Wood vs wood gassifier stove

Gasifier stove will give you a hotter faster burning fire.
Also means it'll burn through wood a bit quicker
With any small wood stove you are going to have to babysit and continue feeding it

Pretty much do you want to collect a lot of small twigs then babysit it closely for a shorter amount of time or collect less twigs and babysit less closely for a longer cooking time?

I prefer just building a small campfire with thicker wood that doesn't need to be constantly attended to, but I also camp in places where that's not in reasonable

>>978361
Thats a good point about having to constantly restack. Ill probably just go with a regular one for now

File: Wood_gas_stove_Principle_of_operation.png (209KB, 635x721px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 635x721px

>>978353
What design are you referring to?

>>978388
Thats essentially the wppd gas stove i would be making if i did make one

The regular wood stove design i have is just a basic one off youtube that happens to nest really nicely with the pot i have (stanley adventure cook set)

>>978389
If you only have a little bit of food to cook or water to boil a standard wood stove will work fine and use less fuel. The wood gas ones are better when you are cooking a meal for your camp, because that will take much longer. Some designs allow you do snuff out the flame and be able to relight it later. Those are usually pellet/sawdust batch fuel. The regular wood stoves take sticks easily. Rocket stoves are a good in-between stove.

>>978436
Will the gasifier actually improve cook times that much though?

For the most part i just need it to heat up canned food or boil water ( and my pot is fairly small, ~700ml) but i do have a cast iron pan that i throw on the coals for frying fish every once and then, would a gasifier be much better for a large cast pan?

>>978452
It is the most efficient stove you can use and yes, it will be faster. Then again a stove with a wind guard will also be faster. Some things don't need a faster cooking time I suppose. Since it'll be mostly water and such, faster will be better.

For skillets, I don't think it matters too much. I mean you are not shaving that much time off. Instead just make sure the design is most useful for you in every way in regard to handling, fueling, and setting cookware on top of it.

File: bushbox.jpg (4MB, 2540x1963px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2540x1963px

>>978353
We have the same one

>>978562
I dont have that m8 just using it as an example of a wood stove

Im too cheap to buy a good one, that fucker is $50 here. Ima make one

>>978388
that's not really how they work

>>978686
That's just one style and that is how that style works.

How's the solo stove?

I've been spending forever planning this shit out

>solo stove
>flint and steel
>altoids box
>put leaves and shit in the altoids box and cook it over the stove so I always have char cloth around so I can light a fire with the flint and steel
>bring a slingshot so I can turn rocks into more food for the pot
>bring Sawyer mini so I can keep resupplying water
>stay in the woods for a very long time with one backpack full of shit

>>978719
>978719
Remember to do all this stuff in your backyard or someplace close to your home. That will help you work out the bugs in the equipment and you'll gain skills using the equipment before you do a long haul with stuff you are unfamiliar with using for very long.

Like use the sling shot to kill enough game for 10 meals on 10 different days/occasions.

>>978725
My goal isn't to stay forever, it's to min-max the amount of range I can get out of one backpack full of stuff.

>>978719
All sounds good except the slingshot
Not really practical or sustainable

>>978693
No. Why should the wood gas flow against the air flow?

Through the holes on top there gets air (a bit convection and a lot of bernoulli) in the flame and ignites unburnt wood gas that would otherwise cool down and clump together (aka smoke).

>>978353
>Wondering how much more efficient wood gas stoves are in comparison to a standard wood stove.
I don't know exactly how much more efficient it is, but I doubt it would be enough to justify the extra weight and bulk of a gassifier stove, since even a regular wood stove requires very little wood to cook a meal. At that scale of fuel usage, even if one is 50% more efficient than the other, you are still only using a negligible amount of what is naturally available regardless.

A gassifier stove would only really be justifiable if you stay in one site for a long enough time where the less wood you have to gather on site would make up for the more stove you have to carry between sites.

>>979099
Yea, the pros and cons seem to be on par between the two, especially if i make a large enough firebox it should put out enough heat either way. Ill just go the simple route unless i find it takes too logn when i test it out

File: 53604b4340d4a55b158abba4237f99cc.jpg (157KB, 736x552px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 736x552px

>>979071
It is a downdraft stove. The sides of the stove are hollow and form a chimney. The air in them heats up and when hot enough they suck the center air downward. They are pretty neat, you should make one using some tin cans. It is really easy to make and there's tons of vids and tutorials online. the ones that used forced air or are very tall usually have the blue flames which are the best ones. The yellow-red flame ones are not as good, but that is all about how fast the air is flowing. If you make one and don't want forced air, make it much taller and that should help a lot.

If you have it properly designed and these things are actually difficult to design correctly due to the proper ratios, you'll see the flames and such going down into the fuel.

>>979196
ok, never have seen one of those before. seems very, ..., ineffective - but looks great.

>>979200
When properly designed they are more effective than most other stoves. Even the one in >>979196 isn't 100% properly made since the top flames should be on the top of the unit. Efficiency is measured by smoke more than anything. A complete burn of flue gases is most efficient.

The biggest problem is that there are sooooo many improperly designed stoves online and those styles are perpetuated simply because of ignorance. One other example is the rocket stove. Most of the DIY ones you see are completely incorrect. A rocket stove needs an insulated flue and near complete burn of flue gases. The secondary burn of the flue gases ensures there's no smoke and there's no flame hitting the cooking vessel. Most DIY "rocket stoves" are far too short and/or are not insulated. While those incorrectly designed stoves are still more efficient and easier to use than a standard hobo stove, they are still incorrectly named. I suppose their correct name would be something more like "bottom-fed hobo stove"?

Correctly designed rocket stoves also have the problem in that they are more difficult to control the feeding of fuel in respect to air flow. If they are feed too much they will reduce the air flow to the point that the flue gases are not completely burned and smoke will start. A well maintained fire in a proper rocket stove won't blacken the bottom of the cooking vessel. A properly designed woodgas stove never has this problem since the fuel is loaded as a batch of fuel and its feeding doesn't need to be specifically controlled during cooking.

tl;dr if there's smoke it is inefficient. If the flame touches the cooking vessel it is inefficient.