Building a fire....

[Diomedes Industries]

amazing when you stop and think of it, but primitive man neither knew or cared about 'long wave radiation' when he was building fires.
Still, he seemed to manage...........

lots of endeavors are successful due to common sense and practice.

You do know the death rate of primitive man right? 40 to 50% never made it to 15 years old. I think it was, almost entirely, the lack of science that didn't allow primitive man to live as long or as comfortably as he could have. Granted, much of this was due to disease...

After teaching 'Critical Thinking' for years at the college level - I have come to believe that common sense is not so common - (why else would we complain about others not having it so often). I think 'common sense' should be called 'what I was taught as a kid' - and not everyone was taught the same.

This is why I ask what the Hades is going on in that reaction of fire - the more I know - the more I can figure out while I am in the bush. I don't want my trial to end in a lack of fire when I need it. I shouldn't be 'practicing' when the SHTF.



TF

 

[KEmSAT-Survival]

OKay - I know many ways of BUILDING a fire... I just don't know the physics behind fire - as stated above. Southern Cross talked about how heat is transferred - but I do not understand how or why fire takes place and all the things that would help in the building of a fire.

TF

A lot of people, I've noticed, seem to think that you can light a log with a spark. They don't realize the principle of ignition temperatures and the fire triangle. Lundin is right about leaving room for air and oxygen, but not getting it too far apart.
That's part of why you can't lay a big log on a small fire: The small fire, given time, might reach the ignition point of the log -- but it usually runs out of oxygen and fuel way before it can ignite the log. That's why you "build" your fire before you light it. That's why a fire/coal gets hotter when you blow on it: more O2.
Firelay isn't quite as important as the procedure from tinder to fuel. I've used the same old firelay for ~20 years now and it has always worked without fail. But, it works around the principle of ignition temperature.

Just sticking fire to something doesn't guarantee it will ignite. The spark or flame has to reach the object's ignition point. The smaller, thinner, etc... something is the lower its ignition point will be. It can start with just a spark: cattail fluff, gasoline fumes, fuzzed cotton balls. The larger, more dense the object is the higher its ignition point will be. Which is why you can't stick a spark to a log and light it on fire. But it's why you can get your fire hot enough to burn the log -- a hotter fire will reach the log's ignition point where a simple spark won't. It doesn't have to be a big fire to be a hot fire. Many times the bed of coals will keep you warmer than the flame.

Don't get too caught up in the philosophy of it, Tal. Just practice it. Building fire is a lot like throwing a baseball and shooting a traditional bow. It just takes patience and time. Once it becomes second nature you'll be able to start one just about anywhere, anytime, with anything. Don't get too caught up with "Hey, I know 47 ways to build a fire." I'd much rather be proficient with one way to build a fire, than mediocre or sub-par with 47.

Don't let Lundin scare you. Just remember: ignition source, oxygen, fuel ; and tinder, kindling, fuel. Then practice, practice, practice. Then when you're done practicing -- practice some more.

Of everything I do, spending time practicing fire starting methods, even if it's just holding my metal match or practicing bow drill form, takes up most of my time. A lot of the time I don't even start a fire, I just ignite tinder and let it burn out.

 

[KEmSAT-Survival]

You do know the death rate of primitive man right? 40 to 50% never made it to 15 years old. I think it was, almost entirely, the lack of science that didn't allow primitive man to live as long or as comfortably as he could have. Granted, much of this was due to disease...

After teaching 'Critical Thinking' for years at the college level - I have come to believe that common sense is not so common - (why else would we complain about others not having it so often). I think 'common sense' should be called 'what I was taught as a kid' - and not everyone was taught the same.

This is why I ask what the Hades is going on in that reaction of fire - the more I know - the more I can figure out while I am in the bush. I don't want my trial to end in a lack of fire when I need it. I shouldn't be 'practicing' when the SHTF.



