The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. General Science
  3. General Science
  4. More efficient fire?
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Down

More efficient fire?

  • 3 Replies
  • 4813 Views
  • 0 Tags

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline CZARCAR (OP)

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 686
  • Activity:
    0%
More efficient fire?
« on: 23/03/2012 16:45:59 »
http://www.smartburn.com.au/wood-fire-smoke/How+it+Works    whats the ingredients?
Logged
 



Offline CliffordK

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 6596
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 61 times
  • Site Moderator
Re: More efficient fire?
« Reply #1 on: 23/03/2012 18:30:20 »
"Natural" is somewhat of a catch-all.
Coal and Petroleum, for example are "natural".
As are rocks, and many other things that you wouldn't choose to eat.

Unfortunately I'm striking out on finding the ingredients.  The information says that it was patented, maybe in 2003 in Australia, so perhaps that should lead a search. 

Or, of course, one could buy one, cut it open, and see what is actually inside.

It indicates that it melts in the indirect heat of a fire...  so a few hundred degrees tops.

I'm thinking of an organic salt, although many organic salts will create odd flame colors.  There is a discussion of the acidity of the creosote.  So...  I might try a strong organic base, for example sodium ethoxide, but that would tend to have a bit high of a melting point.   

Maybe I'm thinking of it wrong.  Ash is basic (NaOH/KOH), so perhaps the problem isn't a lack of Sodium/Potassium, but too much of it.  It could be balanced with halocarbons, but those could be bad for the environment.

Keep in mind that all that is "natural" doesn't mean it is safe.  Sodium Cyanide is relatively natural, relatively heat stable, and quite toxic.  Glycerin is natural and non toxic, but breaks down to Acrolein which is toxic.

Metals and metal ions are also good for catalysts.  So, perhaps a metal salt?  I presume it would be heat stable, and last a long time.  Years ago, we had a container of "fire sprinkles" that gave flashes of odd colors.  I'm trying to remember if there was supposed to be any benefit from them, or if it was just to make colorful flames.  This discusses salts and colored flames, but no discussion about the overall effect on the smoke.
Logged
 

Offline CZARCAR (OP)

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 686
  • Activity:
    0%
Re: More efficient fire?
« Reply #2 on: 23/03/2012 19:22:15 »
thanx
Logged
 

Offline damocles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 756
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: More efficient fire?
« Reply #3 on: 24/03/2012 02:48:26 »
The combustion of any carbon/hydrogen/oxygen based material is a very complicated process involving free radical mechanisms and chain reactions.

If a material can be added at the level of a few gram to make a hotter fire, it would need to be providing either a radical source or a radical trap, and inserting its own chain carrier into the system (or increasing the concentration of a chain carrier that is already present). that is the only way that a small amount of additive could work for a large amount of fire.

It might also help if the material contained an efficient dessiccant (removed the water produced in the reaction), but with the scale of fuel:additive it is difficult to see how that could have much effect. It would be most efficient if the material acted as a catalyst (i.e. were regenerated rather than consumed in the overall combustion).

Of the many materials that might work, most are either very toxic, or explosive, or both. But it is possible that something very simple -- a salt like magnesium nitrate or an easily decomposed organic like paraformaldehyde -- has been found that will do the job.
Logged
1 4 6 4 1
4 4 9 4 4     
a perfect perfect square square
6 9 6 9 6
4 4 9 4 4
1 4 6 4 1
 



  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »
Tags:
 
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.267 seconds with 33 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.