MSR Windburner vs. Jetboil Minimo

[pvnisher]

Unless you're for sure using it in winter, a remote canister stove is my choice.
Remote so you can invert the canister when chilly, and sits lower to the ground so less topple risk. Also can use a fully enclosed wind screen with impunity. You can even sit the canister in some hot water to keep it warm once you get a bit going, and increase your efficiency in cooler temps.

It's far more versatile than any sit on top canister, and unless it's really cold, the inverted canister with a winter blend fuel will be just fine.

In snow, you've got to get a liquid stove. And if you have a quiver of stoves you can choose other ones for different objectives. But for most cases, remote canister is the winner.

[easyridertme]

Also not one of the stoves you had asked about, but I'll make an unsolicited plug for the Soto Amicus for a 3-season stove. It's in a similar class to the MSR pocket rocket (weight, price, no jetboil-style integrated heat exchanger/windscreen). In my experience, it has performed leaps and bounds over the pocket rocket in the wind, presumably due to the concave face of the burner. I had intended to start bringing along a foldable windscreen for better protection, but haven't really felt like I needed to yet.

I got the one with the piezo igniter, but it's pretty hit or miss by the time you get to 12k... for the minimal cost/weight difference though, the convenience is worth it at lower altitudes. As a bonus, the stove and a 4oz canister fit within my 700ml pot to make an extremely compact little cook kit, so there's not much reason to leave it home even on a day trip for emergencies.

[martinleroux]

In snow, you've got to get a liquid stove.

If you use isobutane fuel and the water bath trick then canister stoves work fine even in very cold conditions. I've used an MSR Reactor without problems when it was -15°F up at 16,5000' on Mt Logan (Yukon). On an earlier trip to the Alaska Range we compared an MSR Reactor to an MSR XGK (white gas) running side-by-side. On that trip I was the one that brought the XGK and the experiment convinced me to switch to a Reactor instead. There are numerous advantages to canister stoves with enclosed burners like the Reactor:

- Much easier to get started in windy or snowy conditions. No priming required.
- Highly wind-resistant.
- Much faster to melt snow or boil water (almost twice as fast as the XGK), even when the XGK was used with a wind shield and a heat exchanger.
- More fuel-efficient in terms of fuel weight per unit of water melted or boiled, even allowing for the weight of the empty canisters (if using 8 oz or 16 oz canisters). Also with white gas you tend waste fuel because it's a hassle to turn them off and re-prime them.
- Safer to use in a tent vestibule if that becomes necessary due to stormy conditions.

The downsides are that the fuel canisters are bulkier (although not heavier), which can be minor problem on long trips, and 8oz or 16oz isobutane canisters can be tricky to find in small towns. Also the Reactor doesn't simmer, but neither does an XGK.

[markf]

If you use isobutane fuel and the water bath trick then canister stoves work fine even in very cold conditions. I've used an MSR Reactor without problems when it was -15°F up at 16,5000' on Mt Logan (Yukon). On an earlier trip to the Alaska Range we compared an MSR Reactor to an MSR XGK (white gas) running side-by-side. On that trip I was the one that brought the XGK and the experiment convinced me to switch to a Reactor instead. There are numerous advantages to canister stoves with enclosed burners like the Reactor:

- Much easier to get started in windy or snowy conditions. No priming required.
- Highly wind-resistant.
- Much faster to melt snow or boil water (almost twice as fast as the XGK), even when the XGK was used with a wind shield and a heat exchanger.
- More fuel-efficient in terms of fuel weight per unit of water melted or boiled, even allowing for the weight of the empty canisters (if using 8 oz or 16 oz canisters). Also with white gas you tend waste fuel because it's a hassle to turn them off and re-prime them.
- Safer to use in a tent vestibule if that becomes necessary due to stormy conditions.

The downsides are that the fuel canisters are bulkier (although not heavier), which can be minor problem on long trips, and 8oz or 16oz isobutane canisters can be tricky to find in small towns. Also the Reactor doesn't simmer, but neither does an XGK.

Being at 16,500' probably helped the Reactor, since the boiling point of the fuel decreased with altitude and attendant reduced atmospheric pressure. Reduced atmospheric pressure would also improve fuel flow and let you get more fuel out of each cartridge. It might be interesting to test a Reactor at sea level at -15 °F and see how it does.

