Companion forum thread to:

Stoves, Tents and Carbon Monoxide - Deadly or Not?
Part 3: Laboratory Measurements for Canister Stoves

Roger,
again a great article. Certainly one of the reasons why I still keep coming back to this place. These kind of articles have definitely changed the way I use my stove and the whole cooking system.

Interesting comments also about the Reactor. It's not even released yet and we already know its weak points. I do still have a question about the way the Reactor works, more particularly about something which isn't strictly mentioned in your article. The Reactor is being promoted has having consistent boil times throughout the life of a canister or in colder weather, and this because of an internal pressure regulator which maintains a constant pressure of just 12,5 PSI (if not mistaken other stoves work at a higher pressure: 14,7 ... 17,5 ???). Do you have an idea how this pressure regulator works and how it can influence the results of your tests? How does the high back pressure influences this? Does the high back pressure influence the cold weather performance of this stove.

Another point which isn't mentioned but which could be of interest is the influence of the finned heatexchangers used in the Jetboil, Etapower and reactor? I would suspect dat they could influence the results by quenching the flames.

A question about the Gravity stove: which jet did you use? .45, .40 or .35? You suggest that a smaller jet size could improve performance. The recommended jet size for LP is the .45 but I wonder if it makes any sence to change that one for the .40 or .35 which are normally recommended for liquid fuels?

A last comment which isn't directly related to the CO issue: you mentioned a hose with a swivel connection for the Etapower. I was wondering if it can be retrofitted to a Gravity stove (EF version)?

Edited by Woubeir on 06/01/2007 14:34:24 MDT.

Well thought out in your approach and well written. Kudos Roger.

I am not completely filled in on the CO series, but has anyone considered the long term effects of CO poisoning? I've looked in to it, and I see such things like long term kidney problems, depression, and confusion, documented and added risk to heart desease, and its danger to pregnant women. Could some of these stoves being used by avid outdoorists be pretty dangerous? How long would it take for the CO to get out of the tent after each cooking, because I would think its the time in which the CO is present rather than the stove being ignited that is the main problem.

Edited by hotrhoddudeguy on 05/30/2007 09:03:40 MDT.

Would it be optimistic for me to theorise that MSR was made aware of this issue long ago and that the current delay in the release of this product is due to attempt to address this?

Since I haven't heard of any lawsuit slapped against Roger and bpl by msr, i remain hopeful.

Here's a link for the US EPA Carbon Monoxide fact sheet:

http://www.epa.gov/iaq/co.html

My NIOSH guide lists the target organs as the cardiovascular system, lungs, blood and central nervous system. Symptoms include headache, tachypnea, nausea, dizzyness, confusion, halucinations, cyanosis, weakness, angina and syncope.

I checked several resources, including the EPA IRIS data base, and it's not listed as a carcinogen. It would seem that unless brain or CNS damage has occurred from acute exposure, all symptoms should clear up once the victim is removed from the source and properly treated. It's not persistent in the body.

Interestingly, there's no indoor air standard established in the US.

The article states (and the table lists) the high power CO concentration for the MSR Reactor as 50 ppm, but both charts of the actual tests seem to indicate that the high power CO is more like 500 ppm. Is this an anomoly or a misprint?


UPDATE: I was clearly misreading the charts. Thanks for the clarification Ryan.

And great article Roger - I am thoroughly impressed!

Edited by jbrinkmanboi on 05/31/2007 23:20:50 MDT.

FYI - Roger and Sue are out on their multi-month trek in Europe. We will likely hear from him when he gets back.

Great article, Roger!

Hi Roger,

Thanks for another excellent article, you have certainly set a very high standard for others to follow. I know it will be months before you can reply but I would like to see an article comparing the thermal efficiencies of all of those stoves. I have read some evidence that higher thermal efficiency stoves can produce higher CO emissions.

Tony

Jason Brinkman wrote: "The article states (and the table lists) the high power CO concentration for the MSR Reactor as 50 ppm, but both charts of the actual tests seem to indicate that the high power CO is more like 500 ppm. Is this an anomoly or a misprint?"

Jason: "ppm, low" represents the concentration of CO when the stove is operated at low power, and "ppm, high" represents the concentration of CO when the stove is operated at high power. So, yes, the tests results in the tables are correct. As for the charts, note that the red lines correspond to the red axes (right hand side); again, they seem to be correct and consistent with what is presented in the tables.