TF

That might not be entirely true, T.
Science mostly gives us the whitherto's and whyfor's of what's happening, as well as more efficient ways of doing something.
Many times a breakthrough is pure dumb luck or serendipitous. Then we figure out how to repeat the process, each time becoming a little more efficient at it -- can ya guess what that process is called? I'll give you a hint, kids in school are supposed to be doing it and it starts with an "L".

Primitive man's death rate was due to dying and the incredibly harsh conditions in which he struggled. Science might have told him why he was dying, but it didn't guarantee a cure for it.

Necessity was the cause for many of our current inventions, science only made them easier to repeat and refine. Remember? Necessity is the mother of invention?

 

[Diomedes Industries]

I want to clarify - I am not scared by the science or getting wrapped up - I am simply trying to understand the things I quite often can not see with the naked eye. I do practice a lot - but when I have a poor fire going - I wonder what is happening and quite often can't answer my questions.

Knowing more about what is scientifically taking place helps me answer these questions.


Concerning science - I simply look at human life conditions and expectancy before the 1,500's and after. The revival of the scientific methods have allowed humans to make more progress in 500 years than perhaps the first hundred thousand years. However, you don't need to go back that far - look at the period from about 400 AD to 1,200 AD in the Western World - incredibly little progress. Compare than from 1,400 to today. From the plague to super computers.

If you look at the advances in metalurgy in the last 100 years in comparison to the dawn of homosapiens - the difference is night and day. I think trial and error can get you some of this - but scientific testing and discovery is owed the lions share.

(Note: I did not, will not, and was not even trying to bring religion into this talk).

But, that is off topic and probably should be handled in another forum.

TF

 

[KEmSAT-Survival]

I understand.
When you say "poor fire", what do you mean?
Not enough heat?
Not enough light?
Peters out too quick?
Fuel burns up too quick or not quickly enough?
Just smolders?

Here's a pretty good little article on part of your question: http://sciencelearn.org.nz/Contexts/Fire/Science-Ideas-and-Concepts/What-is-fire

"Fire is the visible effect of the process of combustion – a special type of chemical reaction. It occurs between oxygen in the air and some sort of fuel. The products from the chemical reaction are completely different from the starting material.

The fuel must be heated to its ignition temperature for combustion to occur. The reaction will keep going as long as there is enough heat, fuel and oxygen. This is known as the fire triangle. "

Fuels can be solids, liquids or gases. During the chemical reaction that produces fire, fuel is heated to such an extent that (if not already a gas) it releases gases from its surface.

Only gases can react in combustion. Gases are made up of molecules (groups of atoms). When these gases are hot enough, the molecules in the gases break apart and fragments of molecules rejoin with oxygen from the air to make new product molecules – water molecules (H2O) and carbon dioxide molecules (CO2) – and other products if burning is not complete.

 

[all hood allen]

amazing when you stop and think of it, but primitive man neither knew or cared about 'long wave radiation' when he was building fires.
Still, he seemed to manage...........

lots of endeavors are successful due to common sense and practice.

I want to clarify - I am not scared by the science or getting wrapped up - I am simply trying to understand the things I quite often can not see with the naked eye. I do practice a lot - but when I have a poor fire going - I wonder what is happening and quite often can't answer my questions.

Knowing more about what is scientifically taking place helps me answer these questions.


Concerning science - I simply look at human life conditions and expectancy before the 1,500's and after. The revival of the scientific methods have allowed humans to make more progress in 500 years than perhaps the first hundred thousand years. However, you don't need to go back that far - look at the period from about 400 AD to 1,200 AD in the Western World - incredibly little progress. Compare than from 1,400 to today. From the plague to super computers.

If you look at the advances in metalurgy in the last 100 years in comparison to the dawn of homosapiens - the difference is night and day. I think trial and error can get you some of this - but scientific testing and discovery is owed the lions share.

(Note: I did not, will not, and was not even trying to bring religion into this talk).

But, that is off topic and probably should be handled in another forum.

