I have always used a gas stove for hiking but I'm planning a trip with primarily camping in mind (will be taking an axe etc) and figured I would pick up a wood stove.
Ive come across the chinese copies on ebay for £12~. There are two that look about the same other than different pot stands, I'm wondering if anyone has any experience with them?
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Portable-Wood-Gas-Backpacking-Wood-Burning-Camping-Picnic-Stove-Alcohol-Stove-/400966026801?hash=item5d5b700631:g:wXcAAOSwl9BWJGKB
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Wood-Gas-Alcohol-Burning-Outdoor-Camping-Picnic-BBQ-Stove-Cooker-Stainless-Steel-/291336630927?hash=item43d504328f:g:bOEAAOSwVL1WEhhH
I'm also planning on picking up a titanium pot or even a set of titanium cookware as the aluminium kit I have now tastes terrible if you eat out of it. Any recommendations would be much appreciated.
I just bought one. Tried it like two weeks ago in my backyard. It was freezing point and dry. Started very easily and kept burning until depleted, with no unburnt fuel. Didn't have to push anything around. So far that looks pretty promising.
Just get the cheapest one or better yet make one yourself out of some tin cans. That is all these stoves basically are.
>>742882
Not gonna click those links but I'd tell you right now to get those foldable ones. The one in your pic can be built on site with a knife and an empty can so it's not worth the money. You might aswell get a lot of empty cans and get rid of them after a couple uses, specially if you are car camping.
>>742906
Foldable firebox != wood gas stove
The wood gas stove cited by OP actually breaks down into a third of the size pictured. Imo worth it.
>>742918
There are some designs that pack flat, hence you can save space in your backpack.
Quick utub search gives this diy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WmN6ajFncU
>>742921
Yeah, that's not a wood gas stove
>>742906
>The one in your pic can be built on site with a knife and an empty can so it's not worth the money.
I would like to see someone make one of those with just a can and a knife, they are obviously basically but no way near that basic.
>>742894
>Just get the cheapest one or better yet make one yourself out of some tin cans. That is all these stoves basically are.
Given the time it would take, and how much I would actually be saving after buying the cans + fuel driving to the store it seemed like a false economy.
>>742906
>>742891
Good to know, thanks.
>>742935
Read the title.
>>742882
FYI, a true wood gas stove will have a blue flame, not orange or yellow. That is the best way to tell if the stove is designed correctly. Most of the time they are only an oddly designed rocket stove, which does have a yellow-orange flame. Although, most rocket stoves are too short and not insulated, resulting in smoke. So, even those are merely just wood burning hobo stoves.
>>743154
Just because the combustion on the top is imperfect doesn't mean the pyrolysis/gasification doesn't occur.
Wood gasification isn't an "all or nothing" process, as long as you reach a decent temperature.
>>743188
>Yeah but that's like stating that +1°C is not freezing. Of course is not because is not 0°C, but for every practical purpose, is fucking freezing.
Erm, no that's what YOU're saying.
You're saying it's not a wood gas stove because the flame isn't blue. That's exactly the same logic as saying it's not freezing because it's 1°C.
The flame isn't blue because the combustion is imperfect, and all the wood isn't gasified, but that doesn't mean you don't gain efficiency from it's architecture.
Gasification is NOT an ALL OR NOTHING process, so for all practical purposes it's a wood gas stove as long as significant gasification occurs, in the same way 1°C is freezing.
Here is an example of gasification where the flames are yellow. You can see the combustion occurs at the top, not on the pellets, which mean that gas is burning, not the pellets.
@7:15
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWFF4AF0oXQ
>>743154
>FYI, a true wood gas stove will have a blue flame, not orange or yellow. That is the best way to tell if the stove is designed correctly.
show me a design that burns with a blue flame. Ive never seen one that burns that cleanly without some kind of fan.
>>743223
>so for all practical purposes it's a wood gas stove as long as significant gasification occurs
I get what you are saying, and indeed gasification might occur. In fact, let's say it does occur. I'll give you that. However, the fact that gasification takes place does not mean that it does to a degree that has an actual practical outcome, becouse most of the actual heat in the stove in op's pic will come from a direct flame from an actual stick, given the size of the stove. Even if gasification occurs, it's effect would be marginal in comparison to the heat provided by the direct flames from the wood.
>>742882
> Wood gas
Just burn the fucking wood.
>>743258
>becouse most of the actual heat in the stove in op's pic will come from a direct flame from an actual stick
Source?
Of course if OP just puts sticks in it, it won't work as a wood gas stove, but if he stacks kindling in it, in a way that it doesn't reach the top, I don't see why gasification wouldn't occur in a non-neglectable proportion.
This wouldn't work >>742894 but if he broke his sticks down in little pieces that he places at the bottom, it should.
>>743172
Actually it is, otherwise you don't call a stove a wood gasifier.