Robert Mohid wrote: "Would it be optimistic for me to theorise that MSR was made aware of this issue long ago and that the current delay in the release of this product is due to attempt to address this? Since I haven't heard of any lawsuit slapped against Roger and bpl by msr, i remain hopeful."

Robert, as stated in the article, we (Roger and myself) communicated with MSR from the moment the test results came off our testing line and were confirmed. To their credit, they were concerned, of course, and promised us their analysis after they had the chance to test it. I haven't heard further from them, but I certainly expect to. They've always been very forthright in their communication and delivering on their promises.

Of course, MSR's position is a pretty safe and simple one: don't cook in tents.

In that respect, so long as you're using the Reactor outdoors and aren't sniffing fumes within inches of the stove while it's running at low power, it should serve you well.

It's that VERY SIGNIFICANT FRACTION OF YOU OUT THERE THAT ARE LOOKING TO COOK IN A TENT WITH THIS STOVE (hey, don't deny it, I have your emails and forum posts to prove it haha!!) then I'd be extremely concerned for your safety.

Whether or not MSR will address the CO issue is probably a moot point from the perspective of their legal team because they would never condone cooking in tents. However, they are certainly aware of the fact that their customers do indeed cook in tents, and sometimes, they do so with MSR's XGK and Whisperlites. Hey, I raise my hand, I'm guilty. It's scary, yes, but sometimes, high on a mountain, bad storm, and you need water, you do it. It's one of those risks.

I don't know if Roger had a chance to see the production version of the stove, and I didn't have a chance to review the prototype he received, but I'm trying to compare the intake vent pattern and chimney vent pattern between my production version and the pictures of Roger's prototype version, and I'm not seeing any differences, so my suspicion is that this CO issue is going to be an issue with the production version <<< *** SPECULATIVE SO, ASSESS THE QUALITY OF THIS STATEMENT AT YOUR OWN RISK.

If I had to bet money, my own personal history with MSR indicates that they will indeed improve CO emissions on this stove, so that they will improve its safety for the fraction of their customer base to which they do not desire to sell to (those that cook in tents) but they lack the ability to control end use, so they will mitigate risks in meaningful ways, and when they do, they'll have us repeat the tests and publish the results to prove. MSR does indeed have that sort of integrity as a company. So, be patient.

The real problem is that CO emissions are next-to-meaningless for most mfrs because no one will ever condone cooking in a tent.

Here's my personal advice.

• I cook in tents when I have to, and seldom when I don't.
  
• I do as much research as possible and try to make informed decisions.
  
• I don't rely on manufacturer recommendations for anything, whether conservative or liberal.
  
• Don't cook in tents if you don't understand any of this or are otherwise hearing things like "huh?", "why?", "what an idiot!", etc. in your head right now.


• Don't use an MSR Reactor at low power in a tent.

Edited by ryan on 05/30/2007 20:55:30 MDT.

Here's hoping that MSR when they receive a critical amount of input (hopefully w/o the critical injuries) will make a version 2.0. After all, many of the outdoor equipment manufacturers love to have endorsements and products-in-use- photos from the higher powered portion of the mountaineering community ("it's been used on Everest" by sexy climber of the moment fill in the blank, yadda, yadda). Asphyxiated high-altitude climbers of note make for extremely poor publicity and rather suppress sales.

But enough fun---MSR is a responsible company and I know they will eventually improve the design. They've had misteps before when introducing a new product which usually will get nailed by the 2nd or 3rd iteration. It's probably also true that much of it's use by the climbing tribe (a notably impatient bunch) will be at full power---melting snow quickly and the like.

Roger has performed a signal service to both manufacturers and the consumer with his multi-part article and tests. kudos!

Edited by kdesign on 05/30/2007 21:19:58 MDT.

Wow, now this is the kind of unique research that makes BPL definitely worthwhile!

So can anyone tell me why I should *not* buy the Primus EtaPower?

Okay, more specifically, although I like my SnowPeak GigaPower stove for fair-weather use, if I want a stove for:
-- cold weather
-- windy weather
-- [relatively] safe [from a CO perspective] in-tent cooking
-- canister convenience
...then seems like the EtaPower is the best choice? The weight penalty seems like it might be partially compensated for by fuel efficiency, plus relying on ski gloves (in lieu of pot gripper) and alu foil lid (in lieu of frying pan) seems to make the weight somewhat reasonable.
Also, can the integrated windscreen be left home (relying on either calm conditions, or in-tent cooking), or is it required for the stove to function?

