The instructions for my Soto Fusion Trek stove explicitly warn against using the stove with heat exchanger pots. Given the fins of such pots quench the burner flames to a degree, cooling the flames, to what extent is more carbon monoxide produced from such pots, compared to an ordinary flat bottomed pot? Any comments,?
I don't have any modern camping kit so can't comment, although there have been discussions covering the topic here in the past. What I will add is that the cause for concern is entirely based on context- if you're cooking on a breezy hillside excessive CO production will be of no consequence. If you're indoors or in a tent, it is a very real cause for concern. The dangers of CO are generally poorly understood. Even at low levels over time it can cause chronic life changing illnesses, at levels very much lower than would cause a CO alarm to sound (most of these only operate when there is immediate danger to life). That's why it's frustrating when a newcomer posts a photo of, say, a poorly burning paraffin stove with a lot of yellow in the flame, and people who don't know otherwise comment it's 'burning well' or 'nothing wrong with that' or 'nice flame'. They have no idea if it's going to be used regularly in a workshop or allotment shed and slowly poison the user, for a lack of some much needed basic servicing.
Without actually knowing any of the particulars, and being quite jaded in my old age, it sounds to me like the warning came from Soto's legal department. I think you are right in that HX fins do add a bit more quenching to the flame than a standard pot, and therefore do produce a bit more CO. That would hold true for ANY stove. So the tradeoff here is the efficiency of a HX pot vs. the increase in CO. The former is of no consequence to Soto (since they aren't the ones carrying carrying the extra fuel), while the latter might find them liable in a lawsuit. What I take from this is: don't cook in your tent. Especially if you are using a HX pot. But don't do it anyway.
This brings up an interesting point about stoves designed for extreme environments where cooking in a (hopefully ventilated) tent might be your only option. Like being snowbound in a multi-day shreking Himalayan whiteout. So you say the folks at MSR raised the pot stands for the XGK? Makes perfect sense for an expedition stove. Came across this interesting article while researching the CCS archives: Camp Stoves Produce Carbon Monoxide. Can You Still Use Yours In Your Tent? Two important graphs showing what happens if you keep you cook inside the tent: I don't know what the long term effects of CO poisoning are, but in the short term the CO binds with the hemoglobin in the blood, rendering it useless for carrying oxygen. Not a good thing when halfway up some tall mountain. The half-life of CO/hemoglobin is about 5 or 6 hours, so (unless it doesn't kill you outright) you eventually get over it, but it's going to put a real damper on your ability to climb that day. I wonder how many Himalayan climbers were suffering from low-level CO poisoning during their summit attempts?
Thank you for the above charts. I have a professional interest in the topic also, having investigated CO poisoning incidents in commercial and industrial premises (as a Health & safety Inspector).
On the couple of occasions I have cooked in my tent, your injunction could be shortened to, "don't cook". That would have included, "don't melt snow" and would have ended the trip right there and put us in danger of dehydration (and consequent hypothermia and altitude sickness). There really are times you may need to operate a stove in an enclosed space, and it's the responsibility of the user to take actions that reduce the risk. (There are other risks too, not the least of them being setting fire to the numerous synthetic fabric items nearby. I'll add that on one of the occasions I referred to, ventilation inside the tent simply could not have been a problem. ....Arch
Arch- Point well taken. Sometimes you don't have a choice. I've fortunately never had to cook inside my tent - I've always been able to dig in the tent with enough snow blocks to do a passible job of protecting the stove as well. And as you say, not being able to melt snow means you have to turn around and go home. I've always been in the habit of taking one of those CO detector cards they sell at pilot shops where it turns black in color if there is too much CO present. Again, I've been fortunate that I never needed to use it. Come to think about it, that's probably why most serious 4 season tents have doors - or at least zippered windows - on both ends of the tent. 'Cause if it's really blowing hard outside, it's not going to take much of an opening in the tent doors to create a sufficient breeze for proper ventilation. -Paul
you don't cook in an unventilated tent. unless you want to die by carbon monoxide or burn to death. any flame needs a certain space/area to combine oxygen from fresh air with carbon chainlinks from fuel( be it wood ,coal, oil liquid fuels, propane,etc...) don't respect this rule you will have incomplete combustion. the "legal" department is right! they want to be clean of any responsability if the end user has some "unusual ideeas" when it comes to cooking pots! and I agree with them! :-)
I melted snow and boiled water in the vestibule on many an occasions. I might add that I never slept in the tent while doing this. The vent opening at the foot end was opened a bit. One time in a particularly bad storm, above Steamboat prow on Mt Rainier, we had the XGK going for a very long time. In the vestibule of a North Face Mountain, 2 person tent, with THREE of us in it. It was running long enough to dry all of our hanging clothing. A lot of snow was melted. The lines were attached across the inside of the tent to keep the strong winds from collapsing the structure.
