“dehydrated” alcoholic beverages

[larry savage]

Does anybody remember the “dehydrated” alcoholic beverages that came out of Japan in the early 80’s? They were truly awful but the point is could that technology be adapted to making stove fuel…

[Jay McCombs]

that would be pure ethanol. You can get 90% in the form of a substance called everclear ;)

[larry savage]

What I remember was you added water to these powdered drink mixes and they made an alcoholic beverage[or for that really bad choice you put some on your tongue].A powder fuel mix would certainly be more convenient and,hopefully,would weigh less then liquid if you had a supply of water available at your site.Whether it was a catalytic reaction or some form of preserving,and whether you were looking for ethanol or methanol is there some technology out there that could be applied.Jay,this could be that cottage industry that would put us over the top.Everyone knows these ultralight manufactuors are rolling in bucks.

[Douglas Frick]

I switched from methanol-based stove fuel recently to Everclear, 190 proof (95%) ethanol. It’s a lot more expensive, but it has a bit more energy per weight than methanol, works as a disinfectant, and if I’m burning less in the stove than I planned (and I like to overestimate :) then I get to mix it into something and drink it. Just not straight! Triple-duty; not bad.

[John Chan]

I recently tried some anhydrous ethanol (100%) in my red bull stove. Burns dirtier than methyl hydrate but its good for blackening my pot. I’m not sure if there is a real advantage in terms of BTUs but breathing in vaporized ethanol is a whole lot better than breathing in vaporized methanol.

[Vick Hines]

John,
If your anhydrous ethanol produced ANY residue – and certainly if it produced enough to blacken a pot – then something is wrong with your stove or your fuel.

Anhydrous ethanol, C2H5OH(100% pure alcohol, theoretically), like its close buddy, Everclear (95%) burns cleanly except if seriously deprived of oxygen. Even then, I doubt you could make it release pure carbon.

The combustion you describe sounds like isopropyl alcohol.

By the way:
1) It is really hard to get pure anhydrous ethanol because it is aggressively hydroscopic. In fact, the highest concentration you can normally keep in storage is about 97%. You can’t get that high by distillation; the alcohol is put through a column of drying medium such as water glass.

2) A good source for Everclear and how to make-your-own from Everclear is http://www.beerliquors.com/liquors/grain.htm

Warning: You really have to dillute Everclear a lot to get it safe for consumption. Half it to get 90 proof; half that (4:1) to get 45 proof. Wine is about 12% (24 proof) and beer 6% (12 proof). The proof is twice the percentage of alcohol… deceptive marketing has a long history.

3) Trail hooch:

a)A teaspoon of instant coffee, 4 teaspoons of sugar, a jigger of Everclear and 4 jiggers of water, and you have Kahlua (sp?)

b) A dash of anise extract, 1 oz. Everclear, mix thoroughly, add 5 oz water, and you have Ouzo.

c) A package of grape Koolaid (unsweetened), 2 oz Everclear, 8 oz water, sugar to taste — a fine trail wine. Add 4 drops of apple cider vinegar, you got an Itallian table wine. Drop in some pine sap, you got Greek wine. Blow real hard into the canteen, and you’ll have a fine sparkling wine. Please don’t all that at the same time.

d) Carmel flavoring, some oak bark, Everclear and water 1:3 and you got a fine Kentucky bourbon.

[Jay McCombs]

unless there is something I don’t get ethanol melts at somewhere around -114 C. That would mean solid alcohol would require some talent to keep solid. You would have to complex it with something else that when mixed with water would dissociate and give you a solution of ethanol and the other stuff. You would also have to work very hard to keep it near vacuum sealed. As someone mentioned ETOH in a bottle dilutes itself just from ambient humidity

[Vick Hines]

Serious stuff about ‘dehydrated’ alcohol:

The closest thing you can get to dehydrated alcohol is trioxane — polimerized formaldehyde. Formaldehyde is a form of alcohol. So trioxane is dehydrated alcohol. It’s the purple stuff that you can buy at army surplus stores in OD foil packets.

Unfortunately, trioxane gives off some formaldehyde when it burns and it does not have the heat output of our old friend, the closely-related hexamine, otherwise known as Esbit fuel.

Hexamine is made from reacting formaldehyde with ammonia. You can make it at home, but it is a lot of trouble.

As far as I know, hexamine is as far as you can go toward a high-efficiency solid fuel without getting into explosives. RDX and C4 are made by adding energy to hexamine – never mind how. We don’t want Homeland Security to zap this site.

It would be cool if someone could invent a clean burning alcool-based fuel. Unfortunately, hexamine and trioxane represent the best efforts of the military-industrial complex. As far as I know.

[John Chan]

Vick,

I gave your comment some thought and got a new, sealed bottle of anhydrous C2H5OH along with some 95%. I tried a little experiment last night. Burned anhydrous ethanol, 95% ethanol, and methyl hydrate in my red bull can stove. Results:

Both ethanols burned with a yellow flame but no visible “soot” emmissions

Methyl hydrate burns with a blue flame.

I think the ethanol combustion process happens near the tip of the flame as well and perhaps my windscreen is cutting off some oxygen needed to make it 100% efficient.

Interesting though, I notice no soot deposits on the windscreen (which the flame does touch)… only on the bottom of my pot.

John.

[paul johnson]

obviously, i don’t think that we generalize (can we???) with the various types of fuels that are possible to burn. however, for some fuels, soot (carbon) is a byproduct of incomplete (take that as a relative term, not an absolute term) combustion, due to insufficient oxygen. i believe, IIRC, that you’re going to need some unbroken “carbon-carbon” bonds to produce this soot. if this is so, then it might mean that longer carbon-chain fuels are more apt to produce soot, if the fuel-air mixture is not correct.

perhaps this phenomenon applies to some of the observations of others who have Posted here in this Thread??? i’m not sure, myself, as i don’t remember much about all of these fuels.

can anyone with more knowledge and a clearer recollection of this subject either confirm or correct my recollections.

readers, don’t repeat this info./misinfo. until a more knowledgeable Poster responds with the real facts. i’m just trying to get someone to reply with either correction or confirmation – primarily for my own edification. hopefully, those participating in this Thread might find this same info useful/interesting.

i feel that i’m very uncertain here about the facts and would like to learn more.

Vick, you seem to have a PhD in “Applied and Practical Chemistry”!! [Ken. bourbon!!!; RDX & C4 – any use as a Griz “repellant”??? or, do you prefer “homebrew” HCN gas, VX, or Sarin for that purpose? ;) ] Can you, or Ben(?), or anyone else shed some light here. I seen some very knowledgeable comments about Chemistry in other Threads from several regular Posters.

[Vick Hines]

Paul,
You are right about incomplete combustion. Both ethanol and methanol contain carbon, and will release it in molecular form in the absence of sufficient oxygen. The windscreen or primer cup (depending on the stove) may be the culprit.

However, sometimes the smoke is from burning sealant under the rim of the pop-can, from varnish on the can or from sugar residue left in the can. If the stove gets hot enough, any of these can soot a pot.

As for the efficiency of methanol (CH3OH) v. ethanol (C2H5OH), the main difference IFF they are both adequately oxygenated is that methanol has a lower total heat output, but its higher vapor pressure (it vaporizes at lower temps) makes it light easier and prime faster in cold weather. Ethanol has a smidgen
more carbon than methanol, so with incomplete combustion, it will release a little more free carbon IF deprived of oxygen.

The nasty thing about methanol is that one of its incomplete combustion products is formaldehyde – a gas which makes embalming fluid when dissolved in water. Dries out and irritates your eyes, nose and lungs and may have downstream health effects.

RE: C4
Some Viet vets may remember using little pellets of C4 instead of those wimpy trioxane tabs to heat rations. It gets good and hot, but I have heard of one incident in which it was induced to explode. (Not sure I believe it.) C4 and its active constituent, RDX, are the next step up from hexamine in terms of thermal efficiency. It would be nice if there were an intermediate step that did not have nefarious uses, but I haven’t seen it.

By the way, the reason Esbit – hexAMINE – smells like fish that has just started to go bad is because amines are the family of chemicals (derived from ammonia) released at the beginnig of the putrification process in fish. And Esbit releases them as well – both when burning and when not. UMM, boy!!

[paul johnson]

Vick,

Great post. good info. many thanks.

now for the $64 Ursine question:

does “hexie” smell like yummy fish to a bear?

[Author]

Posts