Wood Burning Stove Advice and

I’m subscribed to the thread because I had the same reaction to using the Bush Buddy. It’s light, it’s efficient, but it demands constant attention to keep the fire going.  I’m a fire up the stove and do a couple things while the water heats kind of guy.  I’ll be interested to hear others’ input.  I have a 2.7 oz titanium wood burner I carry for backup when I’m cutting my cartridge fuel close.

I’ve managed to get longer burn times on backpacking wood-burning stoves and the Biolite (wood stove + thermocouple-powered USB charger) by putting small chunks or great firewood in them once they’re going.  Stuff like well-seasoned oak salvaged from pallets and cut into 1″ x 2″ bits on a chop saw.  Or the legs of a busted maple chair, cut into sections.  The kind of stuff you NEVER find backpacking.

The closest I can find in the spruce-birch-cottonwood forest up here is the dead branches of spruce tree.  They are almost always dry even in the rain and quite dense because of the slow growth (50 rings in 1/2-inch radius).  The trick is to cut them into short pieces while the branch is still on the tree so it is anchored there.  Pulling on and stabilizing the end makes it a lot easier to cut it into 2-, 3- and 4-inch lengths, depending on your fire box size.

The bushbuddy design is the most efficient woodburner out there. I’ve tried many of the ‘firebox’ style woodburners, and none of them come close to the simplicity of the bushbuddy. The bushbuddy lights up the easiest, stays lit the easiest, reignites the easiest, and uses the least amount of fuel than any other design. If your having problems with the bushbuddy design, then woodburners are not for you.

You would be better off building a small fire, and placing a potstand in it, then buying one of those firebox style stoves. I’ve tried the ti windscreen with tent stakes across the top also. That one worked the best, but still, very inefficient. No other style of woodburner will help the fire to burn, nor can you use as little sticks as you need in the bushbuddy, nor can you reignite the flame by simply tossing in another twig like you can with the bush buddy.

If you don’t like the bushbuddy/solo stove design, I would highly recommend you to not waste money on a firebox style stove.

I’ve had great experiences with my folding Firebox Nano. I’ve only boiled on it maybe six times but it seems really easy to start and use. You feed it with four finger pinky diameter sticks and they just have to be advanced every couple of minutes. You don’t have to keep breaking and feeding little twigs constantly. It’s probably not as efficient as a gasifier but it burns to a fine white ash and doesn’t require much wood to boil 2-3 cups

That said, I decided that it’s just easier and lighter to carry Esbit for the type of backpacking I like to do.

Learn to stack your twigs in the vertical position and light from the top. You will be able to boil 2 cups of water with 2 ounces of twigs.

Shouldn’t you be able to manipulate the burn in a Bushbuddy by changing up the size of the fuel? I’m thinking larger sticks on the bottom, smaller kindling on the top creating a top down burn.

I agree with the others about using a top-down burn in the Bushbuddy. I have used the Caldera Cone Inferno set-up, the FireAnt and the Bushbuddy… for strictly wood burning, I like the Bushbuddy. The others are nice and all, but the Bushbuddy seems to work the best for me, and it is by far the least messy (simply because the soot is contained inside the Bushbuddy whereas with the other set-ups I have to handle them when breaking them down and end up with soot all over my hands and fingers. Not a deal breaker, but something important for me.)

Anyway, here is a video I did of a top down burn in my Bushbuddy Ultra at home. It brought 2 cups of water to a boil in about 9 minutes, burned for a few minutes afterwards and I never had to fool with the fire once I was sure it was going good. While this won’t be the case every time, it can be the case most times… However, sitting around playing with the fire is fun for me too though…  :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRvUEpWWmEs

My Trail Designs Sidewinder (with the wood burning Inferno insert) takes bigger sticks of wood than the Bushbuddy so I can leave it alone for 5 minutes or so, but it still requires “feeding” 3 or 4 times for snow melting.

Plus the Caldera Cone shape of the Sidewinder and larger Tri Ti permits the pot to sit down into the cone on top of the provided ti stakes inserted near the cone top. This eliminated the gap the Bushbuddy stove has, which results in wasted heat.

As a result of this configuration (of pot-to-stove fit) the Sidewinder and Tri Ti stoves have their own built in windscreen and conservation of heat.

Many do not understand the “gassifier” concept of the Bushbuddy and Inferno equipped Sidewinder & Tri Ti stoves. Both versions force unburned combustion gasses to recirculate through the combustion chamber for more complete and hotter combustion. Typically wood burned in any gassifier stove becomes mostly white ash, the sign of very hot combustion.

The development of this concept was done by two American professors who decided not to patent it so that poorer people in 3rd world countries could use the technology “free” to conserve fuel.

Many do not understand the “gassifier” concept of the Bushbuddy and Inferno equipped Sidewinder & Tri Ti stoves. Both versions force unburned combustion gasses to recirculate through the combustion chamber for more complete and hotter combustion.

There are no Backpacking size wood burners that will function as you claim. With respect… I ask that you show “proof” of your claim.

