Here's a rather strange one: I've had the clever notion that I'd like to
operate my garden lights by means of a PIC-based timer. The catch is that I
wish to use oil lamps, not the usual 12V bulbs. My dillema occurs in trying
to devise a method of electronic ignition for an oil lamp; so far my
experiments have produced unimpressive results by using a simple spark
ignitor. Has anyone else toyed with such a system and have any ideas of what
I might try to safely, and consitently light an oil lantern?
>-----Original Message-----
>From: spam_OUTpiclist-bouncesTakeThisOuTmit.edu [.....piclist-bouncesKILLspam@spam@mit.edu]
>On Behalf Of Ian Hooper
>Sent: 25 November 2004 17:05
>To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
>Subject: [OT]: Fire Starters and PICs
>
>
>Here's a rather strange one: I've had the clever notion that
>I'd like to operate my garden lights by means of a PIC-based
>timer. The catch is that I wish to use oil lamps, not the
>usual 12V bulbs. My dillema occurs in trying to devise a
>method of electronic ignition for an oil lamp; so far my
>experiments have produced unimpressive results by using a
>simple spark ignitor. Has anyone else toyed with such a system
>and have any ideas of what I might try to safely, and
>consitently light an oil lantern?
>
>thnx
>
>ian
Sounds like you enjoy making things complicated! Combining the spark
ignitor with some kind of glowplug arrangement to heat the oil in the
wick above it's flashpoint should work ok, but you'd need to supply a
considerable current to the lamps. A solenoid controlled disposable
lighter perhaps, but that introduces safety problems.
How were you going to extinguish the flame remotely?
Mike
=======================================================================
This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or
services.
=======================================================================
Small fuel injector (to spray lighter fluid) and a spark plug? :-)
Cheers,
-Neil.
On Thursday 25 November 2004 11:05 am, Ian Hooper scribbled: {Quote hidden}
> Here's a rather strange one: I've had the clever notion that I'd like to
> operate my garden lights by means of a PIC-based timer. The catch is that I
> wish to use oil lamps, not the usual 12V bulbs. My dillema occurs in trying
> to devise a method of electronic ignition for an oil lamp; so far my
> experiments have produced unimpressive results by using a simple spark
> ignitor. Has anyone else toyed with such a system and have any ideas of
> what I might try to safely, and consitently light an oil lantern?
>
> thnx
>
> ian
>
>
At 12:05 PM 11/25/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>Here's a rather strange one: I've had the clever notion that I'd like to
>operate my garden lights by means of a PIC-based timer. The catch is that I
>wish to use oil lamps, not the usual 12V bulbs. My dillema occurs in trying
>to devise a method of electronic ignition for an oil lamp; so far my
>experiments have produced unimpressive results by using a simple spark
>ignitor. Has anyone else toyed with such a system and have any ideas of what
>I might try to safely, and consitently light an oil lantern?
>
>thnx
>
>ian
You could try an arc (whew, talk about EMI problems) using an oil ignition
module, or a HSI (hot-surface ignition) module.
You can probably get the modules as appliance spare parts, though you
might not like the prices.
if these are the old type with a wick, i'd suggest a hot piece of
nichrome wire, rather than a spark as the oil isn't that volatile. you'll also have to control the wick height somehow, i.e. it will have
to be turned up occasionally. i'm not sure how safe old time oil lamps
sitting on the ground with electric ignition would be however, or how
safe they'd be on poles as some are. i think you'd at least want a fire
alarm, an extinguishing system would be nice but not trivial (CO2 is
rather pathetic for oil fires, you really need dry chem like potassium
or sodium bicarbonate, with the proper anti-cacking agents as in a fire
extinguisher meant for oil fires).
Ian Hooper wrote:
>
> Here's a rather strange one: I've had the clever notion that I'd like to
> operate my garden lights by means of a PIC-based timer. The catch is that I
> wish to use oil lamps, not the usual 12V bulbs. My dillema occurs in trying
> to devise a method of electronic ignition for an oil lamp; so far my
> experiments have produced unimpressive results by using a simple spark
> ignitor. Has anyone else toyed with such a system and have any ideas of what
> I might try to safely, and consitently light an oil lantern?
