Esbit burner testing

The Evernew 7 Foo Bo titanium windscreen Product EBY246 unboxed – and corrected! Part 2 of 2.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST…

…Or for alcohol stove, use both the (small) rings, sitting the TriveTi on the Evernew alcohol burner (for the 400 cup/pot).

Second, to accommodate larger pots, here using the Vargo Ti pot (and a lovely item it is), though the Evernew 570 pot (not shown) is the logical choice:

This is using the two large rings, with TriveTi on top of the alchol burner to support the pot.

To use the large pot with Esbit, I’d just use one large ring, with MulTi tray and TriveTi – here shown with 2 g half Esbit tab on Dan’s sliding lid Esbit 4 g holder, no room for the lid but that’s no problem:

Here’s the lightweight 400 Esbit/alcohol solution; both rings coiled inside 400 cup/pot, TriveTi, alcohol burner, and Dan’s sliding lid 4 g Esbit tray, MulTi tray underneath, which then snaps on as lid to the 400 pot:

Or if you prefer, the same with windscreen coiled in plastic bowl, with 400 pot within:

So taken together, for Esbit alone, take and use just one ring, TriveTi on MulTi tray (and Esbit holder if desired).
For mixed Esbit / alcohol use, take and use one ring for Esbit (and Esbit holder if desired), and two rings for alcohol (sitting the TriveTi on top of the alcohol stove).
Either configuration will permit small 400 pot (small ring(s)) and large pot (570 or Vargo or whatever) with large ring(s).

Pretty impressive combination from Evernew, in my opinion. The windscreen will coil inside the 400 Ti pot (better inside the Evernew 570 pot), or inside the plastic bowl supplied, which I presume could also be used for food, though the channel rim could act as a food trap. Please note I have yet to test in use, especially the combination of Esbit/TriveTi/large ring/Vargo pot – but there seems plenty of ventilation holes (triangles) in the windscreen, also a little space between the pot and windscreen.
The significance of the Esbit/alcohol combination is two-fold. Firstly, Esbit allows slow cooking, while alcohol allows fast. Secondly, for touring, you might well run out of Esbit, and be unable to purchase it in rural/remote areas. Medical “burning” alcohol is widely available from pharmacies and elsewhere. In addition, the TriveTi works well with both as pot support; and for the minimal weight of alcohol burner (and fuel), the Esbit rig is upgraded to allow either.

KEY FINDING:
If your two windscreen halves are identical, gently fold the flaps of one ring from one side to the other, then always assemble with flaps outside (not inside).

WARNING:
Keep face away from rings when unpacking, assembling, disassembling, and handle with caution to avoid cuts.

A consideration with using the MultTi tray as a base plate for Esbit is it leaves residue on inside for when tray is used for lid of 400 pot. Also means you can’t use as lid simultaneously, obviously. I’ll use Dan’s sliding lid Esbit 4 g tray to contain Esbit, without that sliding lid, sitting on a Ti disk I have somewhere, and see how that combines.
[END of Part 2 of 2].

Robert, you may own as many stoves as Dan Y. Please leave me some in your will.

Robert, awesome write-up and supreme photos.

Tha shape your TITANIUM SIERRA 750 reminds me of Aaron Sorensen’s Snow Peak Titanium bowl with added handle that he showed us in this thread and said:

Aaron said he made a BGET style holder that fits a 14 gram esbit cut in half.
It will easily boil 2 cups of the coldest water in a stream you can find.
It will boil tap water for 5 minutes.
2 cups of ice cold, no problem.
Fill it to the brim (20oz) and it barely boils tap water.
It wouldn’t boil 18 ounces of ice cold water (without the lid).
This was without a lid, so maybe with a lid, it will work.
I was doing this on an overnight the other day at 10,000′

I just used a sharp rock to score around the esbit then snapped it in half.
I’m sure I can get a full boil on a full pot with a lid on it.
The windscreen/ stand doesn’t have many holes in it and it’s just under 1.5″ high to the bottom of the pot.
I could feel a lot of wasted heat coming off the squared off pots, but the bowl seems to hold much more heat in.
It’s crazy how little left over residue is left on the BGET style holders.

