There will always be problems. With most problems come solutions. I'm not buying the ethanol makes my stove explode narrative without some scientific evidence. "I saw it happen once" isn't evidence. It can be a data point, though. Correlation isn't causation, either. Let's for a moment, consider the claims valid. What can we do to mitigate the danger and still get our cheap fuel? Perhaps a simple gram or two of aluminum foil as a heat reflector perhaps under the valve? What of the possible benefit of faster self pressurization? BONUS! No? Ethanol was originally touted here in the US to help farmers. It created a market for corn. And DDGs(distillers dried grain, the leftovers from ethanol production) made great a great feed ingredient. Now were really making money! Ethanol plants sprang up everywhere. Many cars had problems with parts that didn't play well with ethanol, but the auto industry reacted quickly and those problems went away. Not so much for small engines and outdoor power equipment. For some reason, they never got a handle on ethanol solutions. Batteries will be their downfall. Ethanol became a political football as many things do these days. It's good when my guy supports it, but if YOUR guy supports it, well, it's not so good anymore. It's ridiculous really. Then MTBE, a gasoline additive that replaced tetraethyl lead for octane boosting was found to be not such a safe additive as they once believed. It was showing up in ground water everywhere. So guess what replaced it? Ethanol. Seems ethanol does a really good job in most cars and other equipment as long as you don't let your equipment set for long periods. The vast majority of gasoline sold in the us is at least 10% ethanol. But for another dollar per gallon, you can get ethanol free gasoline, but it's not always easy to find. I don't know what they use to boost the octane rating in it though. Oh well another problem with another solution for another day. I don't like burning pump gasoline in my stoves and lanterns because it stinks. Not so much when burning as when spilled. And the stink lingers. Kind of like kerosene, but different.
You guys have convinced me that it's a bad idea to use auto unleaded in a self-pressurizing stove. The only time I would consider it is if one is out far away from the nearest store and the only option is a gas station. I've used it once or twice and haven't had any issues (other than the smell), but I now understand the risk I'd be taking with it overheating and overpressurizing.
Although Staffan doesn't mention ethanol (that was someone else) if a ex owner of the Optimus company (in a period where a lot of their models were 'white gas") states there's an issue with automotive fuel in these small, self-pressurising stove I think folk should take note. Optimus svea 123R disaster & Optimus svea 123R disaster
I'm pretty direct and may sound condescending. That is not my intent at all. I to use sarcasm quite a bit. The typed word can be easily misinterpreted. I'm not pointing fingers, but if I was, I'd be point them in several directions, and one of them would be in the mirror. I am not an engineer. I don't know it all. At the same time, I don't just accept claims as facts either. I require evidence. The real kind. Show me sufficient evidence and convince me. If the evidence is there, I'll change my stance. So, I'm not willing or ready to die on this hill just yet, but I've been through the "never use auto fuel or your stove will clog up immediately and your future kids will be born with 6 fingers on each hand." stuff before. And it was quite frankly, bull dung. Is car gas better for stoves and lanterns? Certainly not. But if you factor in the economics over time, it very well could be. Again, I'm a guy that requires evidence, not rumor. Not second hand stories from Uncle Willy. Not assumptions about why something isn't recommended by someone connecting dots where they don't connect in reality. Correlation is not causation. Coincidences happen all the time. We humans are a pattern seeking problem solving species. Our brain wants to fill in gaps with the best current information it has. But that's sometimes not enough. A single instance of conclusion jumping isn't likely to keep the sun from rising tomorrow, but when it gets repeated and taken as fact, that's a problem. I was part of that problem for years. Many good, well meaning folks, whose opinions I respected and still respect told me that auto fuel would ruin appliances and clog generators, quick, fast, and in a hurry. Stay away from that stuff. But I looked at the "Dual fuel" stuff and found that there was NOTHING special about it. Just incompatible sizes and shapes. Then Frank Bebb ran a 65+ tank side by side test(65 tanks of coleman in one, 65 tanks of pump gas in the other) in two identical 200a lanterns with no issues and no maintenance performed. How long would it take you to go through 65 tanks of fuel? Well i can tell you in that test it was real close to 650 hours. Both were running just fine at the end. If you're reading this, hang in there Frank, you are loved, Sir! Clearly a Coleman 200A is not a Svea 123. So while that test is pretty convincing, it would be wrong to extrapolate that test to this and say that those results would apply to a stove with a completely different mode of operation. So, the manufacturer doesn't recommend auto gas in a particular stove. Does anyone have documentation? If so, please post it here. Was it accompanied by a red danger sign? My point, simply recommending to only use x doesn't mean much these days. Coleman, for decades, said only use Coleman Fuel. Go figure. That was in an age where, in the US, you could easily obtain bulk white gasoline. Have not other 123s exploded using the correct fuel? What is this magic temperature threshold? Was an over sized pot in use without a heat shield? At what pressure does a 123 fount fail? Do we have data on this non-linear pressure spike. I'm guessing is has something to do with a certain boiling point. But pressure increases force boiling points higher. Right? What if there was water in the fount? Does the possibility of a teaspoon of water expanding 1500 times reason for concern about water in the fount? Can we eliminate bad or tampered pressure reliefs as the root cause? Many of these questions may have been answered elsewhere. Links to them are welcomed and appreciated. I understand and respect the abundance of caution. While I own several 123s both varieties along with an 80 and a 71 or two, I have only ran them on Coleman or other brand of "camp fuel". I HAVE run pump gas in lanterns and other stoves and heaters in a pinch several times. I detest the lingering smell of pump gas. But if I was a guide going through several gallons a month, I would certainly go with pump gasoline. A funny and ironic twist: I won't run pump gas in my Mil-spec lanterns, that are designed to run on LEADED gas! The reason, the question mark shaped generators are not maintainable and getting in short supply. Call me a hypocrite if you must.... haha! Have a super week all!
Most of the apparatus you quote there aren't small self pressurised stoves. That design is where the caution is primarily aimed. I did know a couple of old timers who used 80's or 71's that used regular car petrol/gasoline that had regular srv blow outs. Something I never had when I regularly using a 123R on Coleman fuel many years ago. When I use one now I use the similar Aspen 4. I've not changed my MO because of this reported issue but it's another reason not to.
Nobody has claimed a Svea No.123R or other similar self-pressurising stove has 'exploded', as you'll learn from reading this thread, and the thread titled 'Optimus Svea disaster' to which you've been provided the link twice. Nobody has claimed that ethanol is the component in automotive fuel which caused the over-pressurisation in the same thread either, two people speculated that might be the case, while making it clear they were speculating. If you take the time to do some further research, you will find we spend a lot of time dispelling baseless stories of these stoves proving dangerous- the yawn-worthy 'friend of friend' tales, 'Swedish hand grenade' nonsense, and tenth-hand 'bothy tales' which get further from the dull reality with every whisky-addled re-telling. These stoves use miniscule amounts of fuel, so the cost of pure naptha isn't of great consequence, it is also readily available. Naptha does not contain the additives of automotive fuel, so burns cleaner, with less potentially life shortening rubbish getting in the user's lungs. Pure naptha burns with lower CO than paraffin or alcohol. The lack of additives means it does not contaminate the natural fibre wicks used in these stoves, or block the very narrow (~1.5mm) passages inside the burners with deposits. I have direct experience of this occuring, using automotive fuel in self-pressurising stoves and blowlamps of similar design. There is no risk of ill effects of non-linear pressure build up, which Optimus warned against as a potential safety risk, which is enough for most of us to avoid using it. I have no interest in, or experience of, Coleman products- so can't comment- other than I know that their vaporisation mechanics are entirely different to the small self-pressurising stoves being discussed in this thread, so they have no relevance. I wouldn't be surprised if @Stovecamper is too worried to fire up is No.71 now with all this talk of exploding stoves. Don't worry, many tens (more like hundreds) of thousands of small self-pressurising stoves have been made for over a century, and the design is still on sale now. Many early models had no safety valve. Most models from the 1930s onwards had safety valves, and if they failed to operate the base would bulge out, reducing the pressure. They are thoroughly safe if well maintained, and used by somebody knoweldgeable and competent in their use. You are doing exactly the right thing- replace all the seals, perform a 'dunk test', use appropriate fuel which these days is pure naptha, and make a note of when the stove was overhauled so you can change the seals in good time in future as a matter of course.