------
-- “Cowardice asks the question: is it safe? Expediency asks the question:
is it politic? Vanity asks the question: is it popular? But conscience
asks the question: is it right? And there comes a time when one must
take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular- but one
must take it simply because it is right.” : Martin Luther King Jr.
1929-1968 <http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4614717,00.html>
I agree, this is certainly nontrivial, and the safety concerns would keep
me away from it entirely - however - In the past I had a project where I
needed to light a candle electrically (inside a sealed chamber). I settled
on a small piece of nichrome wrapped in spiral around the wick - worked
just fine. And for what it's worth many portable kerosene heaters have
electronic ignition, basically a small light bulb with no glass and a pair
of D-cells. I'm not sure, but I'd expect those igniters would be available
as spare parts for less than $5.
>Here's a rather strange one: I've had the clever notion that I'd like to
>operate my garden lights by means of a PIC-based timer. The catch is that I
>wish to use oil lamps, not the usual 12V bulbs. My dillema occurs in trying
>to devise a method of electronic ignition for an oil lamp; so far my
>experiments have produced unimpressive results by using a simple spark
>ignitor. Has anyone else toyed with such a system and have any ideas of what
>I might try to safely, and consitently light an oil lantern?
>
>thnx
>
>ian
>
>
>
>
cold-cathode flourescent supplies will supply quite a hefty spark in
'startup' mode. Check out allelectronics.com
There's always the oil-furnace ignition transformer, but it is much to
hefty and expensive for a garden light.
--
Martin Klingensmith
____________________________________________
How about an piezo electric cigarette lighter with some string and a servo? ;-)
Swing it one way and click-poof, swing it the other way and you could
move a cone over it to snuff it out. You can extend the butane and
spark lines so the lighter does not need to be right near the fire.
Add a temp sensor and you know when to try again or if there is an
extinguishing failure.
- Ben
____________________________________________
My original line of thinking was somewhat along the lines of the cig
lighter, and the snuffer cone.
Any "field test" will be carried out well away from the house, better yet,
in a wading pool. :)
honest, you need a hot wire etc., you have to heat things hot enough to
volatilize the oil before there's any vapor to ignite. doing it with a
spark will erode a lot of wick etc. and wear electrodes rapidly in most
cases, and be power inefficient and overly complex. just tear apart a
dead toaster or hair dryer for some nichrome wire and see what length
gets nice and cherry red at the available voltage. this is one of the
things that makes oil lamps reasonably safe, i.e. the oil really needs a
wick to keep it near a flame that is heating and slowly volatilizing it
unless there are more volatile compounds in it as well or things get
very hot and large at which point you have a huge fire and don't really
need a wick.
Ben Hencke wrote:
>
> How about an piezo electric cigarette lighter with some string and a servo? ;-)
------
-- “Cowardice asks the question: is it safe? Expediency asks the question:
is it politic? Vanity asks the question: is it popular? But conscience
asks the question: is it right? And there comes a time when one must
take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular- but one
must take it simply because it is right.” : Martin Luther King Jr.
1929-1968 <http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4614717,00.html>
better to do it on dry ground, which will tend to absorb and oil leak
and limit it's spread, as opposed to a water surface that the oil will
spread out on, potentially into a very large, hot fire radiating a
surprising amount of heat. once an oil fire gets going it's very
impressive.
