Best pot size for boiling water

TinTin

Thru Hiker
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).
I'm not suggesting what you are saying is wrong @Mole but I was talking about Jon's numbers and the word "terrible" not how it fits in the wider market and the pots people use. I reckon that what the numbers show is it isn't that bad at low to medium with a wider pot. I've used mine exclusively with an Alpkit Mytipot 900 and it is OK but I am careful with it in terms of keeping it stable and either using a windbreak or picking a sheltered spot. I'm not saying it is brilliant and I'd still prefer to carry my Soto Windmaster if I'm burning gas, but to say something is terrible and then produce figures that show, in many circumstances, it is roughly the same as the market leader doesn't seem to me to be a fair assessment. Yes if you use it on full blast with a pot that is too narrow for it you won't get good results but more fool you if that is how you use it.

Currently I'm burning alcohol as I'm only doing days and short trips at the moment.

itsalright.jpg

Quick brew and a mispronounced scone on WHW.
 

TinTin

Thru Hiker
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.

I'm just quoting your figures. Your experiment appears to have proved that the "incredible, almost flat" consumption figures of the Pocket Rocket are almost identical at low and medium rates as the "absolutely terrible" BRS300t.

I'm not trying to set out to support the BRS3000t but really don't understand why, on the basis of your experiment results you could characterise it as terrible and say that the Pocket Rocket is absolutely incredible. You can subjectively think that but the figures don't prove it.

What the figures prove is that, if you are going to use a BRS3000t you need to pair it with a widish 900ml pot and run it low to medium rates. It is terrible with an Evernew Small Pasta so if you want to use that pot, better buy a different stove.

results.jpg
 

Jon Fong

Trail Blazer
I'm just quoting your figures. Your experiment appears to have proved that the "incredible, almost flat" consumption figures of the Pocket Rocket are almost identical at low and medium rates as the "absolutely terrible" BRS300t.

I'm not trying to set out to support the BRS3000t but really don't understand why, on the basis of your experiment results you could characterise it as terrible and say that the Pocket Rocket is absolutely incredible. You can subjectively think that but the figures don't prove it.

What the figures prove is that, if you are going to use a BRS3000t you need to pair it with a widish 900ml pot and run it low to medium rates. It is terrible with an Evernew Small Pasta so if you want to use that pot, better buy a different stove.

View attachment 34602
You are looking at the Evernew 0.9 liter to Evernew 1.3 liter comparision.

241562259_4644141392334381_1641902561466769879_n.png

If you look at the Evernew Pasta Pot (small, 750 ml) to Evernew 1.3liter comparision: you would see that the BRS 3000t consumed 14 grams of fuel while on high with the small mug compared to 6-7 grams for the large pot. This is exactly my comment, the BRS 3000t is inefficient with small pots
 
Last edited:

DustinV

Day Walker
If the OP is looking for 400ml + 350ml, the Soto Thermostack (original) happens to be just those capacities. I have used the 400 to boil for a dehydrated dinner and then popped the 350 onto the stove to heat for a drink. The 400 then nests with the 350 to make an insulated drink cup.
 

DustinV

Day Walker
Agreed. I am experimenting with ways to negate the drawbacks of tall, narrow pots, but I generally use a 500ml pot that is ~12cm wide. Another Soto actually, that came 'free' with purchase of an Amicus. Also, grabbed a remote canister stove, which I'll be trying out this week.
 

Jon Fong

Trail Blazer
Going back to the OP, for fuel efficiency, consider this as a selection criteria: Select the target volume, then find a large diamter solution. For example, look at the differences between the Snow Peak 600 mug and the Evernew 0.6 pot (basically the same volume)

Snow Peak 600 - 3.8 " in diameter
Evernew 0.6 - 4.88" in diameter
The Snow Peak 600 has only 60% of the bottom surface area of the Evernew 0.6

Snow Peak 600 - 88 g (but no lid!)
Evernew 0.6 - 95 g with a great lid

My 2 cents.

PS - for you ultralighters

You couls also add the Evernew 570 FD (4.72" in diamter) 55 g no lid
Add the lid for an additional 22 g
77 g total weight
 
Last edited:

cathyjc

Thru Hiker
Going back to the OP, for fuel efficiency, consider this as a selection criteria: Select the target volume, then find a large diamter solution. For example, look at the differences between the Snow Peak 600 mug and the Evernew 0.6 pot (basically the same volume)

Snow Peak 600 - 3.8 " in diameter
Evernew 0.6 - 4.88" in diameter
The Snow Peak 600 has only 60% of the bottom surface area of the Evernew 0.6
BUT - what is the actual practical volume of each of the pots ?
The wider pot will have a lower practical working volume than a taller pot of supposedly the same volume ......
 

Jon Fong

Trail Blazer
BUT - what is the actual practical volume of each of the pots ?
The wider pot will have a lower practical working volume than a taller pot of supposedly the same volume ......
And your reasing for is is......
Volume is volume, isn't it? What am I missing?
I know that small, wide pots are not very popular, but I have not seen a good reason for this to be the case. Just curious.
 

