Best pot size for boiling water

dovidola

dovidola

Thru Hiker
I too have stuck with the 900ml Evernew. I only want to boil once, so a 400ml cuppa plus however much I need to reconstitute/cook food (somewhere between 250ml and 400ml, depending on what it is), requires that capacity.

But this is because I'm using a minimal alcohol burner. If I was using gas, multiple boils of a smaller pot could make more sense.

Also, I don't do midday/standalone cuppas, for which a smaller pot works better.
 
Bmblbzzz

Bmblbzzz

Thru Hiker
If boiling less than a full pot, which is most of the time for me, is it more efficient to use a tall narrow pot or a wider one?

A wider one means more evaporation and convective loss, but that shouldn't be a problem with a lid. A narrower one means most of the water is further from the flame. I guess it's going to depend on the shape of the burner – and on whether your definition of "efficient" places more emphasis on fuel used or time taken.
 
Bmblbzzz

Bmblbzzz

Thru Hiker
Anywayz, I've been using a 1-litre "Alipot" from Alpkit's sale. It came as a set with a 1.7 litre pot, which I've found to be much bigger than I need. I'm also not too happy with the lid – it's fairly loose, so comes off when not in use unless in some sort of bag (Alpkit supply it with a mesh bag for this purpose) and because it fits round the outside of the pot, condensation drips out while in use. [Ed: I think maybe the idea is that you can use the lid as a frying pan. But I never do.)

Before that, I was using a smaller pot with a great lid, I think it's made by MSR, but it's steel so is heavy. The other advantage of the larger pot is things (mug, tea bags, stove, sometimes food) can fit inside it.

In terms of boiling once or twice, I tend to boil for each use. So boil a mugful for tea, then however much needed for food. The only exception is if I'm boiling eggs, I'll use the water they were boiled in to make tea. This means my tea contains extra calcium, which is good for bones and teeth (yeah, great justification!).
 
Last edited:
Mole

Mole

Thru Hiker
Bmblbzzz said:
If boiling less than a full pot, which is most of the time for me, is it more efficient to use a tall narrow pot or a wider one?

A wider one means more evaporation and convective loss, but that shouldn't be a problem with a lid. A narrower one means most of the water is further from the flame. I guess it's going to depend on the shape of the burner – and on whether your definition of "efficient" places more emphasis on fuel used or time taken.
Click to expand...
Efficiency is always energy use? Speed is time taken.

It's been shown many times that wider is somewhat more efficient. More flames in contact with bottom of pot I guess.

It's not massive difference though unless using a stove with a wide flame pattern. (Which I don't).
 
S

Stuart

Section Hiker
I use a Toaks 900 for rehydrating meals or cold soaking overnight porridge. I like the space as I eat straight out of the pot.

For drinks, I just stick a metal mug on the stove (speedster).
 
Bmblbzzz

Bmblbzzz

Thru Hiker
Mole said:
Efficiency is always energy use? Speed is time taken.

It's been shown many times that wider is somewhat more efficient. More flames in contact with bottom of pot I guess.

It's not massive difference though unless using a stove with a wide flame pattern. (Which I don't).
Click to expand...
Yes, as a definition in physics, but in everyday parlance people might use the word more loosely. Really I suppose I was trying to get both answers – efficiency and time – in one question. Better to ask two separate questions, I suppose. Thanks for your answer though!
 
Padstowe

Padstowe

Thru Hiker
Bmblbzzz said:
If boiling less than a full pot, which is most of the time for me, is it more efficient to use a tall narrow pot or a wider one?

A wider one means more evaporation and convective loss, but that shouldn't be a problem with a lid. A narrower one means most of the water is further from the flame. I guess it's going to depend on the shape of the burner – and on whether your definition of "efficient" places more emphasis on fuel used or time taken.
Click to expand...
I be with mole, a wider base is generally better, I say generally as it wont be if using a very small alco burner that wont spread the flame out over the base as much.
 
Jaco

Jaco

Ultralighter
Put me down as another one happily using the 900ml Toaks. The 750ml Toaks I also have is sufficient, but the weight difference is only 13g and the handles stay cooler on the larger pot. For solo trips I want to have the tea brewing and the porridge hydrating at the same time; with a companion, the 900ml works with a double boil, which is fine - preparing meals seems less of a drag when not alone.