Ryan, I agree with the logic of your reasoning.

However the cold hard fact is not everyone is well informed and those that are sometimes go against their own judgement for whatever reason. (as you have admitted doing yourself)

Considering this stove's appeal to mountaineers and alpinists, where less than ideal conditions are often the norm, it's difficult to avoid the conclusion that some people WILL DIE from CO poisoning.

They can spell the same thing out in bold letters in their wavers as much as they want, but I'm sure they know this in their hearts as well.

Maybe there will be no incidents and all will be fine, but maybe not.

Frankly, a company that is willing to bet the lives of others due to a product's greatly increased risks, is collecting a lot of bad karma in my eyes.

just my 2c

Although the couple was cooking in a snow trench and not in a tent, readers thinking about cooking in an enclosed space might want to check out the article "Death On The Wapta" by Geoff Powter in the Canadian outdoor magazine "Explore", June 2007.

This 3rd article in the series, where the rubber hits the road, was truly a splendid piece of work. Many thanks, Roger. Only downside is that I will probably be ditching my
Primus Micron, purchased for fuel efficiency and excellent pot supports, and humbly returning to Snow Peak with crow feathers around my mouth.

Checking a Backpacker mag review, the EtaPower windshield is removable, for ~4oz weight savings.
Given that cooking inside a tent is a great windshield, and that CO emissions from the EtaPower are super low, seems like a great combo ... but is it possible that emissions might rise w/o the windshield? I know that anything (well, almost anything) is *posssible* but the article implies that if anything adding a windshield increases emissions, so seems like removing it would be safe?

I thought the first article of the series somewhat of a tease, but the second and now the third are truly fine and very informative!

It happens I just started using the Kovea for my winter camping this year, in a BD firstlight, so the second part could not have come at a better time.(Actually, my Kovea is branded Athena masterglow, and comes with a companion screen / infra red heater conversion.

In response to a posted question, some permanent longterm effects of CO.



Long Term Effects of Carbon Monoxide Poisoning

Carbon monoxide, also known as CO, is a potentially deadly gas that can have devastating effects upon your life – assuming, of course, that it doesn’t kill you.

This gas has no taste, colour or odour, and can be breathed in over a short or long period of time without you even knowing that it is present. Depending on the levels of carbon monoxide that are breathed in to the body, you may suffer short term effects or permanent damage.

Again depending upon the levels of carbon monoxide breathed in, this gas could prove fatal and can cause a gradual death or can kill within minutes.

The reason why carbon monoxide is so harmful is that it displaces the levels of oxygen within the blood, which results in the death of cells and damage to major organs, which are subsequently starved of oxygen. This lack of oxygen in the blood is known as anoxia. This can lead to a range of symptoms and effects, both short term and long term depending on the levels of gas breathed in and the duration over which you are exposed to carbon monoxide.

The long term effects of poisoning by carbon monoxide can be extremely serious. The long term effects of breathing in carbon monoxide can affect:

* memory
* brain function
* behaviour
* cognition.

It can also cause permanent damage to other major organs within the body, such as the heart.

It is thought that the hippocampus, which is the section of the brain that deals with new memories, can be particularly susceptible to long term damage from CO poisoning.

The effects of carbon monoxide poisoning over the long term may be subtle or may be very severe, depending on the extent of poisoning:

Up to forty percent of those poisoned can suffer problems that range from amnesia, headaches and memory loss to personality and behavioural changes, loss of muscle and bladder control and impairment of co-ordination and vision.

Many of these long term effects are not immediate and may present themselves several weeks after exposure.

In many cases, the symptoms may wear off within a certain time period.

However, in some cases the effects are permanent: particularly in the case of organ damage and brain damage.

Some of the long term effects of low level exposure are still unknown, so it can often be difficult to ascertain what sort of effect this hazardous gas may have upon your life.

