Jetboil pot

[RideT61]

FYI: The Jetboil stove sucks, but the pot rules. Try this experimnet. Boil 1 liter of water using one of the new larger pots on top of another stove like a Pocket Rocket and then try it again with a normal pot. (Make sure to change cannisters to level the playing field). It boils the water MUCH faster than if you use the Jetboil pot than a normal one. Bottom line, that funky metal ring on the bottom of the stove provides more surface area to conduct heat so ditch the stove and keep the pot.

Edited November 7, 2006 by RideT61

[chris]

I'll step up and disagree. Where the jetboil rocks is in conserving gas. A jetboil simply wastes less fuel. I was able to melt a full liter of water in a Jetboil this summer in under 3 minutes, which makes it competitive to the PR for me. I used a pocket rocket almost exclusively last summer, and a jetboil almost exclusively this summer. Last summer, I needed to pack standard cannister per day for two people. This summer I used a cannister that was 3/4 full to cook two dinners, one breakfast, three rounds of hot drinks, and melt 5 liters of water for two people.

The stove I'm looking forward to checking out is the OR Reactor. It runs on a lower gas pressure than the JB or the PR, meaning it handles cold better and uses more of the fuel in the canister. The only negative I saw in the proto model was that the stove didn't lock into the pot system like the JB does, making a hanging stove more of a problem. But the testers were recommending that they fix that too, so hopefully the production model will be as simple to rig for tent use as the JB is.

[RideT61]

I'm not sure what part of my assertion you disagree with. My point is the advantage of the Jetboil is not in the stove itself, it is in the pot. If the pot reduces the boil time on a Pocket Rocket you should be able to make a cannister last longer too no?

As for the jetboil being as fast, try a side by side comparison with two new cannisters, in my experiment the PR is faster every time. If you have had a different experience it makes me wonder if there is a quality control issue.

Either way, I too am curious to see the new Reactor.

[chris]

Except that the jet on a JB stove is different than on a pocket rocket, and the distance between the burner and the heating element is intentionally engineered, so simply wiring a PR to the base won't necessarily be effective.

And that leads to the second problem - you can't simply connect a OR to the JB base, can you (you may have discovered you can, I haven't tried it so I don't know)?

Was your experiment conducted indoors? In my experience, wind plays havoc with a PR. While the PR still puts out the most BTUs, I don't necessarily equate that with heat if another stove has more efficiency at a lower BTU.

And I'm really curious to see some pics if you've managed to rig a JB pot with a PR stove.

[DanielHarro]

MSR Reactor

 

http://www.trailspace.com/gear/msr/reactor/

[RideT61]

I guess I should have expected this. All I have to say is try using the Jetboil Pot vs. a normal pot on various stoves, you might be surprised.

 

Yes, It was indoors (don't lecture me) with 1 liter of water at 70F. The canisters were both new. I was careful to islolate all the variable. Rather than assuming I'm fucked up, try it.

[chris]

Whoa, easy there, Ride

I'm not trying to disrespect or lecture you - just disagreeing. All I pointed out was that your lab study didn't jive with my anecdotal evidence, and I gave some reasons why I thought a PR/JB combo may not work.

I don't think you're fucked up, just a little sensitive to contrary opinions and questions.

P.S. My curiosity is stoked - can you really mount a PR stove onto a JB pot?

[Mr_Phil]

'Mount'? He's not screwing a sheep here. Set pot on stove.

 

Also freak, did you comprehend the description 'the new larger pots'?

 

The average REI employee would recognize that he's talking about the new larger pot

 

 

not the old smaller cup

 

 

But, of course, you're smarter than the average green vest.

[RideT61]

No offense taken mtnfreak, I just want to pass on the info. Phil is right, I am referring to the big pot (which only works on the JB with a cheesy adapter). The big pot fits nicely over the top of most cannister stoves and even adds stability because the ring keeps it from sliding off. As I said, take the time to try both the JB pot and another pot on a stove and you might be surprised.

 

I think this would be great when melting snow for water. Faster boil time=less fuel used and more sleep!

Edited November 7, 2006 by RideT61

[Weekend_Climberz]

I think MtnFreak's argument is that even though you can boil water faster with the PR, it is using more fuel regardless, so you get less use per canister (did I get that right?). So, I think another test that would be helpful is how many litre's of water can you boil per canister on each stove using the larger JB pot? If MtnFreak's calculations hold up, it may take longer with the JB, but you will get more use per canister. I don't know the answer and hopefully we can coerce you into performing another test RideT61. Good thread

[RideT61]

Good point Weekend. I'll need to do another test and weight the cannisters before and after. I suspect that although the JB is a bit more efficient, the PR with the JB pot will still win because the boil time was about 30% faster meaning that unless the JB is MUCH more efficient the grams of fuel burned per liter of boiling water will still be less with the PR.

Also, in terms of efficiency, I think the reason the JB is so efficient is b/c it has an "speed limiter" of sorts. For example, if you turn the PR to max flame it boils water only a tiny bit faster than if you turn it up only 2/3's of the way. I think that what the JB manufacturer did mas simply to limit the max flame to the most efficient spot. I think you could do the same thing by finding the "sweet spot" on your stove.

