WhiteBlaze Pages 2024
A Complete Appalachian Trail Guidebook.
AVAILABLE NOW. $4 for interactive PDF(smartphone version)
Read more here WhiteBlaze Pages Store

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 113
  1. #41
    Registered User
    Join Date
    12-28-2015
    Location
    Bad Ischl, Austria
    Age
    66
    Posts
    1,588

    Default

    Sorry - make this 3 blisters, 3 bricks each.

  2. #42
    Registered User
    Join Date
    09-28-2015
    Location
    Spring, Texas
    Age
    69
    Posts
    960

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by colorado_rob View Post
    Do you really need or want a full boil? 197 degrees is darn hot. .........The thing about boiling is the huge amount of energy it takes to actually boil, even water that is at boiling temperature. Google up "heat of vaporization". Lots and lots of Backpacking fuel is wasted bringing water that is already at boiling temps to actual boiling. I can't remember the energy involved, I'll look it up later.
    Your right that 197 is hot enough to cook most things folks eat on the trail but as you can see from the graph it takes the same amount of energy to heat water from 197 to 212 (100 centigrade in the graph) as it does to heat water from 182 to 197. Heat of vaporization is the heat input it takes to turn 212 water into steam at 212 and nobody turns 2 cups of water all into steam on purpose.

    sucSu.jpg
    If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything.

  3. #43

    Default

    You might find this useful. How to boil much faster with Esbit.

    https://sectionhiker.com/how-to-spee...-cube-cooking/

    I personally hate packing the cone (awkward) and don't bother. A small titanium foil screen fits in my pot and works just fine.

  4. #44
    Registered User Just Bill's Avatar
    Join Date
    07-06-2013
    Location
    Chicago, Il
    Age
    45
    Posts
    3,770

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by connolm View Post
    Discussion and Opinions:

    The Esbit setup performed considerably better in this test versus the previous test. A higher final temperature was achieved and a quantifiable "boil" could be observed in the pot (Shrimp eyes). This could be attributed to the wider/lower pot profile (1.75" difference), the use of fresher and larger tabs, or both.

    The butane/BRS3000 achieved a raging boil five minutes faster. The boil was faster/higher as determined by bubble size and water disrpution. This was without wind screen nor calculation of tab/pot distance measurement. The starting water temperature was Lower than with the Esbit tabs.

    The weight difference between the setups (as performed) is 93 grams in favor of the Esbit tabs.

    Subjective considerations:

    The Esbit tabs failed to reach a roaring boil. A roaring boil is an easy to identify marker of temperature and purification. There's no estimation/opinion on a roaring boil.

    The Esbit tabs required significantly more control/optimization than the canister stove. I worry about achieving these wind-free, distance corrected environments in the raw. Whereas the canister stove is a "blunt bat" instrument controlled by the flow valve.

    The age/fidelity of the Esbit tabs appears to be a variable in this experiment as conducted. More study is needed understand this phenomenon.

    I still have concerns about relying on these Tablets in this setup in a stressful field situation. The weight differential does not justify the assumed risk at this level of study.

    Comments and discussion? Please debate!
    As Zelph pointed out... sounds like you were a bit too tight in your spacing.
    Also reminded me of Brian Green and his foil stove I was trying to credit earlier.

    Put the same pot on your houses stove and see how it does. I remember running down this rabbit hole of boil times and then finding that nearly all my jet boils and my gigastove, and even one or two of my raging alchy builds, were faster than a standard burner on my cooking stove. So at some point I think a bit of perspective is in order on boil times... there really are not any scenarios where you NEED a few cups of boiling water in under five minutes. So boil time is a spec that gets a bit over played on the speedy side I think.

    Anywho-

    'We pack our fears' so in this regard what are your fears here? Or what is the objective?
    You mentioned having something on hand that was reasonably light to make a hot drink and a bag meal.

    Raging boils held for a few minutes are indeed the standard for water purification. Is that a need? A fear? Or even a concern?

    If boiling water is your primary source of water purification... I'd argue a filter is lighter and easier.
    If you camp places where that doesn't seem safe enough... I'd argue a filter plus chemical treatment is then ideal.
    If you are concerned about an emergency scenario... I'd argue that at that point a campfire is in order and a better use of your fuel overall.

