How do you refill your alcohol stove while it's burning?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
I'm collecting ideas on this topic.
I'm using a DIY alcohol stove made of a soda can. I have seen a guy refilling the same stove using this, but he doesn't explain where he found it, or how he built it:
- what metal does it use for the tip (it should resist oxidation)?
- how did he seal the metal tube with the plastic one (the sealing should be heat resistant)?
Optional: I use 500ml coca cola bottle to store the alcohol (small and super resistant). A cheap/light solution that would work with that would be perfect.
Don't hesitate to share your trick and ideas here!
EDIT: the question isn't "is it dangerous?", but "how do you do it?"
diy stoves liquid-fuel-stoves alcohol
add a comment |
I'm collecting ideas on this topic.
I'm using a DIY alcohol stove made of a soda can. I have seen a guy refilling the same stove using this, but he doesn't explain where he found it, or how he built it:
- what metal does it use for the tip (it should resist oxidation)?
- how did he seal the metal tube with the plastic one (the sealing should be heat resistant)?
Optional: I use 500ml coca cola bottle to store the alcohol (small and super resistant). A cheap/light solution that would work with that would be perfect.
Don't hesitate to share your trick and ideas here!
EDIT: the question isn't "is it dangerous?", but "how do you do it?"
diy stoves liquid-fuel-stoves alcohol
3
I am upvoting the question, because I am glad you asked, before trying it and hurting anyone.
– James Jenkins
Dec 31 '18 at 15:24
2
Why do you want to know how to do it? Is there any legit need for this?
– Jasper
Dec 31 '18 at 17:30
1
That guy is cutting toward his hand while making it. Also ill-advised. Does not seem very safety concerned overall.
– jpmc26
Jan 1 at 1:42
Is this ethanol (commonly called alcohol) or methanol? There's quite a difference in flammability.
– Jan Doggen
Jan 3 at 8:04
add a comment |
I'm collecting ideas on this topic.
I'm using a DIY alcohol stove made of a soda can. I have seen a guy refilling the same stove using this, but he doesn't explain where he found it, or how he built it:
- what metal does it use for the tip (it should resist oxidation)?
- how did he seal the metal tube with the plastic one (the sealing should be heat resistant)?
Optional: I use 500ml coca cola bottle to store the alcohol (small and super resistant). A cheap/light solution that would work with that would be perfect.
Don't hesitate to share your trick and ideas here!
EDIT: the question isn't "is it dangerous?", but "how do you do it?"
diy stoves liquid-fuel-stoves alcohol
I'm collecting ideas on this topic.
I'm using a DIY alcohol stove made of a soda can. I have seen a guy refilling the same stove using this, but he doesn't explain where he found it, or how he built it:
- what metal does it use for the tip (it should resist oxidation)?
- how did he seal the metal tube with the plastic one (the sealing should be heat resistant)?
Optional: I use 500ml coca cola bottle to store the alcohol (small and super resistant). A cheap/light solution that would work with that would be perfect.
Don't hesitate to share your trick and ideas here!
EDIT: the question isn't "is it dangerous?", but "how do you do it?"
diy stoves liquid-fuel-stoves alcohol
diy stoves liquid-fuel-stoves alcohol
edited Jan 2 at 13:47
Community♦
1
1
asked Dec 31 '18 at 14:18
JinSnowJinSnow
1805
1805
3
I am upvoting the question, because I am glad you asked, before trying it and hurting anyone.
– James Jenkins
Dec 31 '18 at 15:24
2
Why do you want to know how to do it? Is there any legit need for this?
– Jasper
Dec 31 '18 at 17:30
1
That guy is cutting toward his hand while making it. Also ill-advised. Does not seem very safety concerned overall.
– jpmc26
Jan 1 at 1:42
Is this ethanol (commonly called alcohol) or methanol? There's quite a difference in flammability.
– Jan Doggen
Jan 3 at 8:04
add a comment |
3
I am upvoting the question, because I am glad you asked, before trying it and hurting anyone.
– James Jenkins
Dec 31 '18 at 15:24
2
Why do you want to know how to do it? Is there any legit need for this?
– Jasper
Dec 31 '18 at 17:30
1
That guy is cutting toward his hand while making it. Also ill-advised. Does not seem very safety concerned overall.
– jpmc26
Jan 1 at 1:42
Is this ethanol (commonly called alcohol) or methanol? There's quite a difference in flammability.
– Jan Doggen
Jan 3 at 8:04
3
3
I am upvoting the question, because I am glad you asked, before trying it and hurting anyone.
– James Jenkins
Dec 31 '18 at 15:24
I am upvoting the question, because I am glad you asked, before trying it and hurting anyone.
– James Jenkins
Dec 31 '18 at 15:24
2
2
Why do you want to know how to do it? Is there any legit need for this?
– Jasper
Dec 31 '18 at 17:30
Why do you want to know how to do it? Is there any legit need for this?
– Jasper
Dec 31 '18 at 17:30
1
1
That guy is cutting toward his hand while making it. Also ill-advised. Does not seem very safety concerned overall.
– jpmc26
Jan 1 at 1:42
That guy is cutting toward his hand while making it. Also ill-advised. Does not seem very safety concerned overall.
– jpmc26
Jan 1 at 1:42
Is this ethanol (commonly called alcohol) or methanol? There's quite a difference in flammability.
– Jan Doggen
Jan 3 at 8:04
Is this ethanol (commonly called alcohol) or methanol? There's quite a difference in flammability.
– Jan Doggen
Jan 3 at 8:04
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
I'm going with "it's too dangerous, so don't do it". I have two manufactured alcohol stoves, and both contain warnings against refill while hot.
That being said, my answer is "You don't".
Pictured (I can't see the video) suggests a squeeze bottle with a plastic tube running into a reservoir where the alcohol is supposed to be while flames are clearly showing.
My first concern would be the squeeze bottle. Although a flame requires heat, fuel, and air, a flame is not likely to go up through the tube and into the squeeze bottle, ready to ignite, since there is no air in the tube, and cold(er) fuel is being pushed out of the tube. Also, liquid fuel doesn't really burn - its vapors burn. So, there's nothing flammable in the tube.
Or is there?
What happens at the moment you decide you've added enough fuel?
You can keep the same squeeze pressure so that there is zero net pressure on the squeeze bottle: no positive pressure which would push more alcohol out of the tube; or negative pressure which would suck in alcohol from the stove or flaming vapors abouve the fuel line. Probably, nothing would happen, except the end of the tube - having passed through the flames - would also ignite. What's your plan to put this out safely?
You can apply positive pressure on the squeeze bottle, ensuring nothing gets sucked back; but now you have a stream of flammable (and flaming) fuel at the end of the squeeze bottle. Also, if you apply too much positive pressure on the bottle, you can potentially create bubbling in the reservoir of alcohol, and those bubbles could exit the stove creating a severe fire hazard around you.
You can also apply negative pressure on the squeeze bottle, but this seems more dangerous: the outside of the tube has flames, and now, you're sucking in vapor and flames into the tube and, subsequently, the bottle. Potentially more dangerous is supplying too much negative pressure, and siphoning all the (hot) alcohol from the reservoir back into the bottle.
There doesn't seem to be any safe way out of this, as all options lead to a flaming tip. Even if you decided one method was safer than the others, there's no guarantee you could maintain that every time, nor could you guarantee everyone could do it. Perhaps, you have a specialized steel filter placed inside the tube; this absorbs heat and prevents blow-back into the bottle with errant negative squeeze. Nevertheless, you have a tip of flaming alcohol at the end of the tube, and this is inherently dangerous.
Bottom line is that with any method you choose to fill up, per the photo, it would require delicate dexterity to maintain the precise amount of pressure on the bottle to not cause accidents.
One possibility is to have an external reservoir available outside the stove proper. A sort of "L" pipe which leads to the bottom of the reservoir, and the other end with a funnel shaped end leads sufficiently away from the stove apparatus as to not allow the vapors to ignite, and allows to pour fuel into the funnel. The problem with this is that in pouring, you create more vapors that could be ignited; and if the stove were nearly out of fuel (instead of just a little bit out of fuel), the vapors in the tube and funnel are now flammable.
So an external pipe assembly does not make much sense. Besides, it's probably going to be cumbersome to use.
All of this work - and danger - seems overpriced compared to a simpler solution: put the stove out, refill, and relight. It's not like a pressurized canister, so it's should be easy to accommodate.
1
I agree with your conclusion, but sucking vapour + fumes into the tube isn't an issue if you don't also suck in oxygen.
– Chris H
Dec 31 '18 at 19:09
4
@ChrisH If there is flame there is oxygen, and any empty space in that bottle is going to have oxygen.
– James Jenkins
Jan 1 at 10:00
Empty space in the bottle will not have oxygen. The space will be entirely filled with alcohol vapor (which will not ignite, too rich) unless you suck oxygen back into it.
– Jimmy Fix-it
12 hours ago
add a comment |
You don't, adding liquid fuel to stove with a live flame is never recommended.
Related meta post Do we want a post notice for questions where people are using equipment in ways that are clearly incorrect or dangerous?
Believing the stove to be out of fuel, she tried to pour more denatured alcohol into it from a large container that exploded, shooting burning fluid and flames onto her daughter.
“We recreated the accident conditions in a ‘fire lab’ and the results were scary to say the least,” Barrett said. “The most dangerous aspect of denatured alcohol is that you can’t see it burning if you are in daylight conditions. In fact, my client and the rest of her group did not know why she was getting burned for a few seconds because they could not see any flames on her. It was not until the flames from her shirt burning became visible, that they realized that she was ‘on fire.’”
Source; Concord attorney warns of danger of denatured alcohhol
If you watch the video, the point of the contraption in the picture is to refill while the stove is working and looks like it does work
– Charlie Brumbaugh
Dec 31 '18 at 15:34
20
@CharlieBrumbaugh :) there are lots of videos where lots of unsafe practices work. That does not make them good practices.
– James Jenkins
Dec 31 '18 at 15:39
That accident was the result of a different type of container than the one pictured. Yes refilling a stove from a large container would be dangerous, but that's not what's in the videos
– Charlie Brumbaugh
Dec 31 '18 at 16:01
6
@Charlie the fact someone did it once doesn't mean this isn't dangerous. I saw a circus show last week with someone juggling knifes and lit torches. Doesn't mean I want to start doing it because it's "safe". Same thing here :/ It's extremely unsafe and has a risk of failure that would be catastrophic....
– Patrice
Jan 1 at 14:44
add a comment |
This is dangerous
And the most dangerous thing about it - is that it gives the appearance of not being dangerous. Don't refill a lit alcohol stove without being aware that it could become a fireball that will consume your facial hair, your tent, your skin, your travel mates and/or your/their visual acuity for perhaps life.
Sure. It might work once. Or twice. But it will fail, and when it does, it will be spectacular because you will be feeling comfortable beside your dog, inside your tent, with an open and full bottle of alcohol in your hand and in the next second you won't be none of those.
add a comment |
It may help prevent flareups if you keep your alcohol in the freezer.
Also, I think an almost full bottle would be safer than an almost empty one.
In other words there is some airspace in the bottle which may explode, but I think the risk is minimized by having a long dispensing tube.
3
Sorry, but that freezer 'advice' is nonsense. With the high flammibility of alcohol a few degrees cooling is not going to make a large enough difference to make this safe.
– Jan Doggen
Jan 2 at 9:05
The flashpoint of methanol is 12 C (for ethanol it is 16.6C). How is cooling methanol below it's flashpoint nonsense? "Flash point is the lowest temperature at which a liquid can form an ignitable mixture in air near the surface of the liquid. The lower the flash point, the easier it is to ignite the material." ilpi.com/msds/ref/flashpoint.html
– Scot Parker
Jan 2 at 23:57
You may want to expand on your answer with more details on flammability and flash point (and include sources). After some research I did, it would seem that lowering the temperature to below 54 degrees F would make it... not flammable? Did I read that right? This seems absurd, but if this is indeed the implication and is correct, then, you are correct and the only safe way to answer the question is to be sure the alcohol is kept at a cold temperature (or even a mild temperature!)
– Andrew Jennings
Jan 3 at 4:38
The post says alcohol (with is the common name for ethanol), not methanol. I have added a comment below the question.
– Jan Doggen
Jan 3 at 8:03
Even if you can refrigerate the fuel to below its flash point, it would not be a practical solution for' 'The Great Outdoors' where one might use an alcohol stove, AND not have any access to refrigeration. You could explain how it could be done in lab.
– James Jenkins
Jan 3 at 10:55
|
show 1 more comment
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "395"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2foutdoors.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f21378%2fhow-do-you-refill-your-alcohol-stove-while-its-burning%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
I'm going with "it's too dangerous, so don't do it". I have two manufactured alcohol stoves, and both contain warnings against refill while hot.
That being said, my answer is "You don't".
Pictured (I can't see the video) suggests a squeeze bottle with a plastic tube running into a reservoir where the alcohol is supposed to be while flames are clearly showing.
My first concern would be the squeeze bottle. Although a flame requires heat, fuel, and air, a flame is not likely to go up through the tube and into the squeeze bottle, ready to ignite, since there is no air in the tube, and cold(er) fuel is being pushed out of the tube. Also, liquid fuel doesn't really burn - its vapors burn. So, there's nothing flammable in the tube.
Or is there?
What happens at the moment you decide you've added enough fuel?
You can keep the same squeeze pressure so that there is zero net pressure on the squeeze bottle: no positive pressure which would push more alcohol out of the tube; or negative pressure which would suck in alcohol from the stove or flaming vapors abouve the fuel line. Probably, nothing would happen, except the end of the tube - having passed through the flames - would also ignite. What's your plan to put this out safely?
You can apply positive pressure on the squeeze bottle, ensuring nothing gets sucked back; but now you have a stream of flammable (and flaming) fuel at the end of the squeeze bottle. Also, if you apply too much positive pressure on the bottle, you can potentially create bubbling in the reservoir of alcohol, and those bubbles could exit the stove creating a severe fire hazard around you.
You can also apply negative pressure on the squeeze bottle, but this seems more dangerous: the outside of the tube has flames, and now, you're sucking in vapor and flames into the tube and, subsequently, the bottle. Potentially more dangerous is supplying too much negative pressure, and siphoning all the (hot) alcohol from the reservoir back into the bottle.
There doesn't seem to be any safe way out of this, as all options lead to a flaming tip. Even if you decided one method was safer than the others, there's no guarantee you could maintain that every time, nor could you guarantee everyone could do it. Perhaps, you have a specialized steel filter placed inside the tube; this absorbs heat and prevents blow-back into the bottle with errant negative squeeze. Nevertheless, you have a tip of flaming alcohol at the end of the tube, and this is inherently dangerous.
Bottom line is that with any method you choose to fill up, per the photo, it would require delicate dexterity to maintain the precise amount of pressure on the bottle to not cause accidents.
One possibility is to have an external reservoir available outside the stove proper. A sort of "L" pipe which leads to the bottom of the reservoir, and the other end with a funnel shaped end leads sufficiently away from the stove apparatus as to not allow the vapors to ignite, and allows to pour fuel into the funnel. The problem with this is that in pouring, you create more vapors that could be ignited; and if the stove were nearly out of fuel (instead of just a little bit out of fuel), the vapors in the tube and funnel are now flammable.
So an external pipe assembly does not make much sense. Besides, it's probably going to be cumbersome to use.
All of this work - and danger - seems overpriced compared to a simpler solution: put the stove out, refill, and relight. It's not like a pressurized canister, so it's should be easy to accommodate.
1
I agree with your conclusion, but sucking vapour + fumes into the tube isn't an issue if you don't also suck in oxygen.
– Chris H
Dec 31 '18 at 19:09
4
@ChrisH If there is flame there is oxygen, and any empty space in that bottle is going to have oxygen.
– James Jenkins
Jan 1 at 10:00
Empty space in the bottle will not have oxygen. The space will be entirely filled with alcohol vapor (which will not ignite, too rich) unless you suck oxygen back into it.
– Jimmy Fix-it
12 hours ago
add a comment |
I'm going with "it's too dangerous, so don't do it". I have two manufactured alcohol stoves, and both contain warnings against refill while hot.
That being said, my answer is "You don't".
Pictured (I can't see the video) suggests a squeeze bottle with a plastic tube running into a reservoir where the alcohol is supposed to be while flames are clearly showing.
My first concern would be the squeeze bottle. Although a flame requires heat, fuel, and air, a flame is not likely to go up through the tube and into the squeeze bottle, ready to ignite, since there is no air in the tube, and cold(er) fuel is being pushed out of the tube. Also, liquid fuel doesn't really burn - its vapors burn. So, there's nothing flammable in the tube.
Or is there?
What happens at the moment you decide you've added enough fuel?
You can keep the same squeeze pressure so that there is zero net pressure on the squeeze bottle: no positive pressure which would push more alcohol out of the tube; or negative pressure which would suck in alcohol from the stove or flaming vapors abouve the fuel line. Probably, nothing would happen, except the end of the tube - having passed through the flames - would also ignite. What's your plan to put this out safely?
You can apply positive pressure on the squeeze bottle, ensuring nothing gets sucked back; but now you have a stream of flammable (and flaming) fuel at the end of the squeeze bottle. Also, if you apply too much positive pressure on the bottle, you can potentially create bubbling in the reservoir of alcohol, and those bubbles could exit the stove creating a severe fire hazard around you.
You can also apply negative pressure on the squeeze bottle, but this seems more dangerous: the outside of the tube has flames, and now, you're sucking in vapor and flames into the tube and, subsequently, the bottle. Potentially more dangerous is supplying too much negative pressure, and siphoning all the (hot) alcohol from the reservoir back into the bottle.
There doesn't seem to be any safe way out of this, as all options lead to a flaming tip. Even if you decided one method was safer than the others, there's no guarantee you could maintain that every time, nor could you guarantee everyone could do it. Perhaps, you have a specialized steel filter placed inside the tube; this absorbs heat and prevents blow-back into the bottle with errant negative squeeze. Nevertheless, you have a tip of flaming alcohol at the end of the tube, and this is inherently dangerous.
Bottom line is that with any method you choose to fill up, per the photo, it would require delicate dexterity to maintain the precise amount of pressure on the bottle to not cause accidents.
One possibility is to have an external reservoir available outside the stove proper. A sort of "L" pipe which leads to the bottom of the reservoir, and the other end with a funnel shaped end leads sufficiently away from the stove apparatus as to not allow the vapors to ignite, and allows to pour fuel into the funnel. The problem with this is that in pouring, you create more vapors that could be ignited; and if the stove were nearly out of fuel (instead of just a little bit out of fuel), the vapors in the tube and funnel are now flammable.
So an external pipe assembly does not make much sense. Besides, it's probably going to be cumbersome to use.
All of this work - and danger - seems overpriced compared to a simpler solution: put the stove out, refill, and relight. It's not like a pressurized canister, so it's should be easy to accommodate.
1
I agree with your conclusion, but sucking vapour + fumes into the tube isn't an issue if you don't also suck in oxygen.
– Chris H
Dec 31 '18 at 19:09
4
@ChrisH If there is flame there is oxygen, and any empty space in that bottle is going to have oxygen.
– James Jenkins
Jan 1 at 10:00
Empty space in the bottle will not have oxygen. The space will be entirely filled with alcohol vapor (which will not ignite, too rich) unless you suck oxygen back into it.
– Jimmy Fix-it
12 hours ago
add a comment |
I'm going with "it's too dangerous, so don't do it". I have two manufactured alcohol stoves, and both contain warnings against refill while hot.
That being said, my answer is "You don't".
Pictured (I can't see the video) suggests a squeeze bottle with a plastic tube running into a reservoir where the alcohol is supposed to be while flames are clearly showing.
My first concern would be the squeeze bottle. Although a flame requires heat, fuel, and air, a flame is not likely to go up through the tube and into the squeeze bottle, ready to ignite, since there is no air in the tube, and cold(er) fuel is being pushed out of the tube. Also, liquid fuel doesn't really burn - its vapors burn. So, there's nothing flammable in the tube.
Or is there?
What happens at the moment you decide you've added enough fuel?
You can keep the same squeeze pressure so that there is zero net pressure on the squeeze bottle: no positive pressure which would push more alcohol out of the tube; or negative pressure which would suck in alcohol from the stove or flaming vapors abouve the fuel line. Probably, nothing would happen, except the end of the tube - having passed through the flames - would also ignite. What's your plan to put this out safely?
You can apply positive pressure on the squeeze bottle, ensuring nothing gets sucked back; but now you have a stream of flammable (and flaming) fuel at the end of the squeeze bottle. Also, if you apply too much positive pressure on the bottle, you can potentially create bubbling in the reservoir of alcohol, and those bubbles could exit the stove creating a severe fire hazard around you.
You can also apply negative pressure on the squeeze bottle, but this seems more dangerous: the outside of the tube has flames, and now, you're sucking in vapor and flames into the tube and, subsequently, the bottle. Potentially more dangerous is supplying too much negative pressure, and siphoning all the (hot) alcohol from the reservoir back into the bottle.
There doesn't seem to be any safe way out of this, as all options lead to a flaming tip. Even if you decided one method was safer than the others, there's no guarantee you could maintain that every time, nor could you guarantee everyone could do it. Perhaps, you have a specialized steel filter placed inside the tube; this absorbs heat and prevents blow-back into the bottle with errant negative squeeze. Nevertheless, you have a tip of flaming alcohol at the end of the tube, and this is inherently dangerous.
Bottom line is that with any method you choose to fill up, per the photo, it would require delicate dexterity to maintain the precise amount of pressure on the bottle to not cause accidents.
One possibility is to have an external reservoir available outside the stove proper. A sort of "L" pipe which leads to the bottom of the reservoir, and the other end with a funnel shaped end leads sufficiently away from the stove apparatus as to not allow the vapors to ignite, and allows to pour fuel into the funnel. The problem with this is that in pouring, you create more vapors that could be ignited; and if the stove were nearly out of fuel (instead of just a little bit out of fuel), the vapors in the tube and funnel are now flammable.
So an external pipe assembly does not make much sense. Besides, it's probably going to be cumbersome to use.
All of this work - and danger - seems overpriced compared to a simpler solution: put the stove out, refill, and relight. It's not like a pressurized canister, so it's should be easy to accommodate.
I'm going with "it's too dangerous, so don't do it". I have two manufactured alcohol stoves, and both contain warnings against refill while hot.
That being said, my answer is "You don't".
Pictured (I can't see the video) suggests a squeeze bottle with a plastic tube running into a reservoir where the alcohol is supposed to be while flames are clearly showing.
My first concern would be the squeeze bottle. Although a flame requires heat, fuel, and air, a flame is not likely to go up through the tube and into the squeeze bottle, ready to ignite, since there is no air in the tube, and cold(er) fuel is being pushed out of the tube. Also, liquid fuel doesn't really burn - its vapors burn. So, there's nothing flammable in the tube.
Or is there?
What happens at the moment you decide you've added enough fuel?
You can keep the same squeeze pressure so that there is zero net pressure on the squeeze bottle: no positive pressure which would push more alcohol out of the tube; or negative pressure which would suck in alcohol from the stove or flaming vapors abouve the fuel line. Probably, nothing would happen, except the end of the tube - having passed through the flames - would also ignite. What's your plan to put this out safely?
You can apply positive pressure on the squeeze bottle, ensuring nothing gets sucked back; but now you have a stream of flammable (and flaming) fuel at the end of the squeeze bottle. Also, if you apply too much positive pressure on the bottle, you can potentially create bubbling in the reservoir of alcohol, and those bubbles could exit the stove creating a severe fire hazard around you.
You can also apply negative pressure on the squeeze bottle, but this seems more dangerous: the outside of the tube has flames, and now, you're sucking in vapor and flames into the tube and, subsequently, the bottle. Potentially more dangerous is supplying too much negative pressure, and siphoning all the (hot) alcohol from the reservoir back into the bottle.
There doesn't seem to be any safe way out of this, as all options lead to a flaming tip. Even if you decided one method was safer than the others, there's no guarantee you could maintain that every time, nor could you guarantee everyone could do it. Perhaps, you have a specialized steel filter placed inside the tube; this absorbs heat and prevents blow-back into the bottle with errant negative squeeze. Nevertheless, you have a tip of flaming alcohol at the end of the tube, and this is inherently dangerous.
Bottom line is that with any method you choose to fill up, per the photo, it would require delicate dexterity to maintain the precise amount of pressure on the bottle to not cause accidents.
One possibility is to have an external reservoir available outside the stove proper. A sort of "L" pipe which leads to the bottom of the reservoir, and the other end with a funnel shaped end leads sufficiently away from the stove apparatus as to not allow the vapors to ignite, and allows to pour fuel into the funnel. The problem with this is that in pouring, you create more vapors that could be ignited; and if the stove were nearly out of fuel (instead of just a little bit out of fuel), the vapors in the tube and funnel are now flammable.
So an external pipe assembly does not make much sense. Besides, it's probably going to be cumbersome to use.
All of this work - and danger - seems overpriced compared to a simpler solution: put the stove out, refill, and relight. It's not like a pressurized canister, so it's should be easy to accommodate.
answered Dec 31 '18 at 17:02
Andrew JenningsAndrew Jennings
2,055213
2,055213
1
I agree with your conclusion, but sucking vapour + fumes into the tube isn't an issue if you don't also suck in oxygen.
– Chris H
Dec 31 '18 at 19:09
4
@ChrisH If there is flame there is oxygen, and any empty space in that bottle is going to have oxygen.
– James Jenkins
Jan 1 at 10:00
Empty space in the bottle will not have oxygen. The space will be entirely filled with alcohol vapor (which will not ignite, too rich) unless you suck oxygen back into it.
– Jimmy Fix-it
12 hours ago
add a comment |
1
I agree with your conclusion, but sucking vapour + fumes into the tube isn't an issue if you don't also suck in oxygen.
– Chris H
Dec 31 '18 at 19:09
4
@ChrisH If there is flame there is oxygen, and any empty space in that bottle is going to have oxygen.
– James Jenkins
Jan 1 at 10:00
Empty space in the bottle will not have oxygen. The space will be entirely filled with alcohol vapor (which will not ignite, too rich) unless you suck oxygen back into it.
– Jimmy Fix-it
12 hours ago
1
1
I agree with your conclusion, but sucking vapour + fumes into the tube isn't an issue if you don't also suck in oxygen.
– Chris H
Dec 31 '18 at 19:09
I agree with your conclusion, but sucking vapour + fumes into the tube isn't an issue if you don't also suck in oxygen.
– Chris H
Dec 31 '18 at 19:09
4
4
@ChrisH If there is flame there is oxygen, and any empty space in that bottle is going to have oxygen.
– James Jenkins
Jan 1 at 10:00
@ChrisH If there is flame there is oxygen, and any empty space in that bottle is going to have oxygen.
– James Jenkins
Jan 1 at 10:00
Empty space in the bottle will not have oxygen. The space will be entirely filled with alcohol vapor (which will not ignite, too rich) unless you suck oxygen back into it.
– Jimmy Fix-it
12 hours ago
Empty space in the bottle will not have oxygen. The space will be entirely filled with alcohol vapor (which will not ignite, too rich) unless you suck oxygen back into it.
– Jimmy Fix-it
12 hours ago
add a comment |
You don't, adding liquid fuel to stove with a live flame is never recommended.
Related meta post Do we want a post notice for questions where people are using equipment in ways that are clearly incorrect or dangerous?
Believing the stove to be out of fuel, she tried to pour more denatured alcohol into it from a large container that exploded, shooting burning fluid and flames onto her daughter.
“We recreated the accident conditions in a ‘fire lab’ and the results were scary to say the least,” Barrett said. “The most dangerous aspect of denatured alcohol is that you can’t see it burning if you are in daylight conditions. In fact, my client and the rest of her group did not know why she was getting burned for a few seconds because they could not see any flames on her. It was not until the flames from her shirt burning became visible, that they realized that she was ‘on fire.’”
Source; Concord attorney warns of danger of denatured alcohhol
If you watch the video, the point of the contraption in the picture is to refill while the stove is working and looks like it does work
– Charlie Brumbaugh
Dec 31 '18 at 15:34
20
@CharlieBrumbaugh :) there are lots of videos where lots of unsafe practices work. That does not make them good practices.
– James Jenkins
Dec 31 '18 at 15:39
That accident was the result of a different type of container than the one pictured. Yes refilling a stove from a large container would be dangerous, but that's not what's in the videos
– Charlie Brumbaugh
Dec 31 '18 at 16:01
6
@Charlie the fact someone did it once doesn't mean this isn't dangerous. I saw a circus show last week with someone juggling knifes and lit torches. Doesn't mean I want to start doing it because it's "safe". Same thing here :/ It's extremely unsafe and has a risk of failure that would be catastrophic....
– Patrice
Jan 1 at 14:44
add a comment |
You don't, adding liquid fuel to stove with a live flame is never recommended.
Related meta post Do we want a post notice for questions where people are using equipment in ways that are clearly incorrect or dangerous?
Believing the stove to be out of fuel, she tried to pour more denatured alcohol into it from a large container that exploded, shooting burning fluid and flames onto her daughter.
“We recreated the accident conditions in a ‘fire lab’ and the results were scary to say the least,” Barrett said. “The most dangerous aspect of denatured alcohol is that you can’t see it burning if you are in daylight conditions. In fact, my client and the rest of her group did not know why she was getting burned for a few seconds because they could not see any flames on her. It was not until the flames from her shirt burning became visible, that they realized that she was ‘on fire.’”
Source; Concord attorney warns of danger of denatured alcohhol
If you watch the video, the point of the contraption in the picture is to refill while the stove is working and looks like it does work
– Charlie Brumbaugh
Dec 31 '18 at 15:34
20
@CharlieBrumbaugh :) there are lots of videos where lots of unsafe practices work. That does not make them good practices.
– James Jenkins
Dec 31 '18 at 15:39
That accident was the result of a different type of container than the one pictured. Yes refilling a stove from a large container would be dangerous, but that's not what's in the videos
– Charlie Brumbaugh
Dec 31 '18 at 16:01
6
@Charlie the fact someone did it once doesn't mean this isn't dangerous. I saw a circus show last week with someone juggling knifes and lit torches. Doesn't mean I want to start doing it because it's "safe". Same thing here :/ It's extremely unsafe and has a risk of failure that would be catastrophic....
– Patrice
Jan 1 at 14:44
add a comment |
You don't, adding liquid fuel to stove with a live flame is never recommended.
Related meta post Do we want a post notice for questions where people are using equipment in ways that are clearly incorrect or dangerous?
Believing the stove to be out of fuel, she tried to pour more denatured alcohol into it from a large container that exploded, shooting burning fluid and flames onto her daughter.
“We recreated the accident conditions in a ‘fire lab’ and the results were scary to say the least,” Barrett said. “The most dangerous aspect of denatured alcohol is that you can’t see it burning if you are in daylight conditions. In fact, my client and the rest of her group did not know why she was getting burned for a few seconds because they could not see any flames on her. It was not until the flames from her shirt burning became visible, that they realized that she was ‘on fire.’”
Source; Concord attorney warns of danger of denatured alcohhol
You don't, adding liquid fuel to stove with a live flame is never recommended.
Related meta post Do we want a post notice for questions where people are using equipment in ways that are clearly incorrect or dangerous?
Believing the stove to be out of fuel, she tried to pour more denatured alcohol into it from a large container that exploded, shooting burning fluid and flames onto her daughter.
“We recreated the accident conditions in a ‘fire lab’ and the results were scary to say the least,” Barrett said. “The most dangerous aspect of denatured alcohol is that you can’t see it burning if you are in daylight conditions. In fact, my client and the rest of her group did not know why she was getting burned for a few seconds because they could not see any flames on her. It was not until the flames from her shirt burning became visible, that they realized that she was ‘on fire.’”
Source; Concord attorney warns of danger of denatured alcohhol
edited Dec 31 '18 at 15:57
answered Dec 31 '18 at 15:23
James JenkinsJames Jenkins
18.2k1065167
18.2k1065167
If you watch the video, the point of the contraption in the picture is to refill while the stove is working and looks like it does work
– Charlie Brumbaugh
Dec 31 '18 at 15:34
20
@CharlieBrumbaugh :) there are lots of videos where lots of unsafe practices work. That does not make them good practices.
– James Jenkins
Dec 31 '18 at 15:39
That accident was the result of a different type of container than the one pictured. Yes refilling a stove from a large container would be dangerous, but that's not what's in the videos
– Charlie Brumbaugh
Dec 31 '18 at 16:01
6
@Charlie the fact someone did it once doesn't mean this isn't dangerous. I saw a circus show last week with someone juggling knifes and lit torches. Doesn't mean I want to start doing it because it's "safe". Same thing here :/ It's extremely unsafe and has a risk of failure that would be catastrophic....
– Patrice
Jan 1 at 14:44
add a comment |
If you watch the video, the point of the contraption in the picture is to refill while the stove is working and looks like it does work
– Charlie Brumbaugh
Dec 31 '18 at 15:34
20
@CharlieBrumbaugh :) there are lots of videos where lots of unsafe practices work. That does not make them good practices.
– James Jenkins
Dec 31 '18 at 15:39
That accident was the result of a different type of container than the one pictured. Yes refilling a stove from a large container would be dangerous, but that's not what's in the videos
– Charlie Brumbaugh
Dec 31 '18 at 16:01
6
@Charlie the fact someone did it once doesn't mean this isn't dangerous. I saw a circus show last week with someone juggling knifes and lit torches. Doesn't mean I want to start doing it because it's "safe". Same thing here :/ It's extremely unsafe and has a risk of failure that would be catastrophic....
– Patrice
Jan 1 at 14:44
If you watch the video, the point of the contraption in the picture is to refill while the stove is working and looks like it does work
– Charlie Brumbaugh
Dec 31 '18 at 15:34
If you watch the video, the point of the contraption in the picture is to refill while the stove is working and looks like it does work
– Charlie Brumbaugh
Dec 31 '18 at 15:34
20
20
@CharlieBrumbaugh :) there are lots of videos where lots of unsafe practices work. That does not make them good practices.
– James Jenkins
Dec 31 '18 at 15:39
@CharlieBrumbaugh :) there are lots of videos where lots of unsafe practices work. That does not make them good practices.
– James Jenkins
Dec 31 '18 at 15:39
That accident was the result of a different type of container than the one pictured. Yes refilling a stove from a large container would be dangerous, but that's not what's in the videos
– Charlie Brumbaugh
Dec 31 '18 at 16:01
That accident was the result of a different type of container than the one pictured. Yes refilling a stove from a large container would be dangerous, but that's not what's in the videos
– Charlie Brumbaugh
Dec 31 '18 at 16:01
6
6
@Charlie the fact someone did it once doesn't mean this isn't dangerous. I saw a circus show last week with someone juggling knifes and lit torches. Doesn't mean I want to start doing it because it's "safe". Same thing here :/ It's extremely unsafe and has a risk of failure that would be catastrophic....
– Patrice
Jan 1 at 14:44
@Charlie the fact someone did it once doesn't mean this isn't dangerous. I saw a circus show last week with someone juggling knifes and lit torches. Doesn't mean I want to start doing it because it's "safe". Same thing here :/ It's extremely unsafe and has a risk of failure that would be catastrophic....
– Patrice
Jan 1 at 14:44
add a comment |
This is dangerous
And the most dangerous thing about it - is that it gives the appearance of not being dangerous. Don't refill a lit alcohol stove without being aware that it could become a fireball that will consume your facial hair, your tent, your skin, your travel mates and/or your/their visual acuity for perhaps life.
Sure. It might work once. Or twice. But it will fail, and when it does, it will be spectacular because you will be feeling comfortable beside your dog, inside your tent, with an open and full bottle of alcohol in your hand and in the next second you won't be none of those.
add a comment |
This is dangerous
And the most dangerous thing about it - is that it gives the appearance of not being dangerous. Don't refill a lit alcohol stove without being aware that it could become a fireball that will consume your facial hair, your tent, your skin, your travel mates and/or your/their visual acuity for perhaps life.
Sure. It might work once. Or twice. But it will fail, and when it does, it will be spectacular because you will be feeling comfortable beside your dog, inside your tent, with an open and full bottle of alcohol in your hand and in the next second you won't be none of those.
add a comment |
This is dangerous
And the most dangerous thing about it - is that it gives the appearance of not being dangerous. Don't refill a lit alcohol stove without being aware that it could become a fireball that will consume your facial hair, your tent, your skin, your travel mates and/or your/their visual acuity for perhaps life.
Sure. It might work once. Or twice. But it will fail, and when it does, it will be spectacular because you will be feeling comfortable beside your dog, inside your tent, with an open and full bottle of alcohol in your hand and in the next second you won't be none of those.
This is dangerous
And the most dangerous thing about it - is that it gives the appearance of not being dangerous. Don't refill a lit alcohol stove without being aware that it could become a fireball that will consume your facial hair, your tent, your skin, your travel mates and/or your/their visual acuity for perhaps life.
Sure. It might work once. Or twice. But it will fail, and when it does, it will be spectacular because you will be feeling comfortable beside your dog, inside your tent, with an open and full bottle of alcohol in your hand and in the next second you won't be none of those.
answered Jan 2 at 12:58
Stian YttervikStian Yttervik
56715
56715
add a comment |
add a comment |
It may help prevent flareups if you keep your alcohol in the freezer.
Also, I think an almost full bottle would be safer than an almost empty one.
In other words there is some airspace in the bottle which may explode, but I think the risk is minimized by having a long dispensing tube.
3
Sorry, but that freezer 'advice' is nonsense. With the high flammibility of alcohol a few degrees cooling is not going to make a large enough difference to make this safe.
– Jan Doggen
Jan 2 at 9:05
The flashpoint of methanol is 12 C (for ethanol it is 16.6C). How is cooling methanol below it's flashpoint nonsense? "Flash point is the lowest temperature at which a liquid can form an ignitable mixture in air near the surface of the liquid. The lower the flash point, the easier it is to ignite the material." ilpi.com/msds/ref/flashpoint.html
– Scot Parker
Jan 2 at 23:57
You may want to expand on your answer with more details on flammability and flash point (and include sources). After some research I did, it would seem that lowering the temperature to below 54 degrees F would make it... not flammable? Did I read that right? This seems absurd, but if this is indeed the implication and is correct, then, you are correct and the only safe way to answer the question is to be sure the alcohol is kept at a cold temperature (or even a mild temperature!)
– Andrew Jennings
Jan 3 at 4:38
The post says alcohol (with is the common name for ethanol), not methanol. I have added a comment below the question.
– Jan Doggen
Jan 3 at 8:03
Even if you can refrigerate the fuel to below its flash point, it would not be a practical solution for' 'The Great Outdoors' where one might use an alcohol stove, AND not have any access to refrigeration. You could explain how it could be done in lab.
– James Jenkins
Jan 3 at 10:55
|
show 1 more comment
It may help prevent flareups if you keep your alcohol in the freezer.
Also, I think an almost full bottle would be safer than an almost empty one.
In other words there is some airspace in the bottle which may explode, but I think the risk is minimized by having a long dispensing tube.
3
Sorry, but that freezer 'advice' is nonsense. With the high flammibility of alcohol a few degrees cooling is not going to make a large enough difference to make this safe.
– Jan Doggen
Jan 2 at 9:05
The flashpoint of methanol is 12 C (for ethanol it is 16.6C). How is cooling methanol below it's flashpoint nonsense? "Flash point is the lowest temperature at which a liquid can form an ignitable mixture in air near the surface of the liquid. The lower the flash point, the easier it is to ignite the material." ilpi.com/msds/ref/flashpoint.html
– Scot Parker
Jan 2 at 23:57
You may want to expand on your answer with more details on flammability and flash point (and include sources). After some research I did, it would seem that lowering the temperature to below 54 degrees F would make it... not flammable? Did I read that right? This seems absurd, but if this is indeed the implication and is correct, then, you are correct and the only safe way to answer the question is to be sure the alcohol is kept at a cold temperature (or even a mild temperature!)
– Andrew Jennings
Jan 3 at 4:38
The post says alcohol (with is the common name for ethanol), not methanol. I have added a comment below the question.
– Jan Doggen
Jan 3 at 8:03
Even if you can refrigerate the fuel to below its flash point, it would not be a practical solution for' 'The Great Outdoors' where one might use an alcohol stove, AND not have any access to refrigeration. You could explain how it could be done in lab.
– James Jenkins
Jan 3 at 10:55
|
show 1 more comment
It may help prevent flareups if you keep your alcohol in the freezer.
Also, I think an almost full bottle would be safer than an almost empty one.
In other words there is some airspace in the bottle which may explode, but I think the risk is minimized by having a long dispensing tube.
It may help prevent flareups if you keep your alcohol in the freezer.
Also, I think an almost full bottle would be safer than an almost empty one.
In other words there is some airspace in the bottle which may explode, but I think the risk is minimized by having a long dispensing tube.
answered Jan 1 at 21:37
Scot ParkerScot Parker
15
15
3
Sorry, but that freezer 'advice' is nonsense. With the high flammibility of alcohol a few degrees cooling is not going to make a large enough difference to make this safe.
– Jan Doggen
Jan 2 at 9:05
The flashpoint of methanol is 12 C (for ethanol it is 16.6C). How is cooling methanol below it's flashpoint nonsense? "Flash point is the lowest temperature at which a liquid can form an ignitable mixture in air near the surface of the liquid. The lower the flash point, the easier it is to ignite the material." ilpi.com/msds/ref/flashpoint.html
– Scot Parker
Jan 2 at 23:57
You may want to expand on your answer with more details on flammability and flash point (and include sources). After some research I did, it would seem that lowering the temperature to below 54 degrees F would make it... not flammable? Did I read that right? This seems absurd, but if this is indeed the implication and is correct, then, you are correct and the only safe way to answer the question is to be sure the alcohol is kept at a cold temperature (or even a mild temperature!)
– Andrew Jennings
Jan 3 at 4:38
The post says alcohol (with is the common name for ethanol), not methanol. I have added a comment below the question.
– Jan Doggen
Jan 3 at 8:03
Even if you can refrigerate the fuel to below its flash point, it would not be a practical solution for' 'The Great Outdoors' where one might use an alcohol stove, AND not have any access to refrigeration. You could explain how it could be done in lab.
– James Jenkins
Jan 3 at 10:55
|
show 1 more comment
3
Sorry, but that freezer 'advice' is nonsense. With the high flammibility of alcohol a few degrees cooling is not going to make a large enough difference to make this safe.
– Jan Doggen
Jan 2 at 9:05
The flashpoint of methanol is 12 C (for ethanol it is 16.6C). How is cooling methanol below it's flashpoint nonsense? "Flash point is the lowest temperature at which a liquid can form an ignitable mixture in air near the surface of the liquid. The lower the flash point, the easier it is to ignite the material." ilpi.com/msds/ref/flashpoint.html
– Scot Parker
Jan 2 at 23:57
You may want to expand on your answer with more details on flammability and flash point (and include sources). After some research I did, it would seem that lowering the temperature to below 54 degrees F would make it... not flammable? Did I read that right? This seems absurd, but if this is indeed the implication and is correct, then, you are correct and the only safe way to answer the question is to be sure the alcohol is kept at a cold temperature (or even a mild temperature!)
– Andrew Jennings
Jan 3 at 4:38
The post says alcohol (with is the common name for ethanol), not methanol. I have added a comment below the question.
– Jan Doggen
Jan 3 at 8:03
Even if you can refrigerate the fuel to below its flash point, it would not be a practical solution for' 'The Great Outdoors' where one might use an alcohol stove, AND not have any access to refrigeration. You could explain how it could be done in lab.
– James Jenkins
Jan 3 at 10:55
3
3
Sorry, but that freezer 'advice' is nonsense. With the high flammibility of alcohol a few degrees cooling is not going to make a large enough difference to make this safe.
– Jan Doggen
Jan 2 at 9:05
Sorry, but that freezer 'advice' is nonsense. With the high flammibility of alcohol a few degrees cooling is not going to make a large enough difference to make this safe.
– Jan Doggen
Jan 2 at 9:05
The flashpoint of methanol is 12 C (for ethanol it is 16.6C). How is cooling methanol below it's flashpoint nonsense? "Flash point is the lowest temperature at which a liquid can form an ignitable mixture in air near the surface of the liquid. The lower the flash point, the easier it is to ignite the material." ilpi.com/msds/ref/flashpoint.html
– Scot Parker
Jan 2 at 23:57
The flashpoint of methanol is 12 C (for ethanol it is 16.6C). How is cooling methanol below it's flashpoint nonsense? "Flash point is the lowest temperature at which a liquid can form an ignitable mixture in air near the surface of the liquid. The lower the flash point, the easier it is to ignite the material." ilpi.com/msds/ref/flashpoint.html
– Scot Parker
Jan 2 at 23:57
You may want to expand on your answer with more details on flammability and flash point (and include sources). After some research I did, it would seem that lowering the temperature to below 54 degrees F would make it... not flammable? Did I read that right? This seems absurd, but if this is indeed the implication and is correct, then, you are correct and the only safe way to answer the question is to be sure the alcohol is kept at a cold temperature (or even a mild temperature!)
– Andrew Jennings
Jan 3 at 4:38
You may want to expand on your answer with more details on flammability and flash point (and include sources). After some research I did, it would seem that lowering the temperature to below 54 degrees F would make it... not flammable? Did I read that right? This seems absurd, but if this is indeed the implication and is correct, then, you are correct and the only safe way to answer the question is to be sure the alcohol is kept at a cold temperature (or even a mild temperature!)
– Andrew Jennings
Jan 3 at 4:38
The post says alcohol (with is the common name for ethanol), not methanol. I have added a comment below the question.
– Jan Doggen
Jan 3 at 8:03
The post says alcohol (with is the common name for ethanol), not methanol. I have added a comment below the question.
– Jan Doggen
Jan 3 at 8:03
Even if you can refrigerate the fuel to below its flash point, it would not be a practical solution for' 'The Great Outdoors' where one might use an alcohol stove, AND not have any access to refrigeration. You could explain how it could be done in lab.
– James Jenkins
Jan 3 at 10:55
Even if you can refrigerate the fuel to below its flash point, it would not be a practical solution for' 'The Great Outdoors' where one might use an alcohol stove, AND not have any access to refrigeration. You could explain how it could be done in lab.
– James Jenkins
Jan 3 at 10:55
|
show 1 more comment
Thanks for contributing an answer to The Great Outdoors Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2foutdoors.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f21378%2fhow-do-you-refill-your-alcohol-stove-while-its-burning%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
3
I am upvoting the question, because I am glad you asked, before trying it and hurting anyone.
– James Jenkins
Dec 31 '18 at 15:24
2
Why do you want to know how to do it? Is there any legit need for this?
– Jasper
Dec 31 '18 at 17:30
1
That guy is cutting toward his hand while making it. Also ill-advised. Does not seem very safety concerned overall.
– jpmc26
Jan 1 at 1:42
Is this ethanol (commonly called alcohol) or methanol? There's quite a difference in flammability.
– Jan Doggen
Jan 3 at 8:04