Topic

Lipstick on a Pig? Wind & Cold Temperature Testing of the Jetboil Stash (StoveBench)


Forum Posting

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

Home Forums Campfire Editor’s Roundtable Lipstick on a Pig? Wind & Cold Temperature Testing of the Jetboil Stash (StoveBench)

Viewing 6 posts - 51 through 56 (of 56 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #3713766
    Brett A
    BPL Member

    @bulldogd

    But TheTrek says it’s “The Most Efficient”!  Surely they can’t be wrong???

    https://thetrek.co/the-best-backpacking-stoves-of-2021/

    Okay…

    #3713771
    Michael B
    BPL Member

    @mikebergy

    Is there a reasonable way to visually detect this condition, roger? How would we know?

    would a “Floppy yellow or orange flame on your gas hob, rather than crisp blue” be an easy indicator, or what else. I read this at https://www.gassaferegister.co.uk/help-and-advice/carbon-monoxide-poisoning/

    #3713775
    Roger Caffin
    BPL Member

    @rcaffin

    Locale: Wollemi & Kosciusko NPs, Europe

    The trouble with CO emissions is that they are NOT all that obvious.
    For sure however, “Floppy yellow or orange flame on your gas hob, rather than crisp blue” is a good guide in many cases.

    That gassaferegister web site was (imho) rather good: simple, easy to understand, and to the point.

    A good preventative measure anyone can take is to make sure that the flames from their stove get a good chance to burn completely. Having the pot too close to the flames will ‘quench’ the flame and stop full combustion – and create CO.

    Techie explanation follow:
    When fuel is burnt, the chemistry is complex. The usual first stage is for the fuel molecules to break up. Then the carbon atoms burn to make Carbon Monoxide (CO) – NOT CO2. Then, as the CO molecules go up the flame, they burn with extra oxygen to make CO2. Interrupt the flame (pot too close) and it is ‘quenched’, so that the combustion process is not completed. CO in volume follows.

    This is a problem with more than half of the upright stoves on the market omho: the pot is too close to the burner head so the flame gets quenched. In my series of articles on CO from stoves, I found that i could get big reductions in emitted CO by raising the pot 10 – 15 mm higher than the pot supports. The series starts here:
    https://backpackinglight.com/stoves_tents_carbon_monoxide/

    This is also a reason I don’t like Heat Exchanger pots very much. They seem designed to ‘absorb’ the flames in the fins, which is about the same as quenching the flames. If you look at a new Reactor stove and pot, you will find it covered in CO warnings. I will claim some responsibility for that, due to our testing in the above series. The Reactor can be quite lethal.

    Why do we have these problems? A very biased reply would be ‘ignorance’ by the marketing guys. They seem to think that having the pot really close will get more power and be more resistant to the any wind. One day, in the dim and distant future, stove vendors might be required to provide CO figures for their stoves – from standardised testing. But they will fight against that.

    Cheers

    #3713776
    Michael B
    BPL Member

    @mikebergy

    I wonder if setting the stove-to-pot distance such that it mimics that of a household stove would be a good setting. I realize the stoves burn different fuels, but maybe the home stove manufacturers have had a little more time and regulations to design their products against. Also, sorry for drifting off topic.

    #3713781
    Roger Caffin
    BPL Member

    @rcaffin

    Locale: Wollemi & Kosciusko NPs, Europe

    That is not a bad idea. Home gas stoves are designed generally with lots of small flames, with lots of room around the flames for extra air to get in. Or so it seems to me.

    Cheers

    #3719257
    Philip Tschersich
    BPL Member

    @philip-ak

    Locale: Kodiak Alaska

    I just did a 4-day trip with the Stash in mild, summer coastal Alaskan conditions and it performed fine. Through years of Jetboil Sol Ti use I know my fuel consumption to be about 17-20 g per day, and the Stash consumed about 20 g per day. This surprised me a little because at home it was slightly more efficient (in admittedly very little testing) than the Sol. When it was breezy I just boiled water behind a flap of the vestibule of my shelter.

    I really missed the integrated ignitor on the Sol burner. The weight and size of the Stash are not a game changer relative to the Sol. I have my Sol set up where my burner is always attached to the 100 g canister and these fit in the pot together, so the assembly/disassembly of the Stash was an extra step for each use. The stove seems somewhat like a lateral move at this point. That said, I do like simple canister stove operation and am a fan of JB stuff as it has been reliable for me.

Viewing 6 posts - 51 through 56 (of 56 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...