Wax burners

Short answer: don't.

While a self-lighting charcoal briquet initially heated water faster than a wax burner, it was due to the burning off of volatile petroleum chemicals. A one-minute intervals, I measured: Time=0: 60f, 74, 97, 117, 133, 151, 165, 174, 182, 187, 188 (at 10 minutes). Clearly something had failed / dropped off. Examining the briquet and the flame, it was slightly glowing as the carbon burned, but the volatiles were all gone. The briquet went from 39 grams to 29 grams for a delta of 10 grams BUT the 29 grams remaining wasn't very useful unless you needed only to warm something. So I'd call it a fuel weight of almost 39 grams.

It weighs more, costs more, and I'm not sure you're allowed to fly with self-light briquets, so I"m going to fine-tune the wax burner. The briquet had a higher initial heat rate, but any holder of volatiles would have.

Have you seen this commercially available wax burner?

http://www.gattgen.com/

An MYOG stove of a similar design would be a tall order, so forget I mentioned it if you're just interested in MYOG options. But, if you'd consider a fairly expensive commercial option, this is the only one I know of that cleanly and efficiently burns wax.

I think efficiency and cleanliness (low-soot operation) of a MYOG wax stove could be improved if it had a tubular wick with ventilation up through the middle in addition to the usual draft coming in from the periphery. Some kind of chimney would also help, but I can't see how that could be done easily.

You're 9 g to boil 300 mL = 30 g/L

From article:
crosswick is 6 g to boil 455 mL = 13 g/L
circlewick is 10.5 g to boil 455 mL = 23 g/L
spiralwick is 11 g to boil 455 mL = 24 g/L

not total apples to apples – temperature change is a little different and the ambient temperature is different

wax and butane have about the same kCal/g
butane is about 11 g/L for conventional canister stoves
maybe 9 g/L for heat exchanger canister stove
maybe there's a small amount of improvement possible on the crosswick

maybe you don't care that much about weight, but if anyone is for backpacking, that crosswick looks pretty good

You can use short lengths of fatwood cut to the height of your chosen can and then vertical stack them. Packem in tight. Sooty but burn well. Multi purpose as fire starters if allowed to have campfires.

You can also choose to use olive oil by burning it in Zelphs Original Ring of Fire Stove I no longer sell them but I will donate one to your cause if you will accept. I came across some new ones while cleaning my garage out this summer. The stove will also burn Isopropyl alcohol which you might be able to purchase once you arrive at your destination. The video shows how well it burns. It’s probably the most stable stove for use with Heineken and Foster pots.

The more tightly wound you can get the cardboard the better for your wax burners. The cardboard cup insulators that are available at Starbucks will work well. The have fine corrugations in the vertical direction. Do not have the cardboard extend above the rim of the can. After the wax has solidified scrape some off the tips of the cardboard to make it easier to light. Use a thin flat piece of metal to snuff out the burner to prevent the cloud of smoke that will occur.

Experiment with some “Weber” brand charcoal starter cubes. Melt them down just as you would paraffin….with caution.

a bit more regarding the wax burner Colin referred to:

http://zenstoves.net/G-Micro.htm

I've done quite a bit of experiments with wax burners some years ago, trying mainly to reduce the production of soot. The key is to provide enough air for the flame. I have tried several burners with wicks pointing sideways. I was also considering a ring-shaped burner David suggested, but I didn't get to actually building it.

Secondly, to keep the flame clean, the wick should be made of a material that does not burn, e.g. fibreglass.

However, the main problem is scaling such a design up to a power that would make such a stove practical. It would be very difficult to build a wax burner that can compete with hexamine fuel (esbit) which burns much cleaner.

I found the instructions for the wax burner that we were given a link to at zenstoves. I didn't like what I read. The stove has to be lit twice. I suspect you have to be in a total draft free environment to light it. Here are the instruction:

GMICRO PSL
QUICK LIGHTING INSTRUCTIONS

IMPORTANT
When lighting stove for the first time FIRST fill the reservoir with small pieces of Wax Stix or other solid paraffin wax
.
After Micro is lit add Wax fuel to the Reservoir as required

1. Remove NOZZLE CAP.Use match or lighter to heat wax on Thermal Element (TE).

2. Move match flame further from the to let air near the TE and it will light.Keep flame on (TE) until it is well lit.

3. When the (TE) is burning, Rotate MICRO in you hand to fully light (TE) on all sides

4. Stand Micro on flat hard fire proof surface Carefully hold NOZZLE CAP from the sides and push it all the way down over reservoir. Make sure wax fuel holes are
aligned

5. White wax gas vapor will come out top of Micro. Let the Micro heat up for 30 + seconds then light vapor with another match.

Warning:Do NOT move stove while burning spilled hot wax may burn you.

Do not let water drip into hot RESERVOIR because it maycause flame to
briefly get much bigger (“flash”)

David,

Your can experiments are most of the way to MYOG wood gas burners found all over YouTube and elsewhere.

You could burn cheap-and-plentiful wood pellets. Wood pellets should pass TSA inspection, especially if labeled cat litter.

Also, aluminum probably won’t hold up to sustained flames, suggest sticking with the steel cans.

— Rex

Jan: I tried a ring-shaped burner. It had a much better burn and it was clearly due to the added air in the middle – I switched it from laying flat (no interior air flow) to being up an inch and the flame was much cleaner with interior air flow. All wax vapors went up and burned, instead some of them falling and only burning partially. Pics later.

I used your idea about a fiberglass wick. Thanks! Really sweet! It wicked the wax very well, lit very easily, and doesn't weaken and crumble away like the cardboard does over time. One therefore can add wax to the annulus during a burn.

I used a small energy-drink bottle inside of a screw-top 16-ounce aluminum beer bottle and drill a 1-1/8" hole in the middle. A somewhat bigger annulus would be better because it would hold more wax. A slightly larger than 1-1/8" would be better, too, probably. I liked the heat rate I got out of it – even with a too-small pot on it.

So far no problem with the aluminum. Even the printing on the beer can is unchanged. I think it is due to the combination of aluminum's conductivity moving heat down to the unmelted wax and the upflow of cool air on both inside and outside surfaces.

David, I'm looking forward to see the pictures of the burner. And of course some data on ow it performs. I might give it a second try if the annular design works so well.

Very interesting! I think the annular design with fiberglass wick holds some real potential. Most of the candle wax stove set ups I’ve seen left me with the conclusion that it wasn’t worth pursuing.

And you’ve described the “problem” well: Can’t bring conventional stove fuels (canister gas, liquid petroleum, hexamine, or alcohol) on a plane and supplies at the destination are either inconvenient or non-existent.

Since there’s been some discussion here and elsewhere about hexamine on planes, let me make some comments by fuel type:
Hexamine. Illegal on planes. It’s perfectly safe, but hexamine apparently is a precursor for explosives like cyclonite. No way it’s going on a plane legally.
Liquid Petroleum (white gas, kerosene, etc.). No way it’s going through a TSA inspection. Kerosene would actually be fairly safe if stored properly since it has a low flash point. If it leaked and an ignition source were present, that would be bad. POTENTIAL WORK AROUND: Jet fuel is basically kerosene with some additives as I understand it. One could beg, borrow, or buy jet fuel at the airport and use that with a backpacking stove capable of using kerosene (e.g. MSR XGK, Optimus Nova, Primus Omnifuel, etc.)
Canister gas. Pretty much a non-starter.
Alcohol. If you carry a bottle of alcohol marked “stove fuel”, you probably can’t take it on a plane. But if you had a sealed bottle of 190 proof Everclear or other drinking alcohol, you probably could get it on board. Check with your airline. Kind of expensive, but it would probably fly if you’ll pardon the pun. Alternatively, if no methanol (as in HEET gas line anti-freeze) or ethanol/methanol mixes (as in denatured alcohol) were available, isopropyl alcohol (“rubbing” alcohol in the US) might be available (convenience stores, pharmacies, etc). Some stoves can burn isopropyl alcohol reasonably cleanly.

Lastly, wood stoves may be another option. I guess you could carry the wood on the plane, although that sounds heavy and bulky. Otherwise there may be local sources. Wood in damp country is a bit of a pain though. Sometimes the real beauty of a (non-wood) stove is reliable, fast heat in wet cold conditions.

HJ
Adventures In Stoving

Finally paid my way out of lurkerdom to add voice to others eager for pictures!–particularly keen to see how air gets within & below the circular wick in the fuel pool, so it can come up the middle. And to add this question/caution…

Have noodled with low-tech DIY stoves for too long, early focus was accepting low heat output but "super" insulating the pot. One was a channeled aluminum heat exchanger encasing the pot and a candle a flame's height below. The candle was a cutoff soup can with 5 wicks in it (wire-centered craft store wicks that stand in liquid wax.) On an early test, it erupted. (Am virtually certain) condensation on the pot bottom (was melting snow, but w.b. true w. cold water)dropped into the wax. It missed the flame and eventually sank when the whole reservoir melted. Eventually the wax hit whatever temp it is that water weighted down by wax no longer succumbs. Eruption threw out most of the wax. Love the looks of the Gatt Gen but am leery of fuel reservoirs vulnerable to "pot droppings." Any similar experiences?

We want pictures! Re-create maybe? : )

"One was a channeled aluminum heat exchanger encasing the pot and a candle a flame's height below."

Maybe it's more important to have a heat exchanger on the sides of the pot rather than the bottom?

Maybe you just want turbulent flow rather than laminar on the bottom?

Oh my, I do have pics. [edit:] And put it here but now took it down. I suddenly felt like the amateur juggler poaching audience at the entrance to the main arena. I want the main act more than the attention. Per next post…

to quote David Thomas: "I used a small energy-drink bottle inside of a screw-top 16-ounce aluminum beer bottle and drill a 1-1/8" hole in the middle. A somewhat bigger annulus would be better because it would hold more wax. A slightly larger than 1-1/8" would be better, too, probably. I liked the heat rate I got out of it – even with a too-small pot on it."

"Pics later."

Bump. With a "pretty please?"

Thanks for the interest. The annular air space really helped. The first pic is of the annular burner on the workbench (i.e. the air passage is blocked). Not visible in the photo is a lot of whitish wax vapor down near the base of the wick, some of it spilling down the annulus, much of it, I suspect, contributing to wax loss without heat and soot.

The next pic is seconds later with the burner elevated on two sticks to give air flow up through the annulus – the wax vapor gets pulled in the flame, burned, and the flame takes off – I suspect on little if any more wax consumption.

So I liked the annular burner much more than the solid-bottomed ones. I liked the smaller wick amount – that in and of itself made for less soot and smoke. I really liked the sturdiness of the fiberglass wick.

I wasn't so keen on the need to support it on two sticks. That's easy on my workbench with 1x2s laying around, but would be harder to do well on rocks. Potentially, two metal cans could be used – one as the pot, the other, larger diameter one as a shroud, burner support and pot support by running wires across the larger can. Ti tent stakes come to mind as supports. But I also wanted something with a larger wax reservoir because this first, narrow one was tricky to refill.

So:

In front is 2G – the one burning in the post above. Annular air gap – good. Narrow annulus – not ideal. It is a narrow energy drink aluminum bottle section J-B Welded to the bottom inch of a beer can. Then I drilled out the annulus.

In the right rear is 3G – the same narrow energy drink can JB Welded to a larger, Foster's AL can bottom. It gives a LOT more volume for wax and shouldn't need to refilled so often and could be refilled with bigger chunks when it does (free crayons restaurants give to kids to color with?). It still needs a hole drilled through the middle, but the design evolved.

Left rear is 4G – tuna can with 1.5" hole cut in it and the tapered portion of the energy drink jammed in and then JB welded. I liked how snug it fit when pressed in – nice to start with a better mechanical connection before the epoxy was applied. Big annular space for more wax and easy refills. And I extended the small energy drink can down to create three legs so the burner is self-supporting off the ground. Details on the legs to follow.

So the energy-drink can was pretty sturdy – much thicker than a beer or soda can. But still, those three legs felt a little flimsy, so I back them up with another layer of aluminum (just cut strips from the same can so they even had the same curvature). Some JB weld and a clothes pin on each one and they really made the legs a lot stronger. It doesn't pack down as well, but it eliminates the need for perfectly sized rocks in the wilderness. I'm waiting for the JB weld to fully cure, then I'll add fiberglass wick and wax and test it. To do it again, I'd extend legs down from the OUTER can so as to give a bigger, more stable base.

Kind of low-res images, I know, but I run them through Facebook. At least they should load quickly at 10-50KB each instead of 1MB.

Jim: Following up on your thoughts:

Thanks for the summary of "fuel on a plane" regs – that is consistent with what I've read and experienced. I've seen something that you can't take wood AS fuel, but you can take wood as wood. Since this isn't for a 100-night thru hike, one could (and I have) bought a box of "craft sticks" for $5 or so. Like a thousand popsicle sticks, pretty tight in a box. Clearly labeled "craft sticks" and I've never been denied boarding for having art supplies. Very handy size although they might burn a bit fast. A box of clothespins would be an even more widely available option, a little shorter and wider which is nice. And you can hang up your laundry!

You're correct that jet fuel is very similar to kerosene and should work in any multi-fuel flame thrower like an XGK. I'm not sure they can dispense one liter from a 3-inch fueling hose, through. Any single-engine prop plane, on the other hand, has two small "fuel dispensers" one under each wing to check for water in the fuel.

Agree on the alcohol. Almost. 190 proof Everclear is good for a alky stove, but my airline points out:

"There is no restriction on the amount of alcohol you may pack in your checked luggage, provided it contains under 24% alcohol by volume (e.g. beer and wine). Alcohol greater than 24% up to and including 70% (140 proof) is allowed with the following restrictions:

Up to five liters of alcohol per package
Up to five liters of alcohol per person
Must be in retail packaging
Alcohol over 70% (140 proof) is prohibited.

Alcohol restrictions, such as prohibiting the possession of alcohol, vary from city to city in the state of Alaska. We recommend verifying the laws and regulations of each city in your travel itinerary. See the Alaska Alcoholic Beverage Control Board website for more information."

So Everclear in an Everclear bottle can't fly, even as checked bags. Everclear in a Bicardi Rum bottle, OTOH, well, I doubt they take a swig to check the proof of it.

The last paragraph refers to "dry" villages in Alaska exercising a local option to forbid local sales AND any importation. ("Damp" villages" prohibit local sale but allow importation). And while you might think they can't search your luggage in Barrow without a warrant, they do.

It has long seemed to me that rum plus green food coloring would look an awful lot like Scope mouthwash, especially if it was in a Scope mouthwash bottle. Not that I would do anything like that. No, not me.

I also noted in the ACC (Alaska Commercial Company) store in Barrow that handguns started at 9 mm and quickly went to .44 and .454. (Polar bears come into town for the whale carcasses and the nearest tree squirrel is 300 miles away, in the nearest tree). And there was dang lot vanilla extract on the shelves for a town of 3,000. They must do a lot of baking, or something.

In 2010, I was asking questions to TSA about these quasi-fuels, and they referred me to DOT for the tough questions. Basically, wood that is in a wooden cargo crate is fine to fly, but if you took the same wood and made it into wood pellets for a stove, it would be fuel. I know that seems like a strange distinction.

Wax would be a fuel, so it is not fine to fly. But if the wax were made into an art statue, then it would be OK.

In the event of a TSA inspection of your baggage, they might cut you some slack. However, sometimes they don't cut you any slack at all, simply because they can. TSA can pronounce anything to be unfit to fly for very little reason.

If you have to transport Esbit fuel, then take the cubes out of the packaging. Take some candle wax and color it to be chocolate brown. Then pour the brown wax over the Esbit cubes. The result should appear to be like chocolate candies. Place those in a real chocolate candy box so that they look like the real thing. Don't ask me how I know this.

–B.G.–

Disguising Esbit as chocolate to smuggle it on a plane–this is a good idea??

"Beware hikers bearing boxes of chocolate on planes."

Wax as a candle? Like a box of dinner candles? I don't know. I suspect it would go on through.

>"Place those in a real chocolate candy box so that they look like the real thing. Don't ask me how I know this."

I'd suggest if they were similarly disguised as chocolate Ex-lax tablets, the slightly chalky appearance wouldn't be out of place. TSA really doesn't want to hear why you are traveling with Ex-lax tablets. Don't ask me how I know this.

"Baker's" brand baking chocolate in 4-ounce boxes is another possible ruse. Leave in a real one and you could even "prove" it's chocolate by eating one.

And, for this month's current policy: "Matches/Lighters (One book of safety matches or one common lighter)" Carry-on okay. NOT checked (but they rarely notice).

You could take a bottle of regular vodka or other clear alcohol and consume it, then fill it with Everclear?

Jerry, they say that it must be a regular retail container, _sealed_.

I got some 140 proof liquor just to see how this would work, and I found that it did not burn very well.

–B.G.–