Although the majority of people that suffer long-term effects from carbon monoxide poisoning do recover in time, there are those that will suffer permanent damage.

http://www.silentshadow.org/long-term-effects-of-carbon-monoxide-poisoning.html

Edited by ericl on 06/10/2007 23:25:19 MDT.

interesting press release:

Seattle, WA, June 29th, 2007 — Stringent Testing Protocol Results in Minor Design Adjustment

SEATTLE, Washington – MSR (Mountain Safety Research), the Seattle-based manufacturer of proven backcountry gear for demanding users, today announced that the MSR Reactor Stove System, previously scheduled for release in spring of 2007 is not ready for release yet. The MSR Reactor stove – which will be the fastest-boiling, most fuel-efficient windproof stove system available – is able to boil one liter of water in less than three minutes. The stove has been highly anticipated due to early press coverage, awards, and enthusiastic reviews from prototype testers.

The MSR Reactor Stove System design features radical, patent-pending technology including a convective and radiant heat burner, and an internal pressure regulator. As Seattle-based production increased and stoves were put through MSR’s stringent testing protocols, the majority of units met demanding test standards; however, a minority fell short of a particular worst-case combustion condition test, and produced higher than desired levels of Carbon Monoxide (CO). Carbon Monoxide is a byproduct of all fuel-burning stoves, and although the elevated levels produced by the Reactor would have posed little appreciable CO risk to those using the stove as directed, MSR nevertheless elected to further hone the Reactor stove design so that it consistently meets the testing standard.
...

Was this MSR's way of acknowledging the BPL Test/Report?
MSR, to their credit, has been good through the years about correcting "not quite ready for prime time" gear.

Edited by kdesign on 06/29/2007 12:06:07 MDT.

On Memorial Day weekend, 1987, a storm enveloped the entire west coast extending from Canada to just north of the Mexico border. The memory has stuck with me because I was in the in the Sierras tent bound while it snowed non-stop. Arriving home the newspapers reported the death of two “world-class” (i.e. experienced)climbers, either on Rainer or Mt. Hood, found in their tent with no signs of trauma and with no obvious indicia of the cause of death. Their tent was intact and remained unburied in the snow. Authorities were unable to provide a cause of death until autopsy and further investigation. I followed the news for awhile but never heard any follow-up to this story. Since then I have skimmed books dealing with fatal mountaineering screw-ups but no mention of this incident. This discussion has revived my increasingly stale memory and have often wondered if they were asphyxiated cooking in their tent? Might anyone here recall and know the outcome of the coroner’s report of this mountaineering tragedy?

Edited by johnk on 07/02/2007 11:13:43 MDT.

> Seattle, WA, June 29th, 2007 — Stringent Testing Protocol
> Results in Minor Design Adjustment

> SEATTLE, Washington – MSR (Mountain Safety Research), the
> Seattle-based manufacturer of proven backcountry gear for
> demanding users, today announced that the MSR Reactor
> Stove System, previously scheduled for release in spring
> of 2007 is not ready for release yet.
Er, yes, quite...

> As Seattle-based production increased and stoves were put
> through MSR’s stringent testing protocols, the majority of
> units met demanding test standards; however, a minority
> fell short of a particular worst-case combustion condition
> test, and produced higher than desired levels of Carbon
> Monoxide (CO).
Hum - I thought the CO level was an inevitable consequence of the combustion chamber design myself. I guess I dispute the word 'minority'.

> Carbon Monoxide is a byproduct of all fuel-burning stoves,
> and although the elevated levels produced by the Reactor
> would have posed little appreciable CO risk to those using
> the stove as directed,
'as directed": 6 feet from your tent in a howling blizzard...

But, I also demonstrated a small design change which would largely solve that problem, and supplied that info to them, so there is hope yet. Whether that will be the solution they eventually adopt, I do not know.

The unresolved question is whether anyone would ever want to run the Reactor at full power? Has MSR understood that few users ever use really full power? Does the machismo race for advertising rights to 'maximum power' benefit walkers at all? That's where stoves like the Snow Peak GST100 and similar by other vendors win: superb control.

Edited by rcaffin on 08/17/2007 23:24:56 MDT.

Roger,
I noticed you've returned from your European trip. I hope you had a great time.

About this article, after I read it in may, I posted a few questions (on 30/5)e.g. about the pressure regulator in the Reactor, Primus Gravity/Etapower. Are you able to look through those questions and answer them.

Perhaps an extra question: if I remember correctly, you mentioned that CO2 emissions for the Primus Gravity on high power were the result of an insufficient air supply. During my recent trip in Spain, I noticed that on the underside of the Gravity burner there is circle of covered holes. The coverage of these holes is adjustable. Doesn't this influence the air supply to the jet?