Snwcmpr- Did your NF Mountain tent have the "cook hole" feature in it? (Or was that the expedition version?) At one time this seemed to be a standard feature, along with snow flaps. Haven't seen this stuff for years now, even in serious expedition tents. OK, I just dated myself. -Paul
A zippered cook-hole is an open invitation to liability for a manufacturer I’d expect. Tents are ordinarily fairly breezy affairs - but are deceptively dangerous - once covered with snow or ice the fabric is now completely impermeable as polyethylene. Years ago, cheap plastic “tube tents” were popular. Basically a large plastic garbage bag with a suspension cord and close offs at either end. These have contributed to outright suffocation, not simply CO poisoning. Haven’t seen those in a while, which is a good thing as they were often seen abandoned in the back country after use.
I've often cooked in 2-man tents using paraffin pressure stoves, in fould weather but not serious snow (some hope!) They have all had provision for ventilation near the top and opening the inner tent door makes things safe from a CO perspective and reduces condensation. Properly overhauled stoves of course, burning with pure blue flames, and pan rings on models designed to have pan rings.
@PWDolkas This was mid 90s, 94?? I do not recall the cook hole. You guys are funny. If it wasn't foul weather ..... I would not be in the tent melting snow. You silly rabbits. I was always taught to be mindful of my trip companions mood and mental capacity. Stumbling grumbling mumbling fumbling are keys to the start of issues on any trips. We had a window in the foot end, that's all I can remember.
"Stumbling grumbling mumbling fumbling..." That's me on a good morning, till about noon. Just ask my wife. Cook holes were big until about the late 70's, early 80's, I think. They were a U-shaped zipper in the floor of the tent, so you could place your hot (liquid-fueled) stove directly on the ground rather than on the meltable nylon floor. I've always suspected they were used more for emptying the pee bottle into the snow beneath the tent at night rather than for cooking. -Paul
Oh, I do not recall seeing that. But I do not recall a lot of things now. I always had the stove in the vestibule.
I don't think people cook in their vestibules in New Zealand much, I never do. But I loaned my tent to someone from the U.k. and they ruined the polyester coating on the inside with cooking heat.
I've cooked in the center of my Jansport Mountain Dome, with the peak vent open and no fly. (The issue was wind and blowing snow.) There was plenty of ventilation in the tent. I cook outside whenever possible. I've even dug deep holes in snow so I could sit and cook out of the wind. ....Arch
Slightly tangential, but @snwcmpr 's "Stumbling grumbling mumbling fumbling are keys to the start of issues on any trips." comment struck a chord. I my (much) younger days there was an article in North Carolina Wildlife magazine that talked about the "umbles", and it always stuck with me. As I got into sail cruising it really resonated more,
Regarding HX pots, I would want to make sure that the fins were not in contact with the flames from the stove. Cooling the flames via the fins causes incomplete combustion, which is problematic from both a health and an efficiency point of view. Even if it reduces boil times you can still end up with a lot of unburnt fuel / yellow flame. But if the pot was big enough so the fins don't contact the flames, then I would not be concerned. I've cooked in the vestibule with a Trangia alcohol stove multiple time but always with plenty of ventilation (which is never a problem for the Trangia of course, if the windscreen holes face the wind). FYI due to the lower temperature of alcohol combustion, particularly when unpressurised, the Trangia alcohol burner produces much more CO than the stoves shown in this thread... I remember @Crobson experimented with HX pots on a Trangia with some very impressive results but that would cause a lot of CO production. I would love someone to try the same experiment with a wicked alcohol burner, like the one used in the Speedster stoves. With those designs yielding a more stoichiometric and therefore efficient combustion, I reckon there may be some significant benefits to using a HX pot, even if the flames get quenched a bit and more CO is produced. It may be the best of both worlds from a speed and efficiency POV - I just can't prove it because I don't have this combination...!
