The New, Lighter 1.0L MSR Reactor
Display Avatars Sort By:
Nick Gatel
(ngatel) - MLife

Locale: Southern California
Re: Coleman Fuel Stability on 11/14/2013 09:30:09 MST Print View

I have used old gas in my SVEA 123 with good results. "Fresh" gas does seem to burn bluer though. There was a time that a gallon of fuel wouldn't last more than a few months, but I am not using liquid stoves much these days. So I will start buying fuel in the quart containers. With the MSRs, I just prefer not to use old fuel... perhaps that, along with filtering and maintenance, is why I have never had a MSR stove failure.

Ah, but maintaining equipment, backpacking and other, seems to be a lost art with the younger generations. I read the owner manuals for everything I buy and follow the manufacturers maintenance procedures and schedules. Being in the car business I can tell you that few owners read the manual these days, other than how to work the stereo.

Doug I.
(idester) - MLife

Locale: MidAtlantic
Re: Re: Coleman Fuel Stability on 11/14/2013 09:37:26 MST Print View

"Being in the car business I can tell you that few owners read the manual these days, other than how to work the stereo."

Not true! We also read the manual to see how to turn off those darn warning lights that some service or other is due.....

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Coleman Fuel Stability on 11/14/2013 09:51:03 MST Print View

"Ah, but maintaining equipment, backpacking and other, seems to be a lost art with the younger generations. I read the owner manuals for everything I buy and follow the manufacturers maintenance procedures and schedules."

I believe we're approximately the same (old) age.

I throw away user manuals. If it isn't intuitively obvious, it's a defective design.

(only half serious - I read user manuals sometimes - but what's to say about canister stove, screw onto canister, only an idiot cross threads it, since it's an upright there's nothing to maintain,...)

greg c
(spindrifter) - F
The Point Being... on 11/14/2013 09:58:28 MST Print View

"There's nothing that I'm aware of that makes a Reactor better at altitude than other canister stoves. It's in wind where the Reactor is the outstanding stove".

Typically at altitude you face higher winds and colder temps thus the conditions are more demanding. The reference to altitude is an umbrella that captures a variety of factors affecting stove performance.

Also, considering canister stoves, the Reactor is not just superior in wind, but also in cold temps. It has an internal pressure regulator, and at least in the less than scientific tests I've done, it can't be beat in single digit temperatures.

Edited by spindrifter on 11/14/2013 10:13:00 MST.

Hikin' Jim
(hikin_jim) - MLife

Locale: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Canister Gas Stoves at "Altitude" on 11/14/2013 11:14:42 MST Print View

> Typically at altitude you face higher winds and colder temps thus the conditions are more demanding. The reference to altitude is an umbrella that captures a variety of factors affecting stove performance.
Ah. OK, I follow; I see what you mean.

My only concern (and it's my own personal stove nerdly concern) :) is that some people don't understand that by "altitude" what is really meant is "the things that typically come with altitude." There's a persistent myth out there that canister gas stoves "don't work at altitude" (this seems particularly prevalent among Scouts for some reason). I usually try to specify "wind" or "cold" rather than just "altitude" because of this rumor -- which I'd like to see dispelled. Canister stoves have been used successfully on all sorts of Himalayan expeditions.

Speaking of cold and altitude, for every 1,000 feet you climb, a canister gas stove will operate (about) 2 degrees Fahrenheit colder due to the lower air pressure (all else being equal).

> the Reactor is not just superior in wind, but also in cold temps. It has an internal pressure regulator, and at least in the less than scientific tests I've done, it can't be beat in single digit temperatures.
That's interesting. Others have alluded to the Reactor working better than in other stoves in cold weather. Can you say more about what you've experienced?

HJ
Adventures In Stoving

greg c
(spindrifter) - F
Reactor and Cold Temps on 11/14/2013 12:00:29 MST Print View

Hi Jim. I've taken the Reactor on numerous snow camping adventures and last February me and a buddy took the Reactor, a Jetboil, MSR micro rocket, and a coleman extreme to do some non-scientific testing. At temperatures hovering at 20 degrees the Reactor was a monster. It didn't suffer the usual glacial melting process that ordinary canisters are plagued. My trusty MSR micro rocket was a dog in that setting as I expected. The Jetboil was affected adversely as well, but my old Coleman Extreme did very well.

