group backpacking gear
Display Avatars Sort By:
Scott Toraason
(kimot2)
Group Backpacking Gear on 05/03/2010 12:18:30 MDT Print View

I have had the same Mini Works since it first came out and the unit has never failed me, is totally field maintainable with a great carbon core surrounded by a ceramic element. The filter does exactly what it is supposed to do, but it is more then a stretch to suppose that any hand held pump is sufficient to supply water for nine individuals and then blame the filter for being slow utilizing a silt filled water source. The usual ratio is one filter per three individuals.

Konrad .
(Konrad1013) - MLife
that wasnt my point on 05/03/2010 12:30:14 MDT Print View

whoa, i never complained about it being inadequate for 9 individuals...now your're jumping the gun. I just said it sucked to begin with. Yes i said it took 1 hr to filter 2 liters for each for us, but that wasn't the basis of my claim of it sucking. I substantiated my claim in a later post by complaining that it clogged every 5 liters. It would have done the same if it was just me and another buddy, or me and 40 buddies. The river was clear and flowing, and so I only mentioned that it MIGHT have been silt...either way a coffee filter was put in place to mitigate that, and it still clogged alot. Maybe it was user error, maybe its defective? itll give me a valid reason to return it in that case. But I've seen many miniworks act this way. I remember in Yosemite, I had a guy come up to me asking to look at my filter. His was acting up too (wasn't building up any pressure) and he wanted to fieldstrip mine to see if he was missing any parts. I do admit that the miniworks is probably the more robust and dependendable out of the MSR filter line, but i dont think that really says much in the end. I'm not alone in my claims, just go to rei.com and read the reader reviewers (sort them by lowest ratings first, and read away ). There are just many many better options out there imo

Edited by Konrad1013 on 05/03/2010 12:48:00 MDT.

Ben 2 World
(ben2world) - MLife

Locale: So Cal
Re: on 05/03/2010 12:33:32 MDT Print View

Curious, Konrad, how long have you had the filter? Maybe a worn or even defective core? The MSR Miniworks is not suppposed to be that slow or that fussy.

Konrad .
(Konrad1013) - MLife
life on 05/03/2010 12:34:17 MDT Print View

I estimate that i've put about 30 liters through it. Still on its original ceramic core

Scott Toraason
(kimot2)
This Wasn't My Point, Group Grear on 05/03/2010 13:01:45 MDT Print View

No disrespect intended, a coffee filter is designed to filter coffee grounds not silt and other particles suspended in clear water that you cannot see, your filter is good to .2 microns, way beyond your coffee filter which is designed for much larger particulates.

You are correct, you never complained that the Mini Works was inadequate for nine individuals; be that as it may, no had held pump filter would have been adequate, the general rule being one filter per three people.

Your statement that the Mini Works was clogging every five liters is strong evidence that your water source was full of very small suspended particles that passed through the coffee filter and were filtered out by the ceramic element.

Having said this, the filter appears to have worked as advertised and you did what was required to keep it functioning.

Konrad .
(Konrad1013) - MLife
i agree on 05/03/2010 13:08:29 MDT Print View

You bring up good points, and in the back of my mind I was also figuring that small silt was probably passing through my coffee filter and hence clogging the core. Just to be clear, it was one of those paper coffee filters and not a mesh one...but even then, I have no idea how many microns the pores of the paper filter will keep out. But again, I agree with you, especially since cleaning the filter would temporarily restore its speed. So i guess my question is this? What to use as a prefilter? MSR only supplies a piece of foam to cover the inlet, which is even more porous than my DIY paper coffee filter. A cotton bandana would have been more porous as well. Roleigh once linked us to some automotor oil filters made of cloth that filter out down to a pretty significant micron...maybe those

Scott Toraason
(kimot2)
I Agree, Group Gear on 05/03/2010 13:25:12 MDT Print View

Sea to Summit makes a 10 liter sub 2.8 oz folding bucket that is great for these types of situations. The bucket is stable on level surfaces and will do two things, first; it will let the silt and particulates settle to the bottom of the bucket in five to ten minutes so one can pump less silt filled water, and second; one can take the water and pump to where it is most convenient for you.

Just thoughts for your consideration that have helps me extend the times I have needed to scrub my filter, especially for glacier fed streams.

