by ExcitableBoy » Tue Oct 04, 2016 8:46 pm
by 96avs01 » Wed Oct 05, 2016 3:00 am
JD wrote:It's interesting to hear that you found it useful in Alaska, presumably in the height of summer when the sun is higher in the sky than in the Sierra winter. I wonder though, how much did it really save you in fuel or time?96avs01 wrote:Define cold...
by spiderman » Wed Oct 05, 2016 10:59 pm
by lcarreau » Thu Oct 06, 2016 1:44 am
by JD » Thu Oct 06, 2016 1:50 am
96avs01 wrote:The time saved was noticeable (vs. other trips without using a bag, or days where we were moving and couldn't leave a bag sitting in the sun all day)...
by JD » Thu Oct 06, 2016 1:56 am
ExcitableBoy wrote:I'm still sticking to the opposite of ice 9. Ice 6?
by 96avs01 » Thu Oct 06, 2016 8:05 pm
JD wrote:96avs01 wrote:The time saved was noticeable (vs. other trips without using a bag, or days where we were moving and couldn't leave a bag sitting in the sun all day)...
I was hoping for something a little more quantitative even if it were a rough estimate. But "noticeable" is something. And there isn't much cost to doing it other than the time spent shoveling some snow into the bag.
Any idea what the ambient temperature was?
by ExcitableBoy » Fri Oct 07, 2016 3:19 pm
JD wrote:ExcitableBoy wrote:I'm still sticking to the opposite of ice 9. Ice 6?
They actually both exist, although they go by Roman numerals, e.g. ice VI and ice IX. And they don't have the properties you're hoping for.
Although I'm not sure you'd really want them to. If you recall from the Vonnegut story any water that came into contact with an Ice 9 crystal transformed into Ice 9, kind of like with King Midas. Or certain prion proteins. So it wouldn't be such a great idea if your plan were to climb snow or ice. Or to have a margarita.
by JD » Fri Oct 07, 2016 4:21 pm
ExcitableBoy wrote:Obviously the issue is if it is spilled on the glacier, the entire glacier would instantly turn to water creating a lahar that would destroy everything down hill of it.
ExcitableBoy wrote:The MSR Reactor and their ilk are incredibly efficient compared with non stove system stoves. I have an MSR Pocket Rocket and I created a simple heat exchanger by crimping an MSR windscreen, switching to a black anodized aluminum 1 liter pot that is relatively tall. These minor changes seemed to improve efficiency by around 25 percent, gauged in terms of melt/boil time and fuel used.
by mrchad9 » Fri Oct 07, 2016 8:07 pm
by JD » Fri Oct 07, 2016 9:25 pm
mrchad9 wrote:Looks like the guy with the opening post has abandoned this discussion since about day one.
by ExcitableBoy » Sat Oct 08, 2016 12:06 am
JD wrote:I'd love to see a picture; and also have some more details about how you measured the improvement and under what conditions.
I've measured 55-60% efficiency indoors with just a plain pot on a stove. I've tried windscreens and also one suggested homemade heat exchanger and they didn't have any effect in indoor tests. But where fuel efficiency really matters most to me is outside in the winter where heat loss is greater and fuel needs are higher. I don't know what my canister stove's fuel efficiency is when melting snow at 10°F. But a 25% improvement in those conditions would be worth some extra weight, at least on trips longer than a few days.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests