Indoor, small-scale, wood-based cooking

[hanee]

Looking for opinions and ideas on what would be the most efficient (or the most appropriate, if efficiency just isn't going to get us anywhere here) for small-scale wood-based cooking, indoors (year-round, independent from heating needs).

I'm currently exploring using a 4" DSR2 for upwards of 6months of the year to cook/heat. But want to move completely off of fossil fuel for cooking, year round. We're not a big family either (just two of us and often it's oatmeal for one). So I'll pose this more specifically as a design problem. Here is the typical challenge, as I see it:

Boil 2 quarts of water in a pot indoors, using the least amount of wood or homemade charcoal (and generating the least amount of emissions hopefully).

Doesn't matter how much time it takes (within reason), but it has to be from a cold start to a cold finish. And net efficiency is all that matters here, not simply combustion efficiency.

Recommendations? Opinions?

My own experience/knowledge is limited here:

- I see TLUDs, BBRs and J-Tubes as being contenders, with TLUDs having the least design constraints but I believe the dirtiest burns of the three (but perhaps NET efficiency might be higher if it scales better to short burns with charcoal or makes heat transfer simpler and more direct).
- I'm guessing charcoal simplifies problems of cold starting/stopping and control (based on its traditional use)
- No idea about the draft part of the equation.
- The exact pot-cooktop connection could be a huge factor, but I don't know if any one combustion system would make for better possibilities there.

[hanee]

Hrm, I guess I didn't realize that charcoal was something formally different than just harvesting and quenching embers from an existing fire. That is what I meant by charcoal, but after researching I have learned that it is a specific and potentially wasteful process that I don't want to add to my list of things to figure out how to do without waste.

So, excuse my ignorance on that. I think I am looking for wood-based, or only charcoal in the sense of quenched embers (if that's even relevance).

[pigbuttons]

You don't include in your parameters how much maintenance you are willing to put up with. The TLUD is not very forgiving in that respect because there are issues with keeping the air passages clear of debris. The batch box rockets are not really for small scale cooking chores but more for a intense quick heat up of mass for room heating. That leaves the J tubes. There are a large variety of J tube designs out there and some are specifically for small cooking tasks. In my opinion the best part of the J tube design for cooking is that the flame path can be directly under the 'pot'. The bad part of J tubes is that most require a lot of fuel feeding attention. But if you are standing there cooking anyway I think the time to manage the fuel is just idle time from the cooking process anyway.

[drooster]

Nov 17, 2018 14:59:51 GMT -8 hanee said:

...
- The exact pot-cooktop connection could be a huge factor, but I don't know if any one combustion system would make for better possibilities there.

Surely nestling the cooking pot right ontop of the hottest output, at optimum distance. with an airtight seal will be your crucial factor. This would require you to experiment, especially the distance from "riser" to base of pot make a huge difference according to posters who've done it.
There are plenty of old threads addressing your cooking requirements, I've read most of them but I can't link any.

Your motivations for not using fossil fuels may also affect what's applicable,
interesting stuff.

Oatmeal sounds so sad, how about porridge?

[wiscojames]

To this pair of ears, porridge sounds cold and flavorless, whereas oatmeal sounds neutral. (I associate it with maple syrup and walnuts.) Is this a US/UK thing?

[graham]

How about a wood gasifier stove? youtu.be/yspKBrNHjs4 They seem to be used a lot in the 3rd world and are very efficient.

As for porridge, surely it depends on whether it's mama or papa bear's porridge. scienceblogs.com/thusspakezuska/2009/05/05/why-mama-bears-porridge-is-too

[ronyon]

Gruel, better than oatmeal or porridge!
As to tluds needing maintenance, I don't get that.
My TLUDs are just metal containers with holes in the bottom.
Keeping the air passages free means keeping them elevated on a couple bricks.
I do have trouble firing them without accelerant to start and wood pellets to provide a homogeneous fuel.
So for simple cooking, I would build a simple L type rocket, like the ones here www.youtube.com/watch?v=VypiS5X31aA and here www.RechoRoket.com.

[drooster]

We need a poll ;

Gruel
Oatmeal
Porridge
Kasha

[martyn]

I find Gruel rather appropriate at this time of year as I associate the word with Ebenezer Scrooge in Dickens's story.
Although technically I think gruel is a thin porridge than was more often drunk than eaten with a spoon.

[wiscojames]

Are we voting on the least appetizing, or the most appetizing, name for mush?

[graham]

I'm having to configure emergency cooking for my daughter whose house was left without any services. The tradespeople are all returning in the new year to finish the house.

I chose to build a 5" batch box outside. We can cook over the combustion chamber which uses a removable metal plate. Ideally I would have a pot cut out for cooking directly over the fire. I have a very short riser which I can cook over as well. It angles 90 deg to a chimney to vent the gases away and to power the stove. So, I have two cooking areas.

I guess I don't like J/L tubes for cooking because the combustion gases are being released into the house. In effect it's like the Himalayan Rocket Stove but using dry stacked bricks. See www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThCwSOID80U