I'm not angry; just making an observation. You'll notice that Hikin' Jim has responded since my inquiry but I agree that my post was edgy and I should have measured my response. My apologies Jim.

My issue with this thread is that all of the information here is anecdotal and nothing has been provided (including my data) which would be a definitive analysis of the Micro Regulator's performance. In fairness to Hikin' Jim, he never claimed that this was a scientific study. Each consumer is responsible for their own research and will ultimately pay the price or reap the benefit.

I went to REI with the intent of purchasing the micro rocket but bought this stove on blind faith knowing that I could research the stove better when I returned home and REI's tradition of backing up the products that they sell. I basically did zero research on this stove prior to purchase which is very uncharacteristic of me as I'll usually will spend hours researching mundane purchases.

All I can say is that at 32* what I see on Jim's video is very different than what my experience has been.

I would be willing to pitch in $10 to a Kickstart project of a thorough peer reviewed scientific study of stove performance (all commercially available options) which accounts for temperature, altitude, fuel consumption, and weight. I figure with all of the braniacs on this forum, someone would love to jump on the chance to spearhead this effort. I think the conditions of the test should be as such:

*Stoves purchased anonymously from retailers. No donors.
*All stoves surrendered to Boy Scouts or whatever at the end of the study
*All of commercially available fuel is studied and compared
*Stove performance studied at a variety of altitudes consistent with normal expectations of a canister stove
*Full disclosure

I'm sure $5000 and a month could make this happen.

Sorry Jim. I'll switch to decaf.

"videos should be ignored for the following reasons:

Soto: An ice water bath is not a faithful simulation of realistic field conditions unless the hiking trip has gone terribly wrong

Yours: The fact that you refilled the canister flawed the test from the very beginning. Furthermore, your test doesn't control for other variables beyond temperature. "


Jim's test is actually very good. While most quality canisters have propane and possibly isobutane instead of N-butane. there are probably some cheep brands out there that are filled mostly with just N-butane. In most cases vendors do not list the exact contents of the cans and in fact the contents of the can may very over time due to canges in the price of propane, isobutane and N-butane. When Jim filled both his canisters with butane he eliminated the biggest variable in most other reviews and test.

One other point that should be made is that isobutane (found in MSR and snowpeak canisters) boils at 15F while the more common and lower cost N-butane boils at 32F. Both have the same number of carbon and hydrogen atoms. Only the arrangement of the molicules are different. So simply using using a isobutane/propane canister you will get much better performance regardless of the stove. The only variables in Jim's test were the stoves.


In Satos ice bath video they conveniently painted both canisters white. We have no idea what fuels were in the canisters or even if the canisters were fueled with the same fuel.

"Running with canister in ice water isn't fraud, just misleading

When I run stove at 40 F, ice forms on the outside of canister. If it was in ice water it would be warmer."

Acutally the temperature of the ice water depend on how much water there is. If it is mostly water the temperature will be close to ambient. However if it is mostly ice the temperature will be 32F which is the melting point of water. However if you take mostly ice, a little water, and add a lot of salt the temperature will quickly drop to approximately 10F or even colder.

Sato's ice water test would be valide if you know what the composition of the fuel is. We don't.

Paul, if you want to test your stove in cold conditions I would try to duplicate the sato test but do as jim did and use two canisters filled with N-butane (jim could probably help you with that). You should get the results Jim got. After that I would do the test again but this time fuel the Sato with N-butane and fuel the other stove with MSR or Snowpeak fuel.


"I suspect that the jet in the Soto is a larger diameter than most stoves so the same amount of gas is discharged into the burner head as a normal stove to overcome the issue of lower pressure supply in the Soto."

I would agree that the jet size of the Sato is probably larger. That might give a slight improvement in cold performance or make clogging of the jet less likely. however the difference is probably not noticeable. However under warm conditions say 80F the stove might consume more fuel than Other stoves. The warm weather fuel consumption problem can be solved by adding a regulator. In fact in one of the links I posted earlier there is clear evidence of the regulator kicking in warm conditions.

the other possibility is that Sato added the regulator to try to improve safety. If you use a bad windscreen design in warm weather you could get into a situation were the larger flame heats the canister, which causes an even bigger flame, causing more heat,...BANG! Adding a regulator would clearly limit the maximum size of the flame.

