Fuel Saving Indicator

[zelph]

Being able to save on fuel consumption intrigued me. Made this floating water pasteurization indicator. Instead of boiling, just bring water to pasteurization temperature 145*.
Here is what it looks like when used in a pot of water. Shows how it turns black in color once it reaches predetermined temperature of 145 degrees. Once cooled, the color blue returns.

[nsherry61]

Cool idea, BUT, you have to hold the water at that temp for an extended period of time for pasteurizing to work. So, you can either bring it to a full boil or bring it to 145 degrees for 30 minutes. Which uses less fuel?

[zelph]

Here is some additional info copied from Equip2Survive

quote)So how much heat? And for how long?Great questions! Depending on your source, “conventional wisdom” has told us for decades that bringing water to a rolling boil at the very minimum and holding it there for a period of time is what is required to kill these microscopic pathogens.For example, let’s take a look at what the Boy Scouts of America say about treating water:

“The surest means of making your drinking water safe is to heat it to a rolling boil—when bubbles a half inch in diameter rise from the bottom of the pot. While this is a simple method, it does require time and fuel.

”Now let’s take a look at what the United States Marine Corp. recommends for treating water:“Purify all water obtained from natural sources by using iodine tablets, bleach, or boiling for 5 minutes.”So are the Boy Scouts of America and the Marines wrong? No. Bringing your water to a full boil will absolutely kill all common pathogens that we have all learned to take so seriously because can make us sick with illnesses like Giardia, Cryptosporidium, E. coli and the rest. The problem with bringing your water to a boil, as you are about to learn, is that doing so is actually complete overkill when it comes to treating water for harmful microbes! Boiling your water, while completely safe and will absolutely kill those nasty pathogens, is actually a waste of precious fuel/firewood resources in a survival situation!<b>OK, so how much fuel are you wasting exactly?Did you know that heating your water from 200° F to 212° F… just that last extra 12° to get your water to it’s boiling point… actually uses TWICE as much fuel as it does just to get your water to that initial 200°?? Well… it does. TWICE as much fuel! That is nothing to scoff at!</b>So now that we know what the Boy Scouts of America and the Marines say about purifying water (and we love both of these organizations!), let’s see what science tells us about using heat to purify water.Important Temperatures to Factor In to this Equation:212° F = Temperature at which water boils160° F = Temperature at which milk is generally pasteurized149° F = Temperature at which Hepatitis A is quickly killed140° F = Temperature at which bacteria (V. cholerae, E. coli and Salmonella typhi) and Rotavirus are quickly killed131° F = Temperature at which worms & protazoa cysts (Giardia, Cryptosporidium and Entamoeba) are quickly killedAs you can see from the temperatures listed above, the pathogens that we are primarily concerned about when it comes to safe drinking water are ALL killed (quickly) at temperatures much lower than 212°, the temperature at which water boils. That being the case… why would you unnecessarily waste any more fuel than you need to heating up your water those additional 63°? Great question, isn’t it?Now let’s take another look at that milk pasteurization temperature above: 160° F.Pasteurization is a process invented by French scientist Louis Pasteur during the early nineteenth century. Pasteur discovered that the pasteurization process made it possible to heat the milk to high enough temperature to kill all harmful microorganisms without “cooking” the milk causing it to curdle.Now of course you never have to worry about your water curdling, but an important lesson can be gleaned from this milk pasteurization process that can be extremely beneficial: Water, like milk, does not have to be boiled to be safe to drink!Temperature + Time = PasteurizationPasteurization is a process that occurs based on two variables: temperature and time. You see… you can actually pasteurize water at lower temps if you do it for a longer duration. This is extremely helpful in situations where A) you aren’t able to effect fire for heating your water, or B) you can make fire but you do not have a suitable container for boiling that can withstand the intense heat of your fire. Lower temperature/longer duration pasteurization can actually be done with discarded plastic 2 liter bottles set in the sunlight for longer periods of time (typically 6 hours). This method of disinfecting water is known as the SODIS (Solar Water Disinfection) method. You can even put something black or reflective behind your bottle to speed up the process!So Why Do So Many Advocate Boiling Your Water?Great question with a very simple answer: When those bubbles start to roll in your container of water, that is nothing more than a clear VISUAL INDICATOR that your water has become hot enough (actually MORE than enough) to have killed all of those little nasties. It works. It’s effective. But is it ideal? Or can we do better?So if the bubbles from boiling water gives us that terrific visual indicator to let us know that our water has reached 212° F… but now we know that boiling our water to make it safe to drink is actually a waste of precious fuel resources (fuel, wood, candles, etc.)… how can we then determine if our water has gotten hot enough to have been properly pasteurized without those rolling bubbles? Great question again! We could certainly use a thermometer… but most of these are glass and very fragile. Too fragile to keep from breaking inside your kit. We need something small, light, compact, durable and can be used over and over again to let us know that our water has reached that effective pasteurization temperature.