i've worked in the fire protection industry and seen a u.l. test of a
suppression system. on the new systems being tested they have to let
the fryer go out of control for a full minute before letting the system
trip (it should never, never take this long in an actual installation). within a fraction of that you'd swear the fryer was filled with
gasoline! it was incredibly impressive, even to someone who's made
fireworks as a teen. surprisingly, at first, is the fact that oils with
a higher auto ignition temperature are worse than those with a lower
ignition temperature. because when they finally do flare they are that
much hotter and the fire is consuming fuel (and releasing energy) that
much faster (most chemical reactions roughly double in speed for every
10 deg C). vegetable oils ignite at a higher temperature than lard,
which has prompted a new u.l. standard and the mandatory upgrading of
such systems in most states (or by the insurance companies demand). i
must say that some of the newer systems are very impressive. it's good
to force an industry to come up with new designs occasionally rather
than continuing with what they've made for decades, particularly in an
industry with very little competition. (sadly safety is not very
profitable, until they have a fire problem many people thing it's a
waste of money or even a rip off. once they've had a fryer go nuts they
usually think it's the best thing in the kitchen!).
i've used hand extinguishers to put out a large cardboard fire, before i
worked in that industry, that convinced me rapidly of their value. it
prevented building damage and damage to the building contents which
surely would have resulted had we waited for the fire department (which
we did call of course, but it was mostly out when they got there or they
would have had to break in to the adjacent business to make sure it
hadn't started a fire there, right through the concrete wall!). and yet
my employer never even thanked me for it or mentioned it, while the
person who had accidentally started the fire stood their, next to an
extinguisher frozen. i wasn't "brave", i simply acted to do what could
be done. it took 3 extinguishers and i had to run down the hall to get
the others but it helped tremendously. you can nearly always do
something to reduce damage in an accident, but many people freeze rather
than taking decisive action, and i've frozen once myself, it is part of
being human. needless to say we have several fire extinguishers at
home, though i haven't managed to get the others living with me to go
and learn how to use them on a real fire (one of the "fun" things we did
at my job was to train people with a real fire, in a large empty lot of
course with a couple of other people standing by with extinguishers of
course). even having used an extinguisher before i found it helpful.
definitely start with a small volume of oil in the lamp, and be prepared
should things start to go out of control. and as you say, definitely
far from the house or anything else combustible or of value. and have a
fire extinguisher handy, or at least a large box of baking soda and/or
bucket of sand. if nothing else it avoids considerable embarrassment
and damage to the prototype if things go badly wrong. it does sound
like a really neat idea though! if you get it working you should post
pictures, and possibly the design (with suitable warnings and
disclaimers, since people have become so litigious and unwilling to take responsibility).
Ian Hooper wrote:
>
> Thnx so much for the many ideas.
>
> My original line of thinking was somewhat along the lines of the cig
> lighter, and the snuffer cone.
> Any "field test" will be carried out well away from the house, better yet,
> in a wading pool. :)
-------
-- “Cowardice asks the question: is it safe? Expediency asks the question:
is it politic? Vanity asks the question: is it popular? But conscience
asks the question: is it right? And there comes a time when one must
take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular- but one
must take it simply because it is right.” : Martin Luther King Jr.
1929-1968 <http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4614717,00.html>
Ideally, if you are going to test feiry substances and ignition sources,
you could stap the light post through a wading pool into the ground, toss
in a liberal quantity of cracked dry ice bits and cover it with a layer of
kitty litter to absorb oil drips and squirts..
If you do build and test the system, please take video... I think a number
of people on this list would be willing to provide webspace for such
educational material...
> If you do build and test the system, please take video... I think
> a number of people on this list would be willing to provide web
> space for such educational material...
So would Health & Safety or Funniest Home Videos ;-)
sorry, dry ice or CO2 is terrible for putting out fires, the standard
for systems in enclosed areas is a 50% concentration! or put another
way, i've seen wheeled CO2 extinguishers, they have about the same fire
fighting rating as a 2.5 pound dry chemical extinguisher! they used to
say "No, CO2 won't harm electronics, hell it won't hurt the fire!". CO2
is sadly used for movie and tv work because it's "clean", if people
filmed with dry chem units it would be much, much more interesting!