By using n-butane, Jim eliminated one of the major variables in stove testing: the fuel. With a blended fuel, not only are you not certain of the precise percentages when the canster is new, but the percentages change as the canister is used, as the more volatile gas boils off more quickly, so the pressure in the canister is constantly varying. The pressure in Jims butane canister is changing too, but only due to evaporative cooling. If he had the same weight of fuel in each, the cooling would be the same.

All I can say is that at 32* what I see on Jim's video is very different than what my experience has been
Well of course, you were using a propane/iso-butane blend, which only adds to the conclusion that the fuel matters more than whether the stove has a regulator.

My issue with this thread is that all of the information here is anecdotal and nothing has been provided...
My issue with this kind of comment is that it usually comes from someone who expects others to do all the work for them, on their terms, often without having read the many in-depth articles that already exist on the subject.

Ian,
You might be onto something.

n-butane - boiling point -1-1 °C, 272-274 K, 30-34 °F

Isobutane - boiling point -13--9 °C, 260-264 K, 8-16 °F (used in most commercial canisters)

Jim's test was done at Temperature: 31F/-0.5C

So, am I correct that with the n-butane there wouldn't be much pressure? The n-butane was mostly in the liquid state. So to the Soto, the canister was in all practicality, empty.

The other question I have or might affect things is this on Jim's blog:
"Boiling point of n-butane at 6,000'/1800m: About 19F/-7C"
Isn't the above in an open system and it is the internal pressure of the canister that in the key? And, closer to sea level pressures (and could be higher)?

Edited by dextersp1 on 02/18/2013 17:27:57 MST.

"Paul, if you want to test your stove in cold conditions I would try to duplicate the sato test but do as jim did and use two canisters filled with N-butane (jim could probably help you with that). You should get the results Jim got. After that I would do the test again but this time fuel the Sato with N-butane and fuel the other stove with MSR or Snowpeak fuel."

Steven,
Thanks for the offer but I do most of my cold weather hiking in Colorado 14er areas. I'll be there in March. I'm happy to make it to the top, stop for something hot to eat or drink - if temps permit - and get back down.

"Jim's test is actually very good. While most quality canisters have propane and possibly isobutane instead of N-butane. there are probably some cheep brands out there that are filled mostly with just N-butane. In most cases vendors do not list the exact contents of the cans and in fact the contents of the can may very over time due to canges in the price of propane, isobutane and N-butane. When Jim filled both his canisters with butane he eliminated the biggest variable in most other reviews and test."

Thank you for that explanation.

"something something something you don't like to do your home work something something."

Stuart... when you say things like that.... it hurts my feelings..... I've sent Ryan an email asking him for an intervention where we can learn to express our feeling in a mutually beneficial way.

On a more serious note, you are correct and I need and will do more research on fuel characteristics for no other reason than to understand when issues like this are raised. I have no intention of ever mixing my own fuel or refilling a canister so I keep my personal research confined to how stove a works with fuel b. Where you are incorrect is that I invest plenty of time simulating field conditions in camp backyard so I am not hit with surprises in the field. My wife has serious concerns with my water boiling obsession.

When someone voluntarily starts a thread about a stove's field performance it isn't unreasonable to ask them about their testing methodology and why they chose to introduce certain variables, especially when the results are massively inconsistent with my experiences with this stove under similar conditions. Another person answered those questions for Jim so onwards and upwards.

FWIW I haven't seen anything with this canister north of 30* with commercially available fuel which should cause anyone alarm. We're having an unusually warm winter so not too many days below the 30s to test this stove out. For giggles I threw a canister in the freezer for four hours until it hit -4* just to see what would happen. As expected, the stove ran like a furnace for about two minutes and then fizzled off and performed just like Hikin' Jims video. No one including Soto claims that the stove would perform down to those temperatures but I figured what the hay. As someone else mentioned, if I would occasionally shake the canister, it would resume full performance for 10 or 20 seconds and then the flame would drop again. I could still boil water but it would take three times as long.

Those would be temperatures for white gas or inverted canister so basically a pointless experiment but I had a few minutes to kill.

Peace out.

"As someone else mentioned, if I would occasionally shake the canister, it would resume full performance for 10 or 20 seconds"

So, what you need is a flame-powered fuel stirrer. That sounds almost like something that would have been found on an early spacecraft.

