At  11/1/2009 03:23 AM,Mike S wrote:
>At 01:01 AM 11/1/2009, Rob wrote...
>>Extra heat? That is the wood burning in addition to the wax.
>
>Hey, just like an artificial log! But, wax holds much more heat
>energy than wood, so your claim doesn't make sense, since the one
>could just use more wax in place of the wood. (paraffin ~= 20,000
>BTU/lb, wood ~= 6,000)

Try it and see or just bad mouth it?

>I know what you mean. If you don't study or research things, and
>just believe "old wive's tales," then you don't always make good
>choices. Don't you wish you had found out sooner that aspen holds
>14.7M BTU/cord, weighs 2290 lbs/cord, and produces 6419 BTU/lb,
>while white oak holds 25.7M BTU/cord, and weighs 4012 lbs/cord,
>which is 6405 BTU/lb? So, the difference is a full 0.2% in energy
>per pound. The US Forest Service ranks pine at the top.

The problem here is you are mixing volumes (a cord) with weight.
A cord of hardwood has more energy in it than a cord of softwood, a
lot more (this is a volume measurement), and it weighs more. You put
the same measure (volume) of sawdust in a can and there is more heat
in the hardwood saw dust. Putting saw dust in a coffee can is a volume thing.

I don't know anything about presto-logs but I have talked to one
person who used one of these survival candles.

My "claim" is that I talked to someone who used one, it is easy to
make and would store well in the back of a Vanagon and if you ever
really needed it it might help. What are you claiming on all this? Do
you have a point to this? Why are we wasting bandwidth on this?  What
is your point?

Add something useful or stir the pot, <shrug>. I'm tired of dealing
with your stirring but will jump back in if you add something useful to this.

Rob
becida@comcast.net