Will it burn diesel
George R Crawford
Will the MSR XGK burn diesel fuel?
Crawdad
Eugene N. Miya
Sure, but you have to prime it with something more volitile than
diesel or kerosene or jet fuel. The K stands for kerosene.
The stove should come with a little 1 oz. primer squeeze bottle.
Andy Woodward
| Will the MSR XGK burn diesel fuel?
Yes. Bit sooty at light up and shut down, so prime it wiith meths, and blow it
out at shutdown.
Num...@marcb.vip.best.com
>Sure, but you have to prime it with something more volitile than
>diesel or kerosene or jet fuel. The K stands for kerosene.
>The stove should come with a little 1 oz. primer squeeze bottle.
I have a Svea 123 which I've owned for probably 15 years. It creates a pressure difference (or, at least I've been doing it this way), by heating the stove's fuel container. It's brass, so placing it in the sun for a few minutes seems to be enough at normal temperatures, but often I place a small amount of fuel in the trough at the top of the stove and light that to heat the storage. It works quite well, and I believe that it will work with benzine, petrol, or "white gas". I've been using the same can of Chevron Blazo fuel for the last 10 years.
My question, then, is this. What are the advantages of the new stoves? Do they heat faster? What is the advantage to complicating the stove with a priming pump?
Steve LaSala
>I have a Svea 123 which I've owned for probably 15 years. It creates a
>pressure difference (or, at least I've been doing it this way), by heating
>the stove's fuel container. It's brass, so placing it in the sun for a
>few minutes seems to be enough at n normal temperatures, but often I place
>a small amount of fuel in the trough at the top of the stove and light
>that to heat the storage. It works quite well, and I believe that it will
>work with benzine, petrol, or "white gas". I've been using the same ca n
>of Chevron Blazo fuel for the last 10 years.
>My question, then, is this. What are the advantages of the new stoves?
>Do they heat faster? What is the advantage to complicating the stove with
>a priming pump?
I have a Svea too, and love it for trips where "normal" temps will
allow it to heat in the sun. It will work in cold weather, but you have
to insulate it from the ground so the tank doesn't cool off. The big
drawback, though, is that the tank is too small for melting large amounts
of snow for water. Every time it burns out, you have to let it cool,
refill the tank, and re-prime.
The use of a pressurized fuel bottle allows longer burn times and
adjustment of pressure independent of ambient temperature. The
priming/generator/burner arrangement on MSR's is similar to that on the
Svea. There is a pump available for the Svea too, but I've never found a
need for it.
The evolution of the design is that the XGK was designed to meet
cold-weather/high-altitude/expedition needs. The Whisperlight is a
"domesticated" follow-on. For short, warm trips, the Svea is fine. For
longer trips or melting snow, it pays to have a pressurized bottle.
Also, some people don't like the idea of heating a tank of gasoline.
Steve LaSala
Seattle, WA
Eugene Miya
This started asking about an MSR.
In article <4tlcuf$q...@nntp1.best.com>, <Num...@125-17.gigo.com> wrote:
>I have a Svea 123 which I've owned for probably 15 years.
I was given a Svea and owned it for some 4-6 years, when I gave it away
to another friend.
Function of stove shortened.
>I've been using the same can of Chevron Blazo fuel for the last 10 years.
I easily go thru a gallon per year.
>My question, then, is this. What are the advantages of the new stoves?
>Do they heat faster? What is the advantage to complicating the stove
>with a priming pump?
They generally burn more efficiently, but this is largely due to
improved wind screens and reflectors.
I purchased my first X-G/K about the time I purchased a diesel engine car.
I purchased the car quite deliberately for several reasons: an extra
fuel take enables the car to drive to the Grand Teton Range on a single
fill up (a few people consider this crazy as a human blatter becomes the
main contraint to driving [different]). I had serious considerations on
being able to burn automotive fuel in event of an emergency (I have in
fact melted snow using the MSR for placement into the radiator after a
hose broke [repaired], but that was just existing fuel). While you can
in an emergency burn leaded gas (available at the time), it's generally
not a good idea [presuming well ventilated, you still don't want to
inhale Pb]). Unleaded gas is doable in a pinch as well.
I have also burned aviation fuel JP-8 as well as kerosene. Gasoline is not
a consistent item outside the US. Paraffin or kerosene or other of the
numerous named fuels are (you merely can read expedition texts).
I have no interest in burning Everclear.
Most people don't even encounter kerosene these days. You should try
igniting some. No fair cheating with a wick. It is not easy.
Melting snow for water burns a lot of fuel, especially in areas with
very dry snow. If I am finnicky, I can provide barely enough water for
3 people for three days on one quart of fuel assuming they aren't doing
too strenous work.
Pemberthy's elegance was tossing a separate fuel tank and just using a
fuel bottle.
I personally like the striking flint. I have gone out of my way to find
smoke shops for replacement Ronson flints. Many people I've met never
figured out how to use it. I/Q test? I salvaged mine off the X-G/K and
put it on the X-G/K-2. The dimble for the striker is still there, now
covered with a non-functional screw. I love it. No need to haul out
a match or a lighter, it's just integral.
Stoves faster than MSRs exist, but they compromise on various things:
weight, complexity, etc. Tradeoffs.
123s, 71Ls, and 111bs are/were fine stoves for their days. They all
incorporate very simple principles of operation (thermal expansion
save the pump on the 111b). These stoves (inlcuding the MSRs) all work
on more the same principles. Doesn't take a rocket scientist.
In the end, it's just gear. Once you understand the basic idea of using
one, you should be able to use the others. There's a few variations.
It doesn't take that long to learn them. Non-new individual units might
have cleaning variations, but that's just maintenance. It happens.
I don't travel for the gear. I travel for the scenery.
The munge is just a means to an end.
Most of this info is in various books like Fletch and Manning, etc.
and you can borrow gear from other people and see how these things work.
Just use a minimum of fuel. Steve telling you to pump 20 times is
frankly a little excessive, 6-12 is enough, but that's no big deal.
Saves pumping later. Just don't get into the rutt of that more pumping
is better when you have problems. That's why Persig and Zen and the Art
of Motorcycle Maintenance is so important in the Secret Worlds book of
Fletcher.
LWM
En 30 Jul 1996 16:23:43 GMT, Num...@marcb.vip.best.com a ecrive:
->>Sure, but you have to prime it with something more volitile than
->>diesel or kerosene or jet fuel. The K stands for kerosene.
->>The stove should come with a little 1 oz. primer squeeze bottle.
->
->I have a Svea 123 which I've owned for probably 15 years. It creates a pressure difference (or, at least I've been doing it this way), by heating the stove's fuel container. It's brass, so placing it in the sun for a few minutes seems to be enough at normal temperatures, but often I place a small amount of fuel in the trough at the top of the stove and light that to heat the storage. It works quite well, and I believe that it will work with benzine, petrol, or "white gas". I've been using the same can of Chevron Blazo fuel for the last 10 years.
->
->My question, then, is this. What are the advantages of the new stoves? Do they heat faster? What is the advantage to complicating the stove with a priming pump?
The new stoves have bigger tanks, meaning longer burn times. They are more
efficient (higher BTU). They burn many different kinds of fuel, not just
gasoline/white gas. They are more stable.
I own a SVEA 123 and a number of other stoves. Nowadays I only use the Svea
a couple of times a year for a day or two out "retro-camping". The Svea was
replaced by a Whisperlite Internationale that has now been replaced by my
new favorite, the Optimus No 11 Explorer.
BTW the SVEA 123 was (and still is, now as the No 123R Climber) made by
Optimus of Sweden, and the Explorer is just as solidly built. I expect to
use my No 11 Explorer for the next 20 years at least......
Dick
--
^. .^
__( @ )
@( )
|| || w...@mailhost.net
Vogt Family
(Read the preceding post for some exclellent info. The following is my two
cents on it.)
Eugene Miya wrote:
> They generally burn more efficiently, but this is largely due to
> improved wind screens and reflectors.
I beg to differ. MSR's tin foil windscreen is a pain, and the newer colemans
that have the generator along the top have no wind screen at all. The
advantage to the MSR's wind screen is that it shields the pot and the stove.
