Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Alaska Absolute best down parkas..

Kaboku68:


I can get to one of those about 130 miles away for a look. I've found nothing about their weight, and don't need a name tag pocket, but I'll give them a look when I get to town in a couple of weeks.

3Sixbits:

Yes I have read of those on artic expeditions that started with 12 lb bags, and ended up with 80 or 90 lb units. Those were extended endurance type crossings though with no opportunity to dry out. At my age, I'll probably not venture more than a day or two from a base camp.



My thoughts were the synthetics were developed to lower cost as down is not available enough to fulfill the needs of the masses.

Can you explain the mechanics of how synthetics avoid trapping moisture? I'm not presently in the hunt for a bag, as I'm good to about -30 with my present gear. With lighter bags in cold conditions, layered over with wool, I've often noticed frost formation as one moves toward the surface. I'm curious how synthetics can avoid such accumulations. 1Minute

Permeable and capillary are the two primary terms we think of as addressed by the manufactures of out door cold weather gear. The first and second generation of Gore-Tex addressed giving up moisture from body heat through the cloth with out condensing in the fabric. And not allowing the passage of moisture from the outside of the fabric.

Why does down not work out as well, and what does make down such a good insulator?

Because of capillary action, the moisture from the body along with the heat is trapped in the loft of the down (great insulator) because of the loft. Poor, do to the feather fibers catching and holding the moisture. once the feather has trapped to the saturation point and freezes, game over. Until you can dry the garment.

One of the key ingredients of the synthetic evolution was loft. Not being able to trap and hold moisture was key to this evolution.

When we look at past use of feather garments, what worked and today does not work. One must look at native use of feather garments. The swan parka is the best example I have ever seen. Why It worked so well. None of the process disturbed the natural oil in the feathers. They shed moisture and insulated at the came time. They used the natural shape of the feathers to wick away the moisture, because of the wicking action the moisture was carried down and away. No absorption of moisture, good protection of the loft. Down shortage? The best of all down from the Spectacled and the Steller's Eiders in Alaska are considered tops. Natural oil is a big factor in these selections. Commercial collection from the King Eiders continues to this day. Have you seen or heard of any company offering Eider down garments? High dollars and usually only seen in high end use in Europe.

I know this is along way from a complete answer to your questions.

Here is the link to the Canadian goose parkas
http://www.canada-goose.com/6c_mens.htm
If you�re going to sit in extreme gold conditions check out the resolute or the snow mantra.

As to dismissing down in extreme cold I would disagree.
The colder it gets the less humidity in the air, with less moisture down stays drier from the outside elements. If you are concerned that you�re going to get your down jacket damp from the inside then you have too many layers of clothing on. You should feel cool maybe in chilled before exerting yourself.
And if your are really concerned with humidity and down clothing you may want to invest in a vapour barrier top.

100 lbs?
Off topic, but I can't imagine vapor-depositing (approx)11 gallons of transpired water to a sleeping bag under any conditions.

Synthetics have their place fo sho, but down is pretty hard to beat when the temps drop below zero. Layering is key as always but man a down Parka at -30 or -40 is about as nice as it gets. Can only imagine how nice it would be to be in down bibs and a down Parks. The Canada Parka mentioned above is awesome, and not cheap either, they run about $600 here in Fairbanks. I quit worrying about moisture when the temps dip around here, heck the air gets so dry it wreaks havoc on my sinuses. If I am not working very hard I'd go Down, no questions asked. On a side note I hooked up Momma with an arctic grade down comforter from Feathered Friends this year for the bedroom, man that thing is simply awesome!

100 lbs?
Off topic, but I can't imagine vapor-depositing (approx)11 gallons of transpired water to a sleeping bag under any conditions.

[/quote]

Information

Actually I was being generous with the weight gain of moisture in down. In the arctic expedition the bags gain almost 200 lbs over the weeks of use.

The link posted above and further net searches will yield more information on this topic.