[nsherry61]

Zelph, Solar water disinfection has nothing to do with heat. It is UV light that is doing the sterilization of microbes. So no relation to heat sterilization.

You quote a lot of numbers for temperatures to kill things of concern and state times as "quick". Not a very convincing or reassuring treatise.

How comfortable should we be with the temperatures you are stating with no references as to where those numbers come from? How long must the temperature be held to "quickly" kill the bugs of concern?

FYI: The CDC recommends treating back country water by bringing to a rolling boil for one minute unless you are over 6500 feet, and then extend boiling time to three minutes . . . as you say heat plus time (but how much of each). For milk at 145° F it is recommended to be kept at temperature for 30 minutes, not really feasible in the back country. Is 30 minutes "quick"?

FWIW: Most milk now days, as I understand it, is flash-pasteurized where it is brought up to significantly above 212° F under pressure so it does not boil and is held at that higher temperature for a very short period of time (I have no idea how hot or how short the time ).

I would suggest that anything short of the CDC recommendations is accepting additional risk.

Finally, I have to take issue with your claim that it takes twice as much fuel to heat water from 200° to 212° F as it does to heat water from ambient temperature to 200° F. From basic physics, it takes the exact same amount of energy (read fuel) to heat water one degree whether the water is at 33° F or 210° F. The only difference is the loss rate of heat from the pot to the outside which varies a lot depending on your speed of heating along with whether you are using a lid or not, in the wind or not, heating in an insulated pot like a Jetboil or not, etc. Without real numbers from real world tests, you will have a hard time convincing me that, when using a pot with a lid and windscreen that I am loosing 30 times the heat to the environment per degree F during the short time I am heating water from 200 to 212° F compared to the much longer time I am heating water from 80 to 200° F.

This would actually be a simple test with a thermometer since we can heat with a constant flame (constant fuel use with time) so the time to heat from 80 to 200 compared to the time to heat from 200 to 212° F is really the fuel use comparison we are looking for. Is it really twice as much time to heat from 200 to 212° F as it is from ambient to 200° F?

[zelph]

nsherry61I was quoting the info gotten at Equip2Survive:

http://equip2survive.blogspot.com/20...e-to-boil.html

[nsherry61]

. . . I was quoting the info gotten at Equip2Survive: . . .

Whew. I feel much better now. I've always held you in higher regard than the questionable hype in your previous post.

If only I'd read the first line of your post stating it's source . . .
Now I can go and feel good about my day again . . .

[jeremywerlin]

I like the idea. I usually use purified water for my coffee so I just have to warm it up.

[nsherry61]

Okay, to put the deep wisdom of Equip2Survive to the test, I just ran an experiment in my kitchen testing water temperature relative to fuel consumption to test the claim that "heating your water from 200° F to 212° F… just that last extra 12° to get your water to it’s boiling point… actually uses TWICE as much fuel as it does just to get your water to that initial 200°". . . just in case there are people among us that don't believe our high school physics teachers.

