Article: Canister stove/fuel FAQ

[tlbj6142]

the Snowpeak stuff last longer than the MSR stuff, and both vastly outperform the blue stuff.

From the quote I just added, it seems as though Snowpeak has the greatest amount of iso-butane. What brand is the "blue stuff"? I though European Camp Gaz was in blue containers, but that stuff won't work on your PR.

[SGT Rock]

I had me one of those blue stoves when I was in Germany about 20 years ago. I hated it. If I remember it was an all butane canister.

[chris]

I can't remember the brand name of the blue stuff, but I think it is mostly butane. The ladies I finished up the GDT with were using it. I had a new MSR canister, they had a new blue one. At the end, mine had a ton of fuel left. Theirs was empty. We ate the same quantity of food (me twice as much as each of them), and I boiled up some additional tea. We had different models of stoves, but that shouldn't make too much of a difference.

In terms of recycling canisters, you can take them to a lot of outdoor stores in major towns to get them recycled. However, this is always a bit uncertain. The REI in Tacoma or the MEC in Calgary will recycle them. But, the climbing store in Jasper won't. My suspicion is that several of the early on outfitters would recycle them for you, but I have nothing to base this on other than their overall quality.

[Oracle]

Thanks for this FAQ, folks. This has definitely made me rethink canister stoves, I had completely written them off before in favor of alcohol stoves. Definitely something to look at with fresh eyes.

[NICKTHEGREEK]

This is the very best link that I have come across concerning canister stove fuel. http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-...stove_faq.html

[NICKTHEGREEK]

I can't remember the brand name of the blue stuff, but I think it is mostly butane. The ladies I finished up the GDT with were using it. I had a new MSR canister, they had a new blue one. At the end, mine had a ton of fuel left. Theirs was empty. We ate the same quantity of food (me twice as much as each of them), and I boiled up some additional tea. We had different models of stoves, but that shouldn't make too much of a difference.

Not so, a 10,000 BTU stove will use more fuel than an 8,000 BTU. The efficiency of the cooking pot and numerous other factors skew the results. The blue stuff (Gaz) is 80% Butane 20% propane, and works very well at summertime temps.

[chris]

Not so, a 10,000 BTU stove will use more fuel than an 8,000 BTU. The efficiency of the cooking pot and numerous other factors skew the results. The blue stuff (Gaz) is 80% Butane 20% propane, and works very well at summertime temps.

What part is not so? That using different models of stoves doesn't matter much? I'll agree that factors other than fuel brand will affect efficiency, but I doubt it would be the extent that I saw it.

I'm a little unsure why an 8000 BTU stove will use less fuel to heat a fixed volume of water to a fixed temperature than a 10,000 BTU stove will. Perhaps you could explain this? After all, it seems like it would logically follow that a 6000 BTU stove will be more efficient than a 8000 BTU stove. And this would imply...

[Oracle]

I'm a little unsure why an 8000 BTU stove will use less fuel to heat a fixed volume of water to a fixed temperature than a 10,000 BTU stove will.

It shouldn't, the 10,000 BTU unit would probably only do it faster. It would depend on the efficiency of the stove/pot/windscreen cover, as was mentioned. I'd bet that something like the Jetboil would be more efficient than the standard hiker setup.

[NICKTHEGREEK]

It shouldn't, the 10,000 BTU unit would probably only do it faster. It would depend on the efficiency of the stove/pot/windscreen cover, as was mentioned. I'd bet that something like the Jetboil would be more efficient than the standard hiker setup.

All I said was that a 10k BTU stove uses more gas than an 8 kBTU stove. If one were to assume 100% efficiency (never happen) and all other things being equal both stoves would use the same amout of fuel to bring an equal volume of liquid to a boil. The 10k would do it faster. You are absolutely right that a high efficiency rig like a jetboil is the ticket to lower fuel consumption.

[SGT Rock]

All I said was that a 10k BTU stove uses more gas than an 8 kBTU stove. If one were to assume 100% efficiency (never happen) and all other things being equal both stoves would use the same amout of fuel to bring an equal volume of liquid to a boil. The 10k would do it faster. You are absolutely right that a high efficiency rig like a jetboil is the ticket to lower fuel consumption.

It does have a lower fuel consumption at the trade off of a higher weight. IMO the test is not total efficiency, but weight efficiency. So adding 6-7 ounces of weight may save you 0.16 ounces of fuel, but what is the point of that. You could get similar fuel savings from a canister by boiling your water slower without adding extra weight.

[chris]

All I said was that a 10k BTU stove uses more gas than an 8 kBTU stove. If one were to assume 100% efficiency (never happen) and all other things being equal both stoves would use the same amout of fuel to bring an equal volume of liquid to a boil. The 10k would do it faster. You are absolutely right that a high efficiency rig like a jetboil is the ticket to lower fuel consumption.