Hi Tom

Sorry - I missed your questions about the Reactor.

> Do you have an idea how this pressure regulator works and how it can influence the results of your tests?
I have not pulled the regulator apart to see, but the usual method is to have a small diaphragm over the outlet hole. The higher the pressure on the diaphragm, the closer it is pushed to the hole, and the more it restricts the flow. These can be made very small.
Would it influence the CO levels? Most unlikely.
Is it really necessary? Judge for yourself: no other stove needs it.

> Does the high back pressure influence the cold weather performance of this stove.
I doubt it very much. It's pretty hot in there!

> finned heatexchangers used in the Jetboil, Etapower and Reactor? I would suspect that they could influence the results by quenching the flames.
Well, not in the Reactor because it does not have conventional flames. The fins do not seem to have much effect on the Etapower CO levels either. In general the fins are above the critical parts of the flames, imho.

> Gravity stove: which jet did you use? .45, .40 or .35?
The 0.45 jet is the one for canisters. I did try the smaller jets: they just produce smaller flames. I don't think the CO level changed much.

> hose with a swivel connection for the Etapower. I was wondering if it can be retrofitted to a Gravity stove (EF version)?
You can retrofit almost anything to anything if you do enough work. In this case I think the correct answer is no.

Cheers
Roger

Hi Tom

> on the underside of the Gravity burner there is circle of covered holes. The coverage of these holes is adjustable. Doesn't this influence the air supply to the jet?
Yes, it does, but during my testing I made sure the flaps were quite open. I didn't try the stove with them closed up - that was obviously not a good idea.

Cheers

Thanks Roger,
interesting remark about those flaps on the Gravity because they're closed when you buy the stove and nothing is mentioned about opening them in some sort of manual (unless I missed that part). I only decided to open them on my lst trip after rereading your article and noticing the air supply problem of this stove.

About the pressure regulator, if I understand it correctly the diaphragm limits the flow through the hole and the lower the flow, the lower the pressure, right? So the argument that such a system is very usefull in cold temperatures or with nearly empty canisters doesn't make sense. It looks more that gasflow out of full canisters is restricted than that gasflow out of nearly empty canisters is improved. Or am I misinterpreting what you're saying?
Or could there be another way for a pressure regulator to function so that flow at is improved instead of restricted?
Because otherwise I can't even understand why MSR mentioned the pressure regulator in its pressrelease or even thought of including such a regulator. It doesn't seem to have any real purpose.
Reason why I ask this is that Campingaz also has a stove with a pressure regulator, the Twister HPZ, and a couple years ago I had the opportunity to test one next to several other stoves. Because of the pressure regulator, with all the marjeting blabla, we decided to test the effectivity in cold temperatures, and the result was nill, nothing, zero, ... That's not just marketing blabla, that's a pure lie. I can't understand why MSR would go the same way.

Hi Tom

> the diaphragm limits the flow through the hole and the lower the flow, the lower the pressure, right?
Well, it would be more correct to say the pressure controls the flow.

> So the argument that such a system is very usefull in cold temperatures or with nearly empty canisters doesn't make sense.
Well, if you design the system to work with a very low pressure to start with, then the pressure reduction at the regulator does make sense. This is why the large Propane (LPG) tanks always have a pressure regulator on the bottle. You would NOT want to put full pressure from a propane tank onto a stove.
This does not answer the question of whether the Reactor needs a regulator. I would not have thought so myself, but if MSR have gone to the expense of including one then I have to assume it is needed. No company includes features at extra cost if they are not needed.

Note: the release of the MSR Reactor was obviously delayed by our CO testing results. MSR claim to have fixed the CO problem, and have promised me a replacement stove for testing. It will be interesting.

The Twister is an upright stove, and if you were testing it in serious cold, yeah, it could well fail. It is not meant for cold weather.

Comment, entirely biased and ill-informed. If you want a heat-exchanger stove for cold weather and with low CO emission, then try the Primus EtaPower stove.
The Jetboil is heavy and dies in the cold (or the cool).
I have yet to test the modified Reactor.

Cheers

Hi Roger,
(un)fortunately, my Gravity stoves works perfectly (well, what you call perfect of course) so I don't need a new one. Although I am thinking of buying one of those etapower pots for efficient gastronomic cooking.