I had a lot of people use my wind screen around their Colemans and it wasn't
even cold, and the wind was barely blowing. I think the pot also takes heat
from the generator, I don't think it should contact the pot. The older
Peak 1s with the bent generator down inside the stove had decent wind
screens, as did the old 502.
> I purchased my first X-G/K about the time I purchased a diesel engine car.
> I purchased the car quite deliberately for several reasons: an extra
> fuel take enables the car to drive to the Grand Teton Range on a single
> fill up (a few people consider this crazy as a human blatter becomes the
> main contraint to driving [different]). I had serious considerations on
> being able to burn automotive fuel in event of an emergency (I have in
> fact melted snow using the MSR for placement into the radiator after a
> hose broke [repaired], but that was just existing fuel). While you can
> in an emergency burn leaded gas (available at the time), it's generally
> not a good idea [presuming well ventilated, you still don't want to
> inhale Pb]). Unleaded gas is doable in a pinch as well.
> I have also burned aviation fuel JP-8 as well as kerosene. Gasoline is not
> a consistent item outside the US. Paraffin or kerosene or other of the
> numerous named fuels are (you merely can read expedition texts).
> I have no interest in burning Everclear.
Clarification: My stove is a MSR WL Internationale. Anyway, I burned Diesel
in it for kicks one day, both with the cable in and out. (If you own an MSR
and maintain it you will know what this means.) I thought the cable out
would make the fuel travel slower thru the generator allowing more time
for vaporization but it still burned with a smoky yellow flame. I suppose it
would do in a pinch. I burn kerosene normally for a variety of reasons. My
stove also works decent on car gas and stoddard solvent and very well on
white gas. Also supposed to burn jet fuel but I don't know where I'd ever
find the application. Crashed jet in the wilderness and I just happened to
be out of fuel? My understanding is it is basically the same as kerosene,
only maybe a little narrower "cut" or with additives. I have tried alcohol
against my stoves reccomendations and it goes out. My understanding is that
it needs a "choke" on the air intake.
> Most people don't even encounter kerosene these days. You should try
> igniting some. No fair cheating with a wick. It is not easy.
> Melting snow for water burns a lot of fuel, especially in areas with
> very dry snow. If I am finnicky, I can provide barely enough water for
> 3 people for three days on one quart of fuel assuming they aren't doing
> too strenous work.
Also cooking for a lot of neophytes that don't know if they like backpacking
so haven't bought a lot of gear yet. I am happy to pack in my big quart
bottle of kerosene to get 'em hooked, and though kerosene heats slower, it
lasts longer. Almost half again as long, if I remember right. So in BTUs
per gallon, it is the winner, however in BTUs per pound, white gas takes it.
> I personally like the striking flint. I have gone out of my way to find
> smoke shops for replacement Ronson flints. Many people I've met never
> figured out how to use it. I/Q test? I salvaged mine off the X-G/K and
> put it on the X-G/K-2. The dimble for the striker is still there, now
> covered with a non-functional screw. I love it. No need to haul out
> a match or a lighter, it's just integral.
Hmm. Never had luck with integral lighters on white gas lanterns, though a
big magnesium "match"'s flint works well to ingite white gas both atomized as
in a Coleman and in a puddle as in my Whisperlite. To ignite the kerosene,
however, I must shave off a little magnesium onto the wick and ignite it that
way.
> Stoves faster than MSRs exist, but they compromise on various things:
> weight, complexity, etc. Tradeoffs.
I like the MSR because of its extreme simplicity. I can almost entirely
rebuild it in the field and I carry extra parts for most everything except
the burner itself.
> In the end, it's just gear. Once you understand the basic idea of using
> one, you should be able to use the others. There's a few variations.
> It doesn't take that long to learn them. Non-new individual units might
> have cleaning variations, but that's just maintenance. It happens.
> I don't travel for the gear. I travel for the scenery.
> The munge is just a means to an end.
Always a good idea to become very familiar with your stove's quirks before
using it. I am a habitual tinkerer and tested my stove by freezing it,
drenching it, in the rain, in the wind storm, and combinations of the above,
so nothing could catch me by surprise, although I'm sure something will. Ma
nature resists all attempts to prepare against her.
> Most of this info is in various books like Fletch and Manning, etc.
> and you can borrow gear from other people and see how these things work.