    But let's go with a worse case possibility... would not two cubes of esbit do the job if a dire need for quick boiling water arrose?
    If you are concerned about elevation... The AT isn't quite a concern there beyond a paper or theoretical one at about 2500' or so average. If you're out west where you may often be well above the highest point, it's something to consider for sure... but as Mags' sagely points out your stove options are quickly approaching canister or white gas- which most of us would advocate for on that type of trip regardless.
    If it's cold enough outside that boiling water (as in melting snow then boiling to purify) is a need... then nobody here is really suggesting Esbit over gas. Though Esbit works okay for me personally as my primary source is wood in winter and the caldera cone is cheap (light) backup and redundancy in safety for winter conditions.
    If it's wind... I think the caldera cone stove addresses that.
    As others mentioned... a good rocking boil is often inefficient for our general needs as backpackers. Who needs coffee or tea so hot it can't be drunk? Especially if you are in hurry for a hot beverage?
    Most meals re hydrate well enough with cold water. The heat is just for our taste preference more than it is needed to cook. The food is cooked already.
    Though very hard to argue that a canister doesn't excel at dumping a bunch of heat easily, quickly, safely, and even with a good amount of control.
    With some skill you can cook a soup or a basic meal in even a jetboil. There is no debate that a canister system has many advantages to offset it's weight.
    It also addresses many concerns, fears, or even inconveniences well.

    Like any choice here... is it 3, 4, 5, 8 , 16 ounces that balance the scales of weight, safety, convenience, practicality? Your call.

    I don't really see it as an either or; but a tool in the toolkit.
    I could make a very good case for a particular esbit rig; A Trail Designs Sidewinder Caldera Cone with a 600ml short fat evernew TI pot.

    That rig wouldn't be ideal for every trip, but it is worth keeping in my gear set for sure. It resolves most of the issues with Esbit as a fuel, comes in a nice compact package, and plays nice with wood use.
    Would I take it to an above treeline trip in the whites or Rockies... probably not. But would I take it to most wooded trails in temps warmer than freezing where fire building is allowed- yes.

    So keep in mind- when arguing for Esbit use. I'm not arguing you pick up a packet and stick any pot on any three rocks , tent stakes, or homemade collection of tin. I'm advocating for an ideal system; as if we are talking 'best vs best' then I think that's what we should discuss.

    If you want to talk any old canister stove you can find vs any old esbit burner... well then you have to really have some good reason to like esbit to talk yourself past the issues with it.
    As a fuel overall it's the least of the options. But in just the right system it can be come the best.
    In real life I wouldn't suggest an Esbit system for a starter system... I'd say go get a jetboil. But I don't think we are talking beginner options, we are talking advanced ones here. Some subtlety and nuance.

    The ideal waterboiler is the jeboil. Hands down. If that's all you want is a quick hot drink and something bubbly to dump into your mylar pouch then we are only talking 8 ounces of savings vs stone cold easy, fast, and nearly perfect.

    If you want to discuss weight (starting, average, dry), pack size, efficiency, and other factors... Then I would try to set yourself up to getting as apples to apples as you can get.
    Really if you're talking perfect solo LD hiking setups:
    Your Jetboil of choice.
    An Olicamp canister setup is a meet in the middle and lightest viable canister rig with several advantages over the jetboil- you can change pots, cook, cook over a fire, and even use the burner to start a fire in a pinch.
    I personally haven't found the alchy rig that could go on this list.
    I would put the Trail Designs Esbit I mentioned on it and feel that the stove (not just the fuel) has a place on the list. Both the stove and the fuel provide complimentary advantages the others don't.

    I like to push the SUL spectrum of things. Some folks think stoveless is a simple solution to the 'cooking and stove thing' but in looking at my own kit as a whole; It's my opinion that an UL stove kit is lighter and safer than the alternatives.
    For example... I can skimp on the clothes and insulation because I have the backup option of a hot drink or meal should I get mildly hypothermic or run into unexpected weather.
    This is lighter and more satisfying that carrying a spare Thermal layer, 100wt fleece, or puffy on a speed hike.

    Most agree, because you carry a bit of water weight in a stoveless food bag you don't quite save as much weight as some think. On paper- you cut out the cook kit- but in your pack it tends to balance out on the whole.

    So even the choice to go stoveless is more subjective than objective. In the end it's ultimately a style choice and there is no clear and monstrous advantage.

    I feel I can get better quality food with the stove... and getting a good moral boost from that hot coffee or meal can be worth it. So can having a tiny little fire.
    Some find the freedom of simply eating foods, grazing/constant snacking fits their style better than I do.
    Some appreciate the freedom of no stove as deeply as I appreciate the tiny dancing flame of my stove.
    Not everyone likes to cook, not everyone enjoys food. Some folks just want to fill their tank as simply as possible and walk on.