As for the Reactor, I'm assuming it is the internal pressure regulator and overall design efficiency that allows it to function so well in cold. However, I can't definitively state the reasons, but perhaps some of our engineer friends can. MSR claims the regulator is responsible for good cold weather performance.

One other neat thing of note. When using the Reactor on snow you don't have to put a mousepad or chunk of bark underneath it like other stoves. It captures heat so effectively that you don't end up with a growing hole where the stove is placed. This is not really a big deal, but in the past i carried a mousepad for my other stoves when snowcamping and now I don't. A small weight saving, but it further confirms that sometimes we don't always get the entire weight savings picture just by comparing base weights of products. This also can be said for stove efficiency and weight reductions associated with carrying less fuel.

Anyhow, enjoy the new Reactor!

Roger Caffin
(rcaffin) - BPL Staff - MLife

Locale: Wollemi & Kosciusko NPs, Europe
Re: Coleman Fuel Stability on 11/14/2013 14:50:59 MST Print View

Hi Jim

> true white gas is really hard to find in the United States.
So what is the technical difference between 'true white gas' and what is sold today?

Cheers

Hikin' Jim
(hikin_jim) - MLife

Locale: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Re: Re: Coleman Fuel Stability on 11/14/2013 15:27:43 MST Print View

Well, I'm not a Pet. E. nor a chemist and I'm no expert, but here's my understanding:
True white gasoline is the type of gasoline originally refined for automobiles, the type with out tetraethyl lead added. When tetraethyl lead was later added to inhibit premature detonation ("knocking"), the leaded gasoline was dyed red to distinguish it from gasoline without lead. Leaded gasoline became known as "red" gasoline (sometimes also called "ethyl") and gasoline without lead became known as "white" gasoline. Note that white gasoline is not the same as "unleaded" gasoline. Unleaded gasoline has additives to prevent premature detonation; the additives just aren't lead. White gasoline does not have anti-knock additives.

Then along came William C Coleman. From the Coleman website:

W.C. Coleman could see the light for the darkness. The young salesman was taking a stroll after a hard day’s work selling typewriters, and spotted a new type of lamplight in a drugstore window in Brockton, Alabama. This new light burned with a strong, steady white flame and was fueled by gasoline. The standard lamp of the era burned kerosene and produced a smoky, flickering, yellowish light. W.C. was stricken with very poor eyesight, and was very interested in this new, steady white light that enabled him to read even the smallest print in books and on medicine bottles. Coleman saw potential in the new light, and through his vision a new company was born that would put America’s farms and ranches in a new light.
The Coleman company originally used white gasoline. At some point, the Coleman company developed and improved fuel, one that was safer, more stable, and, by virtue of the addition of rust inhibitors, made their equipment last longer. Thus Coleman fuel was born.

Of course there a number of similar fuels: Shellite, Blazo, Sunnyside Camping Appliance Fuel, MSR Super Fuel, Fuelite, etc. These are considered to be in the general category of "naphtha" although naphtha hardly has a precise definition. Kerosene for that matter doesn't either. Zen Stoves has a write up on the differences in various Petrol Fuels.

HJ
Adventures In Stoving

USA Duane Hall
(hikerduane) - F

Locale: Extreme northern Sierra Nevada
Coleman Fuel Stability/defense of DF noise on 11/14/2013 19:03:43 MST Print View

I also understand Coleman Fuel/knockoffs, have a much lower octane rating too, not good for auto engines, but should help us get a burner going.
I have had a DF for a couple years now, late to the dance, no issues so far, but thanks for the heads up over the filter.

I have a aftermarket silent burner, one of Gary's (berniedawg)'s Dragontamer caps. It works very well, quiet and the stove simmers very well. I've had the stove poking along simmering a stew with no attention needed, other than to look over at it once in awhile to make sure I could still see steam coming off the pot. My understanding also, it reduces the noise by quite a bit, and maybe a added benefit, reduces stove output which maybe helps with the stove being able to be throttled down and allow simmering at a nice pace.

Last weekend I used my MSR 9 with the simmer plate (medium tin can end), it didn't help much. Ended up having to hold it over the whole thing for the most part.

