http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/canister_stove_efficiency_p2.html
http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/canister_stove_efficiency_p3.html

Cheers

[Hikin’ Jim]

This stove is loud, it reminds me of an msr xgk stove, that's because the heat spreader uses slots instead of holes like most other stoves, and the heat spreader is about 1.7cm/ 5/8" wide. that's the weak spot of this stove, if that were remedied, I believe you'd all be buying this thing.

Well, if they changed the head to make it quieter, they'd probably have to a) make it heavier and b) spend more money developing it which would increase the price of the stove.

What they've done is essentially make use of Fire Maple's R&D. They've knocked off the basic design of the Fire Maple stove thus saving themselves some expense.

They also, like the equivalent Fire Maple stove, have used the bottom of the pot to help mix the fuel and the air. Yep, it's loud, but it's light. Making it quiet would lose those weight savings.

HJ
Adventures in Stoving
Hikin Jim's Blog

[Stuart R]

There are lots of variables: Starting water temp, water volume, pot used, gas burn rate, fuel mixture, ambient temp, wind, etc

Yup, pot diameter makes a difference, as does flame size (heat output). No mater what final water temp you shoot for, the water will not be at a uniform temp, so you need a means of stirring the water (as I think Roger did).

Then, any wind makes a massive difference, which can render indoor tests almost irrelevant to real world use.

[Bob Gross]

"This stove is loud, it reminds me of an msr xgk stove"

Yes, isn't it grand?

–B.G.–

[Harald Hope]

Peter Nash, thanks for posting more data that roughly confirms my findings. I didn't want to empty canisters testing, so your tests basically show the fuel economy is similar burn to burn across different systems. While it's nice to get apples to apples tests, it's also nice for the tester to test what they would actually do, and the starting temps of water they'd actually encounter, unlike alcohol, you are basically throwing out non renewable containers every time you do a canister stove test, with alcohol you just pour some more fuel in from your gallon can that cost 10 bucks at the hardware store. Same as you do before every trip when deciding how much fuel to bring, heh.

I have noted different efficiencies in some stove designs when it comes to boiling 4 vs 2 cups, but one nice thing about heating water is the btu requirements are roughly linear, so tests of 300ml vs 500ml given the same pot diameter I think are pretty similar. Just needs the math on to compare same quantities and starting temps. It's x btu to raise 1ml water 1 degree, that is. So the starting temp and quantity don't matter all that much stove to stove. With alcohol stoves, some work a lot better with more starting fuel, and a wide pot, which translates to better efficiency to boil 4 cups on a wide pot. I haven't tested the chs on wide pot 4 cups, might come in at 25 ml, I'll test today maybe if I have time.

What's interesting is that I found the optimus significantly more efficient in some cases, but it was so hard to compare slow boil to slow boil I can't rely on that data. I have a firefly remote canister but I didn't test that one, with a screen however that would be probably the most efficient I would guess because you can maximize the heat in the burner unit itself as with an alcohol stove. With that caveat that alcohol is always lighter and really not that different in boil times with a good stove/screen setup.

Bob, I have to admit I had some nostalgia hearing that stove roar, I used to use xgk only, for ages, though I won't pretend I ever liked the roar, but it is funny.

Re durability, the only part I can see as maybe weaker in bhs is the valve gasket, these things are pretty simple, it's a threaded thing for the canister, a plunger to push in the valve, which is inert on the stove body I believe, and heat spreader, which is stainless steel. So the only place weakness can come in is the moving part, the valve, I don't know if those use a gasket, based on the action of turning the valve I would say it does, but I can't know for sure. The threads are I believe ti, which might call for a bit more gentle starts of the screwing on canister process, and given what I've seen here there will be people who do that wrong and cross thread, then state that the stove is unreliable and failed. But I don't know the strength of ti threads vs brass or whatever else other stoves use there.

[Bob Gross]

"Bob, I have to admit I had some nostalgia hearing that stove roar, I used to use xgk only, for ages, though I won't pretend I ever liked the roar, but it is funny."

A loud stove like that is a multiple use item.

It also serves as a wakeup alarm for the other sleepers in camp.

–B.G.–

[Christopher C]

How is it perfectly safe?  It has half a flange.  A drop or shock to the stove when screwed on will transfer force and torque to the valve stem, not the rolled bead.

That doesn’t sound safe to me, and other reviewers have noted the risk.

[Bob Moulder]

Actually, nothing is perfectly safe. ;^)

However, when used within its (admittedly quite limited) capabilities it is a very good little stove… assuming yours is not one of the reputed/reported “bad” ones. I have one that I have used a lot and it has worked flawlessly with zero maintenance.

If one drops/kicks/torques/knocks over many stoves there might very well be a failure, and quite likely a disastrous conflagration. Stoves are not designed for that, in general, especially not a fairly delicate 25 gram canister topper.

Definitely not a stove for people who are “hard on gear” or who need a stove that can handle pots larger than 750ml.

 

[Roger Caffin]

This stove is loud, it reminds me of an msr xgk stove, that’s because the heat spreader uses slots instead of holes like most other stoves, and the heat spreader is about 1.7cm/ 5/8″ wide. that’s the weak spot of this stove, if that were remedied, I believe you’d all be buying this thing.
Actually, that is very misleading. The slots have nothing to do with it really.

The BRS-3000T is NOT a conventional upright stove. It is a partial Vortex stove. The Vortex is ‘virtual’ and uses the burner head and the pot as part of the system. And Vortex stoves are noisy.

See also our review at
https://backpackinglight.com/brs-3000t-review-caffin/

But the stove works very well and is extremely light and cheap. What is not to like?

Cheers

[Bob Moulder]

And it sure as heck is not as loud as an XGK, which has got to be at least 90 decibels at 10 feet.

[Roger Caffin]

I thought an XGK was a hammer for tent stakes …

Cheers

[Bob Moulder]

Definitely multiple uses!

Could probably fend off a bear with it, too, but you only need fire it up and the noise will keep every creature in the forest, large and small, at bay.

[Author]

Posts