TF

dude i dont think thats off topic at all.
i think it great to stop and think about that.and the main reason humanity slowed in evolutionary process in 400 - 1200 AD was religon. the cathlic church came with several reforms (starting around 375AD). most of which were based on the 7 deadly sins (originally 8) and later the 7 heavenly virtues.(remember how the world was the center of the universe..and square?). its sad how closed minded people were in that time.they were scared and fell victim to a morally corrupted practice of torture and imprisonment.

hopefully the morality of man wont fall so low again.


i tip my hat to you sir.you are well educated.

 

[Diomedes Industries]

Allhood - see - now you went there! PLEASE let's not go down the path of religion v. science. (Besides - we all know it was Plato's fault!)

To stay on target:

KemSAT:

Mostly the fires I am worried about are those that do not give off enough heat - or sit and smolder (or both in most cases). These are the fires where I wonder, does it not have enough oxygen, too thick of fuel, poorly constructed, and the like.

I can, and I think anyone can, build a decent fire with great materials to choose from, a lot of time, and dry situations. It is when these things start to get compromised that I want to know what I am doing wrong and what I can do about it.

I am reading the article you linked to right now. I LOVE pictures BTW. (I am not a smart man Jenny.... )

TF

 

[KEmSAT-Survival]

I want to clarify - I am not scared by the science or getting wrapped up - I am simply trying to understand the things I quite often can not see with the naked eye. I do practice a lot - but when I have a poor fire going - I wonder what is happening and quite often can't answer my questions.

There are many variables that can result in an insufficient fire, my friend. But, it generally will boil down to one of these three: fuel, oxygen, ignition. You have an imbalance in them somewhere, one is too high and the others too low; or one is too low and the others too high. Finding out what is causing your fire to be shabby can be an involved process: is your fuel damp? Punky? A little green? Some woods won't burn for shit when you need heat, some burn too fast. Do you have too much fuel on the fire and your kindling hasn't had time to reach peak burn? Are you letting enough air get to your coals and flame? Are you trying to start it directly on top of the ground? (remember a fire needs air underneath it, too).

Knowing more about what is scientifically taking place helps me answer these questions.

You mean at the atomic level, or just the process by which fire is achieved? There really isn't a set amount of space to place logs to get an optimal efficiency. Some wood might have more air space in it as a result of how it grew, some might be more dense. All of this is adjusted as your fire grows.

Concerning science - I simply look at human life conditions and expectancy before the 1,500's and after. The revival of the scientific methods have allowed humans to make more progress in 500 years than perhaps the first hundred thousand years. However, you don't need to go back that far - look at the period from about 400 AD to 1,200 AD in the Western World - incredibly little progress. Compare than from 1,400 to today. From the plague to super computers.

If you look at the advances in metalurgy in the last 100 years in comparison to the dawn of homosapiens - the difference is night and day. I think trial and error can get you some of this - but scientific testing and discovery is owed the lions share.

Actually, I think human curiosity is owed the lion's share. Science is a byproduct of that. Science is only a name for a refined process of discovery and examination. Science is not all that allowed humans to perform these feats.
The difference is night and day, because of continual discovery and refinement. Wood to fire hardened wood, to stone, to copper, to bronze, to iron, to steel, and so on.
Without the human element to ask the question that begs the answer science cannot exist.
Science simply replaced theistic belief in the realm of explaining the processes that occur both: on Earth and in space.
If the other side had won we'd be talking about the merits of a deity giving us these materials, etc...
It's all a matter of perspective.

(Note: I did not, will not, and was not even trying to bring religion into this talk).

But, that is off topic and probably should be handled in another forum.