Stuart

Section Hiker
Yes. I tried cold soaked oats once….
Just once…..
A bit of both. I've started to cold soak it after the evening meal and on a warm morning I sometimes have it cold. Or just add a bit more water and warm it up.

My porridge has lots of dried fruit, honey and coconut powder in it, though, so it's more of a fruity oaty mix than normal porridge.
 

Padstowe

Thru Hiker
And your reasing for is is......
Volume is volume, isn't it? What am I missing?
I know that small, wide pots are not very popular, but I have not seen a good reason for this to be the case. Just curious.
Am guessing here, but I think maybe she is getting at boil overs, say if you had your fill line 1cm down from the top on a wide base pot it would be more volume unused than having your fill line 1cm down on a narrower pot of the same internal volume. (if that makes sense 😇)
Of course you don't have to fill it up but I think this is what she means by "The wider pot will have a lower practical working volume than a taller pot of supposedly the same volume"
 

Cranston

Thru Hiker
Going back to the OP, for fuel efficiency, consider this as a selection criteria: Select the target volume, then find a large diamter solution.

PS - for you ultralighters

You couls also add the Evernew 570 FD (4.72" in diamter) 55 g no lid

Concur and is exactly my kit and the reason I sold off all my 'high' pots/cups for my use with a canister. I have the 450ml (45 gms) Evernew (most used by a longgg shot) and the 570ml (55 gms) Evernew. Big flat bottom and sides no higher than a canister. Canister sits in the 450, which sits in the 570 (if I want to carry it), screen (Al foil 3 gms) doubles over once and wraps around the cup/pot. Cup has a low profile, barely bigger than the canister, smallish and a good weight. Just boiling water for (and maybe rehyd meal type thingy and) tea and in that case the 450 mls Evernew Cuppypothingy is sweet as. El if however you want to frequently boil around 400-450 mls, I'd go the Evernew big arsed 570.
 
Last edited:

cathyjc

Thru Hiker
And your reasing for is is......
Volume is volume, isn't it? What am I missing?
I know that small, wide pots are not very popular, but I have not seen a good reason for this to be the case. Just curious.

@Jon Fong I have many (far too many) pots. I had a session filling them up with as much water as I would be happy to cook with and measured what mls that was.
I then tabulated that against weight of pot(+lid). ie. ratio of actual useable volume to weight.
Wide pots do not come out well in that regard.

Eg.
Evernew UL 600 wide - useable volume ~450mls, weight = 95g - ratio = 4.7mls/g
Toaks UL 700 - useable volume ~580mls, weight = 86g - ratio = 6.9mls/g
-the Toaks 700 isn't a particularly tall pot but it's not a low/wide one either.

Even the AGG Hard anodised 3cup ( ~630mls, 111g (-lid weights 38g o_O) - ratio = 5.7) works out better than the Evernew 600.

Useable volume is an inexact measurement as some folks might be willing to fill their pot more than me .

Of course as the size of pot goes up the ratio will get better (- assuming pots are of similar materials and construction).
I could quote a whole load more pots but you get the idea :).

PS. I just checked and the Evernew 600UL wide has the worst ratio of volume to weight of all the pots I own.
 

Jon Fong

Trail Blazer
@Jon Fong I have many (far too many) pots. I had a session filling them up with as much water as I would be happy to cook with and measured what mls that was.
I then tabulated that against weight of pot(+lid). ie. ratio of actual useable volume to weight.
Wide pots do not come out well in that regard.

Eg.
Evernew UL 600 wide - useable volume ~450mls, weight = 95g - ratio = 4.7mls/g
Toaks UL 700 - useable volume ~580mls, weight = 86g - ratio = 6.9mls/g
-the Toaks 700 isn't a particularly tall pot but it's not a low/wide one either.

Even the AGG Hard anodised 3cup ( ~630mls, 111g (-lid weights 38g o_O) - ratio = 5.7) works out better than the Evernew 600.

Useable volume is an inexact measurement as some folks might be willing to fill their pot more than me .

Of course as the size of pot goes up the ratio will get better (- assuming pots are of similar materials and construction).
I could quote a whole load more pots but you get the idea :).

PS. I just checked and the Evernew 600UL wide has the worst ratio of volume to weight of all the pots I own.
That makes more sense. It sounds like you are trying to evaluate robustness / fluid stability. Out of curiosity, what is the criteria for a "usable volume"? I just want to have a clear idea in my head what you are talking about as I am sure that it may be subjective. Also, for clarification are you talking about cooking or just heating up water? All good stuff here.
 
Last edited:

cathyjc

Thru Hiker
That makes morte sense. It sounds like you are trying to evaluate robustness / fluid stability. Out of curiosity, what is the criteria for a "usable volume"? I just want to have a clear idea in my head what you are talking about as I am sure that it may be subjective. Also, for clarification are you talking about cooking or just heating up water? All good stuff here.