--B.G.--

The other question I have or might affect things is this on Jim's blog:
"Boiling point of n-butane at 6,000'/1800m: About 19F/-7C"

The boiling point of liquids typically drops with altitude. I don't have any altitude data for butane but 19F at 6000ft seems resonable.

Isn't the above in an open system and it is the internal pressure of the canister that in the key? And, closer to sea level pressures (and could be higher)?

Not sure what you are asking. What is important is the pressure difference between the inside of the canister and the external air pressure. If both are the same than no fuel will flow. If you were at sea level at 32 degrees the stove will only work as long as there is propane or isobutane in the canister. But once that Burns off the pressure difference goes to zero and the stove goes out.

At temperatures below the boiling point of the fuel the only thing you can do to keep the stove working is to heat the canister up.

"The other question I have or might affect things is this on Jim's blog:
"Boiling point of n-butane at 6,000'/1800m: About 19F/-7C"
Isn't the above in an open system and it is the internal pressure of the canister that in the key? And, closer to sea level pressures (and could be higher)?"

"Not sure what you are asking. What is important is the pressure difference between the inside of the canister and the external air pressure. If both are the same than no fuel will flow. If you were at sea level at 32 degrees the stove will only work as long as there is propane or isobutane in the canister. But once that Burns off the pressure difference goes to zero and the stove goes out."

Steven,
What I was pointing out is the effect of pressure on the boiling point of the n-butane.

Open system meaning - not in a canister, an open top container.

My guess is that the the n-butane boiling point in Jim container was closer to the 30-34 degrees then the 19 degrees assumed in the the demonstration. So, the n-butane was mostly in the liquid state.

I feel this is all much ado about nothing. The Soto works as well as any other upright canister stove in sub-freezing temps. It's lightweight and compact and it is competively priced to its peers. Yeah it's got a sales hook that probably does not deliver real value, but it also probably does no harm.

I think in the end it only bugs those who are obsessed about ultimate effiency wantng to boil their last cup of water on the last day of a trip with a canisters last bit of gas.

It's obvious that to "git er done" with an upright canister stove in sub-freezing temps one defualts to bringing larger/more canisters (250 and 500-size) of Winter mix and let the stove burn off the propane and iso-butane. Hopefully we always pack our canisters out anyway so it's not like any remaing n-butane in the canister can't also be used again when its warmer. Plus we learn a few canister tricks to get them warm to help things along.

Of course, the larger canisters weigh more but so do the current alternatives of an inverted stove or white gas, not to mention their own ease-of-use issues. Seems to me over the course of typical Winter trek of less than a week carrying extra gas above the amounts needed for a similar 3-season trip is just a sensible perquisite of Winter hiking.

Hi, Ian,

Sorry, not trying to blow you off. I promised my daughter that I would take her hiking, and I needed to get her out the door. Three year olds can be very tempermental; it's best to go when they are willing rather than to wait and risk them changing their mind.

I think others have actually answered fairly well, but let me talk more about why I chose the test conditions I did (fuel, temperature, elevation, etc.).

First, my objective: Test the Soto OD-1R Microregulator stove in cold induced low canister pressure conditions. I wanted to answer the question, "can a Soto Microregulator compensate for loss of canister pressure due to cold?"

Now, at what point does canister pressure really start to fall off? Well, generally about ten Fahrenheit degrees (about five Celsius degrees) above the boiling point of the fuel. And what are the boiling points of the fuels inside a canister? Well, regular butane boils at 31F/-0.5C, isobutane at 11F/-12C, and propane at -44F/-42C. So, adding about 10 Fahrenheit degrees to the boiling points, we get our critical test temperatures: 41F/5C for butane, 21F/-6C for isopbutane, and -34F/-37C for propane. Note: I could also use a blend of fuels, but the computations necessary for calculating the boiling point are beyond me.

Now, I live in Southern California. Temperatures like those described above are a little hard to come by -- but in the mountains such temperatures abound. There's just one catch: Boiling points fall by about 2 Fahrenheit degrees for every thousand feet of elevation (about 1 Celsius degree for every 300m of elevation). I went to 6000' of elevation, therefore the boiling point will be 12 degrees lower than at sea level (and the critical temperature, boiling point + 10).

