I think a lot of times copper will melt in the coals and run down into a pool in the ashes. Aluminum will too if the fire isn't quite hot enough.
my stove ate an aluminum can.
- Thread starter mn woodcutter
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
>and trying to clean a chimney,, with flexing "poles",, SUCKS!!!
you are close! imo. I would say... trying to clean a chimney period! SUCX!!! lol
I do my own 6" lined, 1 story house so idt is no big deal. I use 1/4" iron pipe "rods) (3 sections). I should buy fiberglass ones but I like the rigidity. Worst part is reacing into the firbox to clean out all the stuff that fell down the chimney while brushing - usually about a double handful of grainy, powdery black stuff. Stove exits from the back so there is that short section of an elbow that has to be cleaned out. Cleaning that out is the only dirty part. I thought of using the vacuum but wife would kill me. I don't have a wet/dry one.
Harry K
Not magic, not exactly an old wives tale neither.
Aluminum soda cans are an alloy containing manganese... manganese reacts chemically with creosote to break it down and cause it to flake off.
It ain't the aluminum... it's the manganese.
One can won't do anything noticeable... but burning a few of them in a hot fire every week or two will help keep the chimney clean, and also make the cleaning chore much easier. There was a thread bout this a year or two back where a couple guys tried it and verified the amount of "stuff" that flaked off on it's own and fell into the trap increased noticeably, and what was left brushed out much easier.
*
Here's the thread...
http://www.arboristsite.com/community/threads/burning-aluminum-cans.266912/#post-5046145
If you live where there ain't a deposit (we have a 5¢ deposit here) on beverage cans, it's a free source of chimney cleaning chemical... plus, you get to drink the beverage and dispose of the can all at once
*
http://www.arboristsite.com/community/threads/burning-aluminum-cans.266912/#post-5046145
If you live where there ain't a deposit (we have a 5¢ deposit here) on beverage cans, it's a free source of chimney cleaning chemical... plus, you get to drink the beverage and dispose of the can all at once
*
allstihl
ArboristSite Guru
I decided to try the aluminum can thing this year . I toss in the ocassional can and all the used foil trays from the kitchen . I havnt had to clean the chimney yet .
And just because I'm an attention whore... and love tooting my own horn... patting myself on the back... and generally being selfserving
Here's a post from that thread...
Don't knock it until ya' try it.
*
Here's a post from that thread...
Don't knock it until ya' try it.
*
Hmmmmm... not sure if those foil trays contain manganese... but I'm not sure that they don't neither.
*
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2002
- Messages
- 4,799
- Reaction score
- 12,593
- Location
- North of Goderich, Ontario, Canada
You know I used to trust that MechanicMatt guy and everything he said, now after that last quote I'm going to have to rethink that. I don't burn aluminum cans on purpose but I do throw in the occasional railway tie and hydro pole to clean things out.
http://www.arboristsite.com/communi...ing-railroad-ties.276943/page-36#post-5739112
http://www.arboristsite.com/communi...ing-railroad-ties.276943/page-36#post-5739112
You need to check with the manufacturer of your flue pipe before you start burning these strange concoctions compounds and chemicals in your heating appliance . Some things I have heard are very corrosive to stainless steel walls inside your flue . If you got 1,000$ + in your chimney like me you don't take risks like that based on wives tales or wishful thinking .if it pitted and corroded those walls you got problems ..the Someone who noticed more flaky creosote after they threw Budweiser cans in your stove is a far cry from a verifiable legitimate test in my opinion . A sprig of salt a Budweiser can an eye of newt ... Sounds like hocus pocus . Other sites seem to point to the same conclusion . Nothing replaces regular sweeping and good seasoned dry wood
Before anybody gets any bright ideas, magnesium burns around 3,100°C or 5,600°F. If it gets away and you want to cool it down by putting water on it, don't, water will only fuel the fire.
Beverage cans do not contain magnesium, they contain manganese... and the content is only about 1%.
*
Now you know why I used to get Gilbert chemistry sets for Christmas as a boy. They always included a small jar of manganese. They never included a jar of magnesium. Dimes to donuts you would have a hard time finding one of these chemistry sets today and if you did, it would probably cost over $100.
How old are you talking? I may still have one in my mom's basement which I will be cleaning soon as she moved into assisted living. For reference I am 36 now.
Well, I hate to admit this, but I was studying chemistry with those sets when I was a boy scout in 1957-8. I imagine the sets back then cost about $20 for a senior set. Junior sets were about $15. I remember that there were no instructions for making gun powder. We learned how to do that through the grapevine. Note that this was all before anything in aluminum cans was being sold and practically all soda pop was bottled. Times change.
I have my dad's old microscope kit from about that time. You use the natural light and a mirror to shine into the slide. Works pretty well.
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2002
- Messages
- 4,799
- Reaction score
- 12,593
- Location
- North of Goderich, Ontario, Canada
Wood Doctor, now you are on two lists.
Feminists list for this quote from the Guilbert sets.
Marketing of chemistry sets was also highly gendered, targeted almost exclusively at "young men of science". A 1950s set introduced by Gilbert for girls, came in a pink box and explicitly identified girls as laboratory assistants rather than full-fledged scientists.[4][2]
And the terrorist watch list for it making #3 on the most danger toys list. How many of these other toys did you have?
http://www.cracked.com/article_19481_the-8-most-wildly-irresponsible-vintage-toys_p2.html
Feminists list for this quote from the Guilbert sets.
Marketing of chemistry sets was also highly gendered, targeted almost exclusively at "young men of science". A 1950s set introduced by Gilbert for girls, came in a pink box and explicitly identified girls as laboratory assistants rather than full-fledged scientists.[4][2]
And the terrorist watch list for it making #3 on the most danger toys list. How many of these other toys did you have?
http://www.cracked.com/article_19481_the-8-most-wildly-irresponsible-vintage-toys_p2.html
Probably not enough of them. I also worked with Gilbert Erector Sets on a regular basis. These sets allowed using steel girders, brackets, nuts and bolts, and other mechanical parts to create structures that ranged anywhere from elevated towers to pumping stations. Belt-driven mechanisms were my favorite. I attached all sorts and sizes of pulleys to a gear-driven motor that then operated the toys that I built with my own hands using the tools and parts that came with the set. My friends and I spent hours working with these.
What do today's kids play or work with that is the equivalent of a Gilbert Erector Set?
Erik B
ArboristSite Guru
I remember making gun powder when I was a kid. Found the ratio of the 3 ingredients in a encyclopedia, junior edition. It put out a nice long flame when packed into a 30-06 cartridge. Never actually used the homemade stuff to put a shell together for firing. Playing with fire was enough fun.