Sorry that I have to keep on asking things but a pressure regulator in stoves has intruiged me for a number of years now. Particularly since nobody seemed to use one except that French manufacturer in a not so particularly exciting stove. I've used the normal Twister for quite some years (because it was cheap) and the advanced model with pressure regulator didn't perform any better while costing twice as much. It's not that it can fail in cold weather that bothers me, it's the fact that Campingaz suggests that the pressure regulator is there to give better performance in cold weather that irritates me. And now MSR has come up with a pressure regulator and I'm wondering how usefull it is.

OK, pressure regulators can be usefull if you would want to work with a lower pressure like with propane and the regulator limits the pressure from canister to stove. And perhaps the internal mechanics of the Reactor stove need that lower pressure. But what I still don't understand is how a pressure regulator can help when the pressure in a canister is already low (because it's empty or because it is cold). Do claims that a pressure regulator helps a simple butane stove perform better in winter than that same stove without regulator, make any sense?

Sorry that I keep on asking but my engineering degree forces me to question as much as I can. :-)

Hi Tom

> But what I still don't understand is how a pressure regulator can help when the pressure in a canister is already low (because it's empty or because it is cold). Do claims that a pressure regulator helps a simple butane stove perform better in winter than that same stove without regulator, make any sense?
Yeah, your puzzlement is understood!
My own, unverified opinion, is as follows. It applies to both Campingaz and MSR if necessary.
Engineering found that they had to put the pressure regulator in to prevent problems (flare, blow-out) when someone turned the valve wide open, especially in HOT weather. They probably also found (or knew) that in cold weather the regulator was either ineffective or obstructive.
Marketing decided to make a big thing of it without fully understanding what they had been told, and came up with the ridiculous idea that the regulator would help in the cold. It won't.

I discount most of what I read in marketing releases and advertising. It eliminates a lot of confusion. (Like a bottle of distilled water with a 'New, Improved' label...)

Cheers

Roger,
your own unverified opinion is al I need to know. You just confirmed what I have been thinking for a long time but couldn't really explain. Unfortunately not everyone has the background to understand that some marketing statements don't make any sense.

BTW, how was your trip through "la douce France"?

Hi Tom

> some marketing statements don't make any sense.
It would not be the first time I have made unkind comments about 'marketing'...

France - wetter than expected, even snow in some places (in summer?) and exhausting ... But we enjoyed it. We'll do it again, sometime.

Not having looked at the origial version Roger used for his CO testing. It looks like MSR's reduction stragegy was to plaster every square inch of the product with warning labels about carbon monoxide poisoning.

Roger, can you confirm that the version on the shelves now does indeed differ from the one you used for testing ?

If you're bound by an NDA from MSR, just don't reply Roger :)

> Roger, can you confirm that the version on the shelves now does indeed differ from the one you used for testing ?

I can confirm that MSR have made SOME changes, although not as many as I would have liked. Yes, they seem to be relying on using many warning labels to avoid any legal hassles. They do specifically warn about the CO hazard while simmering. No, I have not signed any NDA.

I now have a replacement Reactor and it is in test. Publication WILL follow - we are just working out how to handle the 'update' aspect for the web site. Cataloging issues.

The performance is better than it was, but it still emits a fair bit of CO, especially at simmer. This is one stove I would NOT use inside a tent or a building.

Cheers
Roger

Thanks for the update Roger !

I was/am planning on using this stove extensively in Alaska, I'll be looking very closely at your results, my life might depend on it.

Roger:

Thanks for the excellent article and insight. I do have a few questions about MSR's Internal Regulator (I'm sure your getting sick of these)...

The way I understand it is that the Reactor (from conversations Ive had with MSR) is engineered to perform optimally (roughly 10,000 btu) at only 13 psi. According to MSR, most stoves need 65 psi to perform at this level (based on a full canister). It makes sense to me that the pressure regulator in the Reactor maintains 13 psi throughout the life of the canister. In other words, when the canister is pumping out 65 psi, the Reactor restricts the flow to only 13 psi where it's able to produce 10,000 btu. When the canister gets low and/or as it cools down the pressure regulator is less restricted but maintains 13 psi. This would mean that the claims MSR is making regarding the need for a pressure regulator does work when the canister gets cold and the fuel level drops, which result in the pressure going down.

