Fire Construction Methods

[THOaken]

I have a question about fire platform construction. I know that there are a lot of ways, but I was somehow under the impression that the most conventional and commenest structure was this:

I was talking to a few outdoorsmen on another forum and someone actually said "Why in the ???? is your tinder ON TOP OF your firewood?!"

I have to say I was rather taken aback by this remark. To me the structure in the image above is the most conventional way of fire lighting. And it's not like the person to whom I was speaking was some aboriginal with his own unique fire construction method...

Thoughts?

 

[Toddy]

Bet he doesn't live on a big wet island

We do, and it's perfectly fine to make fire like you have.....but where's the rest of your material ?

Altar fires are also the only acceptable way to have a fire on many sites, especially well used ones.

cheers,
M

 

[THOaken]

Bet he doesn't live on a big wet island

We do, and it's perfectly fine to make fire like you have.....but where's the rest of your material ?

Altar fires are also the only acceptable way to have a fire on many sites, especially well used ones.

cheers,
M

Indeed, however it's strange because I thought that all fire setups had to have some sort of base of logs for the embers to burn as the heart of the fire.

Where's the rest of my material? Look in the background (and that's only some of it) I am... meticulous in my fuel collecting. If you've not seen my Lord Ancrum's video, you can see that I collect a lot of fuel.

 

[Toddy]

It's a little 'distant', that's all.

Maybe that's why he didn't think you had any other wood to hand

Dozens of ways to make fire, if it works for you and for the situation you find yourself in, it's all good

cheers,
M

 

[copper_head]

Don't think I've ever started a fire that didn't have the same basic construction as yours. Makes perfect sense to keep your tinder away from the cold, wet ground

 

[redandshane]

You are absolutely right but in a different climate what you have as a base is all the fuel you may have; we live in luxury

 

[Shewie]

Maybe the other folk commenting didn't realise you had secondary fuel to put on top? I can understand if they're from dry climates but in the UK a base helps keep tinder dry and promotes better airflow.

 

[Tony]

It's all good, you got the fire going off the damp ground, there's airflow, it's stable. I often do it like you have, not always though but that just depends on circumstances and environment. In the woods i'd generally do it out of habit no matter what the conditions. Unless the conditions are bad you can generally get a fire going quite easily so they may well not see the point, a load of twigs chucked on each other will go up if they're dry and that's the experience of a lot of people.

 

[Stringmaker]

As others have said, the way you have laid it is perfectly good.

Obviously your dissenting commenter isn't familiar with keeping the initial lay off a damp surface. I guess you can argue that you didn't need the base to be made from such large pieces but then they will also burn nicely themselves.

 

[ex-member BareThrills]

I was talking to a few outdoorsmen on another forum and someone actually said "Why in the ???? is your tinder ON TOP OF your firewood?!"

I think they didnt realise it was a base rather than fuel. To me this says more about them than you. Even if it was fuel you can build an upside down fire which starts with smaller stuff and burns down to bigger fuel. Dont worry about it is my advice, you are doing fine

 

[tamoko]

If you make a fire like in the photo 2.3 min. and you will have a warm base without fire.
I do not see any fuel on tinder.
It was correctly question.

 

[THOaken]

That sounds about right. I guess it must be common for some in warmer climates not to need a base platform.

I don't know if it's even worth mentioning, but the person to whom I was speaking was actually from... 4chan's /outdoors/ section. That may or may not explain it. Lol.

I've taken something away from this though, and that is I am far too methodical in my fire construction. I kept thinking it needs to be the way that I done it, but that's really not the case. There are so many ways to make fire, and I'm not always going to have the luxury of spending quite a lot of time collecting my firewood and setting it up all neat and tidy like that. All dead wood burns. I guess it's not really the fire construction that matters as much as the reliability of whichever way you make that first initial flame.

As an example, I've seen footage of Ray starting a fire in some mess of firewood in a pit of sorts. I thought to myself, "what kind of a fire is that?", but of course that's because I've rarely made fire. I'm still a beginner. To someone who's probably made thousands of fires, it just becomes so familiar that a fire is a fire.

Edit: What do you mean, Tamoko?

 

[Stringmaker]

If you make a fire like in the photo 2.3 min. and you will have a warm base without fire.
I do not see any fuel on tinder.
It was correctly question.

If you look in the background of the photo you can see the fuel wood graded by size. The fire lay looks odd if you don't notice the fuel already collected. For the photgraph I assume that he just got the initial burn going without adding any more.

 

[THOaken]

If you look in the background of the photo you can see the fuel wood graded by size. The fire lay looks odd if you don't notice the fuel already collected. For the photgraph I assume that he just got the initial burn going without adding any more.

Of course. You're supposed to wait a while as the flame grows up through the initial kindling bundles anyway.