>>743188
Improper logic for this example. It isn't a wood gasifier because it does not properly gasify wood in the manner wood gasifier stoves do. There's no need for analogies or similies. Anon, is just not understanding what a wood gasifier it, what it actually does, or what it looks like.
>>743223
>Gasification is NOT an ALL OR NOTHING process,
Actually it is, otherwise you don't call a stove a wood gasifier. It'd just be a wood stove.
>>743237
That isn't a gasifier. That's just a hobostove with a blower.
This is the same type of material use, but these are properly designed and have a proper blue flame:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1fyFT5Q_Nc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_o2Lu6YvHc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5juuitxuWVU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcJZzIb5Nyc
>>743239
See above links. Yes, they all need a fan or air injection from a compressor. Which is why they are not all that great for outdoors and hiking. Which is the reason most people just use hobo stoves or rocket stoves.
>>743367
>OP is asking about a stove to bring camping/hiking
>better show him things I don't think are useful for his situation
I question this.
>>743383
>having incorrect terminology that is false advertising is okay
Seriously? Because if you want a truck and someone says they have a truck but they sell you a car, is that ok?
>>743398
This isn't NASA here.
I think you'd be better off just recommending a good wood burning camping stove.
>>743405
>>743383
You're kidding right? OP wants titanium. That's as NASA as you can get with camp cookware. He may as well learn what it is he is buying or wanting to buy. If I wanted a wood gas stove and someone sold me one of those in the OP, I'd be pissed.
Did you even click on the links in the OP? It is all straight up lying and false advertising. Hell they even say it is an alcohol stove at one point.
The biggest tell tale sign that these sellers are shit and lying is:
>Based in China
>99.1% positive feedback
For both eBay accounts.
The OP is literally better off getting a pair of pliers and some soup cans to make his own stove.
>>743383
>better show him things I don't think are useful for his situation
That just shows that the stoves in the OP are not what they say they are.
>>743367
>That isn't a gasifier. That's just a hobostove with a blower.
The flames clearly appear at the air ports' height.
>Actually it is, otherwise you don't call a stove a wood gasifier. It'd just be a wood stove.
Wood stoves burn the wood.
Wood gas stoves burn the gas from the wood.
That it does it properly or not is irrelevant to how it functions.
>>743417
Jesus really? It isn't a wood gasifier stove, that is all.
>>743421
Look at this stove.
Clearly what is burning is gas coming from the gas ports.
Clearly the flames are yellow.
Are you telling me that's pellets burning directly here?
>>743430
>Are you telling me that's pellets burning directly here?
Of course. Do you not know how a wood gasifier even works? The problem with that one is there's no secondary burn. They have too much oxygen in the mix. Thus the flame goes right up the sides and out on the first burn. If the secondary burn was working it would be blue.
>>743413
>The OP is literally better off getting a pair of pliers and some soup cans to make his own stove.
Which by your definition not even a wood gas stove because it won't have a fan or blue flames either.
You're autistic AF
>>743450
>Of course.
No it's not.
What burns here is gas coming from wood pyrolysis, with the oxidizer coming from the air vents.
> If the secondary burn was working it would be blue.
It's not blue because flow is not (re)circulated as much as your precious blue flame stoves, but there is a secondary gas combustion.
How can you possibly think flame color is an indicator of how a stove works rather than an indicator of the quality of combustion?
>>742882
Not really worth it, OP. Cool idea, but in reality not so great. Useless for winter, high alpine, ice, sensitive areas, forest fire risk areas, etc.
Just stick to white gas; it's bulletproof, simple, fast, hassle free.
>>743631
Is it actually useless in those situations though? Granted, it's a little harder to get burnable wood in winter and high alpine areas, and the sensitive areas I get, but I would think that you'd be okay to use this in forest fire risk areas, since it keeps everything neatly contained.
OP here.
The stove in the OP arrived and Ive given it a couple of tests and concluded that >>743450 is correct in that there is no secondary burn, even when it gets hot and looks exactly like >>743430
>Clearly what is burning is gas coming from the gas ports.
The only way that would be possible is if unburnt wood gas gets sucked down and up the sides of the stove. When I saw videos of the stoves I figured this is what was happening. I figured hot walls = rising air = main chamber counter flow by some kind of venturi effect.
But that's not whats happening, the holes at the top of the stove just have hot air coming out of them which cause the flames burning below it to look like jets of burning gas. The flames are entirely below the holes.
>The problem with that one is there's no secondary burn. They have too much oxygen in the mix.
This is the key, the bottom of the fuel chamber has massive holes and plenty of air to burn the wood gas right off the top of the fuel. I don't know if reducing the air supply by blocking a bunch of holes would help the design at all.
That said it doesn't mean the stove isn't an improvement over a single walled stove, even if its not technically a wood gas stove the secondary air may make it more efficient. I definitely need to play with it more, only used it indoors so far and it was making a bit too much smoke.
>>746403
It will still work fine for cooking and such, but a proper woodgas stove won't suet up the bottom of the cooking pot/pan.
