methylated spirits for trangia stoves.
Doric Swain
Recently my partner has had problems with the methylated spirits used in
trangia stoves, that problem being "dirty" flames which left the pots
blackened with carbon rich soot.
Does anyone know why this is, or more importantly, how can you pick the
"dirty' metho. Are there different grades of meths?
thanks in advance,
Doric
Alex, Jill, Tim & Caroline Wardrop
> Recently my partner has had problems with the methylated spirits used in
> trangia stoves, that problem being "dirty" flames which left the pots
> blackened with carbon rich soot.
This is caused by incomplete combustion of the fuel when there isn't
enough oxygen to burn the metho vapours. I'm not sure about different
types of metho, but when a friend recently bought a trangia the
instructions said that you could prevent this problem by adding a little
bit of water to the metho. I assume this works by reducing the amount of
metho which evapourates (by using some of the energy to evapourate
water). This means that there is no longer an over supply of fuel, and
the fuel which is there will burn cleanly.
Cheers,
Tim
Alan Erskine
The best way of avoiding the sooting is to add about 10% water to the metho.
Yours sincerely
Alan Erskine
tdb...@mpx.com.au
Doric Swain wrote in message <3734F9...@cchs.usyd.edu.au>...
>Dear all,
>
>Recently my partner has had problems with the methylated spirits used in
>trangia stoves, that problem being "dirty" flames which left the pots
>blackened with carbon rich soot.
>
Andrea Cocchiglia
>Does anyone know why this is, or more importantly, how can you pick the
>"dirty' metho. Are there different grades of meths?
The meths isn't `dirty', it always burns that way; adding up to 10%
water produces a cleaner flame; smearing the bottom of the pots with
detergent makes them easier to clean.
Andrea Cocchiglia
School of Comp. Sci. & Soft. Eng., Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
Doric Swain
Andrea Cocchiglia wrote:
I should have been clearer with my question. Some metho burns fairly cleanly,
other brands (eg. Franklin's No Frills) seem to burn with more soot. My
question was meant to ask: how do you tell whether a brand of metho will burn
dirty or clean? - which are the sootier burning brands?
Thanks to everyone for their useful replies so far - I've had about eight
messages all suggesting to add water. andrea's suggestion to use detergent on
the pot sounds very useful!
Doric.
David Stuckey
yourself lucky that you can freely buy metho here. In the UK for instance,
you have to obtain it from the pharmacy and run the gautlett of questions
about what you're actually going to do with it.
When you finally convince them that you're not going to drink it, it comes
as a dark purple liquid that smells foul as it burns. As you reach through
the exhaust to stir your pot, the smell impregnates into your skin.
Australian Metho by comparison is squeaky clean.
There really is no way to reduce the soot except by watering down the fuel
slightly, but what is the problem with a black pot anyway? It is more heat
efficient with a black bottom. If you're nesting the pots as you stow the
stove, put a sheet of paper towel in between.
BTW, a great idea for carrying the stove is to nick into your nearest bank
and get one of the cloth coin bags. These are very strong and light and
when they get really grotty, you go and get another one.
David Stuckey
email: dstu...@acay.com.au
website: http://www.acay.com.au/~dstuckey
Andrea Cocchiglia
>In the UK for instance,
>you have to obtain it from the pharmacy and run the gautlett of questions
>about what you're actually going to do with it.
Same deal in Ireland: I was over at Christmas with a friend and went
looking for meths in supermarkets and hardware stores; on coming back
empty-handed, mother dear explained that we could only get it from a
chemist... it was measured out from a large container into a heavy,
thick, glass bottle, $4 for half a litre, no quiz but I had to provide
a signature to obtain it. Just as in the UK, it contained a purple die
and smelt quite potent.
Jim (from Oz)
<dstu...@acay.com.au> wrote:
>Quite aside from the burning efficiencies of various brands of metho, count
>yourself lucky that you can freely buy metho here. In the UK for instance,
>you have to obtain it from the pharmacy and run the gautlett of questions
>about what you're actually going to do with it.
The above only applies to white meths. in the UK. ie. pure(ish) meths.
Meths. with an agent which colours it purple (and makes it taste
terrible, so I'm told :) ) is freely available. The purple thing was
done in 50s (I think) to stop down & outs drinking it.
Jim (from Oz) (and, once, the UK)
steve waters
trangia in one of the ex-soviet republics, go to the local market with your
empty fuel bottle and ask for 'rosa' (as in 'rose-uh')...there will be a few sly
winks, bargaining is called for, and the locals will be suprised when you don't
drink it, but is seems to burn ok.....we resorted to this tactic in Kyrghizstan
where nothing else we turned up in 'hardware' stores or chemists was pure enough
to stay alight, but the 'rosa' flamed up easily at 3000m in
altyn-arashan..(there are some amazing treks in that area,....imagine NZ mtns
with yurts!!)
Wallace's
only.