[chris]

Actually Phil, I did miss Ride's reference to the "new larger pot" that you brought my attention to so effectively. My argument was completely based on the original pot, which does hold 1 liter of water. And I would agree that the new larger pot is not as effective as the orginal pot - who the hell calls a 1 liter tin a "cup"? In fact, Ride's probably right about his test, now that my misunderstanding has been cleared up.

 

Thanks Phil.

 

And thanks for the testing Ride.

 

P.S. Ride, if you do another comparison test, would you also run a JB with an original pot?

[RideT61]

I actually did try a normal pot on the JB, it sucked. The boil time was much longer. I guess I should have taken the time to write all of this in my first post, but I was too lazy.

[chris]

I actually did try a normal pot on the JB, it sucked. The boil time was much longer. I guess I should have taken the time to write all of this in my first post, but I was too lazy.

So that people like Phil don't go insulting REI employees (we all know that anyone wearing a green vest is smarter than me), can you be clearer? Did you use the small JB pot that mounts the stove like Phil's sheep-shagging fantasy, or another non-standard pot such as an MSR alpine pot?

[Mr_Phil]

So that people like Phil don't go insulting REI employees (we all know that anyone wearing a green vest is smarter than me), can you be clearer?

 

I compared you to the average green vest.

 

Not the person wearing said vest.

 

[RideT61]

I used the large JB pot and a comparably sized MSR blacklite pot.

[Mr_Phil]

Actually, I first saw the 'new larger pot' at REI and thought it would make an intriguing snow melting machine when 'mounted' to a simmerlite. The fins on the bottom lock into the supports with no chance of slippage.

 

The down side is that the Jetboil pot is twice as heavy (with both top and bottom lids) as my Ti pot (12 oz. vs. 6 oz). Still, the weight penalty might be worth the faster melt times.

 

And as Ride said, more sleep.

 

Not sheep.

 

(Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

[dylan_taylor]

Ride, thank you for giving us enlightening information on these two stoves. I have both, and I agree that the PR can boil water faster, but I think the JetBoil is a better stove.

 

I do not like the larger pot very much, even though it is efficient. The lid on my large jetboil shrunk the first time i boiled pasta noodles with it - haven't been able to get it back on since.

 

I don't understand the arguement over stove efficiency. I disagree with this statement:

My point is the advantage of the Jetboil is not in the stove itself, it is in the pot. If the pot reduces the boil time on a Pocket Rocket you should be able to make a cannister last longer too no?

.

 

I just don't see the link between stove efficiency and stove boiling speed. If I wanted to drive from bellingham to seattle as fast as possible, a corvette could get me there in just over half an hour, but that doesn't mean that it is more efficient than driving my toyota wagon, which would take me at least three times longer, but burn only a fraction of the fuel. The jetboil barely uses any fuel at high power. But the engineers figured out how to get most of that heat to go from the burner into the pot, rather than out into the atmosphere.

 

I sometimes value speedy boiling when i am in the backcountry - big groups, cold temps, etc, but usually I am far happier to be boiling my water in four minutes instead of three, as long as I know my fuel cannister will last three or four times longer.

 

I like the jetboil (small pot, not big one) the most because it nests into a compact package, it is fairly light, it is incredibly efficient, it makes decent coffee, it has an included tea cup/bloatmeal bowl, and, best of all, it hangs in my tent! That way I can use that extra minute or two of slow boiling time to clip my toenails while it is raining outside...

 

I am excited to see the production Reactor stove. It sounds like it will be jetted to burn fast and efficiently. I just hope we can figure out a way to hang it.

 

[RideT61]

I don't understand the arguement over stove efficiency. I disagree with this statement:

My point is the advantage of the Jetboil is not in the stove itself, it is in the pot. If the pot reduces the boil time on a Pocket Rocket you should be able to make a cannister last longer too no?

.

 

I just don't see the link between stove efficiency and stove boiling speed. If I wanted to drive from bellingham to seattle as fast as possible, a corvette could get me there in just over half an hour, but that doesn't mean that it is more efficient than driving my toyota wagon, which would take me at least three times longer, but burn only a fraction of the fuel. The jetboil barely uses any fuel at high power. But the engineers figured out how to get most of that heat to go from the burner into the pot, rather than out into the atmosphere.

 

Here is the link between speed and efficiency. (these numbers are for the sake of agument only)

 

If I wanted to boil 10 liters of water on a trip...

 

Assuming the JB burns say, 5 grams of fuel per minute and boils 1 liter in 10 minutes. The fuel consumption would be: 10 liters x 10 min = 100 minutes to boil 10 liters -> 100 min x 5 grams/min = 500 grams of fuel to boil 10 liters.

 

Assuming the PR with JB pot burns 10 grams of fuel per minute and boils 1 liter of water in 5 minutes. The fuel consumption would be: 10 liters x 5 min = 50 minutes to boil 10 liters -> 50 min x 10g/min = 500g of fuel to boil 10 liters.

 

As you can see, in this scenario the PR with the JB stove would boil the same amount of water as the JB in 1/2 the time using the same amount of fuel. I am not sure what the numbers are in reality (which is why I really need to weigh some cannisters before and after and do tha math to find out) Either way, if you need to save time on a specific trip, I would definitely use the PR and JB pot.

 

Of course, all of this may mean nothing if the Reactor is as good as it is billed.