Now, I can use any fuel I want, so long as I am at the critical point (about 10F above the boiling point). The easiest to use is butane for someone in Southern California simply because the temperatures are relatively warm here. It's hard to find temperatures cold enough to really test isobutane and propane here.

Basically though, it doesn't matter which fuel one tests with, so long as one tests at a temperature appropriate for that fuel. Again, the point is to test at the point where canister pressure is really going to fall due to cold.

I believe I did just exactly that. Look the flame in the "long" video on my blog. It is robust. That means there was good canister pressure. But at the end of the video, the flame was very small. That means there was poor pressure. What happened in between? The canister got cold. The regulator valve was not able to compensate for the loss of pressure in the canister.

I'm really tired after my hike, so I hope I'm making sense.

HJ
Adventures in Stoving

well said Jim

and what do you mean, going out hiking rather than defending yourself??? : )

and Jim said the Soto was pretty good, but people claim it works better at cold temperatures than a regular upright. I think Jim did pretty good showing that claim is not valid. But, the Soto is still a good upright.

I don't think it makes any difference which upright - Gnat is 1.7 oz, Pocket Rocket and others weigh 3 oz, Soto in between - no significant difference

The only stove that's a little better is the Jetboil Sol Ti, which weighs the same when you include windscreen and pot weight, but Jetboil uses a little less fuel which is where the weight is.

" There's just one catch: Boiling points fall by about 2 Fahrenheit degrees for every thousand feet of elevation (about 1 Celsius degree for every 300m of elevation). I went to 6000' of elevation, therefore the boiling point will be 12 degrees lower than at sea level (and the critical temperature, boiling point + 10)."

Jim,
What about the issue of the n-butane being in a canister? For the inside pressure of the canister to equal the outside pressure; wouldn't the volume/size of the canister have to increase while the amount of the fuel inside remained the same?

If my understanding is correct there is a 23% decrease in air pressure from sea level to 6,000ft.
http://www.endmemo.com/physics/pressurealtitude.php

If, I'm correct that means that the n-butane was below or at the borderline of its boiling temperature during the test.

Also, what was the temperature of the canister at the beginning of the test (not air temp)? Was it possible that they were warmer then the air temps so there was a good amount of n-butane in the gas state?

Did you weight the canisters before and after the test to see which burned more fuel?

And it was interesting that there was a difference in canister temps between the two. Yes, I did watch the long video!

Anyway - thanks for taking the time to stand in the cold to do this.

Edited by dextersp1 on 02/19/2013 09:15:23 MST.

Jim,

Thanks for your response; that was really informative. I was on the trail yesterday as well with my kids/nephews ages ranging from 7-12. Not necessarily as temperamental as a three year old but my apologies to any fellow hikers on the trail for the chaos I unleashed.

BLUF I don't regret purchasing the Soto but I wouldn't steer anyone towards it vs any other canister stove. I'd probably buy the Sol Ti if I had to do it all over today.

I originally purchased this set up over the Sol Ti with the perceived benefit of having the ability to cook over a fire or Esbit if I encountered a system failure. I've seen people use Esbit with their Sol Ti pot but I have concerns that this may damage the fins in the long run.

It appears from reading reviews that the weight of the Sol Ti can be reduced to ~7.8 ozs if you get rid of all of the unnecessary extras which is close enough weight comparison to my set up. I can only milk out 14 16oz boils from the Soto using a 100g canister when I use the optional wind screen. Reviewers indicate that they are achieving 24 16oz boils from their Sol Ti. I'd gladly trade whatever benefit my system has (real or imagined) for those 10 extra boils.

My absurd test of throwing the canister in the freezer (-4*f) resulting in a 2 minute blast before my stove performance dropped shows why the Sol Ti would excel over the Soto in colder temperatures. It would boil the water or at least have it hot enough to rehydrate food before the performance would likely drop off.

Sousaville on Youtube ran some tests on the Sol Ti vs Reactor in conjunction with frozen canisters which seems to support that general theory.

Paul Mason wrote: > What about the issue of the n-butane being in a canister? For the inside pressure of the canister to equal the outside pressure; wouldn't the volume/size of the canister have to increase while the amount of the fuel inside remained the same?

If my understanding is correct there is a 23% decrease in air pressure from sea level to 6,000ft.
http://www.endmemo.com/physics/pressurealtitude.php

If, I'm correct that means that the n-butane was below or at the borderline of its boiling temperature during the test.