Having personnaly witnessed obviouly inebriated people being sold meth
from a special cache under the counter, and seen it alongside the other
cold drinks behind the refrigerated glass doors in some shops, I have to
say it is a good thing to make it as unpalatable as possible, even
though I think it does make it burn less cleanly.
Ian Wallace
David Stuckey wrote:
>
> Quite aside from the burning efficiencies of various brands of metho, count
> yourself lucky that you can freely buy metho here. In the UK for instance,
> you have to obtain it from the pharmacy and run the gautlett of questions
> about what you're actually going to do with it.
>
> When you finally convince them that you're not going to drink it, it comes
> as a dark purple liquid that smells foul as it burns. As you reach through
> the exhaust to stir your pot, the smell impregnates into your skin.
>
> Australian Metho by comparison is squeaky clean.
>
> There really is no way to reduce the soot except by watering down the fuel
> slightly, but what is the problem with a black pot anyway? It is more heat
> efficient with a black bottom. If you're nesting the pots as you stow the
> stove, put a sheet of paper towel in between.
>
> BTW, a great idea for carrying the stove is to nick into your nearest bank
> and get one of the cloth coin bags. These are very strong and light and
> when they get really grotty, you go and get another one.
>
> David Stuckey
>
> email: dstu...@acay.com.au
> website: http://www.acay.com.au/~dstuckey
--
Steve Robertson
don't accept that this should be compromised by the taking of steps to protect a
minority who have made their own choice!
Wallace's wrote:
> I have noticed many shops in Queensland are now selling the purple meths
> only.
> Having personnaly witnessed obviouly inebriated people being sold meth
> from a special cache under the counter, and seen it alongside the other
> cold drinks behind the refrigerated glass doors in some shops, I have to
> say it is a good thing to make it as unpalatable as possible, even
> though I think it does make it burn less cleanly.
> Ian Wallace
>
--------------------------------------
Steve Robertson
Research School of Earth Sciences
Australian National University
Canberra, Australia
steve.r...@anu.edu.au
Tel: +61 2 6249 0121
Fax: +61 2 6249 0315
--------------------------------------
Alan Vidler
>Personally I expect methylated spirits to act like methylated spirits, and I
>don't accept that this should be compromised by the taking of steps to protect a
>minority who have made their own choice!
>
spirits' is essentially 95%+ (or whatever) ethyl alcohol (ie. booze),
originally with methyl alcohol to make it 'undrinkable'. As even
small quantities of methyl alcohol attack the optic nerve and cause
blindness, "meths" has for years contained chemicals other than methyl
alcohol to (try and) make it unpalatable but not cause blindness. [ie.
one thing *not* in methylated spirits is methyl alcohol!]
Your philosophy logically would have us all using 'pure' ethyl alcohol
as a fuel. Probably a better fuel, but its not going to happen. This
chemical is easy and very cheap to produce in pure enough form for
fuel or drinking. A lot of vested interests in the booze industry and
governments (revenue) around the world will stop it. And that ignores
the "moral/social fabric" vs "own choice" argument.
Tim Blair
Geoff wrote:
> Despite your assumption that deliberate ingestion is the only
> possibility, accidental ingestion by children is also quite possible
> as metho is a common household chemical. Bitrex means children are
> less likely to ingest metho - the benefit to you is that it also
> means metho is generally available rather than being a restricted
> good (with the concomitant price increase that would result).
While this is true there are a number problems with it:
Metho already tastes foul (esp for those not used to alcohol) so
the taste factor doesn't exist for children.
Metho is normally clear, which can cause confusion with water
(I've seen this - someone keeping their metho in a Mt Franklin
Spring water bottle!!!). But instead of clear they make it a
funky purple colour!!!!! Purple, and most bright colours, are
attractive to kids. If they were serious about the children
problem, they would make it a colour that would not
be attractive - a brown would do nicely.
I do agree there could be a problem with children ingesting metho.
But with the responsible parenting of today, all chemicals are in
high cupboards. :^)>
Just my thoughts.
Tim
--
Tim Blair tbl...@hildas.unimelb.edu.au
---------------------------------------------------------------
"This is a bunch of tree-hugging, hippy crap. And anyway, if
dolphins are so smart, why do they live in igloos?"
Accredited to Cartman off South Park
Wallace's
Did the original inhabitants of this land choose to be invaded?
Did they choose a genetic or cultural makeup that left them ill equipped
to deal with the introduction of the many influences, including alcohol,
that came with that invasion?
Will we choose to stand by and do nothing while they as a group (yes, a
minority) suffer from these influences?
Do we wish to be judged by the wider world community on the basis of our
answer to the above question?
The question of the individual's responsibility for his/her own choices
is a separate issue.
Sorry, this is getting off the original point.
Ian Wallace
Steve Robertson wrote:
>
> Personally I expect methylated spirits to act like methylated spirits, and I
> don't accept that this should be compromised by the taking of steps to protect a
> minority who have made their own choice!
>