Dan,

Are you saying the Bushbuddy or Inferno (or 4DS Bushcooker) are not gassifier stoves, or that gassifier stoves don’t work as described?

Many do not understand the “gassifier” concept of the Bushbuddy and Inferno equipped Sidewinder & Tri Ti stoves. Both versions force unburned combustion gasses to recirculate through the combustion chamber for more complete and hotter combustion.

Bob, gassification takes place once an ignition source(match, mini bic etc.) is placed onto some twigs, paper etc. the process then begins. Many people perpetuate their belief that ” Backpacking stoves force unburned combustion gasses to recirculate through the combustion chamber for more complete and hotter combustion”

There are no backpacking stoves that recirculate unburned combustion gasses. There are no backpacking stoves that can create high enough temperatures to ignite unburned gases even if they could be recirculated.

To be a true wood gas stove, the following process take place.  The wood is burned at a low temperature for pyrolysis (390 F-570 F) and this is done in an oxygen starved environment. This produces the “wood gas” that most people talk about. Typically a secondary air source mixes with the “wood gas” and the mixture is typically heated (the gas wick). The air/gas mixture is then ignited at the outlet where it can mix with even more air.
A true gassiffer stove has two traits in common 1) the outlet flame burn blue (no yellow flames) and 2) you are left with residual char at the end as the wood is burned at a low temperature (390 F-570 F). One of the claims of a true wood gas stove is that they are carbon neutral as the char is returned to the earth (BTW, not my claim).
Backpacking stoves tend to be small and inefficient. Because of the size, it is difficult to control the wood gas process. Pyrolysis is required to generate “wood gas” but usually the fires burn too hot for this. Additionally, if a stove starts of being able to generate pyrolysis, usually at the end of the burn they overheat and just burn up the wood.
There are many debates over the value of the dual wall construction. Best case, the wall insulates the stove a bit and introduces hot air at the outlet. Additionally, one could claim that the ports introduces air in a ring around the outlet and can reduce the amount of residual smoke. IS it needed for backpacking? Probably not.
I personally think that chasing after a true “wood gas” stove for backpacking makes no sense. Most backpackers will want a fire that is hot and fast with little fuss. A small scale wood gas stove (if ever invented) will take time and knowledge to set up the stove. It will take time to heat up the stove, start the pyrolysis, reach a steady state “blue flame”, cook your food and shut down the stove will be pretty long.

My 2 cents

Thanks to all who’ve offered their thoughts on the wood stove questions.  Based on several posters, it sounds like some maintain that the Bushbuddy and other ‘gasifier’ style stoves aren’t real gasifiers and therefore don’t offer any real advantage over the ‘firebox’ style stoves (eg, Firefly, Emberlit, et al.).  Am I understanding this right?  At this point, based on the feedback to date, I’m leaning toward a larger box stove, still light (Firefly XL), which is no heavier than even the lighter Bushbuddies and offers a chance to build a slightly larger fire, which therefore will last a little longer and require a bit less tending.  Does that make sense to folks?

thanks

Gerry

Wood stoves, generally, fall into the category of survivalist camping. I have always found them fiddly. Compared to a WG or Canister Stove, they:
1) Require preparation (gathering/cutting wood and/or carrying dry wood/firestarters, usually birch bark)
2) Sooty (requiring a cleaning of my pot with every use and need a special bag for packing)
3) Smelly/smokey (your pack always smells of wood smoke after a few uses)
4) Time consuming (takes about 7-10 minutes to boil two cups)
5) Unreliable in rainy weather (dry fuel can be difficult to find)
6) Inconvenient (Most are difficult to use in a tent or lean-to.)

On the plus side:
1) there is no need to carry a 16oz bottle of WG or 10oz canister of fuel. At worst, I find a small piece of birch bark and carry that instead (many birches in the ADK’s.) And, sometimes a couple “bars” of starter (I believe they are wax and paper or sawdust, easily broken up)
2) Nearly unlimited fuel (except above treeline) means 3 weeks will not run you out of fuel
3) generally fairly light to carry.

Gasifiers work by allowing air into the burning gasses making the burn cleaner and more efficient. They don’t recirculate combustion gasses though burning fuel. Air injection has the effect of adding more oxygen, but, it also cools the flame. Many twin walled designs preheat the air before allowing it into the flame to avoid this issue. (Cool temps can put a flame out or cause a lot of soot.)

What about just making a fire without a stove?

Three rocks to put pot on.  A small fire next to it and drag coals over to where you put your pot.

I’ve screwed with that a little, but I don’t like that it gets the bottom of the pot sooty.  But I think stoves don’t really prevent that.  You can do it such that it only uses a small amount of wood and small pieces.

Maybe it’s good to practice this in case your stove fails.

“4) Time consuming (takes about 7-10 minutes to boil two cups)”

Yeah.  And I’d be super impressed by someone who could prep for a fire in a wood stove in less than 5 minutes.  Tinder.  Small bits of fuel.  Waiting for the fire to die down (if it is morning).  Dealing with the ashes.  More like an hour of time versus 5 minutes total with a canister stove.