    I find that the stove is cheap insurance for other sacrifices in my kit. As mentioned...
    A quick warm drink is one solution to crossing a windblown ridge in bad conditions... but so is slipping on a puffy.
    My ability to build a fire, as well as the opportunity to legally do so affords me options others may not have... including carrying far few tabs than some might feel comfortable with.
    It also means if I really got into trouble on having too light of a sleeping bag or not enough clothes- I have the ability to get myself out of that trouble.

    So for me... a 3-6 ounce cook kit is actually a lighter choice than other weight saving options... and it so happens that kit uses Esbit fuel.
    And I feel it increases my options, comforts, and benefits more so than those other items or alternatives would because of my background, skillset, and trip choices.

    But that doesn't mean you should hit the trail with it. It means you should hit the kitchen, then the backyard, then car camping and eventually if it clears all those hurdles- then trust it in the field.

    In your case- If something wasn't broke... then why search for a solution.
    If you were simply willing to keep an open mind and this maybe a dead end- my kudos to you for exploring it!

    The biggest issue with SUL stuff in general is that it's easy to isolate items and create an issue. Or not discuss potential advantages to the system as a whole when viewing the item in isolation.
    Some look at a long handled TI spoon and think what a stupid waste of weight and space- but when considered against the pot, bag, container, it is used for- suddenly it is a weight gain easily justified.

    Some chucklehead will hear one person advocate leaving a stove home, and me advocate leaving insulation home and do then do both with no thought but 'they can do it, so can I'.
    More conservative folks hear these stories and think going UL is some daredevil's walk on the edge of danger.


    Any of the responsible UL folks out there have carefully considered and balanced the choices within the context of the entire pack's contents, the place they are going, and who they are as a person.
    You will find very few SUL folks who feel they have sacrificed anything. Most will tell you that they have vastly improved the overall experience. Many will tell you it was quite a long time before that happened.

    If you've gone far enough down this esbit trail... no shame in calling it a day.
    Most really have no need to pursue a perfect esbit system, though it fits really well I think with the renewed interest in bushcraft, self-reliance, and other trends going today.
    You could even argue that esbit or alchy forcing you to slow down and enjoy the process of meal prep and consumption is a plus... but that's more Dogwood's thing than me

    If the debate is esbit vs canister- I've made about the cleanest argument I can think of.
    An empty canister simply weighs more than the esbit system I laid out. And starting with weight we could all agree on that simple fact.

    But then it's your job to slot that system into your kit and see if it still makes sense. Or if in favoring the scale you've upset the balance of the rest of your system.

    Also worth keeping in mind that I will slot other systems into my pack as well and I don't consider there to be a magic bullet on this issue.

    If somebody said pick one- for everyone. Jetboil.

    However not even discussed at all was actual cooking with the stoves.
    The cost of prepared meals is quite high, and even speedy folks like myself do like to actually cook food rather than boil water to put into pouches or other containers. So despite cost per boil numbers... other things could be considered. Even the simplicity of keeping tea or coffee warmed over coals vs what that might cost you in cozy weight or stove fuel.

    Of occasionally (or frequently) leaving town with a day or more worth of fresh food and slotting that option in. What works when cooking more traditional foods like real rice, pasta, beans, lentils, or preparing home dried foods that require a slow simmer rather than a bang of boiling water.

    One could discuss the waste of the esbit packaging... one could also debate the waste of the mylar pouch, oxygen absorber, and other packaging used in a boil and eat system. We could discuss how many pounds of trash are generated with a canister and mountain house system vs a dozen or so grams worth of plastic and foil packaging.

    Weight is a good place to start.
    It quickly rules out what is viable and what is not.

    Second is you... if the shoe doesn't fit it's a ****ty shoe no matter how much others like it or don't.
    But you can go very deep into this if you'd like... or you can simply get out and put some fuel in your tank.

    I don't mind either way- just happy to see folks out at all.

  5. #45
    Registered User
    Join Date
    11-01-2014
    Location
    Anchorage, AK
    Age
    62
    Posts
    2,500

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by colorado_rob View Post
    Do you really need or want a full boil? 197 degrees is darn hot. Little buggies in the water die at 160.
    The thing about boiling is the huge amount of energy it takes to actually boil, even water that is at boiling temperature. Google up "heat of vaporization". Lots and lots of Backpacking fuel is wasted bringing water that is already at boiling temps to actual boiling. I can't remember the energy involved, I'll look it up later. . .
    A couple thoughts on this Colorado_Rob.