They work great, but the mess.... now clay is probably much better than
CO2.
sodium or potassium bicarbonate actually tends to saponify hydrocarbons,
lowering their vapor pressure which is one of the main reasons they
work, i.e. they reduce the amount of vapor generated by raising the
boiling point, in addition to simply smothering the flame (which is why
it's used in extinguishers designed for flammable liquids, the material
in all purpose extinguishers just tends to coat things). i think it's
similar to polymerization, but i've never seen the chemistry properly
explained in detail other than saying "saponification". it's not
obvious because this only happens quickly when the oil is hot. it's
good to know these tidbits when doing a practical experiment.
sadly hallon works great and is clean, but destroys the ozone layer
(though it's reasonably safe to breath in the normal concentrations
used, at least for short periods). it's replacements are all grossly
inferior in one way or another. oddly the property that made
fluorocarbons so perfect, their chemical inertness, is actually the
problem. it takes years for the fluorocarbon to get up to the ozone
layer, but it's so chemically stable that it eventually makes it there.
the replacements are designed to be less stable and break down long
before they get to the ozone layer, and that lower chemical stability of
course causes other problems as in most engineering problems.
but really, keep your' oil fires away from water, it doesn't help. in
fact when we trained people the test fire we used was gasoline floating
on a water layer to spread it out (this also absorbed the powder soon
after the fire was out so it could easily be relit). we did this in a
55 gallon drum cut in half lengthwise, a good size fire for training.
one of the refineries did their own training with much larger fires and
150 pound or 300 pound wheeled dry chem units, now those are a fire
extinguisher! (complete with a 100' hose!).
.....martinbKILLspam.....sonic.net wrote:
>
> Ideally, if you are going to test feiry substances and ignition sources,
> you could stap the light post through a wading pool into the ground, toss
> in a liberal quantity of cracked dry ice bits and cover it with a layer of
> kitty litter to absorb oil drips and squirts..
--------
--
Just the truth Corporate controlled news is white washing, the real
motives and aims of heir Bush:
www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6895.htm
<www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5069215-103677,00.html>
www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7369.htm
www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7370.htm
____________________________________________
> but really, keep your' oil fires away from water, it doesn't help. in
> fact when we trained people the test fire we used was gasoline floating
> on a water layer to spread it out
For most fun float gasoline on high concentration hydrogen peroxide.
Burns gently to itself for quite a while, then...
Stand well back. Don't try this at home. YMMV ...
:-)
>>but really, keep your' oil fires away from water, it doesn't help. in
>>fact when we trained people the test fire we used was gasoline floating
>>on a water layer to spread it out
>
>For most fun float gasoline on high concentration hydrogen peroxide.
>Burns gently to itself for quite a while, then...
>Stand well back. Don't try this at home. YMMV ...
>:-)
>>For most fun float gasoline on high concentration hydrogen peroxide.
>>Burns gently to itself for quite a while, then...
>>Stand well back. Don't try this at home. YMMV ...
>>:-)
>
> Add a little soap and shake?
> Hypergolic Napalm??
No shaking needed. And it's not hypergolic - you do need to light it. It
burns nicely enough (if you consider a gasoline fire docile) and the
peroxide temperature rises and I suspect it differentially evaporates (which
would increase the peroxide concentration). Sooner or later it gets to the
point where the peroxide has had enough and goes into rapid decomposition
which really excites the gasoline with the released oxygen which really
enthuses the peroxide which .....
Very impressive bang I'm told. Or so Clarke of the fantastically interesting
& educational "Ignition!" * fame recounts. (The "!" in the title is no
mistake).
RM
John Clarke. "Ignition! - an informal history of liquid rocket propellants".
A must read for any rocketry buff, and anyone else who likes extremely witty
and interesting technical tales.
>>\
>>Add a little soap and shake?
>>Hypergolic Napalm??