Paul Mason wrote: > Also, what was the temperature of the canister at the beginning of the test (not air temp)? Was it possible that they were warmer then the air temps so there was a good amount of n-butane in the gas state?

Paul Mason wrote: > Did you weight the canisters before and after the test to see which burned more fuel?

Paul Mason wrote: > Anyway - thanks for taking the time to stand in the cold to do this.

"I just get so darned curious about these things that sometimes I have to see for myself. :)"

Jim,
Thanks again - I learned some more - I didn't know about that pressurization equalization.

Now Ian has got me wondering about this:
"I can only milk out 14 16oz boils from the Soto using a 100g canister when I use the optional wind screen. Reviewers indicate that they are achieving 24 16oz boils from their Sol Ti. I'd gladly trade whatever benefit my system has (real or imagined) for those 10 extra boils."


I read a hiking board where avalanches are a concern. It is amazing all there is to know. Looking back over some hikes in mountainous snow areas I see how stupid I was. Now at least I know that I don't know.

Edited by dextersp1 on 02/19/2013 12:07:11 MST.

James Klein wrote: > I... think that Jim used butane for his test, to see if the regulator provides any benefit over a normal valve as the fuel approaches its boiling limit.

Steven Franchuk wrote: > Jim's test is actually very good... When Jim filled both his canisters with butane he eliminated the biggest variable in most other reviews and test. The only variables in Jim's test were the stoves.

Stuart R wrote: > By using n-butane, Jim eliminated one of the major variables in stove testing: the fuel. With a blended fuel, not only are you not certain of the precise percentages when the canster is new, but the percentages change as the canister is used, as the more volatile gas boils off more quickly, so the pressure in the canister is constantly varying.

Jerry Adams wrote: > Jim said the Soto was pretty good, but people claim it works better at cold temperatures than a regular upright. I think Jim did pretty good showing that claim is not valid. But, the Soto is still a good upright.

Edited by hikin_jim on 02/19/2013 23:11:43 MST.

I just wanted to add a few comments.

Nice job with the write-up Hikin' Jim whether Soto intended it or not you are doing a good job dispelling some myths that are obviously floating around (given some peoples unwillingness to accept your results even after you laid out exactly what you did).

I defense of Soto what I think they are trying to do is simply show how their regulator automatically adjusts to changing bottle conditions (which is to get colder over time as the tank blows down). That is why a regulator has advantages over a needle valve. As tank pressure drops the regulator will automatically open up. To get the same performance out of a needle valve you would have to slowly open it up over time. They frame the advantage in terms of as the tank gets colder, which some people have incorrectly assumed means the stove has a cold weather advantage. Soto certainly seems to have caused confusion and it is good that you are clarifying.

Ian, I hope you understand what happened in your experiment as it shows a good reason why someone should not conduct these types of experiments with fuel mixture. When you stuck your tank in the freezer you condensed out most of the butane leaving mostly propane in the vapor volume. That little flash you got when you fired up your stove was the propane burning off. Your experiment drastically changed the mixture ratio of your fuel tank. No such uncontrolled factors occurred in Hikin' Jim's experiment because he used a pure butane tank.

"As tank pressure drops the regulator will automatically open up. To get the same performance out of a needle valve you would have to slowly open it up over time."

That doesn't seem very useful to me.

You have to watch the stove regardless. When it reaches boil you want to turn it off. Any flaming device should be watched carefully to make sure it doesn't spread.

Typically, I'll start the stove, after maybe one minute the canister cools so the flame level reduces, so I'll turn it up. Not a big deal.

On the other hand, not being very smart, sometimes after a while I'll wonder why it's taking so long and it occurs to me that it has to be turned up. It would be a little nice for it to stay at the same level automatically.

So, the regulator does provide a little usefullness.

Thanks and yes I understand. HJ ran his experiment in a way to rule out variances in fuel mixtures which can't be controlled for or measured due to discrepancies in fuel mixtures.

I ran mine in a way to see how the stove would perform in a variety of temperatures using commercially available fuel as that is what I'll personally be using in the field. I try to learn the limitations of my gear in a controlled environment (e.g. home or day hikes.)

I've previously apologized for my snarky and inappropriate post/response and I'll once again say thank you for the useful information.