From my observations, Coleman Powermax fuel canisters are not any better at the fuels not separating than currently available canister fuel. I had issues with my Xtreme stove last year in the fall, I had to keep turning up the valve. I checked things out at home and the stove ran fine and the fuel by that time was warmer. I was bping in temps in the mid 20F.
Duane

kevin timm
(ktimm) - M

Locale: Colorado (SeekOutside)
I need one on 11/14/2013 20:38:04 MST Print View

I love the reactor. It is heavy, but it flat out works. Last week, it was in my pack specifically for snow melting as that was the only water available. I think I need the new 1L

Thanks for the info Jim

Hikin' Jim
(hikin_jim) - MLife

Locale: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Re: Reactor and Cold Temps on 11/15/2013 12:02:15 MST Print View

> Hi Jim. I've taken the Reactor on numerous snow camping adventures and last February me and a buddy took the Reactor, a Jetboil, MSR micro rocket, and a coleman extreme to do some non-scientific testing. At temperatures hovering at 20 degrees the Reactor was a monster. It didn't suffer the usual glacial melting process that ordinary canisters are plagued. My trusty MSR micro rocket was a dog in that setting as I expected. The Jetboil was affected adversely as well, but my old Coleman Extreme did very well.
So the Reactor did better than the Jetboil in those conditions? Interesting. Identical fuel? And at what elevation? Was there much wind? And most importantly, which version of the Jetboil did you take?

> As for the Reactor, I'm assuming it is the internal pressure regulator and overall design efficiency that allows it to function so well in cold. However, I can't definitively state the reasons, but perhaps some of our engineer friends can.
There are two competing theories here:
1. The regulator allows a larger aperture jet to be used safely. The larger jet size increases performance in cold weather.

2. The Reactor is conducting heat to the gas canister. The conducted heat increases performance in cold weather.

Personally, I think theory #1 is what's behind the improved performance of the Reactor, but it could well be a combination of theories 1 and 2.

Will Rietveld notes in several places in his articles on integrated canister stoves that the stoves with regulator valves (in this case the Jetboil Sol and the MSR Reactor) did better in cold weather.
Article I
Article II

But he provides no explanation as to why.

In my testing of the Soto Microregulator (OD-1R) (see Advantages (?) of Regulator Valved Stoves), I found no material benefit to having a regulator in terms of cold weather performance.

It would seem that a regulator alone is insufficient.

Really, more testing is required to understand why the Reactor and perhaps the Jetboil Sol do better in cold weather.

HJ
Adventures In Stoving

Edited by hikin_jim on 11/15/2013 12:04:08 MST.

Roger Caffin
(rcaffin) - BPL Staff - MLife

Locale: Wollemi & Kosciusko NPs, Europe
Re: Coleman Fuel Stability/defense of DF noise on 11/15/2013 14:59:40 MST Print View

> Coleman Powermax fuel canisters are not any better at the fuels not separating
> than currently available canister fuel.
Sorry, but wrong. The liquid in the canister is a mixture which cannot separate just to feed into the delivery tube. Just not possible.

What may have been happening is that the canister was getting colder, lowering the internal pressure. Very easy to do. Me, I let a bit of radiation from the stove hit the canister to keep it just above freezing.

Cheers

greg c
(spindrifter) - F
Quoted Weights on 11/15/2013 15:20:37 MST Print View

You seem to be quoting a weight difference of 6 oz. between the 1.7 and 1 liter pots. I purchased my stove in 2010 and it weighs 17.5 oz, the same as currently listed by MSR. The new 1 liter pot results in a mere 2.8 oz. savings (total stove weight = 14.7 oz.). It's probably important to point this out because I'm sure there are many possessing the post 2009 pot that is apparently lighter than the one you own. For me anyway, a 2.8 oz. savings isn't worthy of the change.

Additionally, you state that the MSR 1 liter is still heavier than Jetboil. If you actually compare the JB one liter model (Flash) the weights are within a three quarters of an ounce. You would have to either choose a smaller JB pot capacity or a titanium JB to have a lower total weight.

Edited by spindrifter on 11/15/2013 15:31:17 MST.

