Burning Down the Pond

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 09:37:27 -0600, John Hines
wrote:

Mike Patterson wrote:

'Cause I don't want no cutesy namby-pamby girly thing, I'm going for
-cool- not -cute-. :-)

Micro butane torches, like the pocket sized ones, and a styrofoam
collar? (harbor freight item 39440-3rah $5)


That's a thought, I actually have one of those, but I was hoping to
get the "fire on the water with no visible means of support" look.

Just how water-insoluble is gasoline, I wonder? And how completely
would it burn off the surface of the water?

Somehow I don't think that one will work...

Mike Patterson
Please remove the spamtrap to email me.

Mike Patterson wrote:
Really like my new pond, finally seem to have the surrounding drainage
problem and the Mysterious Water Loss After Heavy Rain problem fixed,
so now I'm thinking...

How about if I run black gas pipe out to the the back end of the pond,
put on a valve there, then something like icemaker tubing into the
pond so that gas bubbles up near the center, then light it.

I wouldn't run it all the time, but it'd be a cool effect for parties.

Would there be any adverse repercussions to the fish?

Mike
Mike Patterson
Please remove the spamtrap to email me.

By bubbling the NG through the pond, some of it is going to diffuse into the
water. I doubt the fish would appreciate that any more than you would someone
leaving the gas on at the stove.

Mike Patterson wrote:
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 08:45:01 GMT, "Just Me \"Koi\""
wrote:


You are my kind of Dude, Dude!

Fire? Who is afraid of fire! Not you!

Actually I think it is a great idea, only that I am not masculine enough to
mess with gas or electricity!

For it to really look cool, the nozzle will have to be hidden, and the gas
flow will have to be substantial enough to flood the surface of the water
and then be ignite and sustain the burn! You said it best that you will
need to play with the gas nozzle, fire extinguisher, scotched Koi, first aid
kit, and one touch dial to the paramedics and the fire department.

If you pull it off though, I will be the first in line to emulate you!



I'm hoping to be able to have the nozzle under the water, the farther
down the better.

Right now I have no fish, so that's no problem yet, just want to
investigate before getting fish. (I plan to get tilapia & cheap
goldfish anyway.)

I have a couple of old metal #10 washtubs, I think they hold 50-60
gallons, I'll use one for my "test pond".

If I can find a way to test for toxins, I will. If not, I may get a
coupla cheap goldfiah to act as my "canaries".

OF course, even if I discover specific toxin levels in the water, then
I'd need to know what level are likely to harm fish.


Mike Patterson
Please remove the spamtrap to email me.
Mike

Having the gas bubble up from under the water will not work. You must
maintain a constant stream of gas.
The volume of gas can vary, but the supply cannot be broken.

The only way the bubble method MAY work is if you have a standing pilot.
To help maintain the flame.
Even then you will probably have a very unstable flame.
(ex. fireball... steady pilot flame... fireball...steady pilot
flame...Fireball...fireball... fireball...steady flame...etc, etc, etc...
You get the picture...

While it may add sone excitement to the pond, I personally don't see it
as aesthetic (adding beauty) to the whole relaxing pond scene.
Like my campfire does. A fire ball display would be more for a special
occasion like a 4th of July Party. JMHO
Not to mention the possible adverse effects on any fish.
The repeated Mini explosions would be no different a scare than the
apperance of any preditor to your pond.

The scale at which you will be using gas will not sustain a reliable flame.
You are talking a few sq inches of area of flame as compared to a like
an underwatergas well fire
where the area for flame will be several hundred to several thousand
sq. ft.
Thus allowing a lot of opportunity for a flame to be maintained.

Also the volume of gas you would require, IF it were possible to do it
would be astronomical.
I am paying $1.90-$2.20 / gal. Commercial rate.
Compared to $2.75 -$3.50/ gal. Residentual rate.
For LPG here in eastern Pa.

My campfire produces 15,000 - 50,000 BTU's / hour
i gal. propane = 91,000 - 96,000 BTU (depending on the % of Butane
added in your area)
That is .16 - .49 gal of propane / hour
1# propane = 21,699 BTU
1# = .238 gal
1 - 20# BBQ tank = 4.75 gal = 433980 BTU
@15,000 BTUH 20# lasts 29 hours
@ $2.00/Gal it costs me $0.32 / hr to burn

@50,000 BTUH 20# lasts 8.6 hours
@ $2.00/gal it cost me $1.10 / hr to burn
************************************************** ************************************************** **********************************

All this just to say a gas flame is very hard to maintain, and control
with out:
1. a constant gas supply,
2. proper Air to Fuel ratio,

3. small FIXED orifice size (thousands of an inch) \ (see figs.
1&2 on page 5 of PatioCampfire.pdf)
4. a burner (Like on a gas range) / @
http://ourkoipond.com/PatioCampfire.pdf

5. produce a constant flame



I have conceptual drawings for a FEFD (floating eternal flame device),
but then,
AT THE LEAST, the same 5 requirements I mentioned above still stand.
Plus it has a peaceful, relaxing flame similar to these only smaller;

http://ourkoipond.com/Fire1.jpg
http://ourkoipond.com/Fire2.jpg
http://ourkoipond.com/Fire3.jpg
http://ourkoipond.com/Fire4.jpg
http://ourkoipond.com/Fire5.jpg
http://ourkoipond.com/Fire6.jpg

Sorry for the rambling

Chagoi
http://ourkoipond.com

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 13:35:11 -0500, Chagoi
wrote:

Mike Patterson wrote:
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 08:45:01 GMT, "Just Me \"Koi\""
wrote:

snip

Having the gas bubble up from under the water will not work. You must
maintain a constant stream of gas.
The volume of gas can vary, but the supply cannot be broken.