>
>No shaking needed. And it's not hypergolic - you do need to light it. It
>burns nicely enough (if you consider a gasoline fire docile) and the
>peroxide temperature rises and I suspect it differentially evaporates
>(which would increase the peroxide concentration). Sooner or later it gets
>to the point where the peroxide has had enough and goes into rapid
>decomposition which really excites the gasoline with the released oxygen
>which really enthuses the peroxide which .....
On Nov 26, 2004, at 10:49 AM, the madscientist wrote:
> honest, you need a hot wire etc., you have to heat things hot enough to
> volatilize the oil before there's any vapor to ignite. doing it with a
> spark will erode a lot of wick etc. and wear electrodes rapidly in most
> cases, and be power inefficient and overly complex.
To light an oil lamp, I think you end up needing both. A hot wire will
heat the oil till it vaporizes, but a hot wire sucks at igniting vapors.
A spark will ignite vapors, but sucks at heating oil or wax on a wick
hot
enough to produce vapors.
Most things I've seen along these lines (self-lighting candles for magic
acts, for instance) end up faking the "lamp" with some sort of gas flame
(see "Dunninger's Encyclopedia of Magic", for instance.) I sort of
suspect that the easiest overall solution is to rig some sort of butane
torch and spark "ignitor unit" to ignite the wick as a secondary flame.
Butane has (should have) low enough pressures to control with
electrically
operated valves, and spark ignitors are well-understood off-the-shelf
items.
Actually, the purpose of the Dry Ice is to keep spilled oil below the flah
point as it is adsorbed onto the kitty litter, and it does so without the
nasty side effects that water would have. This is a standard trick for
handling oil in certain venues...keeps it viscous and porevents vapour
accumulation. Once every thing is soaked into the kitty litter, ou can burn
it off in a barbecue, fire pit of=r the trunk of a car on top of the gas
tank...woops, did I say that out loud?
> Dave VanHorn wrote:
>
>>
>> Don't they implement the "Halt and catch fire" instruction?
>
> Heh... or the old Unix joke in lp.c ... Any return indication from a printer
> other than "out of paper" or "offline" defaults to "on fire".
>
> lpt0 on fire!
I understand that some early laser printers actually did catch fire from
time to time (fuser thermostat bad or something like that)
Peter
____________________________________________
I have a copy of Dunninger's somewhere around here; a veritable cornucopia
of ways to burn, poison and otherwise hurt oneself. The ole "light a
cigarette with an ice cube" by means of a pellet of potassium comes to mind.
Lots of fun.
just one of the many reasons not to play with oxidizers if you don't
know what you are doing! that sounds highly, highly exciting, in all
the wrong ways if someone isn't careful! an amusing thought though!
Russell McMahon wrote:
-----
> For most fun float gasoline on high concentration hydrogen peroxide.
> Burns gently to itself for quite a while, then...
> Stand well back. Don't try this at home. YMMV ...
> :-)
------
--
Just the truth Corporate controlled news is white washing, the real
motives and aims of heir Bush:
www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6895.htm
<www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5069215-103677,00.html>
www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7369.htm
www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7370.htm
____________________________________________
it is truly a joy to know that someone else knows what "hypergolic"
means. one of my favorite concepts since being made aware of it in high
school. or even more fun, hypergolic with air, for truly special occasions.
for those who don't know better, don't try that even with ordinary
hydrogen peroxide until after you look up hypergolic, or you will be
learning the hard way, as well as learning a new appreciation for that phrase.
Dave VanHorn wrote:
------
> Add a little soap and shake?
> Hypergolic Napalm??
-----
--
Just the truth Corporate controlled news is white washing, the real
motives and aims of heir Bush:
www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6895.htm
<www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5069215-103677,00.html>
www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7369.htm
www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7370.htm
____________________________________________
i'll have to read that, and i suspect that if stored it would indeed
become hypergolic at some point, particularly with impurities in the
gasoline in a closed container. i.e. you might easily get enough free
oxygen eventually to reach the flash point at your' local temperature.