You need to understand that your body is "THE" source of the moisture, there-in lies the problem.

Heat transfer (thermal dynamics) happened to have been my occupation for several decades, if any are wondering why this topic is known to me.

Thats why you use a VBL

VBL = Vapor Barrier Liner.

OK, YES. And then, where does the moisture go? Does the moisture condense and stays inside the liner? Does the body get wet inside the bag, open the bag at below temperatures and what happens to the moisture (ice) in the bag, between the liner? Where do it go?

We already know what happens with our bunny boots, you can not get rid of the moisture from the heat and the moisture from our sweat. Ever slip on a pair of bunny boots you've been wearing for a few days in below zero temps?

Folks that wear then in the winter either pour boiling water in them in the morning and drain out, or they sleep with them on. Some just brave the the ice and do the morning quick step and enjoy the warm wet.

This is the real world of VBL, as lived with it day to day. Not what you think works, but this is true reality in cold country, where you can't run home to fix things up.

So then what did the people do that, that survived for thousands of years before all of this better way? They controlled the moisture in the foot wear with grass linings. They carried dry grass with them to change out the iced grass in their boots. No they knew that drying out garments over seal oil lamps had it's limits.

Some times, Real life gets more complicated than Madison avenue can deal with.

Guys: The potential sleeping bag weight accumulations noted above are indeed reality. I can not kick out citations, but do remember reading about Artic crossings where sleds held their weight because bags were gaining weight as fast as supplies were being consumed. Again the issue is that with minimal gear and fuel, one has no opportunity to thaw/dry his equipment in the extreme cold.

If anyone can reference some similar reports with fiber bags, I'd be glad to hear about them. The physics of retaining heat are similar in either a down or fiber bag. When the evaporated moisture gets far enough away from the body and reaches dew/point temperatures, it's going to condense. And I think it will condense regardless of the material providing the loft.

Again, I have no expectations of doing month+ long treks in subzero conditions, so I will likely stick with down simply for it's loft/weight ratio in both parkas and bags.

I've offered up about 3 potential parka selections to the wife as one of my Christmas gifts, and she will make the final selection. We made an agreement years ago that each would provide the other with very specific wish lists. The understanding is that if we don't find the item on Christmas day, we will be ordering it on the 26th.

Once more, I appreciate the feedback and interaction. This has been the best response I've ever had on an inquiry. 1Minute

1minute: I'm not going to post the scientific information links. Not that you could not understand the material, but because of the deafening crashing sound that would scare your household with your face crashed into the keyboard falling in to sleep.

There is a lot of information on the web about this subject. The trick is finding something that you would read without going comatose. They get just plain old long winded. Anyway I'll post this brief source and it will put you on the road. Normal water sorbtion of treated poly fibers is as low as 0.04% to a high of 4.00%.

Link

3sixbits: A variety of ramblings.... Please feel free to link me up to the technicalities. I have to publish in referred journals to keep my job, so digesting technical aspects is part of what I do for a living.

The water absorbing characteristics of various fibers is easily comprehened, and I know several of the manmade fibers are less absorbant than plant and animal fiber. Bars or megaPascals are not foreign terms to me. A compound that does not absorb water should retain it's loft and dry quicker because it's easier for water to transition to a gas if it is simply resting on a hydrophobic surface.

Absorbed water has to move through cell walls and residual membranes etc in plant and animal fiber, so more energy is required to turn that into a gas.

Wool seems to be a strange cat, however, at least at moderate temperatures. Much of its appeal is due to it's ability to absorb large amounts of water. Wool can gain a lot of weight, still not feel wet, and continue to retain the dead air insulatiing characteristics that help us retain heat. If I know I'll be out in wet condtions, I go to wool shirts and especially gloves. The gloves are a joy, because I can shake or rub out most of the free or frozen water, put them back on, and still have warm hands.