As I mentioned before, other canister stoves require 65 psi to obtain 10,000 btu. Thus as the fuel level in the canister drops and as it gets colder then less btus result. I'm wondering if this sounds right and is it possible to obtain 10,000 btu from only 13 psi?

Any insight would be greatly appreciated!!!

Jason

Edited by jasonlivy on 01/10/2008 03:49:14 MST.

Well, Jason,
where did you get this question from ?
;-)

Roger, just to bring the question of Jason (see e few posts earlier) under your intention because I'm also interested adn in the flood of posts, this thread dissapears easily.
I understand that you have received an updated Reactor stove. Perhaps you could try to do some testing to see whether this pressure regulator really works and what the limits are?

I'm headed to the OR Show this week and will ask the engineers at MSR what their point of views are. As I am very familiar with MSR (Cascade Designs), I don't doubt that the internal pressure regulator is there for a purpose and probably does what they say it does, as Roger alluded to in an earlier post. What I would like to get is how and is it a different technology than has been introduced previously in other stores.

I would also be interested in reading about any new changes (now that the Reactor is in full production) was made on the stove and if the CO levels have decreased on simmer. I know this takes time. I'll try to be patient:).

Edited by jasonlivy on 01/14/2008 17:28:47 MST.

In response to my own question and after doing some research and talking to one of the MSR stove engineers at the OR Show, I found out some interesting information:

The Reactor is a marvel of engineering. All the ingredients need to be there in order for it to perform as advertised. In my research, I found that the metal foam is one of the most efficient radiant burner materials on the market. What it allows the stove to do is produce heat throughout the entire surface of the foam much more efficiently and at a higher temperature than with an open flame or by using any other material such as ceramic. Because of this revolutionary foam, the Reactor can produce 9,000 btu at 11 psi. Thus the internal pressure regulator is needed to maintain the amount of psi allowed for optimum cold weather performance. Pretty ingenious! The most amazing thing is that this is only one of the engineering challenges faced. The fact that it is 100% windproof (100% primary air) and by using radiant and convective heat, the thought put into this stove is impressive.

The metal foam also heats up almost instantaneously and cools almost as fast. Although not the lightest nor, as Roger has outlined, the best stove for reduced carbon monoxide output, it is one of the best stoves in serious weather conditions often found in the backcountry. After owning one for a few months and using it in some pretty bad conditions, I am convinced that it is one of the coolest (no pun intended) pieces of gear I own!

In the Wind Rivers near Island Lake in Titcomb Basin, I used the stove to boil water inside my tent for both my food and hot chocolate. The tent I was using was the Hilleburg Akto (small one-man tent) and only used the stove long enough to boil the water. I didn't feel any adverse effects such as headaches, nausea, etc. that often accompanies high CO levels.

Edited by jasonlivy on 01/31/2008 14:35:07 MST.

> The Reactor is a marvel of engineering.
I do not dispute this. I understand the concept behind the 'reactor' - a form of fluidised bed combustion. I do dispute whether it is the 'right thing' for walkers.

> it is one of the best stoves in serious weather conditions often found in the backcountry
Sorry, but I strongly disagree.

For a start, it will fail in the snow. Well, actually, it's the canister which will fail once the ambient gets sub-freezing. Granted, if you use an iso-butane/propane mix you can push the canister down a bit below freezing, but the idea of relying on a stove whose canister can freeze up in the snow is, to my mind, foolish.

Secondly, 'in serious weather' you do not want to be cooking outside. Get real. But cooking inside your tent with this stove has to be one of the most hazardous occupations around. I can only hope you had a LOT of ventilation going on at the time.

And finally, there are far better stoves available for use in serious weather. Why run the risks?

And yes to all: there is a review of the revised production version of the Reactor in the near pipeline. The CO levels have been improved - but they are still dangerous imho.

Cheers
Roger Caffin

Edited by rcaffin on 01/29/2008 02:14:21 MST.

Roger,
is there an opportunity to discuss the press regulator thing in the upcoming review? What it is, how it works, is the pressure regulator in the Reactor different or does the overall construction of the Reactor influence the functioning of the regulator, what it means or doesn't mean for the use of the stove in cold temperatures?

And that taking into consideration what Jason already mentioned (normal stoves need 65 PSI, Reactor supposed to need only 13 PSI, the radiant bed which needs only 11 PSI, ...) and how the pressure drops inside the canister from about 75 PSI when full down to ??? when almost empty.