> No shaking needed. And it's not hypergolic - you do need to light it. It
> burns nicely enough (if you consider a gasoline fire docile) and the
> peroxide temperature rises and I suspect it differentially evaporates (which
> would increase the peroxide concentration). Sooner or later it gets to the
> point where the peroxide has had enough and goes into rapid decomposition
> which really excites the gasoline with the released oxygen which really
> enthuses the peroxide which .....
>
> Very impressive bang I'm told. Or so Clarke of the fantastically interesting
> & educational "Ignition!" * fame recounts. (The "!" in the title is no
> mistake).
>
> RM
>
> John Clarke. "Ignition! - an informal history of liquid rocket propellants".
> A must read for any rocketry buff, and anyone else who likes extremely witty
> and interesting technical tales.
------
--
Just the truth Corporate controlled news is white washing, the real
motives and aims of heir Bush:
www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6895.htm
<www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5069215-103677,00.html>
www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7369.htm
www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7370.htm
____________________________________________
you are doubtless correct. you would need both, or a butane/propane,
etc. starter. any of the common hydrocarbon liquefied gases are easy to
control and have a low enough pressure at most temperatures, i.e.
natural gas, methane, propane, butane, not acetylene though it's
problematic at best any way (since it explodes in it's "free" state
above 30psia or so or 15 psi relative to sea level, in tanks it has to
be dissolved to safely get higher pressures, worse yet the explosion is
just a decomposition and produces a large cloud of flamable/explosive
gas! i've never had the region between the tank and regulator explained
to me though, which would seem to be a problem).
> To light an oil lamp, I think you end up needing both. A hot wire will
> heat the oil till it vaporizes, but a hot wire sucks at igniting vapors.
> A spark will ignite vapors, but sucks at heating oil or wax on a wick
> hot
> enough to produce vapors.
>
> Most things I've seen along these lines (self-lighting candles for magic
> acts, for instance) end up faking the "lamp" with some sort of gas flame
> (see "Dunninger's Encyclopedia of Magic", for instance.) I sort of
> suspect that the easiest overall solution is to rig some sort of butane
> torch and spark "ignitor unit" to ignite the wick as a secondary flame.
> Butane has (should have) low enough pressures to control with
> electrically
> operated valves, and spark ignitors are well-understood off-the-shelf
> items.
------
--
Just the truth Corporate controlled news is white washing, the real
motives and aims of heir Bush:
www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6895.htm
<www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5069215-103677,00.html>
www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7369.htm
www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7370.htm
____________________________________________
> for those who don't know better, don't try that even with ordinary
> hydrogen peroxide until after you look up hypergolic, or you will be
> learning the hard way, as well as learning a new appreciation for that
> phrase
Back when I was a resin chemist we were forever warning sales
reps about exothermic reactions. Not quite instantly hypergolic
but dangerous nonetheless. They finally had the point rammed
home when a fibreglass/polyester rep put into a box in the boot
of his car - two glass jars contain MEKP (methy ethyl ketone
peroxide) catalyst, cobalt naphthenate promoter and a 2l plastic
(!!!) container of styrene monomer
The jars clinked together and broke...... a Toyota Corolla burns
for an awful long time
ah, well in that case thanks for the tip! i had failed to consider the
chilling effect if enough dry ice was used.
Martin Baker wrote:
>
> Actually, the purpose of the Dry Ice is to keep spilled oil below the flah
> point as it is adsorbed onto the kitty litter, and it does so without the
> nasty side effects that water would have. This is a standard trick for
> handling oil in certain venues...keeps it viscous and porevents vapour
> accumulation. Once every thing is soaked into the kitty litter, ou can burn
> it off in a barbecue, fire pit of=r the trunk of a car on top of the gas
> tank...woops, did I say that out loud?