It's a bit strange however, because the assumptions that I might not have had more fuel to be added to the fire, and how you say the fire looks odd, makes it seem as if this isn't a well known fire construction method. My point is, of course I was going to add more fuel, even if said fuel might not even be in the picture in the first place. That's how it works, and as this method is the among the most popular it should be immediately assumed new fuel would be added.

 

[Toddy]

Can I suggest something ?

Our woods, unless fresh dropped dead standing, are generally dampish. If you have them closer to the fire then the radiant heat reaches them and it quickly dries out the surface at least. That makes it easier for the timber to catch when you do put it on the fire.

I think in your set up of the original photograph that the focus was on the fact that you had gotten the tinder to light, no so much on showing the entire fire set up. Maybe that's why folks haven't taken in that you have prepared well.

cheers,
M

 

[THOaken]

Can I suggest something ?

Our woods, unless fresh dropped dead standing, are generally dampish. If you have them closer to the fire then the radiant heat reaches them and it quickly dries out the surface at least. That makes it easier for the timber to catch when you do put it on the fire.

I think in your set up of the original photograph that the focus was on the fact that you had gotten the tinder to light, no so much on showing the entire fire set up. Maybe that's why folks haven't taken in that you have prepared well.

cheers,
M

Oh, definitely. No, that makes sense.

I was trying to take several photos of each stage of the fire, starting with the initial lighting of the kindling bundles.

But yes, the fuel was perhaps too far away.

 

[Stringmaker]

Of course. You're supposed to wait a while as the flame grows up through the initial kindling bundles anyway.

It's a bit strange however, because the assumptions that I might not have had more fuel to be added to the fire, and how you say the fire looks odd, makes it seem as if this isn't a well known fire construction method. My point is, of course I was going to add more fuel, even if said fuel might not even be in the picture in the first place. That's how it works, and as this method is the among the most popular it should be immediately assumed new fuel would be added.

I didn't mean odd in the sense of "not normal practice". I meant that to the observer who hadn't spotted your collected fuel wood (like Tomako perhaps) then it looks like only a tinder fire.

When I am demonstrating/discussing fire lighting I show the same lay as you.

 

[tamoko]

Correct, i think "sceptical" question was not about what you see on background of the photo, but about fire construction, and this is not only first step.
You can see a lot on background but it not make "construction".

I make a raft out of wood like on the photo for the base only if i need to make fire on the water or in a swamp.
Autumn, spring, winter in Siberia, not dry warm climate. Is usually enough for a base some piece of bark or a stone on which lay Tinder, but the firelog for the fire is always on the top.

I make camp fire "construction" like this, this is typical in Siberian taiga.

The lower a firelog [podjurock] acts as a shield, three top firelog burn like candles.
This fire burns for a long time, and do not need a lot of wood.

 

[DaveBoon]

Can't see the original picture anymore, so not entirely sure what that looked like. There are lots of different fire types, generally dependant on a) what the purpose of the fire is (ie warmth, cooking etc) & b) what materials you have.

Assuming you want your fire primarily for warmth, I would say there's 3 types: the "teepee", the "log cabin", & the "bonfire"

Teepee: This is a fire using dry kindling to make a teepee shape. Lights quickly, but burns out quickly unless more larger wood is added quickly (so you need to have that ready prepared). I'm not a fan of this type of fire, as the larger branches have a tendency to fall & roll out of the fire.

Log Cabin: This fire is built using several full layers of gradually increasing size kindling, each layer separated by slightly larger branches / logs. A hole is scraped underneath, which is used to light the fire from underneath. This is an excellent way to get a fire going that will last a good amount of time before needing more wood added. Downsides are that it takes a while to build. If the larger logs are green or a bit damp, can also be used to cook on, as the larger logs will take quite a while to burn through.

Bonfire: This is similar to the Log Cabin, but doesn't have the full layers of kindling. You start by knocking a pointed stake / branch into the ground. Then two logs are placed parallel to each other on either side. More logs are added alternately and slightly closer to the stake - keep doing this until you have a square pyramid shape. It's important that there's more than twice as much log inside the fire than is sticking out beyond the log it's resting on. It's also ideal (if possible), if the logs are split so the flat side is placed facing down - this reduces the chance of logs rolling. The centre is then filled with dry kindling. The stake funnels flames upwards, and the larger logs will burn in the centre and fall into the middle of the fire, instead of falling out and rolling towards people sitting around the fire. If the larger logs are green or a bit damp, can also be used to cook on, as the larger logs will take quite a while to burn through. This is the fire type that I most frequently use.

General principles
~ If the ground is damp, use a layer of logs to give your fire a base to lift it off the ground
~ If your fire involves layers (ie Log Cabin & Bonfire), angle the first two logs of the bottom layer in line with the wind direction, so the wind can get underneath and give air to the heart of your fire
~ Light the fire with the wind at your back - your body will shelter your initial flame and once the fire takes hold, the wind will channel air and direct the flames over the rest of the fire (as opposed to away from it)