Forums > Social Discussion > eco friendly fire fuel?

Posted: 13th Aug 2010
The CO2 released from spinning is completely insignificant. A lot of the carbon is lost as soot or CO anyway.

The only major environmental impact comes from unburnt fuel. Most (/all) are toxic and can kill plants / fish / animals (they will also do nasty things to your skin).

Posted: 13th Aug 2010
Yup, just make sure to spin off really well and clean up after your show. Most performers are pretty eco-friendly types.

Don't let your world end with you

p.s. No, just in case you're going to ask, I did not misspell Warrior, its supposed to be like that.

Posted: 14th Aug 2010
Originally Posted By: WDMost performers are pretty eco-friendly types.

*cough* how ... I mean just *how* could you tell?

Originally Posted By: SeyeThe CO2 released from spinning is completely insignificant. A lot of the carbon is lost as soot or CO anyway.

that's great news any links where you could back it up?
Judging from its smell and smoke, this stuff IS hazardous... but learning something new every day

Thanks for raising the issue, lightninrob

the best smiles are the ones you lead to

Posted: 15th Aug 2010
Originally Posted By: FireTom
Originally Posted By: SeyeThe CO2 released from spinning is completely insignificant. A lot of the carbon is lost as soot or CO anyway.

that's great news any links where you could back it up?
Judging from its smell and smoke, this stuff IS hazardous... but learning something new every day
Don't really need links. Paraffin (kerosene) flames look nice because they contain a lot of soot. That makes for good flames in moving wicks (if you ever used very hot, clean fuels you'll notice that the flames just don't look as nice). Also - when spinning you get covered in soot.
This suggests incomplete combustion (in a massive way) meaning that a lot of the carbon forms CO or just C meaning that you get a lot less CO2 than if you burned it in a more efficient way (allowing it access to more oxygen maybe).

Since paraffin is a mixture of alkanes and not a single substance (the name kerosene is a a brand name that should probably not be used as it suggests alkenes as opposed to alkanes which have entirely different properties) it is hard to say what the exact products from burning will be. Most of them, in the concentrations you will acquire from spinning, are pretty harmless unless you do it all the time and even in that case the major health issue comes from smoke inhalation (carbon particles in the lungs).

Other fuels (meths for example) produce toxic vapours and coloured flames produce smoke particles that contain metals (not good for you at all).

The other point still stands anyway: The paraffin used by the entire firsepinning community produces a completely insignificant amount of CO2.

Besides - if you want to have fire (in the conventional sense) you need to combine some form of carbon with oxygen. This will always produce C, CO, & CO2 in varying quantities.

The true envorimental issue is with the liquid fuel and its toxicity.

Posted: 15th Aug 2010
Originally Posted By: FireTomOriginally Posted By: WDMost performers are pretty eco-friendly types.

*cough* how ... I mean just *how* could you tell?

Juuuuuuuuuust a wild guess. Never said I was eco-friendly. I'm not eco-harmful though. I mean I usually spin in concrete areas and ain't too worried about the gas cause I'm a welder by trade.

Don't let your world end with you

p.s. No, just in case you're going to ask, I did not misspell Warrior, its supposed to be like that.

Posted: 17th Aug 2010
Seye: you might be right on the CO² content of lamp oil (which is what most people I know use for spinning) - only on the accounts on the fact that I can't dig out any reasonable sources that claim otherwise...

Wiki-Answers claims on the question "What is the balanced equation for the combustion of lamp oil (C12H26)?"

2c12 h26 + 37o2 ---> 26h2o + 24co2

I'm not a chemist (hardly know how to use Oogle as to get a satisfying answer to the topic ) so I really can't say what this means or what "+24co2" tries to indicate

Agowa.eu says:

Originally Posted By: Agowa websiteConventional lamp oil on the market is based on petroleum and crude oil. It is extremely toxic and each year children the world over ingest the oil by accident – and unfortunately many of them die as a result of the toxicity of the oil. In addition to being extremely toxic when ingested, conventional oil also emits harmful, airborne particles.

But now I get THIS on page 3, claiming:

Originally Posted By: publicationIn this demonstration, we review basic chemistry (figure 1) to realize that producing CO2 is an inevitable waste product of burning any fossil fuel.

So, I'm not sure - it also takes more time to research than I would have at my disposition right now. I do wonder how you could be that sure, judging from attractiveness of flames alone

However, if lamp oil indeed would not have CO² as an end product, its remains (after combustion) could still be toxic to human and the environment.

@WD: honesty goes a long way

the best smiles are the ones you lead to

Posted: 17th Aug 2010
24CO2 is reference to 24 CO2's produced when the reaction is carried out, usually with a delta heat addition, which is needed to sustain the reaction.

So basically, this means that it produces water and carbon dioxide.

Posted: 17th Aug 2010
The issue there is that you can't really write a balanced equation for lamp oil. It is a mixture (slightly different in each batch) of many chemicals, mostly alkanes CnH2n+2 but also naptha(s) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naphtha,
alkenes (CnH2n), various other hydrocarbons and dyes (often to make it yellow so it doesn't look like water).

The equation above is correct if you get complete combustion. Organic chemistry is rarely that simple though. Soot (very much present when spinning with paraffin) is particles of pure C.

A more realistic equation (for one alkene) is:

C8H18 + ?O2 => ?C + ?CO + ?CO2 + ?H2O

If you burn it in pure oxygen you would get the equation that you posted but in air you would get the one above.

You are unlikely to vapourise enough of the paraffin to make it dangerous as a gas and it is extremely heavy as a vapour anyway so would soon reach the floor. The real problem is that some of the constituent chemicals are toxic to plant / animal / water life. It has been reporetd that relatively small amounts getting into ponds have killed fish and plants.

Again though - if you want fire you have to produce CO2. Although the amount the entire firespinning community produces in one year is probably less than that produced by a single transatlantic flight.
I'd imagine it is more important to make sure that all the lightbulbs in your house are flourescent rather than tungsten filament.

Posted: 17th Aug 2010
Yeah... There'd probably be elements of nitrogen and so forth in there as well.

Maybe I should bring it up in Ochem at school...

Posted: 17th Aug 2010
Originally Posted By: FireTomSo, I'm not sure - it also takes more time to research than I would have at my disposition right now. I do wonder how you could be that sure, judging from attractiveness of flames alone
An A-Level in (2 years of -the old style- experimental and theoretical) Chemistry and one year of my BSc Physics (heavily experimental with 100% in thermodynamics - mostly combustion engine based course) make me reasonably confident

Organic (carbon) chemistry very rarely gives a direct set of produts. Instead it (almost) always produces a range of products whose proportions vary depending on the conditions of the reaction. It is entirely possible to combine the same chemicals under different conditions and acquire a completely different set of end products.

CO2 is definitely an end product of combustion but it is only one of them.

Posted: 17th Aug 2010
Again: I'm absolutely no expert and bow to your qualification in this matter... only I read your formula and it does contain CO²... okay - let it be "insignificant" then.

Originally Posted By: SeyeAgain though - if you want fire you have to produce CO2. Although the amount the entire firespinning community produces in one year is probably less than that produced by a single transatlantic flight.

Now that would be a claim worth looking at (1.2t CO²/passenger/ transatlantic flight) x what... 300 passengers?
Q: how much kerosene is used/ flight?
Q: how much would that kerosene equate to the lamp oil used?
Q: how much lamp oil is used/ spinner/ year (on average, including the Thai boys from Haad Rin)?
Q: how many spinners are there on this planet?

A: cannot be solved, syntax error

the best smiles are the ones you lead to

Posted: 17th Aug 2010
Cannot be solved, but can be approximated...

Theory is a beautiful thing, is it not? xD

Posted: 17th Aug 2010
I would say we trump one transatlantic flight to be honest.

The only luck is bad luck.

Shut up before I stall my poi up your ass

Posted: 17th Aug 2010
Originally Posted By: SpinnerofDetroitI would say we trump one transatlantic flight to be honest.
Yeah - Thinking about it I could have picked a better comparison. But still, the amount of fuel burned by spinners is insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

Posted: 17th Aug 2010
Well apparently, cows cause global warming. Though I personally find the author of that article to be a bit extremist (read some of the comments).

But that's a completely different subject The point is, fire spinning probably doesn't affect the environment in a significantly negative way.

Impermanent are all created things;
Strive on with awareness.
- Buddha

Posted: 18th Aug 2010
point is that most things (on themselves alone) don't affect the environment in a significant negative way... much depending whether you are looking at it in the great scheme of things or not and if you would - which timespan you apply...

the best smiles are the ones you lead to

Posted: 17th Sep 2011
I have another question regarding these matters (if still any sciency or environmentalist guys are out there!)...

Q: How is the kerosene or paraffin (the above concluded insignificant fuel when it comes to releasing CO2) created in the first place? As in what resources and what kind of haul on the planet does it take, to make this wonderful liquid I use to impress girls with and make money off!!!

*disregard last comment, I'm quite interested in this topic actually. Being a frequent fire spinner for years, I'd like to know what I'm actually taking part in. And burning the fuel is just one aspect, I really fear the production might be the biggest culprit in these matters. But please, enlighten me anyone!!!

Posted: 19th Sep 2011
There are 2 ways I can think of to obtain kerosene...
fractional distillation from crude oil: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_distillation#Industrial_distillation
or cracking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cracking_%28chemistry%29
(much more likely the former but, the latter is becoming more common as oil reserves become more valuable)

So most kero is a product of the petrochemical industry.

With that said it is probably more environmentally friendly than glow spinning as you still need electricity (probably from a carbon fuelled generator) and the mining of the necessary materials (which can be amazingly rare) is quite often environmentally destructive.

Basically, there's no way to spin at night that's environmentally neutral.
EDITED_BY: Seye (1316453559)

Posted: 20th Sep 2011
Kerosene used in jet fuel is combusted far more efficiently due to air fed jet engines allowing greater oxygen flow through the fuel for more complete combustion.