    1) No, depending on the food you are adding water to, you are absolutely correct. Many foods and drinks rehydrate or otherwise prepare quite well even with cold water. But, actual cooking, like uncooked noodles, for instance, do cook significantly faster with that extra few degrees of heat. Actual cooking time for noodles, for instance, is likely about 1/2 with boiling water as compared to water at only 190 degrees or so (no reference for this, just subjective observation).

    2) Many "bugs" die as 160 degrees as long as you hold the water at that temperature long enough. But, it's easier to bring you water to a rolling boil for a minute than it is to hold you water at 160 degrees for 10 or 15 minutes.

    3) I'm not sure where you are getting your physics from. You've made this claim in the past and it is just patently untrue! Water takes exactly the same energy input to increase by one degree regardless of whether the water is at 33 degrees or 197 degrees. Heat of vaporization has to do with boiling water away, NOT bringing water to a boil. Water at 212 degrees (boiling temperature) takes an infinity SMALL amount of energy to boil as it is already at boiling temperature. It does take a lot of heat to boil the water away (but that it NOT what we are doing).

    Heating with a stove is less efficient as your pot gets hotter and looses heat to the environment faster, but only by a very small amount. Try it yourself. Assuming your stove provides a steady heat input, measure the length of time it takes to get your water from 70 degrees to 120 degrees, then 120 degrees to 170 degrees, then from 170 to a rolling boil, and you will find those time gaps of roughly 50 degree warming are almost exactly the same.

    4) And, one final, and probably confusing point: A "rolling boil" at sea level actually starts at about 197 degrees (at least in my house). Because the bottom of the pot, right at the flame is boiling even though the rest of the water is not that hot yet. So yes, it takes more time and fuel to achieve a "true" rolling boil at 212 degees, that point where your pot completely boils over, that point most of us try to actually avoid. What that means is that most people think that their water has reached "boiling" when they start to see a good heavy bubbling, but they are still barely at 200 degrees and have a fair bit to go to actually get to a full rolling boil at 212 degrees. SO, almost nobody in the backpacking community actually brings their water to a full 212 degrees (especially at altitude where boiling occurs at even lower temperatures). Most of us "boil" our water and turn the heat off at somewhere between 190 and 200 degrees.

    So, in the end, you are absolutely correct. I do think it makes sense not to "boil" water when it doesn't need to be boiling to prepare the particular food we are about to eat (like coffee, hot cocoa, instant oatmeal, freeze-dried food, etc.), most of which we then need to wait for it to cool down anyway. But, if we are actually cooking something or trying to sterilize water by heat, I strongly disagree with the premises quoted above.
    I'm not lost. I'm exploring.

  6. #46
    Registered User colorado_rob's Avatar
    Join Date
    08-20-2012
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Age
    67
    Posts
    4,540
    Images
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nsherry61 View Post
    A couple thoughts on this Colorado_Rob.

    1) No, depending on the food you are adding water to, you are absolutely correct. Many foods and drinks rehydrate or otherwise prepare quite well even with cold water. But, actual cooking, like uncooked noodles, for instance, do cook significantly faster with that extra few degrees of heat. Actual cooking time for noodles, for instance, is likely about 1/2 with boiling water as compared to water at only 190 degrees or so (no reference for this, just subjective observation).

    2) Many "bugs" die as 160 degrees as long as you hold the water at that temperature long enough. But, it's easier to bring you water to a rolling boil for a minute than it is to hold you water at 160 degrees for 10 or 15 minutes.

    3) I'm not sure where you are getting your physics from. You've made this claim in the past and it is just patently untrue! Water takes exactly the same energy input to increase by one degree regardless of whether the water is at 33 degrees or 197 degrees. Heat of vaporization has to do with boiling water away, NOT bringing water to a boil. Water at 212 degrees (boiling temperature) takes an infinity SMALL amount of energy to boil as it is already at boiling temperature. It does take a lot of heat to boil the water away (but that it NOT what we are doing).
    .
    I wasn't making myself at all clear, I worded something poorly.... What I was getting at is the very large amount of heat it takes water at 212 that is in liquid form to get to gaseous form, and despite our efforts, some of you water will get to gaseous form. As I'm sure you know, 1 Kcal will raise one KG (liter) of water 1 degree C, like you said, at any temperature, but it takes 540 KCAL per KG to convert water at 212 to gas. So, what I meant was that when folks fully boil water, the top layer of the water in the pot is evaporating, converting to gas, and sucking lots and lots of energy from the system. There is no way to avoid this entirely, and the closer you get to a full roiling boil the more energy is wasted "boiling off" (AKA evaporating) that top layer of water.

