# These fuel based Minecraft questions are not duplicates

Relevant questions

Which fuels burn the longest in Minecraft?

What is the most efficient wood based fuel?

Earlier today this question about the efficiency of wood based Minecraft fuels was closed as a duplicate of this similar question question about which Minecraft fuel burns the longest. I disagree with the closure, and believe the duplication closure should be reversed. These questions are very similar, and closely related, but I agree with rainbolt that they are completely different questions.

Which fuels burn the longest in Minecraft? is asking which type of fuel burns the longest, without accounting for the materials required to make those fuels. An answer to this question would be measured in seconds.

What is the most efficient wood based fuel? is asking which type of wood based fuel gives the longest burn time for each piece of wood used in its construction (another way to look at it would be "What fuel should I make with my X amount of wood in order to give the longest total burn time?") An answer to this question would be measured seconds per units of wood.

The key difference here is the first question doesn't concern itself with getting access to the various types of fuels, and so therefore contains the implicit assumption that you have infinite resources. In this case, all you'd care about is what should I dump into my furnace to give me the longest burn time (i.e. I want to spend as little time as possible swapping dumping in more fuel). The second question is concerned with the access to the resources, and so contains the implicit assumption of finite resources, and also that you only have access to one type of resource: wood. In this case, your primary concern is what you should convert your wood to so that it'll give you the longest burn time per unit of wood (the answer to which could be completely different from "Which wood based fuel burns the longest?").

Allow me to use a delicious example to illustrate my point. Suppose you had two pizzas, Pizza A and Pizza B. Pizza A costs \$10, and could feed two people. Pizza B costs \$4, and could feed one person. In this scenario Which fuels burn the longest in Minecraft? would translate to "Which Pizza feeds the most people?", and the answer would be Pizza A. What is the most efficient wood based fuel? would translate to "How can I feed two people for the lowest cost?", and the answer would be two orders of Pizza B, since two orders of Pizza B feeds two people for \$8 (\$4 per person) as opposed to the \$10 (\$5 per person) that Pizza A costs.

So I've already cast a reopen vote, since I just roll like that, but I'm hoping I made my point clear. If not, I'm happy to clarify.

• Apr 14, 2015 at 0:05
• I think that attempting to close this meta as a duplicate of that other meta is ironic. Apr 14, 2015 at 12:01
• @Sterno I think Frank was just trying to start some drama. You know how much of a goofy character that guy is!
– Wipqozn Mod
Apr 14, 2015 at 12:37
• @Sterno Would you say it's...Meta? Apr 14, 2015 at 14:47
• @Wipqozn Are you saying that Frank's done this before? And he's duplicating it? Apr 14, 2015 at 17:01
• I care to disagree. Okay, they aren't exactly dupes, but the old question is required in order to answer the new question, and as such, the old question should probably be expanded. That, I think, would be the appropriate course of action. This to say nothing of the fact that the new question didn't even mention the old question. Apr 15, 2015 at 1:26
• @MBraedley: I disgree. Just because a question is required in order for another question to be answered doesn't mean they should be duplicates. I disagree with that reasoning 100%. I also don't think we should expand the scope of the original question, because doing so would make all of the current answers invalid.
– Wipqozn Mod
Apr 15, 2015 at 10:26
• Expanding the scope of the question doesn't mean the answers are invalidated, it just means they need expanding to. It's important to note that we've side this before. The answers will still be valid for the first half of the question, but will require updating for the second half. I am fine with this. Apr 15, 2015 at 10:51
• Let's move to my untouched point. The answer is there in the first question already, and the fact that it's not referenced in the second question tells me the asker didn't do their research. In cases like these, the onus is on the asker to show that a previous question is different, and you do that by referencing it and pointing out the differences. You do this to give answerers a place to start, to either see what hasn't worked, or to collect needed information in order to answer the new question. Apr 15, 2015 at 10:51
• @MBraedley The asker did discuss why the previous question is different, and other users have helped express that as well. Also, I'd encourage you to post your thoughts as an answer instead of just commenting.
– Wipqozn Mod
Apr 15, 2015 at 11:00