I also understand that wet down will collapse, and with it's reduced loft one will have a thinner or almost non existent insulating layer. Heat will also be lost via conduction through the wet materials. The true mystery part to me is how man made fiber could possibly alleviate the condensation and frost accumulation that occurs with high loft bags in extreme cold. A web report that I shook out suggests that in extreme cold the phenomena is material independent. Sleeping bag link.. That is lay literature, however, and may be incorrect. I just don't know.

My past readings of old north/south pole explorations suggest that back in those days (early 1900's) that caribou garments and bags were the cats ass. That knowledge was gleaned by simply observing the northern natives. I don't remember extensive discussions in those books, but I think part of the appeal was that a good shaking could remove most of the frozen water.

On another tangent...

Somewhere at work I still have a peer reviewed article on air quality in sleeping bags, and that study was conducted by the military. The final implication was that we should be fine, even if we bury our head and face inside the bag. The one thing it did not address, however, was how ones diet might affect the outcome.

With enough science, I would think bags could be tuned to very specific conditions. In cold conditions, one would have to use a minimal bag so that vapors could escape before condensing. Because we can't carry that much gear (don't know anyone with a layered sleeping bag), we tend to equip ourselves to endure the worst conditions expected. I suspect the military folks worked all of this out eons ago, but they probably don't have to publish to retain their rank. Anyway, it's been interesting. 1Minute

Information

Actually I was being generous with the weight gain of moisture in down. In the arctic expedition the bags gain almost 200 lbs over the weeks of use.

The link posted above and further net searches will yield more information on this topic.

You need to understand that your body is "THE" source of the moisture, there-in lies the problem.

Heat transfer (thermal dynamics) happened to have been my occupation for several decades, if any are wondering why this topic is known to me.


[/quote]
That was an interesting link, but I could not find anything stating how much water-weight is gained by a down bag. Perhaps I missed it. Would appreciate a source stating the weight gain.

I've had a down sleeping bag that was soaked by a thunderstorm and a leaky tent, and while it became heavy, it was no where near 100 pounds, let alone 200 pounds. And it was soaked through. A 200 pound sleeping bag would be near impossible to move.

I have to wonder about the units used. Could the units to which you refer be in error? Even 100 - 200 ounces would be a lot of water and 200 ounces would be "only" 14 pounds.

Link

1minute: I will post more as they come up on the search, some I read and rejected as to boring for this discussion. I'll have to go back and re find them.

Ironbender, I don't know if 1minute watched the same program? I think that he did. If you will read his post it sounds like the same program that I watched. This was travel by snow machine in the Arctic and weight in the sled was not and issue. The bags were weight at the end of the journey. Human dehydration in cold climates is a long known problem. Dehydration cause many different problems that are life threatening. Congestive reasoning leading.

It has been several years since I saw the program and do not remember the name of the show. I don't know if it was the science channel or the history channel.

Surly you know about the problem with bunny boots and moisture in cold weather? A lot of water in bunny boots that comes as a result of body temperature and the ambient temperature of the boots.

I lived in Fbx for 18 years, so I'm familiar with dry air and moisture loss!

It's not the fact that moisture is lost that I'm contesting, but the amounts stated.

3sixbits numbers are off the freaking chart. I took a 4.5 lb Feathered Friends Snow Goose up Denali in 2002. 2 weeks later, after bailing because one of our team developed HAPE, that 4.5 lb bag may have gained a slight amount of weight. As in if it did gain weight, it wasn't noticeable. As for one hundred pounds? No freaking way. Consider that 100 lbs of water is 12.5 gallons. Now think of the (uncompressable) volume of two and a half 5 gallon containers. Like that'd fit into a 2000 CI stuff sack...

I did make one change in favor of breathability vs external moisture resistance: This was deliberately not a Gore-Tex bag. I went with a moisture resistant microfiber shell.

I also used the Icefall jacket on this trip. No comfort problems while being pretty sedate at -25F degrees.