    And I agree, you definitely want hotter water for cooking, though I really don't think there is as much difference between 190 and 212, for example, as you say. We routinely backpack at higher altitudes where the boiling temps are maybe around 185-190, the hottest water we can possibly get, and we also BP a lot out east with boiling temps approaching or at 212, and I tell you, we really don't notice tha huge a difference in "cooking" time.

    In our case, by "cooking" I mean rehydration of our freeze dried foods. We simply let it sit a tad longer when at altitude. If it's in an insulated cozy, it still stays hot. So, for example, heating our water to 190 in CO, the best we can do, we cook a meal for 13-15 minutes, vs the sea-level directions of "10 minutes". We can simply do that same thing at sea level, only heating our water to 190, even though we can do better there, and cooking, again, for the 13-15 vs. 10 minutes. And thus, we save fuel, what I think is a significant amount. Not earth-shattering, but not insignificant.

    Years ago when I was getting more into fuel efficiency I measured temperature vs. time for a jetboil. I need to repeat that little experiment. I found that even though the heat input was essentially constant (on the stove), the temperature increase slowed when approaching boiling, meaning more and more energy was being lost to "heat of vaporization". Even with a lid on. Try this sometime.

    So in context with this Esbit discussion, I was merely suggesting cutting off the heat at 190-200 or so degrees, hence why I said "197 was darned hot", certainly hot enough both for cooking, killing buggies and drinking hot beverages. It will take water at 197 long enough to cool down to 160 to kill of your bugs, unless it's darned cool outside. I believe it only takes a few minutes at 160 to kill bugs, not 10-15. Someone check this. In our case, this matters not as we generally use treated water even for cooking, though sometimes we don't. When we don't, I tend to let the water heat up a bit more.

    But of course, the rub is: when do you know when your water is at 195-200 or so? Only at first by carrying a little thermometer. Who wants to do that? But you can experiment at home WITH a thermometer and get a really good feel for what 190-200 is in terms of "boilage" in your pot.

  7. #47
    Registered User
    Join Date
    12-28-2015
    Location
    Bad Ischl, Austria
    Age
    66
    Posts
    1,588

    Default

    Agreeing with all you said, nsherry.
    The only thing I really need boiling water is (black) tea, which doesn't taste well when prepared with just hot water.

    On several of my long trips going to the Middle East deserts in the past I've used a car gas stove, but I never did, and never could imagine to, boil all my drinking water. This would have been 5-6 liters of water per day just for drinking, add in a few liters for cooking - boiling every drop of it would mean boiling water for the better part of the day. Working for hours to boil, plus waiting for some more hours to let it cool down. Impractical, and in reality I've never heard or seen somebody doing it.
    We used a chemical called Micropure (silver-iones) sometimes.

  8. #48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by colorado_rob View Post
    I wasn't making myself at all clear, I worded something poorly.... What I was getting at is the very large amount of heat it takes water at 212 that is in liquid form to get to gaseous form, and despite our efforts, some of you water will get to gaseous form. As I'm sure you know, 1 Kcal will raise one KG (liter) of water 1 degree C, like you said, at any temperature, but it takes 540 KCAL per KG to convert water at 212 to gas. So, what I meant was that when folks fully boil water, the top layer of the water in the pot is evaporating, converting to gas, and sucking lots and lots of energy from the system. There is no way to avoid this entirely, and the closer you get to a full roiling boil the more energy is wasted "boiling off" (AKA evaporating) that top layer of water.

    And I agree, you definitely want hotter water for cooking, though I really don't think there is as much difference between 190 and 212, for example, as you say. We routinely backpack at higher altitudes where the boiling temps are maybe around 185-190, the hottest water we can possibly get, and we also BP a lot out east with boiling temps approaching or at 212, and I tell you, we really don't notice tha huge a difference in "cooking" time.

    In our case, by "cooking" I mean rehydration of our freeze dried foods. We simply let it sit a tad longer when at altitude. If it's in an insulated cozy, it still stays hot. So, for example, heating our water to 190 in CO, the best we can do, we cook a meal for 13-15 minutes, vs the sea-level directions of "10 minutes". We can simply do that same thing at sea level, only heating our water to 190, even though we can do better there, and cooking, again, for the 13-15 vs. 10 minutes. And thus, we save fuel, what I think is a significant amount. Not earth-shattering, but not insignificant.

