Topic

Wide pot vs kettle and time to boil with wood stoves.

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
Kevin Burton BPL Member
PostedJun 1, 2013 at 12:51 pm

Have any of you played with using a wide bottom pot on a wood stove instead of a kettle/mug?

My stove is awesome in that I essentially have infinite fuel but somewhat annoying in that I have to watch it and refuel it.

The ability to use less fuel and heat water faster would be nice.

I was thinking that if I use more of a wide bottom pot and not a mug/kettle then there would be more surface area for the flame.

This would mean I would have boiling water faster.

I tend to NOT use the pot to eat out of so I won't miss it…

Thoughts?

Matthew Reese BPL Member
PostedJun 2, 2013 at 7:31 am

I've tested my Emberlit mini with a GSR Halulite kettle, and it took about 8 minutes to boil what I'd estimate was about two cups of water. Now granted, this was on a windless evening in my backyard with dry wood, but I was pleasantly surprised. Tending simply consisted of pushing the sticks in the port a couple of times. Not too much smoke, or soot on the bottom of the pot, either. I'd read somewhere that a trick to the Emberlit is to not use too much wood. Kind of counterintuitive but I got a nice steady flame that way

PostedJun 2, 2013 at 9:47 am

I have seen post here in the past with test data that does indicate that wider pots are more efficient than tall narrow pots. How much of an improvement will depend on your particular setup.

Tom D. BPL Member
PostedJun 2, 2013 at 3:24 pm

I've done boil tests with both and wide pots are definitely more efficient, but I've found that the type of wood you are burning is even more of a factor. Its nice to be able to burn any dead biomass you find, but theres a difference in burn times. With my MYOG wood stove, I usually get rolling boil times of around 7 minutes with mixtures of oak and cedar, which is usually what I find on the ground. I was at home and mixed in some eucalyptus bark and a few small scraps from my firewood pile, along with some oak twigs and it shot to a rolling boil in 4 min, 20 seconds (this was with a Fosters pot).

I don't worry so much about pot width with a wood stove, as the fuel is plentiful anyway and its usually a matter of a minute or two difference in boil times anyway.

PostedJun 2, 2013 at 7:18 pm

I have a CC Sidewinder Ti cone W/ Inferno wood burning insert and the matching 3 cup pot. I get 2 cups of water boiling in never less than 8 minutes on a wood fire. LOVE this little, very hot stove!

I ordered the wide 3 cup pot (wide relative to its height) purposely because it is more efficient than a large mug and will need less ESBIT when I'm using that fuel.

P.S. In fact the cone design stove has cut my ESBIT use by at least 1/3. And with a MYOG "Gram Cracker ESBIT holder I expect to get even better efficiency with extended burn time. This is a Brian Green designed "Improved Gram Cracker" tablet holder that holds the liquid residue from the ESBIT tab so it can burn.

Bill Law BPL Member
PostedJun 3, 2013 at 9:50 am

I can't speak to the issue with respect to wood stoves, but I just tested performance of a wide vs narrow pot with my canister stove. I compared time to boil for 16oz in a 700ml snow peak pot versus a 1.3L evernew. Negligible differences, at both full throttle and reduced heat.

I decided any efficiency advantage of the wider pot didn't warrant the extra volume or weight of the wider pot.

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
Loading...