Denatured Alcohol fuel alternative

[martinoParticipant @martino]

Hello. I am new to this forum. I am hoping you can answer a question for me. I have a Wigger model steam engine. I used to use denatured alcohol in the little brass wick burner. Now that denatured alcohol is not available in California I need an alternative. I picked up a bottle of Bio Ethanol fuel sold for use with an indoor fire place. Is this a good and safe alternative? TIA

[michael howarth 1Participant @michaelhowarth1]

The basic constituent of denatured alcohol is ethanol with a few nasties added to discourage anyone tempted to have a tipple. I am not sure if or what additives are in bio ethanol but it certainly works well in my locos.

Mick

[FulmenParticipant @fulmen]

Bio ethanol should do fine.

[Robert Atkinson 2Participant @robertatkinson2]

Go to the liquor store and buy some Everclear. The 190 proof version is best if you can get it in CA. 95% Ethanol. Costs about $20 a litre… Lower proof pure grain sprits will also burn.

Robert.

[Kiwi BlokeParticipant @kiwibloke62605]

Why on earth is denatured alcohol unavailable in California? What do Californian woodworkers use to dissolve shellac these days? They used to use ‘rubbing alcohol’, but it’s the same as ‘denatured alcohol’, which is the same as ‘methylated spirits’, which is now a UK misnomer, the methanol component having been removed some time ago. Perhaps it’s just a bureaucratic terminological obstruction.

Robert: is ‘Everclear’ supposed to be drunk, or is it embalming fluid, for premature application? Sounds dangerous!

[mark smith 20Participant @marksmith20]

The highest ethanol content that is legal in CA is now 76.5% or around 150 proof. Its just the strict laws in CA regarding all sorts of solvents. Nothing wrong with using bioethanol. I use it in the UK in preference to the horrible stinky purple meths. I used to but industrial meths from achemical supplier but the bioethanol is cheaper and just asgoodfor my purposes.Burning the purple stuff always gave me a bad head , probably due to the pyridine in it,which also causes the unpleasant smell in most purple cloured meths in the uk. .

Typical makeup of the stuff im currently using is in pic. Around £5 a litre , burnsclean ,i use it in a spirit lamp and also for dissolving shellac and other resins.

 

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

In the UK, rubbing alcohol is isopropanol I think. That does not work well in wick burners, believe me, I’ve tried it. Took ages to get the soot off.

[martinoParticipant @martino]

Thanks for the replies. While not exactly inexpensive a bottle should last me a year or more.

[Kiwi Bloke]

On Kiwi Bloke Said:

Why on earth is denatured alcohol unavailable in California?

Not so long ago California had a world-class pollution problem.  The state is sunny and air polluted by transport and industry isn’t simply diluted by clean sea air because California is boxed in by a large mountain range.   Back when US motorists all drove heavy gas-guzzlers, 8mpg to 15mpg, no catalysers etc, Californian air became unusually contaminated with unburned petro-chemicals, particulates, Nitrous Oxides, and Carbon Monoxide.   Cooked by the sun, this mix developed into a nasty photochemical smog.  As it was bleeding obvious to the populace, California was one of the first legislatures to research and counter pollution, but others were close behind.  Further research identified problems with many chemicals previously believed ‘safe’, that turned out to be carcinogens,  or harmful to babes in the womb, or increased the amount of ultra-violet radiation reaching skin and plants.  Many of the ‘Volatile Organic Compounds’ used as solvents are dodgy, some much worse than others.   California may be a little over cautious in my opinion, but they do have good reasons.

Like as not the issues caused by pollution won’t be obvious to ‘man in shed’ because he operates on a tiny scale in clean air.   That means so he is liable to fink this stuff is harmless and forget narrow personal experience is a piss-poor guide.  You can’t judge the threat posed by Meths in California to 38 million Americans by wot goes on in a well-ventilated New Zealand shed.

 

What do Californian woodworkers use to dissolve shellac these days?

They either use an alternative or get a permit.   Unlikely meths is banned outright, so if needed it can be applied for.  Though, as is the case with thousands of chemicals, consumers can’t buy Meths over the counter I’d be surprised if a Californian business couldn’t get it, and – unlike the average consumer – they would know how to manage it.

 

They used to use ‘rubbing alcohol’, but it’s the same as ‘denatured alcohol’, which is the same as ‘methylated spirits’, which is now a UK misnomer, the methanol component having been removed some time ago. Perhaps it’s just a bureaucratic terminological obstruction.

No.  ‘Rubbing Alcohol’ is unlikely to be ‘denatured alcohol’, and ‘methylated spirits’ is but one form of denatured alcohol.  Denatured alcohol is Ethanol rendered undrinkable by a some combination of nasties, and there are many variations.

The original British meths contained a lot of very poisonous Methanol,  a dash of Pyridine(tastes utterly vile + bit poisonous), and a little Methylene Blue (a slightly poisonous nasty tasting dye).   Though these additives made drinkers dangerously ill, they didn’t deter alcoholics who couldn’t afford clean, taxed, alcohol.  Junkies desperate for a hit aren’t logical!

Rather than clutter the NHS with seriously poisoned meths drinkers, it was decided to remove Methanol from UK meths.  It’s been replaced by a less toxic ketone – still nasty tasting and very sick making, but less dangerous to addicts, who require much less treatment.  Far from ‘bureaucratic obstruction’, this is an attempt to minimise damage to society at large.  We all benefit – apart from man-in-shed, who wants his world to be as simple as possible!  Instead. we have to put up with restrictions we may not understand, that could be irrelevant in our narrow circumstances.   Unfortunately no man is an island.  Long gone are the happy innocent days when pollution was only a minor problem.

…

Is not being able to buy Meths in a Californian DIY store a problem?  Not when bio-ethanol is available. And certainly not in England.   Isopropyl Alcohol is a potential alternative too, but the burner would have to be redesigned.   See Duncan’s post mentioning soot!

Dave

[SillyOldDuffer]

On SillyOldDuffer Said:

On Kiwi Bloke Said:

Why on earth is denatured alcohol unavailable in California?

Not so long ago California had a world-class pollution problem.  The state is sunny and air polluted by transport and industry isn’t simply diluted by clean sea air because California is boxed in by a large mountain range.   Back when US motorists all drove heavy gas-guzzlers, 8mpg to 15mpg, no catalysers etc, Californian air became unusually contaminated with unburned petro-chemicals, particulates, Nitrous Oxides, and Carbon Monoxide.   Cooked by the sun, this mix developed into a nasty photochemical smog.  As it was bleeding obvious to the populace, California was one of the first legislatures to research and counter pollution, but others were close behind.  Further research identified problems with many chemicals previously believed ‘safe’, that turned out to be carcinogens,  or harmful to babes in the womb, or increased the amount of ultra-violet radiation reaching skin and plants.  Many of the ‘Volatile Organic Compounds’ used as solvents are dodgy, some much worse than others.   California may be a little over cautious in my opinion, but they do have good reasons.

Like as not the issues caused by pollution won’t be obvious to ‘man in shed’ because he operates on a tiny scale in clean air.   That means so he is liable to fink this stuff is harmless and forget narrow personal experience is a piss-poor guide.  You can’t judge the threat posed by Meths in California to 38 million Americans by wot goes on in a well-ventilated New Zealand shed.

 

What do Californian woodworkers use to dissolve shellac these days?

They either use an alternative or get a permit.   Unlikely meths is banned outright, so if needed it can be applied for.  Though, as is the case with thousands of chemicals, consumers can’t buy Meths over the counter I’d be surprised if a Californian business couldn’t get it, and – unlike the average consumer – they would know how to manage it.

 

They used to use ‘rubbing alcohol’, but it’s the same as ‘denatured alcohol’, which is the same as ‘methylated spirits’, which is now a UK misnomer, the methanol component having been removed some time ago. Perhaps it’s just a bureaucratic terminological obstruction.

No.  ‘Rubbing Alcohol’ is unlikely to be ‘denatured alcohol’, and ‘methylated spirits’ is but one form of denatured alcohol.  Denatured alcohol is Ethanol rendered undrinkable by a some combination of nasties, and there are many variations.

The original British meths contained a lot of very poisonous Methanol,  a dash of Pyridine(tastes utterly vile + bit poisonous), and a little Methylene Blue (a slightly poisonous nasty tasting dye).   Though these additives made drinkers dangerously ill, they didn’t deter alcoholics who couldn’t afford clean, taxed, alcohol.  Junkies desperate for a hit aren’t logical!

Rather than clutter the NHS with seriously poisoned meths drinkers, it was decided to remove Methanol from UK meths.  It’s been replaced by a less toxic ketone – still nasty tasting and very sick making, but less dangerous to addicts, who require much less treatment.  Far from ‘bureaucratic obstruction’, this is an attempt to minimise damage to society at large.  We all benefit – apart from man-in-shed, who wants his world to be as simple as possible!  Instead. we have to put up with restrictions we may not understand, that could be irrelevant in our narrow circumstances.   Unfortunately no man is an island.  Long gone are the happy innocent days when pollution was only a minor problem.

…

Is not being able to buy Meths in a Californian DIY store a problem?  Not when bio-ethanol is available. And certainly not in England.   Isopropyl Alcohol is a potential alternative too, but the burner would have to be redesigned.   See Duncan’s post mentioning soot!

Dave

My understanding is that methyl alcohol wasted added, it simply went over with the distilate, less accuracy being cheaper. But the result of methyl alcohol, especially on optic nerves, resulted in greater accuracy of its removal was called for.

[FulmenParticipant @fulmen]

Normally there isn’t much methanol in fermented alcohol. The problem is that the methanol comes over first, so unless you mix the distillate the first bottle can be pure poison while the rest is fine.

 

[mark smith 20Participant @marksmith20]

Methanol is added purposely to denature ethanol. You dont usually make methanol by fementation but it does contain some small quantity. Yes it would mostly be removed by distillation at around 65 centigrade. Safe enough for use as fuel, making moonshine to consume  is a rather different matter and to be safe more complicated chemistry is needed.