OK, here is what Wikipedia's AI bot has to say about the question of whether modern auto fuel has a lower boiling point than old leaded gas: "AI Overview Learn more Yes, modern gasoline, especially with the addition of ethanol, tends to have a lower boiling point than older leaded gasoline. This is because ethanol, a common additive, has a lower boiling point than gasoline itself. Leaded gasoline, while also having a boiling point, didn't have the same degree of boiling point variation due to the absence of additives like ethanol. Here's a more detailed explanation: Modern Gasoline Additives: .Opens in new tab Modern gasoline often contains ethanol or other additives, which are added to improve its performance and reduce emissions. These additives can significantly impact the boiling point of the fuel, often lowering it. Leaded Gasoline: .Opens in new tab Leaded gasoline did not have these additives and had a more stable boiling point range. Impact on Vapor Lock: .Opens in new tab The lower boiling point of modern gasoline can increase the likelihood of vapor lock, where the fuel boils in the fuel lines or fuel pump, preventing it from reaching the engine. This is because the fuel can vaporize more easily at lower temperatures. Historical Significance of Leaded Gasoline: .Opens in new tab Leaded gasoline was phased out due to its environmental and health impacts. It was found to be a significant air pollutant and had negative effects on human health, particularly in children. Octane and Boiling Point: .Opens in new tab While octane rating is a measure of fuel's resistance to knocking, it's also related to the boiling point of the fuel. Higher octane fuels generally have a higher boiling point. However, modern gasoline, even with lower boiling points, still maintains a high octane rating. Boiling Point Range: .Opens in new tab Motor gasoline is characterized by its boiling range, typically between 122 to 158 degrees Fahrenheit at the 10 percent recovery point and 365 to 374 degrees Fahrenheit at the 90 percent recovery point." The bot has spoken.
And for old un-leaded gas (the type these older stover were originally designed to run on) vs. modern: "AI Overview Learn more Yes, modern gasoline, especially with the addition of ethanol, tends to have a lower boiling point than older unleaded gasoline. This is due to the different composition of modern fuel, including the inclusion of ethanol, which has a lower boiling point than traditional gasoline components. Here's why this is significant: Vapor Lock: The lower boiling point of modern fuel can lead to vapor lock in older cars, particularly those with carbureted engines. Vapor lock occurs when the fuel boils within the fuel lines or carburetor, creating a vapor bubble that prevents fuel from reaching the engine. Fuel System Issues: The lower boiling point can also affect the performance of fuel systems in older cars, potentially causing issues with fuel delivery and engine operation. Historical Context: Older gasoline formulations were often designed with higher boiling points in mind, which was better suited for the fuel systems and engine designs of that era. Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP): The RVP, which is a measure of a fuel's volatility (and thus its boiling point), has changed significantly over time. In the 1960s, RVP could be as high as 14 lbs, while it can now be as low as 7.2 lbs in California during the summer." I think the last sentence sums it up.
Not being a petrol-head nor using regular gasoline in stoves the ethanol thing isn't something I followed but it started in the 70's from a quick google search - that ties in with the era of Optimus stickering the 123R
I believe you were the one who brought the word explosive to this discussion. THAT is what I picked up on. Someone long ago talked of a stove "detonating", which is.... well.... not a thing. I agree 100 percent on 90 percent of what you're saying. We're not too far off. I'll take 9 out of 10 all day long. now the 10 percent. Cue the music! Haha! I don't know what "pure" naphtha is. It varies in composition from refinery to refinery, crude oil supply to crude oil supply, method of production, with wide variation in the cutoff points both high and low as to which hydrocarbon fractions are included. I suppose the examples you listed prior are considered pure enough for our use. Someone described Aspen as naphtha. This is incorrect. Naphtha is a feed stock in the production of Aspen, which claims to be pure alkylate fuel. Which is the gold standard fuel for "gasoline" fired GPAs, in my opinion. Over a period, in tanks full, do you estimate it took to clog your stove burning petrol? I searched the terms "optimus, stove, non linear pressure build up" and it took me to this thread. Nothing else was close. Nothing from optimus or katadyn was close. I'm not too proud to ask for an assist. Can you share a link to this warning? If not, can you recall what problem was caused by this build up? I'm assuming venting from the relief valve? I know, never assume....... I pretty plainly stated, "Clearly a Coleman 200A is not a Svea 123. So while that test is pretty convincing, it would be wrong to extrapolate that test to this and say that those results would apply to a stove with a completely different mode of operation." But to say that it had "no relevance" and that their "vaporization mechanics are entirely different" is just wild. Fuel touch hot metal. Fuel vaporize. Not rocket science. But the engineering on all of these stoves is pretty cool to me. The lantern test was to show an example of bullshit being passed on as fact. But there is clearly some crossover. You had issues with your stove and auto gas. That's conclusive to you. It's a data point for me. The gasoline I get may be much different than the gasoline you get. I'm not questioning your integrity. I'm trying to collect information to answer the question, "What would make a 123 clog up while a lantern with much smaller passages than the stove has burn just fine for 65 tanks?" If you don't see value in that, then I don't know what to say to you. But inquiring minds want to know. Does North Brent Crude beat Sweet Light Texas Crude? Only time will tell! Seems to be a lot of fear of breathing the emissions from burning "all these additives". Do these same folks own a gasoline powered lawn mower or worse, a leaf blower? What of those emissions? Some stuff to think about or not. I'm not here to fight. I just want solid information to form my position from, get some folks curious enough to look some stuff up. And best case, learn a few things myself. What I want to see most is the warnings from Optimus. Did it apply to 8Rs as well? What of other stove manufacturers. Did their designs escape the disastrous claws of non linear pressure build up? Don't take me to seriously, as I warned in my first sentence in the previous post.