> Just use a minimum of fuel. Steve telling you to pump 20 times is
> frankly a little excessive, 6-12 is enough, but that's no big deal.
> Saves pumping later. Just don't get into the rutt of that more pumping
> is better when you have problems. That's why Persig and Zen and the Art
> of Motorcycle Maintenance is so important in the Secret Worlds book of
> Fletcher.
Indeed, with less volatile fuels such as kerosene, more pumping is useless
and can be dangerous, i.e. heats stove up, then stove flares up, shooting
high pressure boiling (and when it's boiling it burns rapidly) kerosene all
over everything. You must know your stove ahead of time. To respond to the
original poster, will it burn Diesel, try it. Though if you're not sure
about cleaning it, don't, and don't hold me responsible if it clogs or
breaks. If this was an XGK originally talked about, it should burn it fairly
cleanly since MSR says it will.
Hope this was useful and correct.
Birken Vogt - KE6DLT
John P. Kiljan
Glad to see some kerosene fans out there. As long as you are experimenting, try
using plain old (cheap) charcoal lighter fluid. I buy mine from Safeway, a
grocery store chain, and it uniformly works better than kerosene and is certainly
more readily available than kerosene. Comes in nice pint, quart, and larger
plastic containers, too. If you spill some, the smell goes away in less than half
the time. You can still drop a match in a pool of it and and watch the match go
out most of the time. It works great in my Peak 1 Multi-Fuel and my Optimus 00L.
It is hard to quantify 'peace of mind,' but these low flashpoint fuels certainly
do that for me. Just for the record, I believe that kerosene packs just as many
BTU's per ounce as does Coleman fuel--and probably a bit more. The reason
kerosene stoves heat more slowly is the smaller orifice in the stove. I believe
the orifice is kept smaller because a faster fuel flow would cause problems with
too much heat being produced and because the fuel needs to 'linger' longer in the
stove's generator to fully vaporize. The smaller orifice slows the fuel flow and
ensures that will happen.
-- John Kiljan
In <32015F...@oro.net> Vogt Family <vo...@oro.net> writes:
<snip, snip>
>
>Also cooking for a lot of neophytes that don't know if they like
backpacking
>so haven't bought a lot of gear yet. I am happy to pack in my big
quart
>bottle of kerosene to get 'em hooked, and though kerosene heats
slower, it
>lasts longer. Almost half again as long, if I remember right. So in
BTUs
>per gallon, it is the winner, however in BTUs per pound, white gas
takes it.
<snip, snip>
>Always a good idea to become very familiar with your stove's quirks
before
>using it. I am a habitual tinkerer and tested my stove by freezing
it,
>drenching it, in the rain, in the wind storm, and combinations of the
above,
>so nothing could catch me by surprise, although I'm sure something
will. Ma
>nature resists all attempts to prepare against her.
>
<snip, snip>
Vogt Family
John P. Kiljan wrote:
> Glad to see some kerosene fans out there. As long as you are experimenting, try
> using plain old (cheap) charcoal lighter fluid. I buy mine from Safeway, a
> grocery store chain, and it uniformly works better than kerosene and is certainly
> more readily available than kerosene. Comes in nice pint, quart, and larger
> plastic containers, too. If you spill some, the smell goes away in less than half
> the time. You can still drop a match in a pool of it and and watch the match go
> out most of the time. It works great in my Peak 1 Multi-Fuel and my Optimus 00L.
>
> It is hard to quantify 'peace of mind,' but these low flashpoint fuels certainly
> do that for me. Just for the record, I believe that kerosene packs just as many
> BTU's per ounce as does Coleman fuel--and probably a bit more. The reason
> kerosene stoves heat more slowly is the smaller orifice in the stove. I believe
> the orifice is kept smaller because a faster fuel flow would cause problems with
> too much heat being produced and because the fuel needs to 'linger' longer in the
> stove's generator to fully vaporize. The smaller orifice slows the fuel flow and
> ensures that will happen.