Being happy with the shape of the pot seems more important to me than minimising the volume to save a tiny bit of weight. If a pot fits conveniently into your backpack with the gas cylinder / stove / cup / accessories arranged nicely inside or outside it, and when you use it you don't think about it, then that's more useful than saving a few grams.
 
J

Jon Fong

Ultralighter
In general, efficiency is related to fuel usage, though some people (JetBoilers and Youtubers) tend to talk about time for some reason. I did an extensive video on pot size versus fuel efficiency. Wider pots are better (20%-30%) and the BRS 3000 stove is terrible. My 2 cents.

 
SteG

SteG

Thru Hiker
Jon Fong said:
In general, efficiency is related to fuel usage, though some people (JetBoilers and Youtubers) tend to talk about time for some reason. I did an extensive video on pot size versus fuel efficiency. Wider pots are better (20%-30%) and the BRS 3000 stove is terrible. My 2 cents.

Click to expand...
When you've done the same test using alcohol Jon, is there any difference at all in the results? I'm thinking the differences between gas and alcohol and how the flame spreads along the bottom of the pan? What's your favourite set up when you go hiking solo Jon?
 
J

Jon Fong

Ultralighter
Alcohol stoves are different as the area that I call teh burn volume (windscreen area (Pi*D) time the ground to pot distance) varies. This volume impacts the thermal feedback to an alcohol stove. Picture a 100 W lightbulb in a 1 meter cube box. Now picture the same lightbulb in a 10 cm cube box. The smaller box gets hotter and much quicker.Smaller windscreens for 750 ml mugs tend to be 20% less efficient burning alcohol compared to a 900 ml pot.

My favorite solo mug is the Titan Kettle (850 ml). It is wide enough for me to get my hands down to the bottom to scrub it out and the lid fit is outstanding.
 
cathyjc

cathyjc

Thru Hiker
Jon Fong said:
In general, efficiency is related to fuel usage, though some people (JetBoilers and Youtubers) tend to talk about time for some reason. I did an extensive video on pot size versus fuel efficiency. Wider pots are better (20%-30%) and the BRS 3000 stove is terrible. My 2 cents.

Click to expand...

Wide pots may be more efficient on fuel - but the ratio of weight:volume is poor. Most wide pots realistically have a much lower 'working' volume than the pot 'number' would suggest.

Tall pots are less efficient, difficult to eat out of and less stable too.

Over time I've come down to the conclusion that I prefer a pot that is in the middle - reduces the "cons" without loosing too much of the "pros".
 
Bmblbzzz

Bmblbzzz

Thru Hiker
Jon Fong said:
Alcohol stoves are different as the area that I call teh burn volume (windscreen area (Pi*D) time the ground to pot distance) varies. This volume impacts the thermal feedback to an alcohol stove. Picture a 100 W lightbulb in a 1 meter cube box. Now picture the same lightbulb in a 10 cm cube box. The smaller box gets hotter and much quicker.Smaller windscreens for 750 ml mugs tend to be 20% less efficient burning alcohol compared to a 900 ml pot.

My favorite solo mug is the Titan Kettle (850 ml). It is wide enough for me to get my hands down to the bottom to scrub it out and the lid fit is outstanding.
Click to expand...
So does this mean with an alcohol stove a taller, narrower design might actually be more efficient? Or am I over-interpreting?
 
SteG

SteG

Thru Hiker
Jon Fong said:
Alcohol stoves are different as the area that I call teh burn volume (windscreen area (Pi*D) time the ground to pot distance) varies. This volume impacts the thermal feedback to an alcohol stove. Picture a 100 W lightbulb in a 1 meter cube box. Now picture the same lightbulb in a 10 cm cube box. The smaller box gets hotter and much quicker.Smaller windscreens for 750 ml mugs tend to be 20% less efficient burning alcohol compared to a 900 ml pot.

My favorite solo mug is the Titan Kettle (850 ml). It is wide enough for me to get my hands down to the bottom to scrub it out and the lid fit is outstanding.
Click to expand...
Interesting. I really think my titan kettle is more efficient than my 570 evernew. I put that down to the burner but perhaps it's just the size difference? Or perhaps just my imagination.
 
J

Jon Fong

Ultralighter
MSR Titan Kettle 5" in diameter
Evernew 570 - 4.72" in diameter
Evernew has a surface area that is 10% less than area the MSR Titan Kettle, that could make a difference. It also depends on your burner head diameter. My 2 cents.
 
Nigelp

Nigelp

Thru Hiker
Stuart said:
I use a Toaks 900 for rehydrating meals or cold soaking overnight porridge. I like the space as I eat straight out of the pot.