----
--
Just the truth Corporate controlled news is white washing, the real
motives and aims of heir Bush:
www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6895.htm
<www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5069215-103677,00.html>
www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7369.htm
www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7370.htm
____________________________________________
it wouldn't surprise me. they use a high temperature to melt the toner.
in fact, one early model of xerox copier had a built in CO2 fire
extinguishing system they had so many problems! i'll never forget
hearing how there was such a machine at the white house which did catch
fire, and a couple of secret service guys had to quickly grab it, run it
down the hall and throw it out the window! i'm sure the tech was amused
and xerox was suitably embarrassed for having caused such a scare with a
poorly designed model they were dumb enough to put in the white house,
where things like unexpected fires are frowned on even more than in most
places! my father was a fairly early xerox tech, i'm fairly sure the
above did happen. it was certainly a bad solution to the design flaw.
"Peter L. Peres" wrote:
>
> On Fri, 26 Nov 2004, Nate Duehr wrote:
>
> > Dave VanHorn wrote:
------
> > lpt0 on fire!
>
> I understand that some early laser printers actually did catch fire from
> time to time (fuser thermostat bad or something like that)
---------
--
Just the truth Corporate controlled news is white washing, the real
motives and aims of heir Bush:
www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6895.htm
<www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5069215-103677,00.html>
www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7369.htm
www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7370.htm
____________________________________________
i would think that just "methy ethyl ketone peroxide" would be dangerous
enough by itself! wouldn't that be a mono-propelant to an extent? i
seem to recall that most organic peroxides are somewhat unstable. never
had any organic chemistry other than small bits picked up. it is
something i want to learn eventually.
those "practical" demonstrations do seem to be the best way to convince
some people however. of course putting things in glass jars and then
putting those jars in the trunk invites trouble with nearly any useful chemical.
Jinx wrote:
--------
> Back when I was a resin chemist we were forever warning sales
> reps about exothermic reactions. Not quite instantly hypergolic
> but dangerous nonetheless. They finally had the point rammed
> home when a fibreglass/polyester rep put into a box in the boot
> of his car - two glass jars contain MEKP (methy ethyl ketone
> peroxide) catalyst, cobalt naphthenate promoter and a 2l plastic
> (!!!) container of styrene monomer
>
> The jars clinked together and broke...... a Toyota Corolla burns
> for an awful long time
-------------
------
--
Just the truth Corporate controlled news is white washing, the real
motives and aims of heir Bush:
www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6895.htm
<www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5069215-103677,00.html>
www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7369.htm
www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7370.htm
____________________________________________
thanks for that great link! most people have no idea how dangerous
things can become simply because they sit around for a long time without
though. it's fortunate those at the plant didn't just move it, and that
no one did anything casually to set it off.
Dave VanHorn wrote:
>
> Just an old tank in the basement.
>
> www.fireworld.com/magazine/deactivating.html
> --------
--
Just the truth Corporate controlled news is white washing, the real
motives and aims of heir Bush:
www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6895.htm
<www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5069215-103677,00.html>
www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7369.htm
www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7370.htm
____________________________________________
> i would think that just "methy ethyl ketone peroxide" would be
> dangerous enough by itself! wouldn't that be a mono-propelant
> to an extent?
Peroxides in resin use are often dissolved in and moderated by
phthalates so they're more of a combustion hazard. If you get
the conditions wrong/right they can go bang. For example acetyl
peroxide is shock sensitive, especially if it's allowed to get cold and
cystallise. And we did periodic checks on the ether bottles for any
formation of ether peroxide crystals. We never did find any at our
branch but the other did and was evacuated and the fire brigade
took advice from the army bomb squad
And back to practical safety lessons - one mad bastard in the QC
lab next door tried his hand, very successfully, at making ammonium
tri-iodide. He put it all over the place - under mats, in keyholes
and door catches. As soon as he got busted he was sacked on the
spot. No ifs buts maybes, clear your desk, hurry up, bye-bye.
Completely mental. A lab (and yard) full of solvents, hydrogen
cyclinders, and assorted ugly stuff like flammable isocyanates, very
very nasty chromic acid and he's planting mini-bombs. For a laugh
On Nov 27, 2004, at 11:35 AM, the madscientist wrote:
> there was such a machine at the white house which did catch
> fire, and a couple of secret service guys had to quickly grab it, run
> it
> down the hall and throw it out the window!