The only way the bubble method MAY work is if you have a standing pilot.
To help maintain the flame.
Even then you will probably have a very unstable flame.
(ex. fireball... steady pilot flame... fireball...steady pilot
flame...Fireball...fireball... fireball...steady flame...etc, etc, etc...
You get the picture...

My plan was to have the gas flow fast enough so that there is a net
"continuous flow" at the surface. to sustain the flame.

Ideally, nothing protrudes above water level, so no pilot.
snip

The scale at which you will be using gas will not sustain a reliable flame.
You are talking a few sq inches of area of flame as compared to a like
an underwatergas well fire
where the area for flame will be several hundred to several thousand
sq. ft.
Thus allowing a lot of opportunity for a flame to be maintained.

Also the volume of gas you would require, IF it were possible to do it
would be astronomical.
I am paying $1.90-$2.20 / gal. Commercial rate.
Compared to $2.75 -$3.50/ gal. Residentual rate.
For LPG here in eastern Pa.

good points,, but I think I'll do some empirical testing. If nothing
else the testing should be entertaining.


snip

3. small FIXED orifice size (thousands of an inch) \ (see figs.
1&2 on page 5 of PatioCampfire.pdf)

well, I guess the orifice size I was planning would be about 250
square feet :-)

4. a burner (Like on a gas range) / @
http://ourkoipond.com/PatioCampfire.pdf

5. produce a constant flame



I have conceptual drawings for a FEFD (floating eternal flame device),
but then,
AT THE LEAST, the same 5 requirements I mentioned above still stand.
Plus it has a peaceful, relaxing flame similar to these only smaller;

http://ourkoipond.com/Fire1.jpg
http://ourkoipond.com/Fire2.jpg
http://ourkoipond.com/Fire3.jpg
http://ourkoipond.com/Fire4.jpg
http://ourkoipond.com/Fire5.jpg
http://ourkoipond.com/Fire6.jpg

Sorry for the rambling

Chagoi
http://ourkoipond.com


That's OK, keep rambling. In the immortal words of Number 5, "more
input!"


Mike Patterson
Please remove the spamtrap to email me.

Mike Patterson wrote:

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 09:37:27 -0600, John Hines
wrote:

Mike Patterson wrote:

'Cause I don't want no cutesy namby-pamby girly thing, I'm going for
-cool- not -cute-. :-)

Micro butane torches, like the pocket sized ones, and a styrofoam
collar? (harbor freight item 39440-3rah $5)


That's a thought, I actually have one of those, but I was hoping to
get the "fire on the water with no visible means of support" look.

Put it in a partially submerged container, which floats such that it
holds the flame in the right position to the water? Paint it black and
it will disappear from sight.

Just how water-insoluble is gasoline, I wonder? And how completely
would it burn off the surface of the water?

Again, look for a cleaner oil. For example, pure (clear) kerosene. The
fewer the additives, the easier it is to figure out.

You should look into the water-carbide reaction which generates
acetylene when mixed. This was what used to power headlines and miners
hat lights back about 1900 or so. What is left is a mess, which one
wouldn't want in the pond, but if you could keep them separate, it is a
historical source of portable flammable gas.

What happens if the fire goes out -- after all, we are talking about
*water* -- wouldn't you then just have a gas leak?

Anne Lurie
Raleigh, NC

"Mike Patterson" wrote in
message ...
Really like my new pond, finally seem to have the surrounding drainage
problem and the Mysterious Water Loss After Heavy Rain problem fixed,
so now I'm thinking...

How about if I run black gas pipe out to the the back end of the pond,
put on a valve there, then something like icemaker tubing into the
pond so that gas bubbles up near the center, then light it.

I wouldn't run it all the time, but it'd be a cool effect for parties.

Would there be any adverse repercussions to the fish?

Mike
Mike Patterson
Please remove the spamtrap to email me.

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 22:14:35 GMT, "Anne Lurie"
wrote:

What happens if the fire goes out -- after all, we are talking about
*water* -- wouldn't you then just have a gas leak?

Anne Lurie
Raleigh, NC


Why yes, I would. :-)

However, I was planning to only have the flame running when I was
around to watch it anyway. Toooo much $$ otherwise.

Thanks for the input. The more problems folks think of, the more
prepared I can be.

snip
Mike Patterson
Please remove the spamtrap to email me.