I just used a sharp rock to score around the esbit then snapped it in half.
I’m sure I can get a full boil on a full pot with a lid on it.
The windscreen/ stand doesn’t have many holes in it and it’s just under 1.5″ high to the bottom of the pot.
I could feel a lot of wasted heat coming off the squared off pots, but the bowl seems to hold much more heat in.
It’s crazy how little left over residue is left on the BGET style holders.

 

Aaron’s bget that’s made for 1/2 of a 14 gram tablet:

I recently made a titanium tray that is of the same size of Aaron’s and hope to be able to get the same results he did……..2 cups boiled with 7 grams esbit, using the recently discovered dimensions of the 2 can, u-can system.

Robert, thanks for taking the time to do the write up and all the photos. The triangle air holes were of special interest ;-)

What university(s) did you attend that give you the ability to use so many complicated sentences? I attended the U of HK .

I like this one:

<h2 class=”product-name”></h2>

Yes Dan, the Snowpeak bowl has a very nice shape; the rounded bottom really is more suited for cooking, stirring, ensuring food doesn’t get stick in the bend between base and wall. Evernew makes something similar with a handle. Very sturdy bowl, though all these handles feel a little inadequate when the bowl is full with water; but Ti shell construction or not, my wife was able to dent my precious wonder when I riled her excessively, slamming it down hard on the bench top. Fear and trembling… [It’s like why we don’t have cats, though I miss them terribly; my wife cleverly explained how they would just love to claw my array of tents and down bags…] I learned my lesson, my precious… Though in an excess of zeal I purchased a lid for the Evernew bowl from Four Dog, I then found the non-folding handle of the bowl a nuisance in my pack, as even is the knob on the 4-dog lid. These handles need to fold like the Vargo Sierra.
The new screen with Titrivet, fuel, 400 pot/cup, lid, Ti base disk I had, and Swedish holding plastic cup, spoon, lighter, and your very useful and elegant lidded 4g Esbit tray all fit nicely into the plastic bowl the screen comes with. Compact and light. So I had a test run of the new windshield yesterday, in very windy blustery conditions, an open field, a grove of trees in one corner, with spider webs between adjacent trees with LARGE spiders overhead necessitating indirect and careful access, but an exposed site, nevertheless. Good views over the Imjin, and near a paleolithic site. And I discovered something. The Ti windscreen – and the Titrivet – start to feel a little too lightweight for mixed conditions! They don’t have the robust quality of the cut-down 2L beercan screen, nor provide as much protection from the wind (unless carefully set up). The Ti screen doesn’t have the weight to sit properly on the ground; it rests on grass leaves and takes some working into the vegetation; and even then if I turn to get something else ready, I worry about it blowing away. The Titrivet slides alarmingly on the Ti disk I use for the floor pad; and can separate into its two parts if not carefully nurtured. Then the whole set-up is bit tricky to light, without a long stem lighter; maybe I was having a bad day with this heavy influenza, but it is like the system is designed to be used on a laboratory desktop, not simply placed into the wilderness – which the tapered base of the beercan system permits – as I say, ccc-robustness versus $$$-lightweight. Sobering. But the Evernew screen does offer flexibility, and it’s early days yet. Eric will just have to wait a little longer for my dematerialization…

Goddam it, is it ever going to boil? Or will it simply blow away?

This thread is now officially a ZOMBIE THREAD…  %0(

It will never die.

Nah, feeble. No where near as long as The Carbon Flame War thread. That started in March 2008 and has 170 pages.

Cheers

I suggested to Dan the change of topic of this thespian thread to “The Esbit Flame War : perennial populist perspectives on the superb sustainability of solid fuel in the flaunting face of chimeric climate change devastational destructive denial”, but for some reclusive reason that I am utterly unable to forever fathom, he shrugged and showed only very restrained enthusiasm. I have therefore belatedly and beseechingly bowed to his elevated euphoric experience and evident enlightened expertise.

After reading through the posts on the subject, it seems things have become a little blurred. The actual release notes on the formulation of Esbit state:
<h3 class=”in-block”><span id=”Solid_fuel” class=”mw-headline”>Solid fuel</span>Edit</h3>
Together with 1,3,5-trioxane, hexamethylenetetramine is a component ofhexamine fuel tablets used by campers, hobbyists, the military and relief organizations for heating camping food or military rations. It burns smokelessly, has a high energy density of 30.0 megajoules per kilogram (MJ/kg), does not liquify while burning, and leaves no ashes, although its fumes are toxic.