So, heating two cups of tap water on my Snowpeak canister stove, at lower than maximum power, in an Imusa pot, going from 67 degrees F to a rolling boil at 212 degrees F took 4 minutes and 13 seconds using 8 g of fuel. Of that 4'13", exactly 30 seconds of it was spent heating the water from 200 to 212 degrees.

So, if we equate burn time to fuel usage (a fair estimate) then it took roughly 7 grams of fuel to get from 67 degrees F to 200 degrees F and it took 1 g of fuel to get from 200 degrees to 212 degrees F.

Thus Equip2Survive's claim is not only off, it is profoundly off and in the wrong direction by a factor of 14X. It seems like a great idea, BUT, given the seriously ludicrous claim of Equip2Survive in what appears to be an attempt at generating hype about one of their survival ideas, I can't help but seriously question voracity of their other claims, especially regarding water purification.

Given Equip2Survive's misunderstanding of solar disinfection and their lack of understanding of basic physics of heating water, if we put this into the context of the Politifact truth index, I don't think the whole page would fit into the "pants on fire" category, but it sure as heck fits into the range of "Half Truth" to "Mostly False".

[TexasBob]

How comfortable should we be with the temperatures you are stating with no references as to where those numbers come from? How long must the temperature be held to "quickly" kill the bugs of concern?FYI: The CDC recommends treating back country water by bringing to a rolling boil for one minute unless you are over 6500 feet, and then extend boiling time to three minutes . . . as you say heat plus time (but how much of each). For milk at 145° F it is recommended to be kept at temperature for 30 minutes, not really feasible in the back country. Is 30 minutes "quick"?FWIW: Most milk now days, as I understand it, is flash-pasteurized where it is brought up to significantly above 212° F under pressure so it does not boil and is held at that higher temperature for a very short period of time (I have no idea how hot or how short the time )............

Here is what the The milk people say on times and temps for pasteurization : http://www.idfa.org/news-views/media...pasteurization

Pasteurization does not equal sterilization.

[zelph]

Okay, to put the deep wisdom of Equip2Survive to the test, I just ran an experiment in my kitchen testing water temperature relative to fuel consumption to test the claim that "heating your water from 200° F to 212° F… just that last extra 12° to get your water to it’s boiling point… actually uses TWICE as much fuel as it does just to get your water to that initial 200°". . . just in case there are people among us that don't believe our high school physics teachers.

So, heating two cups of tap water on my Snowpeak canister stove, at lower than maximum power, in an Imusa pot, going from 67 degrees F to a rolling boil at 212 degrees F took 4 minutes and 13 seconds using 8 g of fuel. Of that 4'13", exactly 30 seconds of it was spent heating the water from 200 to 212 degrees.

So, if we equate burn time to fuel usage (a fair estimate) then it took roughly 7 grams of fuel to get from 67 degrees F to 200 degrees F and it took 1 g of fuel to get from 200 degrees to 212 degrees F.

Thus Equip2Survive's claim is not only off, it is profoundly off and in the wrong direction by a factor of 14X. It seems like a great idea, BUT, given the seriously ludicrous claim of Equip2Survive in what appears to be an attempt at generating hype about one of their survival ideas, I can't help but seriously question voracity of their other claims, especially regarding water purification.

Given Equip2Survive's misunderstanding of solar disinfection and their lack of understanding of basic physics of heating water, if we put this into the context of the Politifact truth index, I don't think the whole page would fit into the "pants on fire" category, but it sure as heck fits into the range of "Half Truth" to "Mostly False".

I agree with you. I'll see if i can contact them and ask where they got their info.

[zelph]

I sent them a message via their "contact" address. If anyone else wishes to contact them in regard to their information you

may do so at this LINK

[nsherry61]

Here is what the The milk people say on times and temps for pasteurization : http://www.idfa.org/news-views/media...pasteurization

Pasteurization does not equal sterilization.

Great find. That kinda supports the idea of bringing your water to a boil, or really close to a boil, as being enough and not having to boil for a minute or more.

That being said, I doubt the milk industry is concerned with cryptosporidium or giardia cysts in milk, which may require more effort? AND, the CDC does recommend a one-minute boil specifically for back country water.