    Years ago when I was getting more into fuel efficiency I measured temperature vs. time for a jetboil. I need to repeat that little experiment. I found that even though the heat input was essentially constant (on the stove), the temperature increase slowed when approaching boiling, meaning more and more energy was being lost to "heat of vaporization". Even with a lid on. Try this sometime.

    So in context with this Esbit discussion, I was merely suggesting cutting off the heat at 190-200 or so degrees, hence why I said "197 was darned hot", certainly hot enough both for cooking, killing buggies and drinking hot beverages. It will take water at 197 long enough to cool down to 160 to kill of your bugs, unless it's darned cool outside. I believe it only takes a few minutes at 160 to kill bugs, not 10-15. Someone check this. In our case, this matters not as we generally use treated water even for cooking, though sometimes we don't. When we don't, I tend to let the water heat up a bit more.

    But of course, the rub is: when do you know when your water is at 195-200 or so? Only at first by carrying a little thermometer. Who wants to do that? But you can experiment at home WITH a thermometer and get a really good feel for what 190-200 is in terms of "boilage" in your pot.
    I think the term is “Latent heat of vaporization” if I recall correctly, the key being Latent, one that can’t be measured...but I knew what ya meant, and your right.

  9. #49
    Registered User 4eyedbuzzard's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-02-2007
    Location
    DFW, TX / Northern NH
    Age
    67
    Posts
    8,143
    Images
    27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rocketsocks View Post
    I think the term is “Latent heat of vaporization” if I recall correctly, the key being Latent, one that can’t be measured...but I knew what ya meant, and your right.
    More accurately, it can't be directly measured using only a thermometer. The word "latent" is used because the energy is "hidden" from a temperature measuring instrument in the phase state change at the same temperature.

  10. #50
    Registered User Kaptainkriz's Avatar
    Join Date
    06-28-2015
    Location
    Leonardtown, Maryland
    Age
    55
    Posts
    650
    Journal Entries
    57
    Images
    19

    Default

    Interesting phenomena...maybe mine just have not seen the right conditions yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by Leo L. View Post
    Just tried to light one of the soaked pieces, it only started to smolder after heating it with the flamethrower.
    Maybe the blister-sealed Esbit is of slightly different material?
    Plaid is fast! Ticks suck, literally... It’s ok, bologna hoses off…
    Follow my hiking adventures: https://www.youtube.com/user/KrizAkoni
    Follow me on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/alphagalhikes/

  11. #51
    Registered User
    Join Date
    09-28-2015
    Location
    Spring, Texas
    Age
    69
    Posts
    960

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by colorado_rob View Post
    ..........But of course, the rub is: when do you know when your water is at 195-200 or so? Only at first by carrying a little thermometer. Who wants to do that? But you can experiment at home WITH a thermometer and get a really good feel for what 190-200 is in terms of "boilage" in your pot.
    Here is a link that gives some visual clues to the actual temperature of water in your pot. Probably different on top of a mountain in Colorado but likely to work well enough on the AT.

    https://teamasters.org/five-stages-o...ter-to-a-boil/
    If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything.

  12. #52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 4eyedbuzzard View Post
    More accurately, it can't be directly measured using only a thermometer. The word "latent" is used because the energy is "hidden" from a temperature measuring instrument in the phase state change at the same temperature.
    ’ere ya go!

  13. #53
    Registered User
    Join Date
    06-12-2006
    Location
    northern illinois
    Posts
    4,532
    Images
    2

    Default

    Select Language​▼Five Stages of Bringing Water to a BoilKettle BoilingIn case you lose your thermometer while brewing tea, you can rely on these five stages of bringing water to a boil.
    1) Small Pinhead Bubbles (Shrimp Eyes)The point where you first start seeing bubbles in the water. This mean that the water is around 155–165oF, making it perfect for delicate green teas.

    2) Large Pinhead Bubbles (Crab Eyes)These are slightly larger bubbles. The important thing to note is that small wisps of steam will start to rise from the hot water. The temperature is roughly 165–175oF.

    3) Small Pearls (Fish Eyes)In this stage, the water bubbles will be the size of small pearls. The rising steam will be stronger. This water is roughly 175–185oF.