For a fixed camp, in a remote location?  Sure, then it starts to look better.  Or some locations (fly in or international) where you can’t get stove fuel or travel with your liquid-fueled stove.  But the places like that where I backpack the most often (Adak Island in the Aleutians.  Iceland is another example) have no / few trees or bushes for fuel so I’d be importing clothespins or popsicle sticks for fuel.  Instead, I bring candles and tin cans and throw them away after the trip.

But like solar panels on your house, it doesn’t have to pencil out, dollars and cents-wise, to do it.  If you want to burn wood, if you enjoy it and do safely – HYOH.

There are advantages to a wood stove over a ground fire.

1. You use less wood as you can concentrate the fire, the fire is probably more efficient (less wood per amount of water boiled)
2. Most well designed stoves have some sort of grate on the bottom thereby protecting the ground a bit
3. It will be easier to determine if the fire is truly out
4. Vary likely, less overall impact on the surrounding area

My 2 cents

In So-Cal we haven’t been able to build rock fire pits for a long time.  There are some locations that allow contained wood fires, so that would be my reason for collecting all the wood burning stoves I have.  I don’t think they are allowed in most areas here even today with all the rain, but up-state will probably allow them with all the rain we’ve gotten.  Jon Fong might know better than me.

“one could claim that the ports introduces air in a ring around the outlet and can reduce the amount of residual smoke”.  I would think it also burns a little hotter and a slight bit more efficient with oxygen coming in those vents.  Is it the efficiency, temp or less smoke that makes it worthwhile to have a bushbuddy over other stoves?  Probably not.  The Caldera cone is probably more efficient.

Lot’s of people are ardent supporters of the Bushbuddy (and similar Solo or Bushcooker stoves) because it fits in their pot, boils water and cooks food.  Maybe the look of the stove or the fire it puts out is more pleasing to them.  I find the little flames around the heretofore known as “gassifier” vents to be quite pleasing.  Or maybe some just want something that doesn’t require assembly?

There are fold down stoves that claim to be gassifiers too.  My first wood stove was the MSP Core 4 stove after seeing some posts on Hammock forums.  I’ve also got others – they are just so awesome!

Since this is BP light, here are the weights of my wood burning stoves:

MSP Core 4 (full Ti set) – 14.5oz – you can leave out some pieces to lighten up

Firebox Nano Ti – 4.0 oz

4DS Bushcooker LT II – 3.5 oz

4DS Bushcooker LT 1 – 3.0 oz

Caldera Cone Sidewinder Inferno w/ grates, floor and stakes – 2.4 oz (main cone is 1.6 oz)

The Caldera Sidewinder and Inferno fits in the 1.3L pot it was designed for.  The 4DS Bushcooker LT II fits into a nice 4DS stove 1L pot.  the MSP and Firebox don’t fit in pots I have, but they fold flat in their cases.

As another note, I would always bring a backup if wood is not allowed.  Dan’s Starlyte (regular and XL) for the Caldera Sidewinder and Bushcooker, and I think the Firebox fits a Trangia Spirit stove nicely.  The Sidewinder and Firebox are also designed to work with Esbit.

A few years ago I did some test using the BushBuddy and Fourdogs stove and one of my designs.

https://backpackinglight.com/forums/topic/45300/

And to add to Jon’s list, 5) stoves with a firebox will burn the wood more completely to ash, leaving fewer coals.  and 6) the area of scorched ground (or of ground needing to be protected by rocks or sand) is Much smaller.

I know is this BP-Light and not Car Camping Light, but I’ll throw this out there anyway:

These charcoal starters are about $12 at any hardware or big box store.  I prefer them when boat-camping (typically out for 2-3 nights, moored in some uninhabited salt-water bay often to the detriment of local tasty critters).  A few self-light briquets get them going without even any tinder, then I add local wood or sometimes bring 4-6″ lengths of scrap lumber.  It burns MUCH cleaner than a campfire.  I have a small grate for the top to grill meat or veggies (or I could boil a mess of water on it).  It puts out heat like a campfire, but with less smoke and accommodates 3-4 camp chairs around it.

For home wood stoves, “a chimney can be too short, too wide, or too narrow, but can’t be too tall”.  I realize there are weight and volume reasons to keep BPing wood stoves small, but a much taller versions (e.g. some holes in the bottom of a section of stainless-steel stove pipe) would allow more volume for wood and more time for sparks and smoke to combust.

and taller chimney would draw more air so it would burn better

I’ve used these stone woodstoves that have a one foot tall chimney that burns a lot better than an open fire

+1, besides, I use the charcoal fire starter chimney to cook steaks at home.. use charcoal and add a grate on top.  The grill will get to ++500 F and is a great way to char grill a rare steak.

Burning charcoal in a can

I got one of these 1 piece wood burners, no dirty hands: