Fire Maple Petrel Ultralight Pot

Thanks Brad, these seem like common complaints for the BRS.

Every time I think about picking up a BRS, its a hard sell:

BRS (0.9 oz/janky)->Stash Ti stove (2oz, semi-janky: quality good, cold/wind not)->PRD/Soto (3oz, solid)

Interested in the details of your windscreen when it’s ready.  Here’s my DIY wind shield you might find interesting:  10g, pretty quick set up, stores in pot.  Its cheap and easy to make from common materials.  A couple years in, I’m happy with it.  Only change I made was to solder the copper arms together where they wrap over the stove’s arms, so they can’t work loose

Issues withthe BRS 3000t

If it works, it works,  There were some start and batch quality issues, but when it works, it works (in calm conditions).

Of course, it is sensative to the wind, that is well demonstrated.

What isn’t commonly reported are thermal issues and in reality few people will experience this. The BRS tends to work fine if your boiling 2 cups of water.  When heating large volumes of water, the valve body gets quite hot to the point where you cannot comfortably put your fingers on it.  This has to do with the extremely short body length, the burner to canister distance as well as not having a large thermal break between the burner and the canister threads.  Probably a really bad stove for snow melting.

An additional thermal issues are long simmering/baking times.  When run for a long period of time (+30 minutes) at a low level, the stove body also gets extremely hot.  My 2 cents.

Thanks, Jon.

Without a screen, it’s pretty sad.  Below from Gear skeptic.  The Stash+PRD uses 60% the fuel at just 1mph and less than half at 2 mph

Some differences from Jon’s results, not sure why:

There are some set up differences between My results and Gearskeptics

1)      I use a wind tunnel that draws smoothly across the cooking system, and he uses a fan which has some vortices.

2)      I heat water up to a boils and he doesn’t

But at the end of the day, the results are pretty comparable.  I’ve gone through the math to system fuel efficiencies and scaled the results to compare and they are within a few percent of each other.

David, here’s the little Ti foil “tube windscreen” I made for the BRS. It’s a 17mm tall tube that sticks 13mm above the burner head. Weigh’s 0.2g’s. I ran a couple boils with it this afternoon using the Petrel G3 pot.

No Wind & Without Windscreen:

BRS using the Fire Maple G3 Pot (sitting in the slots) on Low setting brought 500ML of water to a boil (5,010′ elev / 61*F H2O / 72*F Air Temp) in 7:30 @ 4.7 g fuel used.

5 MPH Wind With Windscreen:

BRS using the Fire Maple G3 Pot (sitting in the slots) on High setting brought 500ML of water to a boil (5,010′ elev / 61*F H2O / 72*F Air Temp) in 9:00 @ 15.6 g fuel used.

I could definitely smell unburned fuel with the wind test lol. So while it allowed the BRS to remain lit in a 5mph wind, I wouldn’t consider it a very successful design. Perhaps a few holes in the Ti down low on the tube would help.

I should probably run the BRS with the windscreen on low, without any wind, and see how it compares to the no windscreen / no wind test which burned 4.7g’s fuel. It would indicate how much fuel is wasted by an inefficient burn from the screen design.

The BRS w/ windscreen tube and the G3 pot bested Jon’s Ocelot Mini / Toaks 95 test by 1g (not an apples-apples test obviously as the G3 is an HX pot). Not earth shattering, and probably within the margin of error. But again, Jon’s tests are more accurate being essentially “lab” conditions. As he rightly points out, using a fan like I do creates vortices. But, it’s close enough for hand grenades I suppose. Either way, it confirms why I consider the BRS “Janky” lol.

It’s the other way around: The G2 is 750 ml, 126 mm diameter, and 184 g.

G3 is 600 ml, 102 mm diameter, and 162 g.

Edit: This was in reply to Matt’s post.

I could definitely smell unburned fuel with the wind test lol

LOL.  Maybe flame quenching?  Was the flame red instead of blue?  How many times did the house CO detector go ballistic?  :)   0.2g would be sweet but I’ve never seen a commercial stove do this (scratches head)

I didn’t slot my Stash for the PRD because Jet Boil’s design with the Ti stove already creates a larger gap.  Only thing I could think of was to minimize flame quenching

https://backpackinglight.com/forums/topic/brs-3000t-vs-msr-pocket-rocket-deluxe/#post-3794301

LOL. Maybe flame quenching? Was the flame red instead of blue? How many times did the house CO detector go ballistic? :) 0.2g would be sweet but I’ve never seen a commercial stove do this (scratches head)

Morning David. I think the Ti tube is tight enough around the base of the BRS burner head that it’s not able to”suck” air from underneath, hence incomplete combustion. Or maybe part of the reason :) No doubt containing the flame to make it a torch is cutting down on O2. Flame is approx 80% blue-green, with about 20% orange streak in it. I may try those little holes in the bottom that I mentioned above. No CO alarm – Montana – “home of the free, land of the brave” lol.