    4) Streaming Pearls (String of Pearls)This water is around 185–200oF. The bubbles should be streaming to the top and it should almost be boiling.

    5) Raging Torrent (Dragon Eyes)This water looks like rapids in a raging river. It is bubbling violently with swirling and rolling bubbles. The temperature is 200–212oF, which is the boiling point of water..by Certified Tea Master Chas Kroll

  14. #54
    Registered User colorado_rob's Avatar
    Join Date
    08-20-2012
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Age
    67
    Posts
    4,540
    Images
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zelph View Post
    Select Language​▼Five Stages of Bringing Water to a BoilKettle BoilingIn case you lose your thermometer while brewing tea, you can rely on these five stages of bringing water to a boil.
    1) Small Pinhead Bubbles (Shrimp Eyes)The point where you first start seeing bubbles in the water. This mean that the water is around 155–165oF, making it perfect for delicate green teas.

    2) Large Pinhead Bubbles (Crab Eyes)These are slightly larger bubbles. The important thing to note is that small wisps of steam will start to rise from the hot water. The temperature is roughly 165–175oF.

    3) Small Pearls (Fish Eyes)In this stage, the water bubbles will be the size of small pearls. The rising steam will be stronger. This water is roughly 175–185oF.

    4) Streaming Pearls (String of Pearls)This water is around 185–200oF. The bubbles should be streaming to the top and it should almost be boiling.

    5) Raging Torrent (Dragon Eyes)This water looks like rapids in a raging river. It is bubbling violently with swirling and rolling bubbles. The temperature is 200–212oF, which is the boiling point of water..by Certified Tea Master Chas Kroll
    Quote Originally Posted by TexasBob View Post
    Here is a link that gives some visual clues to the actual temperature of water in your pot. Probably different on top of a mountain in Colorado but likely to work well enough on the AT.

    https://teamasters.org/five-stages-o...ter-to-a-boil/
    That is all excellent info zelph and Texas. Perhaps some will back off a bit on their rolling-boils and save some fuel, or realize that perhaps Esbits work well enough getting water to almost 200F. But of course, CYOF !

  15. #55
    Registered User
    Join Date
    08-08-2012
    Location
    Taghkanic, New York, United States
    Posts
    3,198
    Journal Entries
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zelph View Post
    Select Language​▼Five Stages of Bringing Water to a BoilKettle BoilingIn case you lose your thermometer while brewing tea, you can rely on these five stages of bringing water to a boil.
    1) Small Pinhead Bubbles (Shrimp Eyes)The point where you first start seeing bubbles in the water. This mean that the water is around 155–165oF, making it perfect for delicate green teas.

    2) Large Pinhead Bubbles (Crab Eyes)These are slightly larger bubbles. The important thing to note is that small wisps of steam will start to rise from the hot water. The temperature is roughly 165–175oF.

    3) Small Pearls (Fish Eyes)In this stage, the water bubbles will be the size of small pearls. The rising steam will be stronger. This water is roughly 175–185oF.

    4) Streaming Pearls (String of Pearls)This water is around 185–200oF. The bubbles should be streaming to the top and it should almost be boiling.

    5) Raging Torrent (Dragon Eyes)This water looks like rapids in a raging river. It is bubbling violently with swirling and rolling bubbles. The temperature is 200–212oF, which is the boiling point of water..by Certified Tea Master Chas Kroll
    Interesting, and brings up the thought those bubbles which are on the bottom would serve to insulate the water from the heat, reducing heat transfer. One can see this effect with a fry pay at home. Once the pot gets very hot a water drop will dance on it and takes a comparatively long time to boil away compared to a somewhat lower temperature just below the 'dancing droplet' temperature.

  16. #56

    Default

    I enjoy tinkering with gear. I also believe in testing my gear at home before I head into the woods. Hence my studies above with boiling. I'm grateful for all the opinions and information in this thread.

    Some of my opinions from the discussion:

    I don't carry a thermometer. I'm not comfortable guessing. My indicator that water is hot is when it boils.

    I have no science to support this - but certainly have experienced it... Boiling water is less likely to result in a crunchy MountainHouse meal than 160F water.

    I continually seek ways to lighten my pack. The Esbit concept appealed to me. Butane canisters are heavier and bulkier. I bought the Esbit Wing stove and some tablets to try it out at home. I was never able to get water to boil. As a result, I was unconvinced I could get it to work on the trail. I still carry either my BRS3000 or my Trangia alcohol stove.

