White gas stoves could be better

Make sure you think about (and potentially test) the things you want to cook and whether it’s viable with your stove system.  Reactors are fantastic, but I have my doubts about their ability to make the kind of things I want to eat on a long expedition, or if I could even try with the cookware that is available (things like pizza, quesadillas, pancakes, etc. that require cooking at low heat in a large pot).

On a WB trip, you’re bringing 120 pounds of stuff up the hill.  I don’t think a couple extra pounds of white gas is a big deal, if it enables you to cook more palatable food, have more cookware options, etc.

John Edwin wrote:

My only question about canister stoves (I own and use one, will bring on Cassin Ridge) is how can you possible carry enough canisters for an expedition-style climb? For a group of 2-3 for 2-3 weeks we’re looking at a ridiculous amount of canisters since you can’t reup from base camp as mentioned above 

if you're climbing the cassin and starting from 14 camp (and heading down Seattle ramp or the rib), cache gas there and only take what you need on the ridge. if you're going through the VOD, you have other concerns...

curt86iroc wrote:

if you're climbing the cassin and starting from 14 camp (and heading down Seattle ramp or the rib), cache gas there and only take what you need on the ridge. if you're going through the VOD, you have other concerns...

My question was about people using only canisters on a route like the butt, not about my attempt on the Cassin 

We will likely bring both white gas for acclimatizing on the West Buttress and canisters for on route on Cassin so we have to carry fewer canisters

Jimmy Strange wrote:

I’ll actually argue that Reactors are not that specially efficient as stoves, rather its the pot that does most of it.

The stove itself only puts out 7000 btus, and though it captures a high amount of it (which is mostly a pot thing), used in the cold it’s ‘efficiency’ works against it by denying heat bleed that ambiently warms the space its in which does more for canister efficiency than anything else at cold altitude.

For what it's worth, MSR's published word states that the Reactor puts out 9000btu. Not that it changes the point you are making but that's a significant difference in output for the fuel consumed. 

Jimmy Strange wrote:

I’ll actually argue that Reactors are not that specially efficient as stoves, rather its the pot that does most of it.

That's my original point.  I think the efficient pot/stove interface is a lot of the magic behind a Reactor.  

One of these days I'll set up my Reactor next to my XGK with a pot and windscreen and get a shot with a FLIR camera. I suspect that the XGK will be loosing a lot of waste heat.

A think a lot of the utility in the Reactor is how well the stove, pot, and fuel also nest nicely into a compact package.  I think the same think could be done with a liquid fuel stove but you'd have to purpose-build a new fuel bottle since the geometry of the current MSR bottles wouldn't work.

I run a Reactor pot with a Fire Maple Blade II and it’s maybe 5% less efficient than a full Reactor kit but way more versatile. It puts out just shy of 10,000 BTU

The Reactor pots really are magic 

If you want a white gas stove that is more efficient:

- MSR makes/made (?) a heat exchanger you could add/clamp to your pods. 

- For wind; there are conversion kits for Trangia stoves. (edeldrid of primus, but you can jerry rig other models too)

Mostly i like white gas stove due to cheap fuel and stable base to use any larger pot. Mostly basecamp/car camping stuff.

John Edwin wrote:

My question was about people using only canisters on a route like the butt, not about my attempt on the Cassin 

the weight of the canisters is likely going to be the same or less than the gallons of white gas you're going to haul up the butt. cache the empties as you go up and pick them up on the way down. 

Jake907 wrote:

Why isn't there a high-efficiency, integral pot-stove setup that uses white gas?  Basically a liquid fueled Reactor?  ... Is there some technical limitation I'm not thinking of, or it just too niche?

This is just a guess, but I suspect it's due to fundamental differences between liquid fuel and isobutune/propane gas, and the technical challenges of getting a Reactor-style design to work reliably with the former.

The Reactor and MSR Windburner are uniquely energy-efficient and wind-resistant because fuel combustion takes place in an internal chamber. This means that the fuel vapor has to be pre-mixed with enough oxygen before it enters the combustion chamber. My guess is that it would be difficult to get this to work reliably with liquid fuel vapor, because liquid fuel has a much higher molecular weight. Other liquid fuel stoves such as the XGK avoid this problem by exposing the flame to external air. But that would negate the whole point of the Reactor design.

There would be other complications, such as incorporating a pre-heating tube to vaporize the liquid fuel, and getting this to work reliably across a wide range of altitudes and air temperatures – and delivering all of that at a competitive price.

More on the Reactor design:
https://www.msrgear.com/blog/the-origin-story-of-msr-reactor-stove/
https://www.msrgear.com/blog/radiant-burner-stoves-the-ultimate-in-all-weather-performance-and-efficiency/

More on flames and fuel chemistry:
https://zenstoves.net/How.htm#FundamentalsOFFlames

^ Really interesting links.  Thanks!!!

Racechinees . wrote:

If you want a white gas stove that is more efficient:

- MSR makes/made (?) a heat exchanger you could add/clamp to your pods. 

- For wind; there are conversion kits for Trangia stoves. (edeldrid of primus, but you can jerry rig other models too)

Mostly i like white gas stove due to cheap fuel and stable base to use any larger pot. Mostly basecamp/car camping stuff.

MSR still makes the heat exchanger; it's not cheap but it speeds up the cooking process and seems to add a tiny bit of wind protection. It works better on some pots than on others.

Just got back from Denali. We primarily used white gas stoves but also used a Reactor while on the move and in basecamp on our final night and day while waiting for a plane to get out. 

With our white gas stoves, when boiling water, we were using a Primus Litech pot with built in heat exchanger, as well as the msr windscreen that comes with the Whisperlite. Our reactor was the standard 1.7L setup. When melting snow we were using an aluminum 8L stock pot, whisperlite and windscreen. 

