Converting integrated stove/pot to remote canister (JetBoil, MSR WindBurner…)

[Hikin’ Jim]

Wonder what they weigh? Some look rather heavy.

Agreed.  Remotes typically are heavier.

I suppose MSR is going after those who want “better stability” (although I think the Windburner is reasonably stable if one uses the canister legs provided).  The new remote Windburner does not appear to have any type of pre-heat loop that would support inverted operation, so it doesn’t appear that they’re going after the winter crowd.

On the other hand, the new Jetboil entry clearly is going after the winter crowd.  This is their third inverted offering, to the best of my recall:

• Helios
• Joule
• MilliJoule

I’m not sure why the Helios didn’t sell well, perhaps the market wasn’t really ready for it, but, as far as I’m aware, the Helios was the first stove system to introduce inverted canister operation.  The WindPro used as an inverted canister stove was something that consumers thought up, not MSR, although MSR later embraced the idea and upgraded to the WindPro II — which has a rotating coupler that facilitates inverted operation.

The Joule is kind of kludgey.  It’s not very stable and can only support 100/110 g or 220/230 g sized canisters, and even if you use a small 100/110 sized canister, the stove’s “superstructure” is rigid and takes the same amount of space.  The Joule is rather large with it’s 2.5 L pot.

The MilliJoule should be able to support any sized canister, although you might have to prop up a 450 g sized canister with your shoes or something.  The MJ is far smaller at 1.5 L — which is an interesting size.  I would have thought 1.8 L like the Windburner or Sumo would be more suitable or even 2.0 L.  It is for snow melting after all.  On the plus side, the lack of a superstructure makes the MJ a lot less kludgey and bulky than the original Joule.

I think Jetboil may have a winner with the MJ whereas I think the sales performance of the  original Joule was just so-so.  We’ll see.

On the other hand, if the new remote Windburner cannot support inverted operation, I think MSR has missed a bet.  Maybe if the remote burner version of the Windburner doesn’t have an overly large weight penalty (or an overly large price tag!), it will gain adoption, particularly for those who want a 2.5 or 4.5 L pot (interesting size choices, particularly the 4.5 L pot).  The larger pot sizes wouldn’t be stable on the existing, rather tall Windburner burner, even with canister legs.

My experience of MSR is that they are very sophisticated in terms of their market research. Very. They must think that there’s a market out there for an efficient, stable, and windproof group stove — but not that there’s a market for a windproof inverted canister stove (assuming that I’m right that the new remote Windburner can’t support inverted operation).

HJ

 

 

[Anonymous]

Thank you for the holistic reply Roger. Still wondering what would be best filter material? Coffee filter? Something better?

It sounds like putting in and pulling out a little filter to prevent the jet from clogging, is easier and quicker than cleaning the jet, so it may be worth it and fall under the adage of “a once of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”  Unless you’re saying it can clog in just one run/meal?

[Hikin’ Jim]

Update to the preceding:

Based on this article:  https://www.snewsnet.com/press-release/new-msr-windburner-stove-systems-cookware-options-bring-versatility-to-solo-hikers-and-group-campers-alike

The weight of the new group system (with 2.5 L pot) is 21 oz, and the weight of the 2.5 L pot is 12 oz.  Therefore, if I’m doing my math right, the new remote burner would come in at 9 oz, which is on the order of 250 g.  The current upright Windburner burner is 7 oz (about 200 g).  This is roughly a 25% increase in weight.  Not so great, but maybe it will be acceptable for a group?  We’ll see.  I would think the upright burner with the 1.8 L pot would be the better option for 2 to 3 people.

Of course, with the current upright burner, the canister legs do weigh 20 g, so I suppose the true weight differential is a bit less than the 25% increase I cited above.  I think the canister legs really are a good idea with the 1.8 L pot.

HJ

[Roger Caffin]

I wonder whether the new remote Windburner will produce levels of CO as lethal as the Reactor? Samer burner? The Reactor is one stove I would NOT want to run indoors – close to 2,000 ppm of CO. And yet, Mountain SAFETY Research released it despite knowing the dangers. (We – BPL, warned them about the CO.)

Fuel filters – an interesting Q. Some stoves have a tiny sintered metal filter stuffed into the underside of the jet. Any filter that small will block up quite fast when trying to handle a dirty canister, and you can NOT clean the filter. Reality is that such filters were designed in ancient times when canisters did not have such dirty fuel. The problem does not seem to have been revisited.

I have tried adding paper filters (chem lab filter paper and coffee filters) in a couple of places in the fuel flow, and they blocked up fast with dirty fuel. The problem was the small area of the filter. You could SEE the dirt on the filter paper. As reported in one of my stove articles, in desperation (late evening, mountains, cold) I took all filters out and have never put them back. The dust is very fine and MOSTLY blows through the jet.

If you want to add a filter which does not block up quickly, you will need an active area of at least 15 mm x 15 mm, plus you would need to be able to disassemble the filter unit to replace the paper quickly in the field. The design would have to guarantee sealing – no leaks, despite reassembly in the dark. Making the filter use the full area of paper is not easy. Complicated, and it would add weight.

Cheers

[Hikin’ Jim]

The Windburner’s burner is a different burner than the Reactor’s.  The Reactor has those Venturi tube intakes.  The Windburner has a fairly normal ported burner (albeit fully enclosed at the top which is atypical).  As I recall, the really high levels of CO occurred when a Reactor was turned down.  I would not expect that behavior from a Windburner burner.

HJ

[Roger Caffin]

Needs close examination and proper testing.

Cheers

[James Marco]

As far as filters go, you really only need filtering for about half the size of the jet. Givin these are around .06 or so, you really want a .03 absolute filter. Smaller particles will pass through the jet and out again. However the major problem is the gunk (semi-solid waxes/oils in the canister.) This will easily plug up everything if you get a bad canister. A GasOne canister did this to me. After cleaning things, it ran fine. Note that you can often heat the bottom of the stove/valve with a lighter and get the gunk to move out. Simpler than cleaning it in the dark.

[Roger Caffin]

Hi James

Um … ???
0.06″ = 1.6 mm I am not aware of ANY canister stoves with jets this big. 0.28 mm (0.011″) is a very common jet size ime.

Yes, the waxes are a problem, and they can pick up dust particles too. But on my remote canister stoves the jet is usually around 80 – 90 C, so that most of the waxes don’t stick too readily. Can happen of course, depending on just what the distillation column left in the fraction. Other stoves may be a bit cooler and more of a problem, especially if they have a preheat tube.

GasOne – my memory is that is a Chinese brand for sure. There is also a ‘Gas One’ in India.

Cheers

[James Marco]

Sizes: Yeah, just making an example, since, I don’t remember the numbers.

[Hikin’ Jim]

The GasOne canisters sold in the US are marked “made in Korea” — at least every one I’ve seen.  They appear to be the standard Taeyang Industrial Co, Ltd. ones with yet another label applied.

HJ

[Author]

Posts