    Thanks for the suggestion to try a wider pot and fresher tablets. That helped me achieve my first ever boil with Esbit!

    The pointers about pot height are appreciated too! It bums me out the an Esbit branded stove has a non-optimal pot height on the wings.

    I'm not yet safely convinced this setup will work for me on the trail. I will continue to tinker and learn. I'm hoping my confidence will grow.

    Since I don't entirely trust this setup yet, I'm quite unlikely to spend $90 on a commercial setup. (The next comment will surely be that if I spend the $90, the system will work...)

    Sent from my VS990 using Tapatalk

  17. #57
    Registered User Just Bill's Avatar
    Join Date
    07-06-2013
    Location
    Chicago, Il
    Age
    45
    Posts
    3,770

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Starchild View Post
    Interesting, and brings up the thought those bubbles which are on the bottom would serve to insulate the water from the heat, reducing heat transfer. One can see this effect with a fry pay at home. Once the pot gets very hot a water drop will dance on it and takes a comparatively long time to boil away compared to a somewhat lower temperature just below the 'dancing droplet' temperature.
    I think the real question remaining....
    Is it more efficient to stir the pot, or let it stand?

  18. #58
    Registered User Just Bill's Avatar
    Join Date
    07-06-2013
    Location
    Chicago, Il
    Age
    45
    Posts
    3,770

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by connolm View Post
    I enjoy tinkering with gear. I also believe in testing my gear at home before I head into the woods. Hence my studies above with boiling. I'm grateful for all the opinions and information in this thread.

    Some of my opinions from the discussion:

    I don't carry a thermometer. I'm not comfortable guessing. My indicator that water is hot is when it boils.

    I have no science to support this - but certainly have experienced it... Boiling water is less likely to result in a crunchy MountainHouse meal than 160F water.

    I continually seek ways to lighten my pack. The Esbit concept appealed to me. Butane canisters are heavier and bulkier. I bought the Esbit Wing stove and some tablets to try it out at home. I was never able to get water to boil. As a result, I was unconvinced I could get it to work on the trail. I still carry either my BRS3000 or my Trangia alcohol stove.

    Thanks for the suggestion to try a wider pot and fresher tablets. That helped me achieve my first ever boil with Esbit!

    The pointers about pot height are appreciated too! It bums me out the an Esbit branded stove has a non-optimal pot height on the wings.

    I'm not yet safely convinced this setup will work for me on the trail. I will continue to tinker and learn. I'm hoping my confidence will grow.

    Since I don't entirely trust this setup yet, I'm quite unlikely to spend $90 on a commercial setup. (The next comment will surely be that if I spend the $90, the system will work...)

    Sent from my VS990 using Tapatalk
    $90 will not guarantee it will work, but if you're still up for experimentation then perhaps the BGET Zelph posted earlier is a decent 10-15 dollar proposition.
    The remaining funds should be split between you and I as I guarantee that will make my local brewer and my tummy happy.

    With your tinkering preferences and others experiences... I'd imagine with a decent burner, a homemade windscreen/pot stand combo would produce an acceptable esbit rig to continue playing with.
    If I recall there were some folks putting that BGET stove into the Wing stove with some success (basically altering the tray height slightly.) From there you can use whatever windscreen you like or have on hand.

    As a worst case... I think you could get a fair weather/summer Esbit rig together for short weekends where lugging the canister for a meal or two doesn't make sense.
    That was how I played with Alchy before I gave it up.

    Kudos again for being willing to try stuff with an open mind.

  19. #59
    Registered User
    Join Date
    08-08-2012
    Location
    Taghkanic, New York, United States
    Posts
    3,198
    Journal Entries
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Just Bill View Post
    I think the real question remaining....
    Is it more efficient to stir the pot, or let it stand?
    More efficient for the tired hiker that would be let it stand. But yes I believe storing would be faster however taking off the cover to stir would slow it down. Also think that may be a advantage of heated walls with flames coming over the sides as bubbles on the sides travel up sooner.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  20. #60
    Registered User Venchka's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-20-2013
    Location
    Roaring Gap, NC
    Age
    78
    Posts
    8,529

    Default

    A curious Geezer wants to know:
    What happens if you use a JetBoil pot over a burning Esbit cube?
    Wayne
    Eddie Valiant: "That lame-brain freeway idea could only be cooked up by a toon."
    https://wayne-ayearwithbigfootandbubba.blogspot.com
    FlickrMyBookTwitSpaceFace



Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
++ New Posts ++

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •