Emberlit Wood stove vs everything else

"Sorry for splitting hairs."

Hey Brian

There is a difference in air flow between the side burn stove set-up and the all-four-sides-closed set up. While you can indeed shove sticks into the Emberlit from the top, the air flow hasn't changed – it's still coming through the side with minimal chimney effect.

With the Firefly, you can get the side-feed air flow, minimal chimney, slow burning to lightly saute the morel mushrooms you found. Or you can close the FlexPort, take out the notched ti floor, put in the screen floor, and boil water quickly for your freezer bag meal.

And having the wood (two options), alcohol and esbit all integrated as one system from the stove manufacturer does have an appeal – in fact, I think there's another company that does something like that, ummm, something about an inferno and a caldera, that a lot of folks find very appealing! The Firefly is just lighter! (and not as fiddly!)

Stephen,

Fair enough. While I think I can control the burn adequately with just the side port by regulating fuel input, I accept that there may be nuances to having the option for 4 enclosed sides and a difference in airflow which is not available on the Emberlit.

If you find me some Morels I will be more than happy to saute them up to your specifications, then boil you some water for a spot of tea! :)

Sorry to get everyone so worked up! It is awesome that there are so many ideas out there though…. Here I thought there would only be a few options and already I have learned there are a ton of them, even a very good DIY.

It is fun to have watched the UL progression through the years though, that is the true fun part of all of this. So far, the systems have gotten lighter and lighter, stripping off more and more options until we have gotten down to the nearly most basic of designs (with the exception of tarp/tent cloth material, that has gotten entirely more scientific and complex, just look at cuben fiber).

That being said, it seems like the progression of this has now taken a bit of a new turn, where some features are being added back into designs when the addition of the weight is very minimal… that to me is a great progression. I believe in going as light as I can, but doing so in a way that does not require me to lose any comfort on the trail… after all, we are out there to enjoy ourselves.

I am a very big guy for a backpacker. My transition into ultralight backpacking is very tough because of that. Most in this forum are gram weenies… I dont have that luxery and must simply think in terms of ounces in most cases as most UL gear does not fit me or hold my weight. The one exception to that is cooking gear where I can be a gram weenie like the rest.

All things considered, my transition has been very fulfilling (although pretty expensive). it just makes the transition all the more enjoyable knowing I have made the cuts where I can to really reduce the weight in my pack. While it still weighs more than most, it has been cut by about 2/3rds in weight from where it was when I started.

Now, only if I can do that around my waste-line ;oP

@ Brian: I accept your offer!! But morels in SoCal are few and far between! I found a lot more when I lived just south of the Wisconsin-Illinois border! Have you tried Lapsang Souchong tea? Mmmmmm!

@ Devon: Don't know about sauteing worms. I've sauteed grasshoppers (sans wings and legs) and caterpillars – both surprisingly tasty! No worms though! ;-)

If you've reduced your pack weight by 2/3, you're doing great! I imagine many of us could do better with our body weight – I know I could!

"Any woodstove will be very inefficient in wind without some kind of windscreen"

I really do not think that all these stoves are equal in this regard. The emberlit IMO looks to be the best bet in regards to this as the sides would act as their own wind guard, at least more so than those stoves which have a mesh top on them that wind will cut right through unless you use a windguard.

the emberlight/firebug design I think ideally makes the loss of heat due to wind much less than those that have the pot sitting on top of mesh. They will still get some loss, especially when the pan is smaller than the top opening… but when the pan covers most of the opening where there are only the notches for the heat to escape, the heat is still passing the pan and heating where the others, well not so much. I am of course just using logic here and no real experiense using all the stoves mentioned in real practice.

It depends on how much wind and the stove design. Yes, it's less efficient, but is this important? You decide . . . I have not generally worried too much about a windscreen in wood burning mode because:

[1] I don't have to carry the wood fuel, so if the heating is less efficient due to wind, I just throw another few twigs on the fire;

[2] I agree with Devon that some stoves (like the Emberlit and the FireFly) have the fire protected in an enclosed firebox until it's 1/2 to 3/4 inches below your pan, so a lot of heat get transferred to your pot even if its a bit windy. This is more true for squat wide pot shapes than for tall skinny pots. So sometimes stove and pot design matters.

[3] I'd prefer not to carry the weight of a windscreen if I don't need it.

[4] If its REALLY windy, I'd prefer not to have a fire at all unless I can find some shelter or windbreak, natural or contrived. I have used terrain features for shelter from the wind, downed trees, big rocks, etc (without moving them) or done my cooking on the downwind side of my tarp or tent, or my pack, or a securely propped up piece of CCF, or even just sitting there myself with my back into the wind. Not really that difficult.

