for me,Igor B's proposal that the hikers went to the ceder as this was the most suitable wood for making a fire is logical.
What logic to run to the unknown when you have a storage just nearby? First explain how the hikers were at the cedar instead to be at the labaz.
Short answer is, because the ceder was a better option, better wood for burning, the wood at the labaz was poor. Perhaps food and a pair boots were not the priority at that moment in time?
There might be some translation errors with what followsIgor b writes:The best firewood for a fire:
Quote
Cedar is the real king for a campfire. The dry branches of this tree are a real find for the traveler. a fire with the help of cedar firewood can be made even in the wettest weather. The fire will give an even, beautiful flame and excellent heat. Cedar wood does not smoke or shoot.
Ideal firewood for a fire would be cedar. If you ever spend the night by the fire on cedar wood, you will never forget this excellent overnight stay. In the future, you will never again want to choose other wood for a fire.
From Igor b's link , leads to this:
Igor b writes:
Why did the branches of the cedar be broken off at high altitude? Because the best fuel for a fire was dry cedar branches. From the site inspection report:
Image
Quote
near the cedar, dry branches are broken off in 2 - 2.5 meters. The branches are broken off on the cedar itself.
Igor b writes:
The Dyatlovites did not use living wood and deadwood in the fire for a well-known reason:
http://1723.ru/forums/index.php?s=&sho...ost&p=76174And dry branches on cedars can be not only below, but also above , at high altitude, where the cold wind in winter is especially strong. Branches and die from withering wind from the windward side.
At the Dyatlov cedar, the windward (western) side coincidentally faced the tent.
Igor b writes:
Why didn't the Dyatlovites use deadwood in the fire?
Image
Image
Quote
Faced such a problem. Since the weather this winter jumped from plus to minus, with wet snow, all the firewood was completely saturated with ice. We had to cut down healthy trees, but having cut down we were very surprised that even their core was frosted through. As a result, we could not melt the stove in the tent, we drowned with small branches trying to dry the large ones (they did not catch fire).
Quote
My son and I were in a similar situation.
There was a cyclone, everything got wet, and then it froze. Firewood is raw.
They lit only logs of logs.
But the fire still burned terribly.
Firewood, warming up on a fire, began to fill it with a melted crust of ice.
Quote
I myself did not expect such a situation. A full forest of firewood, dry land - the sea, but he does not burn a dog.
Brushwood is generally a stupid thing. Ice stick.
And in this situation, the most difficult thing is not making a fire, but maintaining the flame and the necessary heat.
http://nepropadu.ru/blog/guestroom/10714.htmlAt the Dyatlov Pass in December 2015:
Quote
With firewood, as they wrote in the reports, everything is bad (they do not burn).Reasonable efforts of the fire did not work, I had to cook on a burner.
At the very first night in a tent, I was convinced that firewood is often a problem. You find a dryer, saw / prick, burn chips, then put them in a larger one, then wave, even larger ... While you wave, it burns perfectly. Stopped waving - does not burn. Dry, coniferous species - and does not burn. Well, there are some places like that.
Bring firewood, chop it, dig at least some kind of fire pit, make sure that firewood is not firewood, look for alternative coniferous branches (which burn perfectly, but burn out very quickly), dance with a tambourine around the hearth - all this is very long.
Bonfires were not every day, because. they took a lot of time (pit + firewood + dances with a tambourine, so that non-burning firewood somehow burned). Once, during the late setting of the camp and long exercises with a fire, I fought back only at 05 in the morning.
https://www.risk.ru/blog/207346?http://www.....ru/blog/207346From the diary of the Dyatlov group dated January 31, 1959:
Quote
Firewood is scarce. Sickly raw spruce.
Igor b writes:
Even if the Christmas trees were damp, then what can we say about the deadwood birch. From the autumn rains, he absorbed water and, lying on the ground, did not dry out by winter. Warming on the eve of the incident before the arrival of the cold front only added to the dampness.
Thus, the Dyatlovites had no other fuel for the fire, except for dry, dead cedar branches, most of which were located on the windward western side, i.e. from the side coincidentally facing the tent.
It was impossible to warm up with nine half-dressed people around a fire made of branches, and even divorced for known reasons in a strong wind. Branches quickly burn out and people who are forced to constantly extract such fuel for a fire are supercooled more than they warm up.
Basically,Igor b is saying, that the dead wood on the ground would be damp and frozen , will not burn well and takes work to do so if at all. However the ceder tree would be a good source for dry wood as the wind will have help dry out the branches that faced the slope. Sounds logical to me.....
Topic: The "Window" in the cedar tree (Read 38530 times)