I may have been me that talked about a stove exploding. I was still at school then and had little understanding of the science of stoves. Even so the sequence of events was a large flame around the neck of the stove followed by a loud bang which extiguished one of the two Tilley lanterns in the hut. We never did find the burner. To me that still rates as an explosion. As for fuel clogged stoves. I was given a Radius 42 which the owner had said had only ever run on automotive petrol including the leaded petrol. Never missed a beat and the only thing Ive done to is was paint it. Other peoples mileage may vary
Now that's the kind of stove memory that'll stick with you!! If it went "bang" it counts. Not finding the burner is both scary and impressive. Haha! So glad you're here to tell the story! Hoping to get some back and forth with some folks who've had poorer luck with auto petrol as well. Probably need to start a fresh thread or are there dozens already on the subject?
I'll agree my chemistry is wayward regards nahptha, which I can't even spell properly with this keyboard! There isn't really another quick and convenient way to cover Solvent panel wipe/Holts brake cleaner/Aspen 4T/Coleman fuel. Yes, but prefixed by the word 'almost', and in the context of pressure buildup, not of brass pressure vessels going boom. They appear in stove instructions from the 1970s onwards, and on stickers on stove tanks. You'll know that though from reading the thread which has been linked to three times. You won't be able to access the instructions though, as they are in the subscriber's area. By this time, Optimus had bought out the other Swedish manufacturers, and were the main manufacturer of self-pressurising 'petrol' stoves. A 1979 Optimus No.8r instruction sheet on this site warns against automotive fuel, as do 1977 instructions for the No.99. You'll find examples of No.123Rs and No.8Rs with warning stickers in the stove reference gallery. Optimus never released an explaination to the public as far as I know- they just began instructing to use 'white gas' in the instructions and with stickers. Why would there be any reason for Optimus (let alone a group which took them over decades later) to put their reasoning online? As I understand it, the reasons were made public for the first time by the ex-owner of Optimus two years ago, as you'll know from the thread which has been linked to three times. Four weeks of cooking a meal a day on a freshly overhauled (new seals, new wick, cleaned burner) Optimus No.8r on automotive fuel. Performance dropped, off, it was dismantled, burner passage found to be partly blocked with carbon deposits, wick stained and far less flexible than new. New wick, burner cleaned, changed to panel wipe, no issues in 16 years. I've had similar issues with a couple of self-pressurising 'petrol' blowlamp more recently being a cheapskate and using automotive fuel, used on a regular basis (and while wearing a powered respirator). If you do some more reading and research, you'll find there is an enormous amount of science to it, mostly developed without science, just trial and error. The surface area of a vapouriser, temperatures and temperature gradient, fuel characteristics, vaporisation rate vs. flow rate, jet orifice size.... all have an effect on what goes on, and cause practical effects such as- say- exactly where carbon is deposited within a burner. Tiny changes can make a design practical in the real world, or not. And if additives clog a wick and prevent fuel flow to the vaporiser, the vaporiser design becomes irrelevant... It is undeniable that automotive fuel produces more harmful by-products than more refined, additive free fuels. We are bombarded with unhealthy stuff from all angles in the modern industrial world, so why add extra when there is a cleaner option? Money saved can't buy extra life, nor is is useful once dead. It seems odd spending time in the great outdoors for some fresh air and a lungful of toxins. Petrol powered machinery is falling out of favour in the UK, many professionals use Aspen 2 or 4T to reduce their risk of developing health problems, cordless electric kit is becoming the norm in everything from tree surgery to domestic gardens. Leaf blowers are not very popular here, making noise for pointless purposes on a small crowded island isn't widely appreciated, and people are finally realising worms do the job just as well and the soil benefits as a result. Ultimately, put whatever you want in the tanks of your stoves and breathe whatever comes out. Chuck Coca-Cola in your vehicle's engine instead of oil as it's cheaper, funnily enough I can't present you with documents specifically stating the rate of wear will increase... My advice remains to use Apsen 4T/solvent-based panel wipe/Holts brake cleaner/Coleman fuel in the UK, which is what most of us do, as it guarantees clean burning, low maintenance, and no risk of odd pressure rises, however large or small that risk is. Even for a very active outdoorsman/woman, the extra cost isn't going to be the end of the world. This nicely illustrates my point about stove failure stories. There are very, very few first hand, and in this case we have somebody without much knowledge at the time, and a huge number of unknowns. But bounce it about a bit and it adds to the myth that old stoves are dangerous. Certainly they can be, if not inspected, maintained, inappropriate fuel used, used outside their design limits...