[Kiwi BlokeParticipant @kiwibloke62605]

I shouldn’t rise to the bait, but it is ungentlemanly for SOD to insult the ‘man in shed’, whether he be in a ‘well-ventilated New Zealand shed’ or some other, and his suggestion that ‘he is liable to fink [sic] this stuff is harmless and forget narrow personal experience is a piss-poor guide’ is rude and patronising. Some of us actually think quite deeply about things, can read, are well-educated, and possess post-graduate scientific qualifications.

Is it not ironic that California allows one to fill a vehicle with E85 auto fuel (up to 85% ethanol), but prohibits the possession of small quantities of ‘rubbing alcohol’ (which these days is commonly isopropanol-based, but used to be – and still may be – ‘denatured’ ethanol-based)?

My suggestion that ‘Perhaps it’s just a bureaucratic terminological obstruction’ obviously wasn’t clearly expressed and was misquoted by SOD. The non-scientific terminology that has been applied to alcohols and various adulterated alcohols over the years is a shambles. Perhaps the Californian bureaucrats were a little confused, too, if other ethanol preparations are allowed. Perhaps the ban is more to do with what the preparation is called than what it is. It is not clear whether the legislation was intended to protect the individual from direct toxicity or to reduce air pollution. The pressure to use ethanol-containing fuels ensures there’s a hell of a lot more ethanol swilling around in California than there used to be…

[Martin ConnellyParticipant @martinconnelly55370]

Dave was certainly right about how hard it is to deter alcoholics. When a lot of alcohol based hand were cleansers being put everywhere due to Covid I know of one hospital where someone in it for alcohol abuse was left alone with some. They drank a whole bottle of it. It never occurred to the staff that someone would drink it.

As for the MEK in Mark’s table I had a couple of friends who were tasked with cleaning painted on numbers off some lockers in a poorly ventilated locker room so they could be repainted in the correct order (following rearranging). They were found slumped on the floor after the MEK they were using overcame them, luckily they seemed to suffer no permanent effects.

Martin C

[Kiwi Bloke]

On Kiwi Bloke Said:

I shouldn’t rise to the bait, but it is ungentlemanly for SOD to insult the ‘man in shed’, whether he be in a ‘well-ventilated New Zealand shed’ or some other, and his suggestion that ‘he is liable to fink [sic] this stuff is harmless and forget narrow personal experience is a piss-poor guide’ is rude and patronising. Some of us actually think quite deeply about things, can read, are well-educated, and possess post-graduate scientific qualifications.

…

To me engineering is about doing things better, not pandering to ignorance.  Whilst “Some of us actually think quite deeply about things etc.” is true, and entirely respectable, it is also true that hobbyists and experts have a limited understanding of engineering in the wider sense.   This forum is full of questions, with folk attempting to address knowledge gaps, and a fair percentage of answers have quality problems.   Out-of-date, misunderstandings, fanboys, missing facts, context wrong, evidence ignored, or ill-informed joining of the dots.

The awful truth is we are all more-or-less ignorant, and the world would be a better place if we gripped our failings rather than being offended when issues are pointed out.   This might apply to my propensity to upset folk!

“Man-in-shed” is my code for “the average hobbyist, who can be anything from an ignorant 7 year old boy to a 98 year old who has lost the plot.  In between all levels of ability.”

Model Engineering is a broad church.  Some know their history, some are stuck in the past, and others know what’s coming next.  No-one is good at everything.  Therefore, quite likely an individual will be off beam, and we all benefit it the reason is explained.  Sadly, some are easily offended, presumably believing their ego is more important than improving our engineering skills.

When I say “narrow personal experience is a piss-poor guide”, that’s not just my opinion.   Recognising the limitations of personal experience underpins the entire modern world.  Before the Enlightenment, humanity depended on personal experience, and society was bogged in ignorance and uncorrected prejudice.  Most people lived in poverty, and even royalty died of easily cured diseases.   There is a better way – it is the application of reason and logic to evidence, and a determination to get to truths, rather than accept the beliefs of previous generations.   Although this upset small-c conservatives, the results were spectacularly good.

Now I’m just as liable to ‘fink’ I know stuff just as much as anyone else.  Memory is notoriously unreliable.  Thinking we know is a universal human fault, it gets worse with age, and we tend to get angry when experience is challenged.   I’m perfectly willing to change my understanding when someone explains where I went wrong.  But not if their reasons are emotional.

Exam questions:

• Is my explanation of “Why on earth is denatured alcohol unavailable in California?” wrong?
• Was circlips’ use of the phrases “Why on earth” and “bureaucratic terminological obstruction” pejorative, and did they open the door to a rebuttal?
• Why do readers dislike being reminded we are all fallible?
• If a forum post is mistaken, should it be corrected?   Or should we all assume that the author is a snowflake, who can’t possibly be challenged in case he’s offended?
• Does the correct statement “Some of us actually think quite deeply about things, can read, are well-educated, and possess post-graduate scientific qualifications” mean anyone is beyond criticism?  I say not.  Though it helps, simply having these characteristics does not make us perfect in general.   And in this particular topic, surely circlip asking the question meant he didn’t already know the answer – not well-educated – hence this point is irrelevant!

Dave

 

 

 

[Author]

Posts