The Reactor brought water to a boil and melted water into snow noticeably faster. We used a lukewarm water bath to keep the canisters from freezing and the stove appeared to operate at max efficiency any time this was employed. 

It was a highly unscientific setup. We weren't there to test things, had gotten beat down by weather and were tired so take it for what thats worth. I'm sharing this anecdote for this reason...We made the decision to try and do our entire trip next year with only a Reactor once we move beyond base camp. There are a few caveats* as to how and why we think this can work for our team. 

1. We do not plan to do any cooking. Prior to this trip I spent 2 weeks dehydrating really amazing and satiating meals. They worked out incredibly well on the mountain and I would be willing to bet that we were eating better than anyone up there. These meals only require boiling water and I have another year to perfect them for use with the Reactor. As of today, I'm 90% certain that this would be easy to do with a Reactor only, and I have a year to iron out the 10% question. 

2. We need a Reactor for use while on the move, and on any technical route we consider. White gas stoves are far more complicated, time consuming, prone to accident, and higher maintenance in these two scenarios. The Reactor is the dominant solution in these use cases so it kind of has to come along. 

3. Adding white gas stoves to our equation increases the weight substantially. We are wanting to cut the weight down substantially next year and our anecdotal experience with the Reactor this season indicated that we could lose the WG stoves and accoutrements while saving a not insignificant amount of weight. We will also save fuel weight as the safe margin on a Reactor appears to be 4oz per person/day vs closer to 8oz per person/day with WG. 

*CAVEAT- I go to the mountains to "fuck around and find out."  I'm not afraid of coming home without going to the summit and fail to summit fairly often. This is because I'm more interested in the feeling of moving in the mountains and how I interact with them and less about a rather arbitrary high point. This whole plan could backfire and we could find ourselves at basecamp with our asses in our hands. We are cool with that. We were not cool with how we attempted Denali this season in what would be considered the "standard method."

Awesome feedback, thanks for sharing.

Any chance you might share some of the meals/recipes you dehydrated? 

John Edwin wrote:

Awesome feedback, thanks for sharing.

Any chance you might share some of the meals/recipes you dehydrated? 

For sure, but I'd like to keep this thread on topic. Send me a private message and I'll share the menu with you. 

Another question to add to the drifting thread (in the best way, good info!):

Is there any reason the Reactor pot doesn’t attach to the burner like most integrated canister stoves? One of the benefits of integrated canister stoves is less pieces / more bomber on-route compared to white gas.  Seems like it would be even more bomber if it attached.

Also is there any competition in integrated canister stoves with high btu output that people are using at altitude? Looks like the jetboil flash also goes up to 9000btu, but only 1L pot size

Mitch L wrote:

Also is there any competition in integrated canister stoves with high btu output that people are using at altitude? Looks like the jetboil flash also goes up to 9000btu, but only 1L pot size

One of the biggest benefits of the Reactor/Windburner is the funky burner design that makes those stoves significantly less susceptible to wind.  In my opinion, that feature is worth far more for use in the alpine than integration or BTU rating.  To the best of my knowledge, Jetboil doesn't have a similar wind-resistant design.

This video isn't super scientific, but it gives some sense for the performance difference: https://youtu.be/CmXMNvUUWGE (2:30 for Windburner, 4+ min for others).

Anecdotally, even the 7,000 BTU puts out plenty of heat and melts snow quite quickly.

(Note that this same feature also makes these stoves not great for cooking something in a skillet, which is why other options work better if you don't have wind and want to make real food.  I'd never use just a Reactor/Windburner on a long glacier trip because I like pizza.)

I don't even bother attaching the pot to the burner with my WindBurner, I just line up the grooves on the pot with the dots on the burner ring and drop the pot on the burner. Not having the attachment points, like on the Reactor, would make putting the pot on and off the stove that much easier. The burner stores inside the pot when your not cooking, so there's no benefit to having any kind of attachment when you're transporting the stove. 

Jetboils have almost no wind protection, and the burner design is not as efficient as the Reactor or the WindBurner. The Flash does not have a pressure regulator, so as the air temperature drops and/or the fuel in the cartridge is used up the flame will get weaker. Those impressive boil times that Jetboil (and other brands) point to in their ads are obtained indoors, with the water starting at 70 degrees F. Good luck replicating those conditions in a mountain environment. As the temperature drops and the wind picks up, the Reactor and the WindBurner will start to outperform the Jetboil very quickly.

A potential downfall of the Reactor is there’s not a safe way to use a hang kit, which is a small consideration for some but a huge one for others.

The Reactor of course has a hang kit but compared to other setups it’s much less secure and it doesn’t have a remote canister option which is required when hanging in an alpine climbing environment. It would probably work in a big wall setting though

John Edwin wrote:

A potential downfall of the Reactor is there’s not a safe way to use a hang kit, which is a small consideration for some but a huge one for others.

The Reactor of course has a hang kit but compared to other setups it’s much less secure and it doesn’t have a remote canister option which is required when hanging in an alpine climbing environment. It would probably work in a big wall setting though

Confused non alpine climber here. Why would it work for big walls but not alpine?

John Edwin wrote:

A potential downfall of the Reactor is there’s not a safe way to use a hang kit, which is a small consideration for some but a huge one for others.

The Reactor of course has a hang kit but compared to other setups it’s much less secure and it doesn’t have a remote canister option which is required when hanging in an alpine climbing environment. It would probably work in a big wall setting though

Confused alpine climber here. Why do you consider the Reactor hanging kit unsafe? Maybe when compared to the Windburner it's a less secure system, but I think it's way better than the Jetboil hanging system. I've used the Reactor hanging kit inside a Firstlight at a cramped bivy numerous times.