Scott

Have it your way. I do not care what you choose to believe or not believe. Makes not one tiny bit of difference to me.

Guys: None of us are quoting referenced numbers here, but the values kicked around for sleeping bag weight gains ARE NOT exaggerations. A rarity yes, but not exaggerations. The instances of weight gain via vapor condensation that I've heard of involved people who were hoofing it in Artic/Antartic where they NEVER saw temperature even close to zero. I've not seen the snow machine program mentioned, so can't relate to that. Few of us can relate to conditions where water never melts, and its only avenue of escape is flow off the continent in a glacier.

Getting around in the Artic is the pits in warmer months, so most of the serious endeavors occur during winter when all is solid. Those folks endure extended conditions that most of us might only see for a day or two in the lower 48. The Antartic is a bit of a seasonal exception. Because it's a huge glacier covered land mass with 10,000+ foot elevations, it's much colder. Winter conditions are almost unbearable there. Their persistent winds and temperatures border on myth (Like wind never dropping below 60 mph for 3 weeks). I know I've never been in a blizzard where I could stick my arm out and not see my elbow, and hope I never am.

One of the articles I recall was in National Geographic about a dozen years ago and described a 3 or 4 month hike/ski trip across the Artic. From memory the adventurer was using a huge sleeping bag with 12 to 15 inches of loft. The bag ended up riding a sled fully layed out, because it could not be rolled or compressed, and I think gain was in the realm of 65 to 90 lbs. That's not much water prorated over 90 to 120 days, and at extremely low temps, it's not going far before condensing. I'd guess I have close to a pint of water/frost on the walls of my tent each morning when we're out in freezing conditons. Another issue that may add more moisture than we realize to a bag is that these folks likely burrowed completely into their bag and were not exposing their faces. I've not personally camped in -50F, but would speculate that I'd work through the smallest breathing holes possible. I haven't ever burrowed completely into a bag, but my wife does when the temperatures plunge. I'd speculate that practice doubles the amount of moisture a bag has to deal with.

If one wants some interesting reading about really tough people, look for the Antartic accounts of Shackleton, Amundsen, Mawson, Scott, and some of their crew. Their accounts are still in print and can easily be run down. Those explorers complained of heat when temperatures approached -20 F. The British crews especially, made many mistakes. First, they felt that if one simply persisted, success would come. Obviously, that is not true when conditons are more than ones body can tolerate. In the later stages of exploration their equipment was mostly up to the task. Nutrition and time were their biggest killers. First they had no knowledge of vitamin C, and scurvy ate them up. They knew fresh food prevented scurvy, but had not yet identified the compound. Second, everyone got the same rations (not a good thing among folks of differing stature). The big, strong, burly folks burned out first. Smaller guys, who plodded along and worked within their abilities, lasted the longest.

Us guys often give the ladies static when it comes to power and athleticism. When we get to endurance though, a driven lady can pretty much kick our ass. I've personally experienced enough of that in my life that I will never doubt the long term abilities of even the smallest ladies. Get out there and fill those last tags, 1Minute

I'll throw Marmot out there again. I got mine a few years back at Cabelas on clearence. Super warm, waterproof shell, just love it on cold morning hikes. Haven't been out and about in it in temps colder that -33 for any period of time.

Will

1Minute,

A pound a day sounds about right, if you aren't being careful about sleeping bag use. I'd definitely not be snuggling head down in a bag though. I wore a fleece mask when it got chilly, rather than exhaling moisture into the bag.

If you want to fondle an Icefall, let me know. Any fan of Shackleton is ok by me

For anyone besides 3sixbits,

If you are tempted to believe that hundred pound sleeping bags are in any way a normal occurrence, all I have to say is "88 pound weight gain in two weeks = 6 pounds per day. Oh, and then there's this 2003 paper. It notes that down can definitely be more problematic but that synthetics are certainly not immune from moisture weight gain:



* emphasis added by yours personally.

Regards,
Scott