[nsherry61]

W.H.O. has some great information here.

I think I'm back to at least a rolling boil, if not a one minute boil if I am going to use boiling and am actually concerned about the safety of the water. If I'm not concerned enough to boil it fully, taking short cuts doesn't seem very sensible.

[zelph]

I've decided to reformulate the temperature activation point to 160 degrees :-)

It might be that only the 3rd world countries are concerned about fuel conservation and pasteurization.

It's going to be interesting to see how water contamination is going to be dealt with down in Texas and Louisiana. Prayers go out to all that are being affected by the unreal amounts of rain they are getting.....sad state of affairs down there.

[TexasBob]

........It's going to be interesting to see how water contamination is going to be dealt with down in Texas and Louisiana. Prayers go out to all that are being affected by the unreal amounts of rain they are getting.....sad state of affairs down there.

26.20 inches here so far, the streets are flooded but none of the homes where we are.

[Another Kevin]

The directions to boil for five minutes (or even longer) are because a lot of people don't recognize a full rolling boil and start the five minutes right when the water reaches a simmer with a few bubbles starting to form on the bottom. CDC's recommendation is 1 minute at low elevations, extend to 3 minutes at elevations above 2000 m.

There are a few nasties that boiling won't kill, but nothing to worry about in the surface water of North America. The one that comes to mind is that Clostridium spores survive boiling water, but the danger from Clostridium is the toxins - denatured by boiling - and not the bugs themselves.

I generally boil my water only if I've had to melt it first, or if I'm cooking with it so I'll have it boiling anyway. Otherwise, I'm fine with filtration or chemical treatment.

Pasteurizing backcountry water? I don't know how I'd get the 30-minute stand time at over 145 °F (160 is safer!) without using an unreasonable amount of fuel. Even starting from a boil, my stuff doesn't stay that hot for that loing in a cozy - and boiling alone is enough to disinfect.

[Minos]

I can't help but seriously question voracity of their other claims, especially regarding water purification..

Don't ever question my voracity when competing for three strips of hardwood smoked bacon.

[Harrison Bergeron]

26.20 inches here so far, the streets are flooded but none of the homes where we are.

We wound up with 31.75 inches by the time it quit raining five days later. 25 inches in the first two days. We never had water in the house but the floodwater was 6" deep in my pump house, so I was concerned about drinking the well water.

But I figured, no problem, I've got that fancy Sawyer gravity filter that I bought years ago and then never even used! Didn't work. Must be a sell-by date on these things. I couldn't get water through it even with the syringe from my Sawyer Squeeze. So then I tried the Sawyer Squeeze, which hasn't seen action since my AT hike in 2015. Same thing, even though I carefully backflushed and sterilized it before putting it away.

Who knew that water filters go bad just sitting in your closet?

We gave up and just drank the water. It was fine.

[TexasBob]

We wound up with 31.75 inches by the time it quit raining five days later. 25 inches in the first two days. We never had water in the house but the floodwater was 6" deep in my pump house, so I was concerned about drinking the well water.
But I figured, no problem, I've got that fancy Sawyer gravity filter that I bought years ago and then never even used! Didn't work. Must be a sell-by date on these things. I couldn't get water through it even with the syringe from my Sawyer Squeeze. So then I tried the Sawyer Squeeze, which hasn't seen action since my AT hike in 2015. Same thing, even though I carefully backflushed and sterilized it before putting it away.
Who knew that water filters go bad just sitting in your closet?We gave up and just drank the water. It was fine.

Glad to hear you are OK. It is true that backpacking equipment can come in handy during a natural disaster. When you think about it, all our backpacking stuff is just what you need when the normal infrastructure stops working.

[zelph]

Harrison, glad you were able to have potable water. Any chance that your well isn't deep enough that well water will be contaminated in a few days because of such a great amount of water seeping into the soil? Have they issued mandatory water boil warnings due to raw sewage and chemicals in the surface waters?