I didn’t slot my Stash for the PRD because Jet Boil’s design with the Ti stove already creates a larger gap. Only thing I could think of was to minimize flame quenching

I did notice on the thread you linked you’re measuring from the bottom of the pot to the top lip of the PRDLX windscreen. The burner head starts at the outer edge another 4mm deeper. So your measurement of 24mm is actually 28mm to the burner head.

I went through this same exercise converting a Sterno Inferno pot to an MSR PRDLX. With my Jetboil SOL’s, both Aluminum and Titanium, the outer edge of the burner head is 24mm from the bottom of their respective pots. I cut slots in the Sterno Inferno to where the inside burner edge of the PRDLX is 22mm from the pot bottom, and the Soto WM is 21mm from the pot bottom. I initially cut for the PRDLX to be exactly 24mm, but ultimately went 2mm deeper. It just got the burner head a little more nestled into the HX structure, and I felt wouldn’t hurt performance (in testing fuel usage remained the same). I liked that the HX carriage possibly hid the burner head slightly more from breezes when not employing a windscreen.

The windscreen I made for the PRDLX and Sterno Inferno Pot is a Snow Peak Ti Bowl cut down to 34mm tall. I made one of these 20 years ago for the Snow Peak Giga stove. It worked so well I used it for the PRDLX and Inferno Pot. The Windscreen weighs exactly 1.0 oz (28.30 g).

I etched a little arrow –> in the bottom of the windscreen that points to the stove control valve. The windscreen is cut exactly to fit the arms this way. The Inferno Pot Slots are also cut so that the Pot Handle lines up with the Stove Control Valve. That way, there’s no fiddling around in the field guessing how it sits. It becomes easy and automatic.

The Pot with JetBoil Lid and homemade Cozy weighs 5.17 oz’s. I could ditch the Cozy and loose approx 0.35 oz’s, but I kind of like it lol. The Pot capacity is 650 ML. The Jetboil lid fits nice and snug and allows me to use the pot as a coffee mug. I also have a Dutchware aluminum lid for the pot that is 0.10 oz lighter, but it is loose and doesn’t allow coffee sipping. The Jetboil lid is perfect.

No Wind & Without Windscreen:

PRDLX using the Sterno Inferno Pot (sitting in the slots) on Low setting brought 500ML of water to a boil (5,010′ elev / 61*F H2O / 72*F Air Temp) in 4:45 @ 5.7 g fuel used.

5 MPH Wind Without Windscreen:

PRDLX using the Sterno Inferno Pot (sitting in the slots) on High setting brought 500ML of water to a boil (5,010′ elev / 61*F H2O / 72*F Air Temp) in 4:10 @ 13.8 g fuel used.

5 MPH Wind With Windscreen:

PRDLX using the Sterno Inferno Pot (sitting in the slots) on Low setting brought 500ML of water to a boil (5,010′ elev / 61*F H2O / 72*F Air Temp) in 2:30 @ 8:4 g fuel used.

In the 5 mph wind, the windscreen improved both boil time (1:40) and fuel consumption (5.4 g).

The PRDLX and this particular HX pot are exactly on par with the results I’ve gotten with both the Soto and PRDLX and the Petrel G3 pot – 5.7 g fuel to boil 500ml H2O is pretty much standard in my testing. As has often been said, a smaller burner head will work better with a smaller diameter pot. But 5.7 g’s to boil 500ml is a very good result.

Another question I have no answer for is how do the number of HX pot bottom fins influence fuel and time efficiency?

The Sterno Inferno has 28 Fins

The Petrel G3 has 30 Fins

The Jetboil Ti has 42 Fins

The Jetboil Sol Ti (and Al) consistently bests the other two pots with either the Soto WM or MSR PRDLX by approx 1 g fuel to boil 500 ml H20. And is quicker.

Fun and Games :)

HX Fins and shrouding. I think that there are several variables here as not all HX pots are the same. The G2 has a higher number of fins than the G3 and the efficiency seems to be slightly better. The best HX pot that I have tested so far is the Sterno Inferno. Note: the Petrel series seem to have to shortest fin lengths. I found that the Sterno Inferno has the best fuel efficiency of all of the HX pot that I have. The fins are longer and I believe that helps to manage the exhaust airflow by preventing the gases from flowing below the fins. Also, I suspect that the exhaust ports on the HX shroud provide better exhaust air routes and better ambient wind blockage. IMO, the petrel is the least fuel efficient HX pot, the biggest advantage is that the slots allow you to set the burner to pot bottom to the manufacture’s design center. My 2 cents.