For drinks, I just stick a metal mug on the stove (speedster).
Click to expand...
Do you heat the porridge in the morning or eat it cold?
 
TinTin

TinTin

Thru Hiker
Jon Fong said:
In general, efficiency is related to fuel usage, though some people (JetBoilers and Youtubers) tend to talk about time for some reason. I did an extensive video on pot size versus fuel efficiency. Wider pots are better (20%-30%) and the BRS 3000 stove is terrible. My 2 cents.

Click to expand...
Looking at the charts on your video Jon the BRS3000 is only "Terrible", in terms of fuel consumption, when using the small pasta pot at high. If you use an Evernew 1.3 on low or medium it is exactly the same both in terms of fuel consumption and time to boil.

I'd say that what you've proven if you look at your figures is that the BRS3000 needs to be used with a wider pot on low to medium and then it is almost as good both in consumption and speed to boil as the market leading gas stove.

I'd say the figures prove that the BRS3000 is pretty good for a 25g stove that costs £12.
 
Mole

Mole

Thru Hiker
TinTin said:
Looking at the charts on your video Jon the BRS3000 is only "Terrible", in terms of fuel consumption, when using the small pasta pot at high. If you use an Evernew 1.3 on low or medium it is exactly the same both in terms of fuel consumption and time to boil.

I'd say that what you've proven if you look at your figures is that the BRS3000 needs to be used with a wider pot on low to medium and then it is almost as good both in consumption and speed to boil as the market leading gas stove.

I'd say the figures prove that the BRS3000 is pretty good for a 25g stove that costs £12.
Click to expand...
It's also terrible in the way that the slightest breeze decreases performance.


It's interesting. I don't think I've seen any charts or reported measured figures showing the BRS to be better in comparison to any stoves by its advocates - just one off figures/anecdotal claims/subjective opinions.
You'd think if it wasn't as bad as Jon found( or Hikin' Jim or even myself, Teepee etc on here) there'd be just as many positive figures as negative?
 
TinTin

TinTin

Thru Hiker
Mole said:
It's also terrible in the way that the slightest breeze decreases performance.


It's interesting. I don't think I've seen any charts or reported measured figures showing the BRS to be better in comparison to any stoves by its advocates - just one off figures/anecdotal claims/subjective opinions.
You'd think if it wasn't as bad as Jon found( or Hikin' Jim or even myself, Teepee etc on here) there'd be just as many positive figures as negative?
Click to expand...
Just go and look at Jon's figures for wider pots at medium and low settings. The word terrible is just too crude. With wider pots with low to medium settings the BRS3000 looks as good as the market leading burner and it only weighs 25g and costs £12. Subjectively you might not like it but the numbers in black and white objectively say it is fairly compatible with the market leader which is several times as heavy and expensive.
 
Mole

Mole

Thru Hiker
TinTin said:
Just go and look at Jon's figures for wider pots at medium and low settings. The word terrible is just too crude. With wider pots with low to medium settings the BRS3000 looks as good as the market leading burner and it only weighs 25g and costs £12. Subjectively you might not like it but the numbers in black and white objectively say it is fairly compatible with the market leader which is several times as heavy and expensive.
Click to expand...
Objectively that's just one aspect of the findings. It's how we use ours (as a spare with an Evernew 900, when mostly using alcohol on longer trips).

Sadly the one situation it compares favourably hardly anyone really uses in reality. It's not very stable with wide pots. And supports often reported to bend with regular heavier loads like 1litre+. Most ULers I see use a light 95mm diameter mug like a Toaks 650, and often don't even bother with a windshield. So worst scenario for the stove performance.

The findings there don't take into account the other poor performance aspects of it such as high fuel consumption in the slightest wind , which Jon's low wind tunnel comparisons show it to be the worst.

There are cheaper not quite as light burners which I'd consider better ( the APG Windmaster almost copy that I've used 5/7 days a week for 2 years to make coffee at home for instance).
 
J

Jon Fong

Ultralighter
It is amazing to me how people really want to support the BRS 3000t . It works OK if you know how to use it: low power, out of the wind and with small pot/mugs (due to the pot stability). The best feature about the BRS is it's low price and that has helped to drive the competition to reduce their prices. That being said, there are other stoves that cost slightly more (FireMaple 300) that far exceed the BRS in performance. The BRS is at best a fair weather stove and if that is where you hike, more power to you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top