Magic Flame Wood Stove

Cleverly designed stove and can be configured in different sizes and shapes. However, like most wood stoves, most of the heat escapes out at the sides of the pot bottom.

But… I much prefer the high efficiency of a Trail Designs Calder Cone Tri Ti or Sidewinder ti stove with the Inferno "gassifier" woodburning insert. Plus the light weight is amazing.

GOOGLE gassifier wood stoves for an explaination of why they are better. Also see Bush Buddy

More efficient in what way Eric? Less Fuel? More heat? Less tending?
Eric, how about some start to finish boil time videos of your ti-tri, inferno, side winder gassifier? This is one of the few that I havent tried.
I have burned close to 500 fires in various double walled woodstoves (including 25 or so in a bushbuddy), and close to 1000 fires in single walled stoves. There are many reasons to choose one stove (single/double wall, folds flat, etc) over another…size, packability, weight but Performance?
Do you have any data/proof of this? My own experience is that there is no real difference in the efficiency between the two. If there is, you should post some data so that all can learn from your experience.

Wood gas stoves are actually a thing – they use fuel more efficiently, burn hotter, etc. However, the double walled stoves designed for backpacking are not true gassifiers – they just aren't tall enough, I guess. What appears to be "secondary combustion" is actually just air coming in and feeding the fire.

I have owned a Ti-Tri + Inferno, BushBuddy, and FireFly (similar to Emberlit). In practice, I do find that double wall backpacking stoves are easier to run, and significantly less smokey. Even if the "secondary combustion" isn't actually burning woodgas, having air pumped directly into the middle/top of the fire does really seem to help it burn better.

Double wall stoves do have some advantages, but I don't think efficiency is one of them.

That said, I think it's worth noting that the Inferno insert DOES actually make the Ti-Tri significantly more efficient (less fuel, more heat I think, more complete combustion, less smokey, etc). Not because of any "gasification", but because it simply increases and improves airflow to the fire.

I do find the double walled stoves to be "better" at the task of burning wood. However, as Brent points out, there are many reasons to choose a stove. FWIW, I sold my TiTri/Inferno and am trying to sell my BushBuddy in favor of the single wall FireFly…

(Also for what it's worth, I sold my Ti-Tri/Inferno but bought a ULC cone without inferno.

The FireFly is, imo, nicer as a dedicated wood setup, whereas the ULC is a nicer alcohol setup with which I can burn wood if I happen upon dry fuel to use and I'm in the mood for it)

I like the Magic Flame. I don't like the weight but I like the way it fires up and it's fuel capacity. One load of twigs will boil one gallon of water. After my water needs have been met I can have a nice contained fire in it and feed twigs into when needed.

I've been known to make modifications. The stove will become lighter. :-)

All wood stoves are good. They fill a need for someone out there.

I've decided I no longer want to delve into double wall versus single wall. That seems to be a losing battle.

I like single wall stoves with straight sides. Straight side makes for easy loading of twigs stacked vertically.

When I burn wood I don't care about efficiency. A load of wood is going to boil my water and that's all that matters.

I agree that the available double walled backpacking stoves are not true gasifiers.

I would love to test the "more heat" theory. Who knows? It seems pretty hot either way.

does "more complete combustion" mean that with other stoves there is something leftover after burning?

as far as "using less fuel" goes, does that mean you actually load less fuel into the stove? (the firebox looks huge).

An interesting note is that my own experience/tinkering with stainless single walled stoves has lead me to actually REDUCE the amount of airflow at the base of the stove compared to when I first started making them. Without this modification, which effectively slows the fire, fuel is consumed more quickly and can makes the flame unruly. My intent was to create a more passive but concentrated round flame pattern on the bottom of the round pot.

I have made a bunch of stoves. including approximately 50 double walled stoves that in my own testing repeatably boiled way more water than my bushbuddy. This was not so much a performance issue but more to do with the small size of the firebox on the bushbuddy compared to ones on mine. I like the way double walled stoves perform but I prefer single walled stoves. To each his own. I am happy that woodstoves have found a place in a lot of peoples arsenal.

I have seen the q-wiz stoves. They are nice and light and fold flat. I need to go check out the website for weights and such on both the caldera product and q-wiz so that I will be more informed on whats available out there.

"I would love to test the "more heat" theory. Who knows? It seems pretty hot either way."