John Hines wrote:

Mike Patterson wrote:


On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 09:37:27 -0600, John Hines
wrote:


Mike Patterson wrote:


'Cause I don't want no cutesy namby-pamby girly thing, I'm going for
-cool- not -cute-. :-)

Micro butane torches, like the pocket sized ones, and a styrofoam
collar? (harbor freight item 39440-3rah $5)


That's a thought, I actually have one of those, but I was hoping to
get the "fire on the water with no visible means of support" look.


Put it in a partially submerged container, which floats such that it
holds the flame in the right position to the water? Paint it black and
it will disappear from sight.

That is basically the design of the FEFD I spoke of earlier.

Just how water-insoluble is gasoline, I wonder? And how completely
would it burn off the surface of the water?

No matter what you use, it is still going to be petroleum based
and you know what happens to wild life when water and oil try to mix.


Again, look for a cleaner oil. For example, pure (clear) kerosene. The
fewer the additives, the easier it is to figure out.

even Coleman fuel will have harmful after effects.

You should look into the water-carbide reaction which generates
acetylene when mixed. This was what used to power headlines and miners
hat lights back about 1900 or so. What is left is a mess, which one
wouldn't want in the pond, but if you could keep them separate, it is a
historical source of portable flammable gas.

those miner lamps usually held about 2 oz. of carbide rock and 3-4 oz of
water
and lasted several hours. And they only produced a small brilliant
white flame.
It would probably take you about 100 lbs and 20 gals of water to generate
enough acetylene to burn about an hour.

Chagoi
http://ourkoipond.com

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 22:15:02 -0500, Mike Patterson
wrote:

Really like my new pond, finally seem to have the surrounding drainage
problem and the Mysterious Water Loss After Heavy Rain problem fixed,
so now I'm thinking...

How about if I run black gas pipe out to the the back end of the pond,
put on a valve there, then something like icemaker tubing into the
pond so that gas bubbles up near the center, then light it.

I wouldn't run it all the time, but it'd be a cool effect for parties.

Would there be any adverse repercussions to the fish?



Replying to my own post here as an FYI for those interested.
The following excerpt is from the Material Safety Data Sheet on
propane. http://www.vmpropane.com/pdf/safetydata.pdf

QUOTE:
Section X TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION

OSHA Carcinogen Classification (29 CFR 1910) Not
listed/applicable___X___

U.S. Department of Health (21 CFR 184.1655): Generally recognized as
safe (GRAS) as a direct human food ingredient when used as a
propellant, aerating agent and gas as defined in Section 170.3
(o)(25).
END QUOTE

Note especially the term "aerating agent" in regards to using propane
on human food.

I am inclined to conclude from this that propane would not harm de
little fishies in term of toxicity.

As for it being absorbed into the water and "suffocating" the little
water-breathers, everything I've found so far indicates that propane
will not absorb or mix with water. I guess the molecules are just too
light, they go to the surface and fling themselves skyward.


Now as for mercaptan, the stuff they add to make the gas smell bad:
http://www.matheson-trigas.com/msds/MAT14620.pdf

The "water solubility rate" is 2.4%. I wish I knew what that actually
meant... haven't found a definition yet.

This part is interesting:

QUOTE:
SECTION 12 ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION
ECOTOXICITY DATA:
FISH TOXICITY: 500 ug/L 5 hour(s) (Mortality) Spotfin shiner (Notropis
spilopterus)
INVERTEBRATE TOXICITY: 50000 ug/L 48 hour(s) (Mortality) Midge
(Chironomus sp)
END QUOTE

This page lists common composition of residential-quality gas:

http://www.test-lab.com/gasone.htm

Quote:

Propane-Propylene grades: Commercial (i.e. residential fuel) grade
liquid propane (LP) is predominantly propane &/or propylene. HD-5
Grade (special duty engine fuel) has a more tightly defined
composition that is 90+% propane, 2 - 5% propylene & lower amounts of
other C2-C5 alkane/alkene hydrocarbons. Ethyl Mercaptan or thiophane
(tetrahydrothiophene) are typical LP odorant additives.

The only reference I've found that comes close to specifying the
amount of mercaptan used is this:
http://www.gasco.net/Files/faq.html

QUOTE
Propane's distinctive odor comes from the injection of no less than
1.5 pounds of ethyl-mercaptan per 10,000 gallons of liquid propane.
END QUOTE

Numerous other sources say it is added at rates from 0-50 ppm.


I have to leave for a busines trip tomorrow, so can't spend any more
time on this for a few days, but if anyone wants to play with the
numbers, there you go.

I'm guessing I could get a ball park idea of toxicity by figuring how
much mercaptan is in gas, factored with the absorption rate, volume of
the gas flow, volume of water exposed, and the stated toxicity levels
for fish. Oi, I hate math. I'll do it, but I'll not like it. :-)

Mike


Mike Patterson
Please remove the spamtrap to email me.

Mike Patterson wrote:

Really like my new pond, finally seem to have the surrounding drainage
problem and the Mysterious Water Loss After Heavy Rain problem fixed,
so now I'm thinking...

How about if I run black gas pipe out to the the back end of the pond,
put on a valve there, then something like icemaker tubing into the
pond so that gas bubbles up near the center, then light it.

How about a glass or plastic tube for in the water, comming up to the
surface? It should not be any more intrusive than the bubbles.