A number of reviewers have mentioned the great capability of the Reactor to function when temperatures are below 0°C. I don't know the exact conditons but it seems in contrast to what you are saying.

Yeah, the low pressure requirement will allow the stove to function down to a much lower temp than standard canister stoves, as well as eke out more of the fuel. However, there's still a limit imposed by the mixture of fuel used.

>For a start, it will fail in the snow. Well, actually, it's the canister which will fail once the ambient gets sub-freezing. Granted, if you use an iso-butane/propane mix you can push the canister down a bit below freezing, but the idea of relying on a stove whose canister can freeze up in the snow is, to my mind, foolish.

Sorry, but I strongly disagree due to my own personal experience. I've had this thing down to 10°F (according to my Suburu Outback's temperature gauge) with 20 mph winds and still watched it (along with about 20 other people) boil a liter of water at 3min. 30 sec. This is far below freezing using a half-empty isobutane propane canister while it was in a pile of snow. I was in Rocky Mtn National Park at a snowshoe demo. I feel comfortable using it down to about 5°F.

I would agree in very severe weather (below 0°F) I would opt for a white gas/multi-fuel stove, but anything above that up to freezing, the Reactor is the only canister stove that I would feel ok using. I've been in some pretty bad weather on the Sawtooths in Idaho, Wind Rivers in Wyoming, Uintas in Utah, and other places where traditional canister stoves wouldn't work. The Reactor is a whole other story.

Have you had a chance to use it outside the lab (not trying to be cute, but want to know if you, in your tests, have used it in "real world conditions")?

Edited by jasonlivy on 01/29/2008 15:32:23 MST.

According to MSR, the pressure regulator is no different that what you would find in a backyard barbecue, just smaller. The big difference is the new metal foam that allows the stove to reach 9000 btu with only 11-12 psi. This is the "magic" of the Reactor, again according to MSR. Without this special foam, the internal pressure regulator wouldn't do anything, kind of like the Gaz Twister (didn't do much for this stove). This is also why you don't see it in any other backpacking stove.

The special burner is the key that allows the Reactor to do what it does, that is to overcome the effects of the pressure canister due to cold and low volume. The other major benefit the Reactor brings to the table is that it uses primary air only thus making it completely windproof (the worst enemy to any backpacking stove). And the radiant/convective pot also increases it's efficiency although it does create more CO emissions as a result.

It sounds like to me, Roger, though I totally agree with his CO emissions findings, has based whether or not he approves of the Reactor totally on the basis that it puts out a large amount of CO at low volume. Though important and something we all need to know, this stove's benefits should be also considered. It appears to me that there is a large amount of bias in his remarks IMHO.

Edited by jasonlivy on 01/31/2008 14:31:31 MST.

>Secondly, 'in serious weather' you do not want to be cooking outside. Get real. But cooking inside your tent with this stove has to be one of the most hazardous occupations around. I can only hope you had a LOT of ventilation going on at the time.

Again, I disagree here. There are other dangers involved with using your stove in a tent. If, for instance, I understand the concerns with the amount of CO emissions it puts out, then I will take the needed precautions (more ventilation, only use at full volume, etc). I think a bigger threat is burning down the tent when priming. I have, on several occasions, cooked my food in pouring rain, blizzards, etc. outside my tent. The fact that I need only about 3 minutes with the Reactor makes it doable.

Due to the massive rainstorm that hit me, I completely buttoned up my tent. As most people know, the Akto isn't the best ventilated tent around, but, again, I felt no adverse effects. I know how subtly carbon monoxide can effect a person and I was fully aware of this while using the stove (I'm always concerned about this no matter what stove I'm using). If I find I am getting headaches or feeling sleepy, I immediately turn off the stove. I felt no such thing (I was operating it at full volume for the quickest boil).

I do plan on making sure that I am very careful (more so now due to your report) with the Reactor while using it in my tent, but due to my experience, I plan on continuing to use it in a tent when necessary. I try not to use it there as much as humanly possible, but as you said, let's get real. There are times (very few times) when there is no other way.

Edited by jasonlivy on 01/31/2008 11:18:43 MST.

Post Deleted.

Edited by jasonlivy on 01/31/2008 13:00:34 MST.