Have to back up Seye here. YES CO2 is produced but as he says is incompletely combusted. based upon A-Level organic carbon chemistry and BSc ini Life sciences including ecology.

Seye - You could spin at night naked, with hemp tail poi that wouldn't be too bad.

(well not you, no offense but... well not you )

A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.

Posted: 21st Sep 2011
I wholeheartedly agree. There's no need for me to be naked in public. Spinning or otherwise.

Posted: 29th Sep 2011
I once tried to formulate a more eco-friendly fuel by mixing kero with coconut oil. Some tropical countries use coconut oil in fuel mixes to run diesel engines. Trouble is I live in the UK, and coconut oil tends to be solid for most of the year here. So that didn't help. Maybe I should try some more experiments...

Just thought I'd throw that in for no good reason.

"Love the art in yourself and not yourself in the art."
--Konstantin Stanislavisky

Posted: 29th Sep 2011
Oh yeah, and low grade olive oil is sometimes known as lampante oil. They used to burn it in lanterns in ancient Greece...

"Love the art in yourself and not yourself in the art."
--Konstantin Stanislavisky

Posted: 18th Nov 2011
taken energy from the planet is always taken.
plant based fuels, burns and releases co2, wich the plants contain to keep our atmosphere cleaner, and it gets released in a more controled way.

electricity from rivers, can destroy eco systems up the dam...

take energy will never be a partnership between the planet and us humans. we interfere with something we have vague knowledge of, and we play for economic winnings, so eaven though we dont know every thing we make comprimises on it.

and takeing the bus or the production of your tires to your bicycle probably contaminated the world more then your spinning.

but as mentioned spinners seem to be fairly not eco friendly, but knowledgeable about harmonies and flows and this is probably the best we humans can give back to mother earth.

sure it looks better with eco stuff, might feel better and it open up our fellow humans eyes. but use ur fuel of choice and make ur bicycle wheels ur self from wood and u save the envirement more.

Posted: 12th Apr 2012
I recently spun with some B100 (100% vegetable oil)and it works great!. It does give off a lot of smoke( which just smells like french fries)and doesn't burn as bright as white gas. But I got a good 5 minute burn using 2" cathedrals which I spun out extra good as I heard it can spit a lot of fuel if you don't. You have to be more patient when waiting for the wick to fully light up, but once it has enough flame you can spin it as fast as you want. The only time I visually noticed fuel spinning off is when i was snapping the wicks off my hands when doing spiral wraps. Some people say the smoke is more toxic than burning white gas or paraffin but I don't buy that for a minute. You don't see warning labels on cooking oil that say " Burning this creates byproducts known to cause CANCER, BIRTH DEFECTS AND MISCARRIAGE" like the label on the back of ultra-pure paraffin.

Posted: 13th Apr 2012
that's probably because cooking oil isn't designed to be burnt. it's to act as a medium for heat transfer / lubrication or some such not because it is in any way formed differently. It will still essentially be a hydrocarbon however so the black smoke will still contain soot and CO2 due to incomplete combustion. There is a reason you can run a Diesel car on veg oil with only a little modification.

Veg oil is a triglyceride so instead of a single chain of carbon atoms with Hydrogen attached to the sides like oil it is 3 chains joined together with a couple of Oxygen atoms thrown in. so essentially the same materials the same chemical process and the same waste. it is essentially 3 chains of diesel held together with Glycerol.

Don't go sucking down those fumes just yet

A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.

Posted: 15th Apr 2012
I guess I wasn't thinking of co2 as much as toxicity in general, though biodiesel is actually co2 neutral due to the fact that it is part of a closed cycle.The oil producing plants(which absorb co2) are grown to make fryer oil which is then used to make biodiesel.
Unlike petroleum products which are made from fossil fuels pumped up from the ground .Biodiesel definitely burns cleaner than diesel. The smoke itself from biodiesel is actually more white than black and it certainly doesn't feel as toxic to breathe. The reason you can run a diesel engine on veggie oil with little modification is that Rudolph Diesel who invented the diesel engine, designed it to run on peanut oil. I am not a scientist but it seems like the toxicity of the fumes and spin off which goes into the ground from biodiesel is much less harmful than kerosene,white gas or lamp oil.

Here is some information from a biodiesel information website:
"Reduces exhaust emissions
Biodiesel substantially reduces exhaust emissions (unburned hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and particulate matter). It contains naturally occurring oxygen, which enables the fuel to burn more completely and all but eliminate the black smoke normally associated with diesel engines."

It is not the most ideal fuel for fire performance, but is absolutely better for the environment.

EDITED_BY: Taschner (1337195249)

Posted: 28th Apr 2012
Has anyone tried the Agowa lamp oil that Fire Tom got his link from? It is made by a Danish company and is totally non-toxic and vegetable based. But unlike biodiesel it is as clear as water and has a flash point of only 160 degrees f?!