Did they lack fire extinguishers, or were they just in fear that "where
there's inexplicable fire, there might be explosives"
_Shut off_
A spring pulls the wick down into the oil. (no wick = no fire)
At operation a small solenoid pulls it up. (= auto shut off when power failure)
The solenoid/spring arrangement can be in the oil. (antifreeze and lubrication)
_Ignition_
For my grandfathers inventions i once made a hot spark device that can even ignite wood stick by spark alone!
The trick is to make such frequent sparks that the air get very hot, and you will have an arc through air plasma. Looking very nice BTW.
Make that spark cross the wick, and it wil heat up to oil boiling point and then ignite in one or 2 seconds.
I guess you can use what i used for the prototype: a moped engine ignition coil!
(probably other types will do too, like a lawn mover engine coil)
Normal car ignition coil have too large inductance to be charged easily quickly enough. On the moped ignition coil i cut off the ends of the core (the part that extends to the magnet wheel) to further reduce inductance.
Then i connected "ground" to +12V, and the wire normally for the comb switch i connected to a high voltage power switch transistor to ground. Fed it wit a couple kHz and about 90% duty cycle. A cap about 100nF across the transistor. Be sure to arrange for quick shut off, so power is not lost.
BU208D NPN such as found in many TV sets vill do good. Or even better, a mosfet rated min 500V (or more depending on your coil, cap, and gap), and max 2 ohm on resistance.
Beware of high voltage peaks when transistor shuts off - some hundred volts primary. Always connect secondary to spark gap, or you will blow the isolation in the coil, or tranny, or... Also of course use decoupling caps.
"Comb switch": probably wrong word - i mean the switch that is operated by the comb to fire the spark each engine turn.
Protect so it is impossible to touch the ignition wire. I never tried, but i guess the power is anough to kill a person with a weak heart!
For oscillator you can use the standrad '555, plus suitable discrete drive stage.
Ose an oscilloscope and put in a series resistor to monitor waveform of the current, sou you can see when the coil saturates, and experiment with shorter dead-time.
If you have or make a high voltage probe, than also monitor primary voltage. Experimenting with dead-time/frequiency and capacitor you can turn on transistor again as soon as voltage dips after spark discharge to optimise.
While experimenting: keep an eye -or rather finger tip- on the coil core temperature!
Careful!
OK... you could use aPIC instead of the 555, but you need more components for IC supply, adjusting, and more drive stage components...
>Here's a rather strange one: I've had the clever notion that I'd like to
>operate my garden lights by means of a PIC-based timer. The catch is that I
>wish to use oil lamps, not the usual 12V bulbs. My dillema occurs in trying
>to devise a method of electronic ignition for an oil lamp; so far my
>experiments have produced unimpressive results by using a simple spark
>ignitor. Has anyone else toyed with such a system and have any ideas of what
>I might try to safely, and consitently light an oil lantern?
>
>thnx
>
>ian
>
>
i'm sure it was motivated by an extremely aggressive security policy,
i.e. where there's fire who knows what else or why, get it the hell out
fast! i'm sure that anything that catches on fire now is even more
likely to be thrown out the nearest window, or for that matter anything
that smells funny.
William Chops Westfield wrote:
>
> On Nov 27, 2004, at 11:35 AM, the madscientist wrote:
>
> > there was such a machine at the white house which did catch
> > fire, and a couple of secret service guys had to quickly grab it, run
> > it
> > down the hall and throw it out the window!
>
> Did they lack fire extinguishers, or were they just in fear that "where
> there's inexplicable fire, there might be explosives"
-------
--
Just the truth Corporate controlled news is white washing, the real
motives and aims of heir Bush:
www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6895.htm
<www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5069215-103677,00.html>
www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7369.htm
www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7370.htm
____________________________________________
KILLspaminterlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