I remember somebody actually did some tests – I think it was probably Zelph? – and it turned out that all the stoves were pretty much the same. The Inferno makes the stove significantly easier to run than using the Ti-Tri by itself, and probably gives more heat simply because it increases airflow.

"does "more complete combustion" mean that with other stoves there is something leftover after burning? "

I meant that using the Inferno is significantly better than NOT using the inferno – I didn't mean it made it better than other stoves.

Using the Ti-Tri by itself is basically just having a campfire with restricted airflow because it's inside the cone – not so good. Adding the inferno gets the fire up off the ground and really helps a lot.

"as far as "using less fuel" goes, does that mean you actually load less fuel into the stove? (the firebox looks huge)."

Well, the inferno cone reduces the size of the firebox by quite a bit, so yes. It also helps focus the fire more towards the middle which makes it easier to run (the inferno is an inverted cone so the base of it is MUCH smaller compared to using the Ti-Tri on its own).

"An interesting note is that my own experience/tinkering with stainless single walled stoves has lead me to actually REDUCE the amount of airflow at the base of the stove compared to when I first started making them. Without this modification, which effectively slows the fire, fuel is consumed more quickly and can makes the flame unruly."

You probably have more experience with wood stoves, but this seems insane to me! I find that after I add a pot to a stove I need all the airflow I can get, especially if the wood is damp which is almost always the case. I think unruly smoke is a much more annoying problem to have than unruly flames.

"I like the way double walled stoves perform but I prefer single walled stoves."

That's basically the conclusion I've come to as well. As much as it sounds like I'm pushing for the Inferno, in practice I find it to be a pain in the butt. It does perform as advertised and dramatically improves the wood burning performance of the Ti-Tri, but for me, the benefits are outweighed by the hassle of the added complexity.

@hosaphone “FWIW, I sold my TiTri/Inferno and am trying to sell my BushBuddy in favor of the single wall FireFly…
(Also for what it's worth, I sold my Ti-Tri/Inferno but bought a ULC cone without inferno. The FireFly is, imo, nicer as a dedicated wood setup, whereas the ULC is a nicer alcohol setup with which I can burn wood if I happen upon dry fuel to use and I'm in the mood for it)”

I completely agree with this; I use a CC Ti-Tri when using Esbit or alcohol as primary fuel with wood as a backup plan if I run out of primary fuel (eg unexpected need to melt snow); I use a FireFly when wood is my primary fuel and bring 1-2 Esbit tabs as a backup fuel if I am in a hurry of a morning or weather is just not putting me in the fire-building mood.

@zelph “All wood stoves are good. They fill a need for someone out there.
I've decided I no longer want to delve into double wall versus single wall. That seems to be a losing battle.
I like single wall stoves with straight sides. Straight side makes for easy loading of twigs stacked vertically.
When I burn wood I don't care about efficiency. A load of wood is going to boil my water and that's all that matters.”

+1 on straight sides being a bit better than non-straight, +1 on single wall vs double wall also seems moot to me (given that twig fuel, if available, is plentiful and other stove characteristics matter more than efficiency when burning wood)

Some of the characteristics to consider are weight (especially for BPL'ers), multifuel options, fit with the pot or pots you like to use, ease of packing and/or setup, durability.

I use my pot as my drinking cup

On a wood stove, the pot gets all sooty so not so good to drink out of

If I have to bring seperate cup, then some of the weight advantage is lost

Anyone else notice this?

"I use my pot as my drinking cup

On a wood stove, the pot gets all sooty so not so good to drink out of

If I have to bring seperate cup, then some of the weight advantage is lost"

If you keep your pot in a cozy, you don't have to worry about getting soot on your pants, hands, etc.

I guess there are several variables here, but most of the gunk should accumulate on the bottom of the pot. Sometimes you get some higher up on the sides but it's usually not too bad. Just be a bit careful to not put your mouth all over the outside of the pot and it shouldn't be a big issue.

You could also look into getting something to cover a small area of the pot, that you could put on after it finished cooking. For instance HotLips, or I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to MYOG something similar: http://www.snowpeak.com/cookware/backpacking/hotlips-2-piece-set-mgh-001.html

Pete, you could use a full size Heineken or f
Fosters can as a pot. The lip of the can will not get dirty. Especially the original Heineken can with tapered top. Drink right out of the pot, ditch your cup.