Standardized 0.149 g tablets of methenamine (hexamine) are used by fire-protection laboratories as a clean and reproducible fire source to test the flammability of carpets and rugs.<sup id=”cite_ref-schon_9-0″ class=”reference”>[9]</sup>

This statement contradicts a lot of posts concerning the liquid retention in the form of a tray, and the “ash” residue after the burn cycle.

The formulation of components include wax, I can only assume the residue left on pot bases and in the burner trays are the effect of wax deposits when incomplete combustion takes place. This is probably due to too restrictive windshields/potstands and the ability to introduce sufficient oxygen.

Just my logical opinion.

You have actually used Esbit?

Schematic of Dan’s high-security Esbit recycle laboratory, which I was recently privileged to be able to visit, albeit briefly. Here, research is being conducted on the ultralight distillation of liquid remnants into a fine liqueur, further distillations of which it is hoped to discreetly market as fine perfume, Eau de Esbit, aftershave, and in its most subtle incarnation, Espray de Ursidae.

Yes Robert, I use Esbit and other solid fuel tablets when testing various windshield/ burner tray combinations.

The problem is that the Esbit statement does not accord with reality. As regular users will likely confirm, Esbit does – sometimes – liquify while burning, and in the presence of ample oxygen; or conceivably part of the tab is molten, and not burning, while other parts are solid and burning. Dan’s trays retain that liquid when it does form, so it too will either burn away, or at least consolidate as unburnt material, and not drip onto a lower surface, or set fire to ground material. And Esbit certainly leaves a residue (which I would not describe as ash), though the art – at which one might become adept – lies in reducing its formation. Certainly the design of the Esbit burner can minimize the formation of residue, both on the burner tray, and on the bottom of the pot; but the wind being the fickle agent it is, together with the general lack of adjustment of Esbit burners mean that clean burning is not always achieved in the field – in fact, far from it. In challenging gusty conditions in particular, the flame flickers where it might. Even then, Dan’s 4 g tray – an object of rare elegance that I appreciate more and more as it (and I) age – does provide a sliding lid, which can be used to moderate the flame, though difficult to adjust mid-burn, because of the heat. Burner trays need occasionally to be scraped out, and pot bottoms wiped after each use, a fact of life; given the demand for clean solid fuel, surely Esbit could get their act together and develop a truly clean alternative solid fuel (though I did happen to notice innumerable containers of what appeared to be a new rocket fuel being shipped from Dan’s laboratory, but had unfortunately already signed a non-disclosure agreement, so cannot elaborate further; of course I had surrendered my iPhone camera on entering the facility). And Esbit could kindly improve the design of their tripod while at it, whose rivet regularly works loose.

Robert, the observance of seemingly “molten” Esbit could be the effect of the wax, used as a binding agent, melting. This would give the effect that indeed the whole tablet was melting.

Together with 1,3,5-trioxane, hexamethylenetetramine is a component of hexamine fuel tablets used by campers, hobbyists, the military and relief organizations for heating camping food or military rations. It burns smokelessly, has a high energy density of 30.0 megajoules per kilogram (MJ/kg), does not liquify while burning, and leaves no ashes, although its fumes are toxic.

You have to read this carefully. It is NOT talking about ESBIT tablets; it is talking about ‘hexamine’. As Stormin points out, ESBIT tablets seem to contain a blend of hexamine and a binding wax. Wax melts.

Cheers

Yea, Roger, but is ESBIT as high in MJ/kg. as hexamine?

(And WHEN will we see de-tuned solid rocket fuel at maybe, oh, say 200 MJ/kg.?)

Backpackers await for this “great leap forward”.

But such hair splitting misses the point. As presently constituted, there is still molten residue, that needs to be contained, or it runs away and while still hot, drips off the burning platform. So a tray is highly desirable, if not essential. Secondly, although Eric and I wish for different changes in solid fuel properties, they are both improvements to a product that by its nature must have an enormous potential global market, including the military, and responders to civil disaster, such as typhoons and hurricanes. In other words, dear messrs. Esbit et al., kindly get with it – your inertia is showing. Or be superseded by competition.

The ideal solid fuel should be a biofuel, that is environmentally responsible to produce and to consume, that is nonpolluting. It should not leave unpleasant residue, or release foul-smelling gas. It should be lightweight, compact, properly packaged and readily storable, with a long shelf life. It should be economic. It should be scalable, so can be used in concentrated form for larger scale cooking, such as for a family in their residence, as well as the individual backpacker. Ideally, it is made available in different grades with different burning characteristics for different cooking purposes and to meet different user demands, including those of the rocket fuel aficionados.

I think of solid fuel as one of the basic human needs that ought to be made available worldwide. It could then be supplied to crisis-struck as well as economically deprived areas. Our civilization has such technological sophistication and research expertise that it really ought to be readily able to meet such fundamental human need – of shelter, potable water, food, transport, access to information, energy, security, clothing, etc. As opposed to building unworkable walls between nations.

The ideal solid fuel should be a biofuel, that is environmentally responsible to produce and to consume, that is nonpolluting.
I fear me greatly that you may be day-dreaming. Apart from dry wood, I see little likelihood that miracles will happen. If it was possible, surely either ESBIT or a competitor would have found it by now.

On the other hand, wood fires in the Oz bush under the present climate are ‘not advised’.

Cheers

The ideal solid fuel should be a biofuel, that is environmentally responsible to produce and to consume, that is nonpolluting. It should not leave unpleasant residue, or release foul-smelling gas. It should be lightweight, compact, properly packaged and readily storable, with a long shelf life. It should be economic. It should be scalable, so can be used in concentrated form for larger scale cooking, such as for a family in their residence, as well as the individual backpacker. Ideally, it is made available in different grades with different burning characteristics for different cooking purposes and to meet different user demands, including those of the rocket fuel aficionados.

Alcohol, but solid? And not denatured.

I am forever editing papers that seek to advance the performance of electrodes, batteries, solar cells, fuel cells, and the like. There is widespread research being conducted on biofuels, including their integration into large-scale oil-fueled boilers and power plants. New variations of substances and materials are being discovered and developed all the time. New materials are being designed and created. The research effort needed to develop an alternative solid fuel ought to be miniscule in comparison. There is enormous opportunity here for someone to seize.

Robert is daydreaming indeed.  Wood is highly polluting as with most any combustion processes.  Any carbon chain will produce CO2 if burned efficiently which is driving global warming.  LH2 and LO2 make a good rocket fuel and are fairly clean to burn.  The only product is water; but they release quite a bit of heat.  They are very polluting to make (a lot of energy) and extremely difficult to store (LH2 at -420F and LO2 at -290F).  Alas they also don’t make a very good backpacking fuel.  Rockets, particularly upper stage rockets, like to maximize Isp.  Heat of combustion is not as important.

Biofuel is hardly restricted to wood – yak dung for example is a splendid if rather inefficient fuel, and of course “wood” is a blanket term that covers an enormous range of variation. As a matter of interest, yesterday’s papers (that I edited) included a comparison of the combustion characteristics between bioliquid (BL) and heavy fuel oil combustion in a 0.7 MWth pilot furnace and a 75 MWe utility boiler, and concluded that under the refined experimental conditions, BL showed significant reductions in NOx and SOx emissions, and the successful operation of the unit, with no identified operational or emissions limitations. Ben’s debunking of biofuel ignores that this is a comparative situation; the provision of an ideal solid fuel would provide an alternative to unsatisfactory fuel sources already in use, so should take into account (potentially) highly polluting scavenged wood resources and the well-known denudation of large areas, such as in the Himalaya.

It is interesting to note that diesel fuel, liquified propane and gasoline all have energy densities around 47 Mj/kg, so hexamine at 30 Mj/kg is already a very good energy source.  Compare these to methanol at around 19 Mj/kg.

For what it’s worth, I’ve explored some of the alternative solid fuel materials available, and found that the Esbit tablets compared quite well with the competition.  For instance, the much less expensive Ultimate Survival tablets at 20 g seem to have about the same total available energy storage as the 14 g Esbit tablets.  My estimate when testing the US tablets was that they were about 65% hexamine, with the remainder a lower energy density binder.

Renais

Yes, I agree it needs an informed approach. But I don’t understand the inertia; how long since the Esbit formula has been updated? Why not focus the attention of a few research chemists on developing something better? I’m no hawk, but there ought to be ample military research funding readily available to improve the mix. Cooking fuel has to be one of the most important human needs – it therefore merits research attention. Not every home situation can count on electricity or gas supply; reticulated services are likely unavailable after civil disaster for protracted periods; and what do migrant refugees use for fuel?