Jon, look what you’ve reduced me to – I’m sitting here measuring fin heights lol:

Sterno Inferno = 10.5 mm tall (28 Fins)

FM Petrel G3 = 11.5 mm tall (30 Fins)

FM Quick Boil Pro = 11.5 mm tall (30 Fins)

JB Sol Ti = 12 mm tall (42 Fins)

The only difference I can see with the Sterno Inferno fins is that they are definitely and noticeably wider (fatter) at the top and bottom where they loop. They are however, not taller.

As you point out, the carriage of the Inferno is different – much more like the actual Jetboil.

Of course the G3 has that bottom piece of metal that attaches to all the fin bottoms which must be hindering efficiency. My modified Quick Boil Pro lacks that attachment (see photo).

I need to do some comparisons between the G3 and modified QB… but I do plan cutting side slots in the QB pot for the PRDLX burner head to sit 22mm off the pot bottom. It’s currently just set up for the BRS.

Also, loot at the distance between the fin and the exhaust port (gap).  If I recall right, my WideSea and Fire Maple FMC-XK6 1L  were more fuel efficeint than the Petrel (with the Burner to Pot bottom set to the manufacture’s specs).

Ah.  Ok .  I had to take a picture to remind myself of what I was thinking about: so here is the picture.  From my casual observation, a good amount of the HX fins on the Petrel pot look to be blocked a bit by the narrow exhaust ports.   It would seem to me that lowering the shround would open up that area allowing for better flow across the fins.  On the Sterno Infero, you can at least see the tips of the HX fins.  I think that is what I meant to say orginally.  My bad.

From my casual observation, a good amount of the HX fins on the Petrel pot look to be blocked a bit by the narrow exhaust ports. It would seem to me that lowering the shround would open up that area allowing for better flow across the fins. On the Sterno Infero, you can at least see the tips of the HX fins. I think that is what I meant to say orginally. My bad.

No bad at all – totally understand. My memory is often deficient. You’re such a good communicator of ideas and facts I had to triple check my measurements lol.

Indeed, the G3 shroud is tight. Not at all like the Inferno.

IMO, the Petrel shroud could move down about 0.2″ or so for better exhaust airflow.  That being said, it could drop the wind resistance a bit.  I did try to move the shroud down, but ruined a pot..  Additionally, I believe that some of the fins actually contact the shroud and that would transfer heat the the shroud away from the pot.  My 2 cents

Or with the Ramen pot, bend the shroud down a little.

So your measurement of 24mm is actually 28mm to the burner head

Ooh, good catch!  One eyeball on the Dremel again

I remember your experiments, neat stuff.  My solution was caffeine pills lol  :)

I don’t have a Sterno Inferno, but it looks like the shroud makes a taller wind block than other pots?

I don’t have a Sterno Inferno, but it looks like the shroud makes a taller wind block than other pots?

Hi David. In the above test with and without the windscreen I’m pretty doubtful the shroud on the Sterno Inferno helped with the wind (and it’s quite possible it may make it worse – dunno. Wind, like water, does weird things). Only way to know would be to cut off the shroud and run the test, but that would ruin the Inferno which are scarce as hens teeth!

Additionally, I believe that some of the fins actually contact the shroud and that would transfer heat the the shroud away from the pot.

Hi Jon, yes – I mentioned that in one of my posts further back – I believe you’re correct.  On my G3 that bottom metal piece is absolutely contacting the fins. I believe it is probably leaching energy, especially in wind.

Of course the G3 has that bottom piece of metal that attaches to all the fin bottoms which must be hindering efficiency. My modified Quick Boil Pro lacks that attachment

The Soto TriFlex does fit the Camping Moon. Fitting it to the Ramen pot, it’s a fin or two off. The arms aren’t equal distance. It can work, but it’s a bit of a hassle to position it correctly. It may be easier on a narrow pot.

The CM has good specs. It may last a long time. Build quality, I’d say, just get a Soto. You can trust it. I’ve had stoves fail and there’s nothing heavier than carrying out a piece of junk and unspent fuel.

Side note re the Sterno Inferno/PRDLX – I tracked water boiled/fuel used on a three day trip September before last.

I boiled a lot of water for various breakfasts, lunches, dinners, and mug-ups. In other words ,it wasn’t a thru hike doing one, or at most two, boils per day.

All cooking was done in an alpine setting above 9,500′. Fuel usage, with windscreen, was 6.25 g per 500ML for the entire trip.

I think for real world conditions, where H2O temps in high mountain streams are cold, that’s a good outcome, and about as good as one can expect from a non-Jetboil stove.

But I had a windscreen :D