I was just trying to work out which of my pots was most efficient re. the weight I was carrying compared to their functionallity - amount of water I could get in them.
I didn't have a standard criteria for useable volume - I just filled the pot to where I felt I was comfortable that it was safe. Very unscientific.
I guess you could say so many mm down from the top - to avoid spillages.
No point in heating water and then having it slop out and perhaps even scald youself.
It was the principle that I was trying to highlight. Perhaps you might do a more scientific appraisal of the pots you've got ?

The Evernew 600 is remarkably "unfunctionable" by this measurement.
Other factors count too tho' - ie. it will take a sidewinder cone, and as others have said it's width is better re. efficient use of fuel.

What annoys me is how manufacturers label their pots will a volume number which is misleading, and nowhere near the actual volume the pot will accomodate in real world use.
 

Cranston

Thru Hiker
100 gms cart inside the 450 mls cup with the screen around that -this time all inside the 570 mls (BA-JF) Evernew cup/pot.
20210908_102354.jpg



All of which strangely makes me think of this.....
 
Last edited:

Robert P

Section Hiker
I was just trying to work out which of my pots was most efficient re. the weight I was carrying compared to their functionallity - amount of water I could get in them.
I didn't have a standard criteria for useable volume - I just filled the pot to where I felt I was comfortable that it was safe. Very unscientific.
I guess you could say so many mm down from the top - to avoid spillages.
No point in heating water and then having it slop out and perhaps even scald youself.
It was the principle that I was trying to highlight. Perhaps you might do a more scientific appraisal of the pots you've got ?

The Evernew 600 is remarkably "unfunctionable" by this measurement.
Other factors count too tho' - ie. it will take a sidewinder cone, and as others have said it's width is better re. efficient use of fuel.

What annoys me is how manufacturers label their pots will a volume number which is misleading, and nowhere near the actual volume the pot will accomodate in real world use.
There is another practical factor, related to this, which is that often (at least in my experience) it is difficult to find a truly flat spot, and again the lost volume effect is exacerbated with the wide/shallow pots.
It would help if manufacturers quoted a volume to a specific (and consistent) level below the lip of the pot rather than to the top.
Having said that I generally prefer wider pots and the Evernew 600 is one of my favourites.
 

TinTin

Thru Hiker
I was interested by something suggested earlier that raised a question for me. I typically boil 600ml (Smart water bottle full) in my 900ml pot and use half for my meal and half for a brew, 20ml of alc does it, usually. I pour 300ml into my food pouch and chuck a tea bag in the pot.

Would I be better off having a smaller pot and doing 2 x 300ml boils?
 

Mole

Thru Hiker
I was interested by something suggested earlier that raised a question for me. I typically boil 600ml (Smart water bottle full) in my 900ml pot and use half for my meal and half for a brew, 20ml of alc does it, usually. I pour 300ml into my food pouch and chuck a tea bag in the pot.

Would I be better off having a smaller pot and doing 2 x 300ml boils?
I think you have the best (most efficient) setup for your stated use as it is.

Other than pack size/weight, the reason I use small pots when solo 3 season, is that I do far more single mugs of teas/coffee/soup than I do boils for food. Typically I only have one hot meal in the evenings and not even every evening. If I'm on an LDP and I pass a chippy, cafe ( or bakers with hot pasties), I'll often buy my main hot meal there, even if it's lunchtime. But, I may make 3-5brews a day if no facilities around.

And I use hexamine which usually comes in multiples of 7g (7,14 or 28 depending on brand), which is enough to boil 400 ml or so. So it's easy to ration fuel.
 

cathyjc

Thru Hiker
I was interested by something suggested earlier that raised a question for me. I typically boil 600ml (Smart water bottle full) in my 900ml pot and use half for my meal and half for a brew, 20ml of alc does it, usually. I pour 300ml into my food pouch and chuck a tea bag in the pot.

Would I be better off having a smaller pot and doing 2 x 300ml boils?

I agree with @Mole .
I do sometimes make a meal and a drink together in the evening - but often am just boiling enough for a single drink , so the smaller 700ml Toaks is better for me.
I can do a meal and a drink in the smaller 700ml pot as I'll first use what I need for the meal, mostly under 300mls, and then make a brew (tea) with the remaining <300mls, and then top up with cold water as I need it cooled down a bit to drink :angelic:

HYOH.
 

TinTin

Thru Hiker
I think you have the best (most efficient) setup for your stated use as it is.

Other than pack size/weight, the reason I use small pots when solo 3 season, is that I do far more single mugs of teas/coffee/soup than I do boils for food. Typically I only have one hot meal in the evenings and not even every evening. If I'm on an LDP and I pass a chippy, cafe ( or bakers with hot pasties), I'll often buy my main hot meal there, even if it's lunchtime. But, I may make 3-5brews a day if no facilities around.

And I use hexamine which usually comes in multiples of 7g (7,14 or 28 depending on brand), which is enough to boil 400 ml or so. So it's easy to ration fuel.
I only have a hot meal at night. I do have tea most mornings though.

I have a few packs of hexamine in my cupboard but not tried it yet, must get around to it.
 
Top