Bob Gross
(--B.G.--) - F

Locale: Silicon Valley
Re: Re: Re: group backpacking gear on 05/03/2010 13:28:47 MDT Print View

"That the canister stoves generally put out more power than the white gas stoves is by now fairly common knowledge."

I would suggest that you put an MSR XGKII with a full fuel bottle up against your favorite butane canister stove with a full fuel canister. Turn them both up to full with huge water pots to boil. I get something around four hours of full flame on the MSR.

--B.G.--

Ben 2 World
(ben2world) - MLife

Locale: So Cal
Re: Pre Filter on 05/03/2010 17:48:58 MDT Print View

Most all prefilters I know are the fine mesh types which only serve to block out visible stuff. Not a "cure all" but the MSR Siltstopper is one of the better prefilters out there.

Scott Bentz
(scottbentz) - MLife

Locale: Southern California
2 Stoves on 05/03/2010 18:32:33 MDT Print View

I've done a lot of hiking in groups, i.e. scouts. I think the best way to travel with a group that is not accustomed to lightweight is to just take 2 stoves, a 2 liter pot and 2 8 oz. canisters. If you would like to feel safe have someone take one 4 oz. canister along. You can heat a lot of water with 2 stoves. We usually cooked a meal at night and some hot chocolate and some water for oatmeal in the morning. You could get away with one stove if you wanted to really save weight. Just share the weight. I personally use Esbit or Alcohol for solo use but for me a canister is the way to go with a group.

As far as filters, I have not used a filter for a loooong time. I just use Aquamira Liquid or any of the brands of Chlorine Dioxide tablets. For years we just used household bleach and I don't remember any bouts of sickness. For me, the Chlorine Dioxide is the way to go. I love dipping my bottle in the water, popping a pill inside, and just keep going while the group at the water source is still pumping. It's the only way to go. Your water sources may be quite different than those I encounter here in the west. I have also used a Steripen Journey but would not rely on it without a backup.

Roger Caffin
(rcaffin) - BPL Staff - MLife

Locale: Wollemi & Kosciusko NPs, Europe
Re: Re: Re: Re: group backpacking gear on 05/03/2010 20:56:52 MDT Print View

Hi Bob

Yes, the XGK is very powerful. However:
XGK Minimum Weight 13.2 oz / 374 g
XGK Packaged Weight 1 lbs 1.2 oz / 489 g
Snow Peak GST100 78 g

We are, after all, keen on light-weight gear.

Cheers

Ben 2 World
(ben2world) - MLife

Locale: So Cal
Rethinking Group Gear on 05/03/2010 21:07:45 MDT Print View

Just throwing in something different...

Considering it's only 3 nights -- for us UL hikers, this isn't going to be a very heavy load at all. How about you three just bring your own stuff and then not have to worry about apportioning, timing, etc. Also, on the outside chance that someone gets lost or hurt, each one of you is self sufficient.

Bob Gross
(--B.G.--) - F

Locale: Silicon Valley
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: group backpacking gear on 05/03/2010 21:18:41 MDT Print View

Roger wrote:
"Yes, the XGK is very powerful. However:
XGK Minimum Weight 13.2 oz / 374 g
XGK Packaged Weight 1 lbs 1.2 oz / 489 g
Snow Peak GST100 78 g

We are, after all, keen on light-weight gear."

I expected that kind of response. Those numbers are meaningless because neither stove can function without its fuel source. So, do the math with numbers based on, let's say, four hours of fuel in bottles or canisters. Then, I don't know about you, but I have to figure in a cost factor on fuel. I hate to use a butane canister that has to be disposed of.

The one thing that I do like about a butane canister stove is that there are fewer moving parts. Also, Everest climbers like them, because at extremely high elevations, the whole butane vaporization issue when cold becomes less and less of a problem. However, we don't get over 20,000 feet very often these days.
--B.G.--

Roger Caffin
(rcaffin) - BPL Staff - MLife

Locale: Wollemi & Kosciusko NPs, Europe
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: group backpacking gear on 05/04/2010 04:43:58 MDT Print View

Hi Bob

I started with a white gas stove, but there were too many accidents (NOT of my doing!). A burnt pack, a burnt sleeping bag, a nearly burnt me ...