Of course a nice ti or robust aluminum windscreen that can take the heat would work just fine, I'm just saying I don't think most folks will find they really need it.

In contrast to wood burning, when carrying fuel like Esbit or alcohol (when you want to be fuel-efficient so you carry less fuel), a windscreen is one of the keys to heating your pot better with less fuel use. This is why my MultiFuel Kit includes a windscreen. The most efficient example of this IMO is the original Caldera Cone design. The Sidewinder CC is probably not as efficient, though I've done no personal head to head testing of the two Cones. Burn times with the FireFly MultiFuel Kit also seem to indicate very good heat transfer to the pot with windscreen use (which also prevents the wind from cooling the exposed pot surfaces).

Wind on a wood fire is a good thing, it helps it get started and burning hot much easier. For the same reason you blow on a fire when it's struggling.

wind on fire =good
wind at base of pot=not good

I'll take a CC Tri Ti or my own CC Sidewinder W/ Inferno insert over ALL other woodburning stoves, soot be d@mned. I use grass or leaves to wipe it down.

1.The CC Inferno design is a TRUE double wall gassifier stove that burns more efficiently than either the Emberlit or Firefly single wall stoves.

2. As mentioned above the Tri Ti or Sidewinder can burn ESBIT or alky more efficiently than other stoves. And when I say efficiently I mean in calm AND windy conditions.

3. The CC design can. like most other woodburning backpacking stoves, use pots larger than its diameter if necessary with less loss of efficiency than other stoves due to the protection of the flames.

Of course this is IMHO… :o)

@ Eric:

Robert addressed some of the points you make 3 posts up from yours.

I have seen the argument of double wall gassifier stoves being more efficient and have yet to see how this makes any difference in practice. If we are using found wood, does it matter if your stove uses 3 sticks to boil water and mine takes 5? I would argue that 99% of the time it would make no difference, and the other 1% when the wood was so scarce or so wet that we could not find enough to boil a pot of water, we'd both likely choose a backup fuel anyway.

In regards to your second point, the firefly and the emberlit are not brought so that they can be used as primary alcohol or esbit burners. They burn wood. Having the ability to use either as a wind block/platform for an alcohol or esbit burner is a nice backup. If I am forced to use my backup due to some poor circumstance, I am willing to give up a little efficiency as long as it gets the job done. FWIW, I have burned both alcohol and esbit in my emberlit with my windscreen in the wind with success. I did not bother to measure the alcohol or the remaining esbit to calculate the efficiency.

Your third point seems related to your first point. For the sake of arguement I would say the use of a windscreen (which I use) negates the difference you suggest.

This is just MHO. I have no doubt that the CC/Sidewinder is a great set up. They are very popular for a reason. These are alternatives. BYOF (burn your own fire) ;)

I may be opening a can of worms here as I was already chastized on a different post pitting the firefly vs the caldera…. so I wont get into too much detail there (everoyone can go to that post), however in terms of efficiency I would say the caldera wins… boil times would be better.

But I will go back to one of my other thoughts which is the ability to simmer foods to me is important. You have less control over the amount of heat that goes to your pot in that design than the firefly. The Caldera gets you there quickly it looks like, where I can make up my mind to cook slowly in the firefly design.

My Dear Brian,

Well, yes, one could say less fuel is better but to me the Sidewinder or Tri Ti's real efficiency comes from its hotter fire due to burning gasses that go unburned in non-gassifier wood stoves. And then ther's the great built-in wind screen of the CC designs.

And that means faster cook times as well as less "found fuel" to mess with.

My Dear Eric,

I have often seen it written that a gasifier burns hotter than a non-gasifier wood stove. And conceptually, it makes sense. Do you know how MUCH hotter the Ti-Tri Sidewinder burns with the Inferno insert vs. without it? I have been unable to find data on this. I have found data on gasification in general but it was in regards to commercial wood burning furnaces and I am not sure how that translates to this application.

I will continue to argue that needing 2-3 extra small sticks or 2-3 minutes more to boil water (throwing out numbers like confetti :) mean very little in practical terms while in the piney woods.

BUT, I do admit, that you are making an argument for the Ti-Tri with inferno insert that makes me want to buy one, if only because I like to play with new stoves. If only if packed flat!–haha.

Cheers.