Liquid fuel stoves seem to be more and more a thing of the past, except for an ever-narrowing range of specialized situations. Gas canisters with standardized valves are becoming more widely available, while the price gap between white gas and gas cartridges has narrowed substantially or reversed itself, depending on which fuel you buy and where you buy it.

[austinpavlas]

Liquid fuel stoves seem to be more and more a thing of the past, except for an ever-narrowing range of specialized situations. Gas canisters with standardized valves are becoming more widely available, while the price gap between white gas and gas cartridges has narrowed substantially or reversed itself, depending on which fuel you buy and where you buy it.

Interesting.. I always though liquid-gas stoves were far superior in Winter/High-Altitude due to less chance of residual build-up/efficiency.

I had a canister stove fail at ~35 degrees and have switched to liquid gas since. Currently use the MSR whisperlite international which can take almost any type of liquid fuel and have had no issues, even down to -45 one winter in Alaska.

[markf]

Interesting.. I always though liquid-gas stoves were far superior in Winter/High-Altitude due to less chance of residual build-up/efficiency.

Could you explain what you mean by "residual build-up/efficiency"?

[pvnisher]

Internationally, liquid multi fuel for sure. Although burning kerosene sucks for a few reasons.

I agree that except for narrow cases a canister is the best bet. I've gotten them to work at pretty low temps with winter blend, inverted, warm water bath.

A downside of canisters is the accumulation of half empty or quarter full canisters. It's scary to think of running out, so you go buy a new canister, then don't use it all. Then you go again and don't want to carry three mostly empty canisters, and it just accumulates.

You have to figure out your burn rate and calculate well, and also be ok carrying multiple canisters sometimes.

[markf]

Internationally, MSR-style screw-on canisters are becoming more and more common. They're not universal, but they're getting there. Optimus, Primus and Snow Peak are 3 non-US companies I can think of that make these canisters, and MSR and JetBoil products are becoming more and more widely available outside the US. Unless you're truly a long way off the beaten path on a long expedition, finding gas canisters won't be that hard.

The accumulation of half-empty or quarter full canisters is not that big a deal. Bring the used canister along with a new one on your next trip and use it first. When it's empty switch to the new canister. An empty medium canister weighs 5 1/2 oz., which shouldn't kill you.

[hotrod]

Next time you totally empty a canister, weigh it on a postal scale and mark it down somewhere. Then weigh a brand new one (same brand) and mark that weight down. The difference will be the fuel, of course. Next time you have a partially-used canister, weigh it, and you will be able to know approximately how much fuel is remaining. This way you are able to eliminate the metal weight. I hope I explained this so it's not confusing.

[719BR]

Being at 16,500' probably helped the Reactor, since the boiling point of the fuel decreased with altitude and attendant reduced atmospheric pressure. Reduced atmospheric pressure would also improve fuel flow and let you get more fuel out of each cartridge. It might be interesting to test a Reactor at sea level at -15 °F and see how it does.

Why? When was the last time you were at sea level and -15?

I have converted a number of people to the Reactor based on its efficiency at elevations lower than 16,500', specifically overnight winter trips between 10k' - 14k'. I have a number of stoves as well, but anytime I am going to be melting snow, I don't even think anymore, I just pack the Reactor.

[719BR]

The accumulation of half-empty or quarter full canisters is not that big a deal. Bring the used canister along with a new one on your next trip and use it first. When it's empty switch to the new canister. An empty medium canister weighs 5 1/2 oz., which shouldn't kill you.

+1

I also save partially used canisters for car camping, when I'm not worried about weight/space.

[martinleroux]

Being at 16,500' probably helped the Reactor, since the boiling point of the fuel decreased with altitude and attendant reduced atmospheric pressure... It might be interesting to test a Reactor at sea level at -15 °F and see how it does.

Yes, gas canister stoves work better at higher elevations, all else being equal. According to https://adventuresinstoving.blogspot.co ... shell.html, 1,000' of elevation gain provides about the same performance benefit as a 1°F temperature increase. But the key words are "all else being equal". In practice that's rarely the case, because it almost always gets colder as you go higher. Temperatures usually drop by much more than 1°F for every 1,000' of gain, which more than offsets any performance benefit due to lower atmospheric pressure.

In any case it's a somewhat academic discussion, because -15°F is lower than the vapor point (boiling point) of isobutane, even up at 16,500'. The main reason why the stove worked well was because the canister was sitting in a water bath, which kept it at a balmy 32°F. That would have been warm enough to keep the stove going even if we'd been down at sea level.