TF

That's cool. I don't think anyone was accusing or asserting that you were doing such a thing, that I could tell anyway. When I said "philosophy" I was meaning that Lundin has a certain philosophy about things and sometimes, when a person has that kind of perspective on a subject, they tend to talk in such a way that only they fully understand. This makes it hard for anyone listening to sift through, whereas if he'd just say: lay your wood too close together and you smother your fire, too far apart and it won't catch -- so it will die out on you.
There's really no scientific formula to it, well not insasmuch as set parameters of the type "x amount of inches from coal bed for all Birch to burn at max potential, x amount of inches from coal bed for Beech, etc..." Wood is a living material, and as such is given to all the irregularities that accompany that.
The only set pattern is that of: tinder, kindling, fuel; and oxygen, fuel, ignition source. Wait until one is burning at its hottest before adding the other or you'll smother it. Way too long and it'll die. Learning to judge this comes with practice.
When you get it started, if your fire is burning slow or cold push the coals closer together and add a little more kindling. Let it get hot and then add a little fuel.
Like I said: It's like throwing a baseball and shooting traditional archery. You learn to judge the distance and accuracy with practice.
With fire, you learn to judge when to add fuel, how far apart to put the logs, etc...a little better each time.

 

[KEmSAT-Survival]

Mostly the fires I am worried about are those that do not give off enough heat - or sit and smolder (or both in most cases). These are the fires where I wonder, does it not have enough oxygen, too thick of fuel, poorly constructed, and the like.

I can, and I think anyone can, build a decent fire with great materials to choose from, a lot of time, and dry situations. It is when these things start to get compromised that I want to know what I am doing wrong and what I can do about it.

I am reading the article you linked to right now. I LOVE pictures BTW. (I am not a smart man Jenny.... )

Are you allowing a way for air to get to your fire from underneath? The ground will leach heat away from your fire the same as will from you. Try building it on a platform.

I find that most of my fire making time and material is spent in kindling. But, I like a large bed of coals. The coals are where most of your heat comes from and where the fire is insulated. I usually won't start adding any big stuff until I have a good, hot, kindling fire.

If you're making a fire to warm yourself (as opposed to a cooking fire), make a reflector fire. You'll lose less heat to radiation and wind that way.

Another problem is, is your fire in the wind? Too much air across your fire will blow it out. Another reason the plainspeople developed the "fire hole".

Fire loses heat just like we do: conduction, convection, radiation, respiration and perspiration. Cold, wet ground will leech the heat out of your fire and you won't get a good one going. Wind will wick the heat away and may even blow it out. Fire radiates heat, so if you're in a wide open space you'll lose more heat to the space around you, than if you were in a more sheltered space. Fire breaths: too much air and it'll burn too quick. Too little and it'll choke out on you. Perspiration: Damp wood? Wet ground? Humid as all get out?

 

[all hood allen]

Allhood - see - now you went there! PLEASE let's not go down the path of religion v. science. (Besides - we all know it was Plato's fault!)

To stay on target:

KemSAT:

Mostly the fires I am worried about are those that do not give off enough heat - or sit and smolder (or both in most cases). These are the fires where I wonder, does it not have enough oxygen, too thick of fuel, poorly constructed, and the like.

I can, and I think anyone can, build a decent fire with great materials to choose from, a lot of time, and dry situations. It is when these things start to get compromised that I want to know what I am doing wrong and what I can do about it.

I am reading the article you linked to right now. I LOVE pictures BTW. (I am not a smart man Jenny.... )

TF

haha.alright man. i personal dont see it as a vesus thing but there are always some who do.

 

[Diomedes Industries]

That's cool. I don't think anyone was accusing or asserting that you were doing such a thing, that I could tell anyway. When I said "philosophy" I was meaning that Lundin has a certain philosophy about things and sometimes, when a person has that kind of perspective on a subject, they tend to talk in such a way that only they fully understand. This makes it hard for anyone listening to sift through, whereas if he'd just say: lay your wood too close together and you smother your fire, too far apart and it won't catch -- so it will die out on you.
There's really no scientific formula to it, well not insasmuch as set parameters of the type "x amount of inches from coal bed for all Birch to burn at max potential, x amount of inches from coal bed for Beech, etc..." Wood is a living material, and as such is given to all the irregularities that accompany that.
The only set pattern is that of: tinder, kindling, fuel; and oxygen, fuel, ignition source. Wait until one is burning at its hottest before adding the other or you'll smother it. Way too long and it'll die. Learning to judge this comes with practice.
When you get it started, if your fire is burning slow or cold push the coals closer together and add a little more kindling. Let it get hot and then add a little fuel.
Like I said: It's like throwing a baseball and shooting traditional archery. You learn to judge the distance and accuracy with practice.
With fire, you learn to judge when to add fuel, how far apart to put the logs, etc...a little better each time.

No man - I didn't make my disclaimer about religion toward you or anyone else. I made it toward me. I brought up some time frames that could imply religion - and I didn't want that debate here.

Over some beers - yes - on the interwebz - no.

Thanks SO MUCH for your posts - they are great. I REALLY appreciate the time you are taking here. I am learning a lot. I think in my cases lack of good preparation has caused me some shoddy fires when I was less experienced - however knowing what this thread has posted will help me in learning why my fire is crappy and what I can do to fix it.

I think what I need to do is write all this stuff down for myself - get pictures to illustrate what I am learning and put it all together. It seems to be what Doc Canada does - and that dude knows a lot!
TF

 

[Mistwalker]

I was reading through Cody Lundin's site and came across this:


"Building a fire is a literal statement, and involves two out of the three core concepts of fire making; fuel and oxygen. Put the sticks too close together and you die, (lack of oxygen). Put the sticks too far apart and you die, (lack of the interplay of long wave radiation from one burning stick to the other). Most people fixate on the ignition aspect of fire making. The wise survivor will spend twice as much time learning about the physics of fuel and oxygen placement - building a fire - than on learning ignition. The more skilled one is at "building their fire", the less heat or ignition will be required to light the fire."


I realize that I have spend a LOT of time worrying about the ignition portion of the fire and not spent a lot of time on the physics of building a fire. Are there any books that I can read (or articles, videos, or what have you) that deal more in depth on the topic of fire building?

TF

Yes, I suppose I do spend a lot of time studying ignition "systems" and techniques. Mainly because I have already spent so many years studying the physics of actually building a fire when I was younger and still using only a lighter and matches. During my family's days of commercial fishing and trapping my father and older brother taught me fire craft...ignition with lighters and matches, and the physics of building the fire under whatever conditions...and then made it my responsibility because I was the youngest. Soon the cooking also became my responsibility. My older brother had studied primitive fire starting and knew how to use a fire bow as well as flint and steel and then lost interest in it. When I tried to get him to teach me he said, and I quote..."do you think Daniel Boone would have used rocks and sticks if he had one of these" and he handed me a bic lighter and said he didn't have time to teach me. I could never count the number of fires I have built in my life time, but only over the last few years have I again started studying more primitive techniques of lighting them. For me alternative means of ignition are much more an area of interest than any other part of fire building at this point in my life.

 

[Diomedes Industries]

Mist,

Sounds like you had a great older brother. Too bad he didn't have the time to teach you the bow drill and the like.

TF

 

[KEmSAT-Survival]

blah, blah, blah, everything I say makes sense, blur, blur, blur...

Once. Just once. I wish you'd come in and make absolutely no sense at all.

Example:

Tal: "My fires are kind of weak."

MW: "Ducks don't fart. If they did there'd be bubbles in the pond."



Noooooo, he has to come in with all these perfect explanations and real life experiences. That's it. I'm gagging him. Where's my duct tape and ball gag? :grumpy:







Get out there and do more of those city walk things you do, MW. I miss those.

No man - I didn't make my disclaimer about religion toward you or anyone else. I made it toward me. I brought up some time frames that could imply religion - and I didn't want that debate here.

Over some beers - yes - on the interwebz - no.

Thanks SO MUCH for your posts - they are great. I REALLY appreciate the time you are taking here. I am learning a lot. I think in my cases lack of good preparation has caused me some shoddy fires when I was less experienced - however knowing what this thread has posted will help me in learning why my fire is crappy and what I can do to fix it.

I think what I need to do is write all this stuff down for myself - get pictures to illustrate what I am learning and put it all together. It seems to be what Doc Canada does - and that dude knows a lot!
TF

No problem, my woodsie outdoorsie brother. If I know something I'm more than happy to share it. I try to keep everything in the realm of basics. Basics are always easier to remember in a shitstorm. Apples to apples, y'know?

 

[Mistwalker]

Mist,

Sounds like you had a great older brother. Too bad he didn't have the time to teach you the bow drill and the like.

TF

Oh he was a great older brother! We spent most of my early childhood in the woods together and he taught me a lot of things. He didn't even kill me when I broke his microscope by knocking it out of the closet raiding his candy stash when I was 6 and he was 13...but my nose and jaw was sore for a couple of days

Then he got married and moved out when I was nine and left me to practice what all he had taught me. I do wish he would have had time...but I am thankful for all of the things he did teach me...saved my life/health more than once over the years. I did get the satisfaction of reteaching him the fire bow a few months back. He lost interest in it nearly 40 years ago when I was in Kindergarten and had forgotten all he once knew about it. Funny how life fills our head with stuff and crowds out things we once knew.

Once. Just once. I wish you'd come in and make absolutely no sense at all.

Example:

Tal: "My fires are kind of weak."

MW: "Ducks don't fart. If they did there'd be bubbles in the pond."



Noooooo, he has to come in with all these perfect explanations and real life experiences. That's it. I'm gagging him. Where's my duct tape and ball gag? :grumpy:







Get out there and do more of those city walk things you do, MW. I miss those.

LMAO, that's hilarious!

Hmmmm, I may just do that tomorrow for lunch time.

 

[Diomedes Industries]

So - your brother was 7 years older than you - and he got married when you were 9? Is this normal?

TF

 

[Mistwalker]

So - your brother was 7 years older than you - and he got married when you were 9? Is this normal?

TF

To be honest bro I'm not sure...I'm not at all sure I have a real working definition of "normal". Seeing as my mother chose to attend the wedding quite inebriated, wearing a black dress and vale I'm assuming she didn't think so. Even though she was a year younger than that when she gave birth to him. Honestly I really don't think much of my life has been normal. However...36 years later they are still together, all three of their kids are college grads and they all still talk and hang out on a daily basis and eat dinners as a family two weekends a month...I'm pretty sure that's not normal.

 

[Diomedes Industries]

Mist - that is NOT normal. With a divorce rate of 52% the 'sanctity of marriage' is not that sacrosanct.

TF

 

[kgd]

I think 'common sense' should be called 'what I was taught as a kid' - and not everyone was taught the same.

Pure brilliance TF - I really like that one!!!!

I think others have re-iterated here often enough about experiential learning, I just really like how you equated this to common sense. In so doing you have also exposed the myth of 'common sense' as something that can both 'provide you with a proven path' but also be limiting because you get stuck into a limited way of thinking. I almost think you could write a book with that statement as your central thesis!

Sorry, I don't have too much to offer on this thread. Mors Kochanski's book specifies a number of fire lays under the chapter 'firecraft' <-- what a wonderful name! For example, the star-lay pattern being used to burn a controlled central fire that can be sustained a long time. I always thought it would be useful to take MK's book and spend a day practicing each fire lay he describes. Of course, one reason this is not practical is because it takes a long time to build a fire and then to let it die out. This is one reason why we like to practice ignition so much. The process can take from 10 seconds to an hour depending on the method. Building fires is a time consistent that starts at about 40 minutes and gets longer from there.

.

 

[Diomedes Industries]

In ethics there is something called 'Common Sense Morality' which many people appeal to "Everyone knows it is just wrong to do 'x'" but no one can define. Despite the lack of definition people bank their actions on it. I do too - to a degree - but I try and not let, what amounts to relativism, guide my actions - fire or ethics.

However, I don't think it was brought up in this thread in this lite - I think it meant something like 'It should just be obvious what is going wrong.' However, I am not that bright - sometimes the easy shit baffles me.

TF