The Caldera looks like a great water boiling machine and very efficient. I would like to hear though how well you can control it to burn slow to simmer food as there are plenty of foods that need this type of cooking and would make life on the trail more enjoyable. After all, we are going out there to slow down and relax for the most part, right?

Devon, for info on simmer type cooking on the caldera with a wood fire:

http://adventuresinstoving.blogspot.com/2012/02/wood-fired-cooking-ii.html

What does this unit weigh complete (with the wood burner piece)?

nm

This seems like a great stove system, however for wood burning I think I would still stick with the firefly. It looks like any additional wood added to the Caldera would have to be done from the top correct? taking the pot on and off to add sticks is not as good a design as the side port option on the firefly. Waiting for a bed of coals is also a negative in my opinion of course. Others have pointed out soot is an issue too. The firefly is a clean burner much like the emberlit in that regard.

IF I was going alcohol or Nesbit, it would seem the Caldera has the advantage over the firefly… but seeing as those fuel sources are my second choice, I would be better off with the firefly design than I would be with the Caldera.

The resons would be that using the firefly for wood would be easier in terms of adding more wood to the fire, more control of the amount of heat,and the volume savings in my pack.

Of course, I fully get that my criteria is not the same as everyone else's and this is all opinion, but there is my two cents worth.

"The firefly is a clean burner much like the emberlit in that regard."

Those stoves don't leave soot on the pots?

"IF I was going alcohol or Nesbit, it would seem the Caldera has the advantage over the firefly… but seeing as those fuel sources are my second choice, I would be better off with the firefly design than I would be with the Caldera.

The resons would be that using the firefly for wood would be easier in terms of adding more wood to the fire, more control of the amount of heat,and the volume savings in my pack."

You can add the wood to the Ti-Tri without taking the pot off. Look at image 7 and you'll see the hole created in the handle slot when the pot is on stakes in wood burning mode.

http://www.traildesigns.com/stoves/caldera-sidewinder

The weight specs are on there as well. The vary by model and what size pot you use.

My first choice of fuel is also wood and I'm happy with the Ti-Tri. I only heat water so I don't care about heat control. But Hikin' Jim did cook a salmon and cheese omelet on mine when I sent it him for testing.

http://adventuresinstoving.blogspot.com/2012/02/wood-fired-cooking-ii.html

I personally don't mind carrying mine in my pot but I understand wanting to save space. I use one of those flat, fold up cups for soup and hot chocolate and love it.

Sounds like you have found the right stove for you and that's what really matters. Have fun with it.

enjoy your stove.

Thank you Brent, I will!

"Those stoves don't leave soot on the pots"?

VERY little. They also produce very little smoke after you get them up to temp. I was very suprised I did not have to worry about moving out of the smoke path using these types of stoves. The emberlit especially shines in this regard (unless it is just the wood in the areas I go backpacking such as south Arkansas in the Ouchita National forest).

I do see now on that pic that the Caldera has a feeder hole,however it would still take the extra processing of wood to make it fit inside the Caldera though while the firefly I could have a few 3 foot sticks the width of my thumb that I could just feed to the stove as needed… I know, I am lazy but I like easy :)

My Sidewinder W/ Inferno option weighs 3.6 ounces with the following:

outer ti cone
inner ti gassifier inverted cone
round grate screen
circular 1/2" high grate screen stand (same material as grate screen)
titanium ground sheet
two ti pot support stakes
two Tyvek storage sheaths

(3 cup hard anodized aluminum pot & lid not included in stove weight)

> For woodburning trips (usually winter in my Las Vegas area) I carry ESBIT or Firelite fuel tab for starting fires at 1/2 tab per fire. Unfortunately there is no available hardwood easily found in the mountain west so I have to use dead pine, fir or cedar (preferred) twigs. Back in my home state of Pennsylvania all kinds of hardwoods are available for hot, long burning fires with nice beds of coals.

BTW, To "Simmer" with any woodburning stove one can carry an aluminum diffuser plate.
The plate should have 4 small aluminum bolts fastened on it for "stand-off" of the pot. Lowe's or Home Depot should carry the bolts & nuts. Try using aluminum star washers.

One bolt is placed in the center of the plate & 3 bolts are placed in a triangle pattern in a diameter say, 1/4" less than the pot bottom diameter. The 3 outer bolt pattern keeps the pot from wobbling as it may with a 4 outer bolt pattern if the plate gets warped or bent a bit. Be SURE the bolts do not interfere with the top of the stove. Best to try to place them inside the stove top edges. This somewhat secures the diffuser plate from sliding off.