OHMatt's lighter fluid: isoButane

[Mark C]

Originally Posted by OHMatt

Here is the only minus I have found from the switch: this fuel seems "rich" to me and may require more oxygen to burn; you can't "prime" the lighter by allowing fuel to leak before sparking. I have best results clicking the igniter quickly so max oxygen is available. On one lighter with a deeply recessed nozzle, I find I need to move the lighter a bit when I spark it. Other than this I have not needed to adjust, clean, or even purge any of my lighters since I made the switch.

Originally Posted by Wharf Rat

A butane / propane mixture will have several times the pressure within its storage tank as butane alone. This alone means that there will be considerably more energy (BTUs in English units) coming out of the orifice.

Neat idea, I'm always in favor of saving a few bucks.

A quick look at the chemistry says there's really not much difference in heat produced, or oxygen requirements on a pound per pound basis. The difference is entirely in the pressure, at room temp isoButane is ~45% higher than n-Butane. So you're getting considerably more gas out of your lighter using the higher pressure fuel, confirming your guess that it runs rich, and why moving the lighter around helps combustion. It also suggests you'll be using more fuel (unless you can adjust your lighter) per light. Since you're in a rich environment, I'd guess using these fuels will actually have lower combustion efficiency than n-Butane.

Propane has an even higher pressure, so I'd guess this 'running rich' problem would be more prevalent in the blends with higher amounts of propane.

On that same note, the blends with n-Butane in the mix should have a lower pressure, and lower oxygen requirement (though still higher than neat n-Butane). If the reason for switching to one of these camp fuel gases over the 23x distilled cigar lighter gas is purely economical, why not try these blends? Assuming the fuel is clean and extreme cold weather performance isn't your goal, they may actually work better than the 80/20 blends. Especially in a lower oxygen environment.

On the other hand, if you can adjust the flame down, you may get better performance with lower fuel usage (comparable to 'regular' n-Butane).

But that's a lot of guessing on my part and my coffee hasn't kicked in yet, so I could be wrong. I might need to get a few Ronsons and a couple cans of fuel and have some fun with this

Edit: Just another thought, I wonder if the higher pressure might increase reliability in windy environments, i.e. make the flame more 'wind proof'?

[Wharf Rat]

Originally Posted by Mark C

Neat idea, I'm always in favor of saving a few bucks.

A quick look at the chemistry says there's really not much difference in heat produced, or oxygen requirements on a pound per pound basis. The difference is entirely in the pressure, at room temp isoButane is ~45% higher than n-Butane. So you're getting considerably more gas out of your lighter using the higher pressure fuel, confirming your guess that it runs rich, and why moving the lighter around helps combustion. It also suggests you'll be using more fuel (unless you can adjust your lighter) per light. Since you're in a rich environment, I'd guess using these fuels will actually have lower combustion efficiency than n-Butane.

Propane has an even higher pressure, so I'd guess this 'running rich' problem would be more prevalent in the blends with higher amounts of propane.

On that same note, the blends with n-Butane in the mix should have a lower pressure, and lower oxygen requirement (though still higher than neat n-Butane). If the reason for switching to one of these camp fuel gases over the 23x distilled cigar lighter gas is purely economical, why not try these blends? Assuming the fuel is clean and extreme cold weather performance isn't your goal, they may actually work better than the 80/20 blends. Especially in a lower oxygen environment.

On the other hand, if you can adjust the flame down, you may get better performance with lower fuel usage (comparable to 'regular' n-Butane).

But that's a lot of guessing on my part and my coffee hasn't kicked in yet, so I could be wrong. I might need to get a few Ronsons and a couple cans of fuel and have some fun with this

Edit: Just another thought, I wonder if the higher pressure might increase reliability in windy environments, i.e. make the flame more 'wind proof'?

Since the orifice (hole) size for the lighter is fixed, a higher pressure means that the flow rate through the orifice will be greater. For a flame to establish and hold on the orifice, the velocity of the fuel must lie in the correct range. If the higher pressure increases the velocity too much, the flame will "blow off."

[St. Lou Stu]

Originally Posted by Wharf Rat

Since the orifice (hole) size for the lighter is fixed, a higher pressure means that the flow rate through the orifice will be greater. For a flame to establish and hold on the orifice, the velocity of the fuel must lie in the correct range. If the higher pressure increases the velocity too much, the flame will "blow off."

lol..... What do you know about Alkanes as a source of fuel?








j/k

[Wharf Rat]

Originally Posted by St. Lou Stu

lol..... What do you know about Alkanes as a source of fuel?

j/k

Everbody is a wise guy! Geez...

[OHMatt]

Lots of good questions there, and I have been having fun experimenting.

The main reason I haven't considered the blends containing n-Butane is that there isn't a way to tell if it is refined.. But then again the isoButane and Propane could be "dirty" in the 80/20 blends and it is only the higher pressure that is keeping my lighters clog free. Perhaps I will give the n-butane blends a try soon.

If like me you can't find Ronson lighters at your nearby Wally World DX lighters are super cheap (but take several weeks to arrive). I used these 2 DX lighters in my initial experiments with the new fuel:
http://dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.1455
http://dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.1456

Originally Posted by Mark C

Neat idea, I'm always in favor of saving a few bucks.

A quick look at the chemistry says there's really not much difference in heat produced, or oxygen requirements on a pound per pound basis. The difference is entirely in the pressure, at room temp isoButane is ~45% higher than n-Butane. So you're getting considerably more gas out of your lighter using the higher pressure fuel, confirming your guess that it runs rich, and why moving the lighter around helps combustion. It also suggests you'll be using more fuel (unless you can adjust your lighter) per light. Since you're in a rich environment, I'd guess using these fuels will actually have lower combustion efficiency than n-Butane.

Propane has an even higher pressure, so I'd guess this 'running rich' problem would be more prevalent in the blends with higher amounts of propane.

On that same note, the blends with n-Butane in the mix should have a lower pressure, and lower oxygen requirement (though still higher than neat n-Butane). If the reason for switching to one of these camp fuel gases over the 23x distilled cigar lighter gas is purely economical, why not try these blends? Assuming the fuel is clean and extreme cold weather performance isn't your goal, they may actually work better than the 80/20 blends. Especially in a lower oxygen environment.

On the other hand, if you can adjust the flame down, you may get better performance with lower fuel usage (comparable to 'regular' n-Butane).

But that's a lot of guessing on my part and my coffee hasn't kicked in yet, so I could be wrong. I might need to get a few Ronsons and a couple cans of fuel and have some fun with this

Edit: Just another thought, I wonder if the higher pressure might increase reliability in windy environments, i.e. make the flame more 'wind proof'?