I switched to kero for many years. It stinks, and requires very careful priming. And I found it uses about double the weight of fuel compared to a canister. Yes, I do have the records for this. Given the huge weight of the XGK, and the weight of any tank/pump combination, I find a canister system is always lighter. Yes, I have done the sums, and they are in the articles on the BPL web site.

I have never measured fuel consumption by the hour, only by the litres of water melted and boiled. I think I mentioned that one 450 g canister will last my wife and me for two weeks?

> I hate to use a butane canister that has to be disposed of.
Um - not sure what this means. I use up my canisters right to the last drop. If the canister has only a little left in it when I get home, it gets put in the day-walk department (about 9 g for morning tea for the two of us).
Once a canister is empty I put a great big hole in it, let it air for a week, then recycle it with other steel scrap.

Cheers

Rod Lawlor
(Rod_Lawlor) - MLife

Locale: Australia
Canister recycling on 05/04/2010 05:07:36 MDT Print View

It's funny, I used to be all upset about using, OMG, a throw away canister, even though they go in recycling. Then I realised that they contain less steel than the two cans of tomatoes that I used in the pasta sauce tonight. Suddenly I could sleep again.

(Yes I have plenty of experience with white gas. In fact I'm the only bloke I know who has worn out a Whisperlite International. The actual stove, not the pump.) Never had an accident with white gas, but I can state quite absolutely, categorically, that it's a really, really bad idea to use white gas in a Trangia. It's probably best just to believe me on this one, and not feel the need to check it out for yourself.

Edited by Rod_Lawlor on 05/04/2010 05:11:31 MDT.

Tony Beasley
(tbeasley) - MLife

Locale: Pigeon House Mt from the Castle
Re: Canister recycling on 05/04/2010 15:56:52 MDT Print View

Some people recycle canisters by refilling them, I am not going to tell if I do, BUT THIS REQUIRES EXTREME CAUTION and is illegal to do in same places.

Tony

James D Buch
(rocketman) - F

Locale: Midwest
Refilled Fuel Canisters on 05/04/2010 16:20:01 MDT Print View

It is illegal to refill a "single use" fuel canister of the butane/propane type and to carry it by any public carrier (bus, train, airplane, ship, ....).

It is possible to design canisters that would be safe for recharging, but they would weigh more, and the certification process would be different and more expensive. There might need to be a recertification process as well.

The solution, to date, is the "single use container".

There must be an engineer or two here who are reasonably familiar with the applicable pressure vessel codes that can better explain it, including the potential for risk.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Re: Pre Filter on 05/04/2010 16:40:13 MDT Print View

What about the cheap inline fuel filters you buy for motorcycles? Weigh 1/2 oz, take platy size hose, cost buttons.

Roger Caffin
(rcaffin) - BPL Staff - MLife

Locale: Wollemi & Kosciusko NPs, Europe
Re: Refilled Fuel Canisters on 05/04/2010 19:45:05 MDT Print View

> There must be an engineer or two here who are reasonably familiar with the
> applicable pressure vessel codes that can better explain it, including the potential
> for risk.

Can I be really really rude here? (Too right!)
There are three risks with refilling a single-use canister:
#1: Overfilling a canister can make it detonate on a hot day
#2: Joe Public, who could mistreat a block of high tensile steel given half a chance.
#3: Tort lawyers who want to get into the act

More seriously, hazards include:
* Overfilling the canister - it really could detonate on a hot day
* Damage to the neoprene seal in the Lindal valve, letting it leak on the shelf
* Rust on the outside of the Lindal valve, letting the seal to the stove leak
* Rust or damage elsewhere, letting the canister leak
* Stuff-ups while filling, putting propane/butane everywhere and risking a BLEVE incident.

Cheers

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: Refilled Fuel Canisters on 05/04/2010 20:26:46 MDT Print View

"More seriously, hazards include:
* Overfilling the canister - it really could detonate on a hot day
* Damage to the neoprene seal in the Lindal valve, letting it leak on the shelf
* Rust on the outside of the Lindal valve, letting the seal to the stove leak
* Rust or damage elsewhere, letting the canister leak
* Stuff-ups while filling, putting propane/butane everywhere and risking a BLEVE incident."

I think you've just come up with a novel way to become a serious contender for this year's Darwin Award.

Any takers?? ;))