Uses more gas to do what? To bring a given volume of water to a given temperature? It seems that this is what you are indicating. That is, in the field, with all other things being equal (pot, temperature, wind, etc), an 8000 BTU stove will bring 2 cups of water to a boil using less fuel than a 10000 BTU stove? Wouldn't the same be true of a 6000 BTU stove?

Perhaps the reason is that a 10000 BTU stove generates a larger flame spread than an 8000 BTU thing and that means wasted heat. However, I doubt that an alcohol stove of a fixed diameter would boil water with a smaller amount of methyl alcohol (fewer BTU) than with ethyl (more BTU).

[SGT Rock]

Doesn't the BTU rating of a stove simply mean the maximum output at any one given time?

BTUs of the fuel never change. A fuel that has 18,000 BTUs per pound always has 18,000 BTUs per pound. So a 10,000 BTU stove doesn't get 10,000 BTUs of energy from a canister while a 6,000 BTU stove only gets 6,000 from the same canister. Both stoves would get 18,000 total BTUs from the canister, but the 10,000 could burn out the canister faster while putting out more at one time.

[chris]

This is certainly true, but the issue raised was whether or not the fuel mixture mattered. That is, will using a fuel with less BTUs boil a fixed volume of water using less fuel than a stove with more BTUs. Butane, I think, has fewer BTUs than some of the other blends out there. In the example I gave, I'm pretty certain that methyl, having one fewer carbon atom, has fewer BTUs than ethyl (was methyl).

[SGT Rock]

You used methyl twice

Ethyl has more BTUs than Methyl. 12,250 in ethyl, 10,200 in methyl.

[SGT Rock]

Gasses:

<TABLE rules=all border=1><TBODY><TR><TD width=275 bgColor=#ffffff>

</TD><TD width=142 bgColor=#ffffff>

Propane

</TD><TD width=126 bgColor=#ffffff>

Butane

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE rules=all border=1><TBODY><TR><TD width=275 bgColor=#ffffff>

BTU/lb. - gas

</TD><TD width=142 bgColor=#ffffff>

21591

</TD><TD width=126 bgColor=#ffffff>

21221

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE rules=all border=1><TBODY><TR><TD width=275 bgColor=#ffffff>

Flash point, F.

</TD><TD width=142 bgColor=#ffffff>

-156

</TD><TD width=126 bgColor=#ffffff>

N.A.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[chris]

So butane and propane have the same number of BTUs per pound. What else goes into the canisters that could account for the different longevities?

[SGT Rock]

I don't know LOL. Where is a chemist when you need one?

[tlbj6142]

Aren't we forgetting partial pressures of the gasses (just writing that down makes my brain hurt a bit)? If the gas mixture is different between one canister brand and another, even at the same temp/altitude the output mixture would be the same?

Maybe? Am I close?

[Panzer1]

Great article and info. Most of the guys I hiked with had canister stoves (pocket rockets) and their stoves definately had more juice than my alcohol stove did. Still I can't get over the idea of wasting all those canisters. If there was a way to keep refilling the canister I'd probably use one, but I can't warrant throwing away all that material. Can they at least be recycled in towns?

Even Coleman fluid comes in a gallon can that has to be thrown out.

The problem I have with my Coleman gallon can is that since I keep it in my shed out back behind the house the bottom is beginning to rust out with about 3/4 gallon of fluid left in there. If I toss the entire thing out, am I not poluting even more that throwing out a small completely empty canister?

Panzer

[Nightwalker]

I haven't tried this on a cannister stove, but it works on the big (20#) propane bottles. And it's not for the trail, but a good way to check levels at home. With the stove running (so you have evap/conversion cooling), use a non-contact infrared thermometer to scan down the side of the tank...you'll see a temp change at the liquid fuel level.

Works for little ones on the trail as well. No thermometer needed, just run yer finger down the side and feel where it starts getting cold. Figgered that one out very recently, and accidentally.

The "weigh it" one is easy. Grocery store, outfitter, post office; they all have scales. Weigh it when you think that it's about halfway time to re-up, and you'll know if your estimate is correct.

On a similar topic, I cut two 1/2" thick pieces of expanded styrofoam to a barely-fit size for the lid of my Snow Peak Trek 1400 Ti. I then cut a disc of aluminum flashing to the size of the rim that sets on the pot and contact-cemented it in place. The lid stays cool even unto boiling temps in the pot. Boiling time is seriously reduced. The contact cement shows no sign of releasing accidentally, even after many repeated uses. And I never used the lid as a frying pan anyway. It was one of my better "odd ideas that worked."