In an earlier message, I admonished people not to get me started on kerosene vs.
white gas (which I will refer to as gasoline). Now you got me started. Anyway, as
you go up the scale to the heavier fuels, properties change. Near the bottom, the
boiling point is low, (methane - none practical on Earth; propane, -40 deg F;
butane, 10 deg F or 32 deg F, depending on molecule structure; then a jump to
gasoline, about 150 if I remember right, but can vary. Kerosene is about 300. This
is known as voliatility, ability to evaporate easily. Gasoline can sustain its own
flame because the flame can supply more evaporation heat than can be conducted away
by the liquid. Kerosene is the other way. Lighter fluid is somewhere in between.
Anyhow, kerosene has more BTUs per fluid ounce than gasoline, so needs a smaller
orfice to sustain the same flame. It is also correct to say it must travel slower
thru the generator so it has more time to vaporize. The problem with lighter fluid
or stoddard solvent in my stove, apart from the cost, is that they need a midsize
jet. Gasoline burned thru the smaller kerosene jet will result in a feeble flame
that will boil a pot of water in about 15 minutes. The lighter fluid has a bigger
flame, due to its higher BTU density, but will not burn well with the gasoline jet,
due to its lower volatility (too fast thru the generator). Incidentally, as you go
up the scale, the BTUs per fluid ounce increase, but the BTUs per weight ounce
decrease. However, from the spec charts on my stove (pots of water boiled), the
kerosene takes the cake for number of pots of water boiled per pound of fuel. Whew.
Why, you ask? I don't know, but my guess is that due to its slower flame, the
kerosene transfers the heat more efficiently into the pot (less wasted up the sides
into the wild blue yonder). However, it is less desirable to some because even on
an apparently clean burning stove as my MSR WL Internationale, it leaves a black
film on the pot. Some stoves are a lot worse in this respect, I have heard.
Howver, there is so much black gunk burned onto my pots anyway, I never notice it
with the kerosene. Washes right off, it's just oil.
To summarize this long & confusing spiel:
Kerosene advantages:
More pots of water boiled per tank of fuel.
More pots of water boiled per pound of fuel (at least on my stove).
Lower volatility (safety)
Kerosene disadvantages:
Longer priming time.
More tempermental.
Black film.
Lower volatility (ease of use)
Lower volatility (does not go away as fast if you spill it, vs. gasoline)
So that is my two cents. IMO kerosene is a better fuel and therefore I use it. I
don't know how well it will work snow camping, I guess I will find out this winter,
will have to bring gasoline in case it doesn't. Now, here's another question: does
anyone here use car gas instead of white gas? I did, for a few months, when nobody
remembered to buy white gas or kerosene...worked just fine. Anyone?
Birken Vogt - KE6DLT
Eugene N. Miya
In article <32015F...@oro.net> Vogt Family <vo...@oro.net> writes:
>Eugene Miya wrote:
>> They generally burn more efficiently, but this is largely due to
>> improved wind screens and reflectors.
>
>I beg to differ. MSR's tin foil windscreen is a pain, and the newer colemans
Well that's where we differ.
People aren't supposed to use MSR screens around 123s or Colemans since
the tank is separate.
I like the screens.
>advantage to the MSR's wind screen is that it shields the pot and the stove.
That's IT.
>Clarification: My stove is a MSR WL Internationale.
Welcome context.
>Also supposed to burn jet fuel but I don't know where I'd ever
>find the application. Crashed jet in the wilderness and I just happened to
>be out of fuel? My understanding is it is basically the same as kerosene,
Yeah, basically is. The whole crashed jet thing is an interesting
exercise. In E&E (escape and evasion) school one of the things you have
to realize is the violence of a crash. The Gradys are the exceptions of
many crashes. Long training issue.
>Hmm. Never had luck with integral lighters on white gas lanterns, though a
>big magnesium "match"'s flint works well to ingite white gas both atomized as
I think they are okay.
>I like the MSR because of its extreme simplicity. I can almost entirely
>rebuild it in the field and I carry extra parts for most everything except
>the burner itself.
Some in the news group would argue that it's complex. It's not that bad.
Equalizing belay anchors are more complex. An A3 pitch is more complex.
>Always a good idea to become very familiar with your stove's quirks before
>using it. I am a habitual tinkerer and tested my stove by freezing it,
Yep, an outdoorsman.
>Hope this was useful and correct.
I approve. No gross errors that I would take issue with.
Have fun.