Hikin' Jim
(hikin_jim) - MLife

Locale: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Re: Quoted Weights on 11/15/2013 15:35:58 MST Print View

Yes, correct. Which is why I added the following to my original blog post:

Update 25 March 2013: MSR informs me that there is also a newer version of the 1.7L Reactor pot that has the same welded fins as the new 1.0L Reactor pot. The newer version of the 1.7L Reactor pot is lighter by about three ounces (~80g) than the original 1.7L Reactor pot. If you have the newer version of the 1.7L Reactor pot, your weight savings will not be quite as substantial if you switch to the 1.0L Reactor pot.
If you have the original 1.7 L Reactor pot, you'll save about 6 oz if you switch to the new 1.0 L Reactor pot.

If you have a newer 1.7 L Reactor pot, you'll save about 3 oz if you switch to the new 1.0 L Reactor pot. Definitely less of a weight savings, but some, and some space savings too. Is it worth it? Judgement call. The new 1.0 L pot is really a sweet upgrade if you have an original 1.7 L pot.

HJ
Adventures In Stoving

Hikin' Jim
(hikin_jim) - MLife

Locale: Los Angeles, CA, USA
1.0 L MSR Reactor Component Weights on 11/15/2013 15:38:18 MST Print View

Note also in my component weight listings down at the bottom of my blog post that there is some variability in the weight. The unit I have is lighter that the stated weight that MSR lists.

HJ
Adventures In Stoving



<span style="">Appendix I<span style=""> -- Component Weights</span></span>



<colgroup><col style="" width="71" /><col span="3" style="" width="70" /><col style="" width="64" /></colgroup><tbody>






</tbody>
ItemGrams MeasuredStated GramsOunces MeasuredStated Ounces
1.0L Pot1721976.16.9
Burner1781796.36.3
Lid36361.31.3
Pack Cloth440.10.1
Total39041613.814.7

Update 25 March 2013:  I've weighed my 1.0L pot at least ten times now.  I get 172g.  I talked to MSR.  They weighed a pot there in Seattle and confirmed 197g.  That's a difference of 25g (nearly an ounce).  I'm not sure what the issue is here.  My pot seems fine, but maybe I got an odd pot?  If I can, I'll head to a local store and see if I can measure another pot, but these are new, so I haven't seen them in any stores yet.  If you decide to purchase one, don't count on your pot being 172g; it may be 197g.  Regardless of the precise weight, the system is well designed, well put together, and is clearly lighter than the original Reactor. 




greg c
(spindrifter) - F
Quoted weight. on 11/15/2013 15:41:47 MST Print View

Correct. But like I said I have a 2010 model 1.7 liter and it is 17.5 oz. The change occurred not in 2013 but sometime earlier in the product's life. Point being many people with the 1.7 have the lighter version already so your claim of weight savings is inaccurate for those individuals.

Edited by spindrifter on 11/15/2013 15:43:41 MST.

Hikin' Jim
(hikin_jim) - MLife

Locale: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Re: Quoted weight. on 11/15/2013 15:48:18 MST Print View

Well, hopefully people will read the post in it's entirety. I put down in multiple places that newer versions of the 1.7 L pot are lighter. The 2013 update date is the date that I wrote the update, not the date that MSR changed the pot. I don't have a date for when the pot changed.

HJ
Adventures In Stoving

Steve Sandifur
(STS)
Burner doesn't nest in 1.0L on 12/21/2013 09:54:21 MST Print View

One thing to add is that the burner does not nest in the 1.0l.How in the world this wasn't caught before distribution is beyond me.

Gary Dunckel
(Zia-Grill-Guy) - MLife

Locale: Boulder
Burner DOES nest in 1.0L on 12/21/2013 10:12:52 MST Print View

Steve, the burner will nest inside the 1.0 L. pot with a small (4 oz.) fuel canister. It's described in Hikin' Jim's blog (I think that's where I saw it). It's a precise fit, and it must be done just right. But when things are packed up, there's nothing rattling around inside the pot.

Hikin' Jim
(hikin_jim) - MLife

Locale: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Re: Burner doesn't nest in 1.0L on 12/21/2013 11:07:53 MST Print View

Steve,

Actually it does fit, although there's a bit of a trick to it. The burner goes in last, and you have to angle the valve spindle into the pour spout.


Full instructions are on my blog at The New, Lighter 1.0L MSR Reactor

HJ
Adventures in Stoving
Hikin Jim's Blog