For info it was Staffan who mentioned this & the stickering of the stoves. Staffan was the owner of Optimus at this time.
Yes, that's my thinking, although I'd love to know for sure. It's very different stuff to what these stoves were fueled with when this basic design was introduced somewhere around the early 1920s. Lots of changes in that time- lead coming and going, the development of additive packages. But it's the arrival of ethanol which roughly coincides with the time of warnings from Optimus, and being a component with a lower boiling point, and the fuel ending up with an overall lower boiling point, it seems to be a very major change in properties which might well be the reason for potential trouble. Whether there is a significant risk or not in the real world, the cleaner by-products and possibility of increased reliability/reduced maintenance make the cleaner fuels worthwhile. But then we're sensible in the UK, and only use self-pressurising 'petrol' stoves for occasional sporty use, and the overwhelming majority used cheap paraffin for domestic and base camp work. And even amongst the climbers and hillwalkers, the number of 1/2 pint paraffin stoves sold seems to have enormously outshadowed the 'petrol' models.
@MissileMike, I join our membership's warm WELCOME !! (to the FNG lol) You ask a lot of questions. The topic of this thread is re "ONE" recently acquired Primus 71 (OP satisfied on page 1). Comment #11 onward is a drift (36 comments & counting). Granted this thread is in the "stove forum" where chat is welcome all good BUT, Mike, you seem genuinely interested re your: "Hoping to get some back and forth with some folks who've had poorer luck with auto petrol as well. Probably need to start a fresh thread .... ?" Good. Might i suggest take your own advice and please DO create a carefully worded inquiry/thread on topic of using auto fuel in self-pressurizing *petrol stoves. WHILE creating your first thread: > please be mindful it's a global site (eg fuel *terminology varies worldwide, etc.). > please include use of links to sources as Spiritburner has done above [please also include link to Frank Bebb's experiment. I have searched and could not find it]. Links are VERY useful for cross-referencing as well. Here is another link to YOUR point, credit BradB, that you may want to include in your new thread: The Coleman Stove - The Pros and Cons and Why we Cook on Gasoline > please review topics on home page and the descriptions of the categories. Decades in the making, this is a very well designed site , there's a place for everything (as one considers if/where one might post comment). [all good here in the "stove forum" (&lounge) where chat is welcome, per home page] There are members very knowledgeable and interested re the specifics of various fuels that haven't chimed-in here. FWIW if/when such thread is created i have comments, i presume, would interest you. Here although this is a fine discussion (thx all), it will not be easy to find these details going forward. ---- re your: "...or are there dozens already on the subject?" "Comments" yes there are PLENTY of comments (esp anecdotes against use of auto fuel) but "Threads" on-topic? ... i dunno, my initial search did not come up with a good one. So yes, i suggest create one, please, thank you. omc
Yeah, I let this one get away from me. Sorry gents. Didn't intend to hijack the thread. My apologies.
@Blackdog: Did I read your post correctly that in the UK, paraffin (kerosine) stoves are outselling petrol (white gas)? It's the exact opposite in the States. In fact, other than multi-fuel & "international" models, I haven't seen a new paraffin stove on the shelves in years. -Paul (Sorry to all for continuing to be off-topic)
In Australia, kerosene stoves and lamps were always the major part of the market. I suspect the USA is the exception. Tony
