The great survival candle wax-off *long post warning*

This is, effectively less about survival candles and more about the materials that comprise them. Also I should mention my focus eventually shifted to 'is beeswax really superior, and if so, by how much?'

So this thread is mostly about finding a btu/lb figure for beeswax in terms of heat of combustion.

A while ago someone posted a link to a candle stove by philoxia.com. Here's the link. http://www.philoxia.com/survival.htm
They seem pretty nice overall with some nifty features, like the built in pot stand.

It got me thinking, which got me reseaching. I figured I'd share that information with you. This is a work in progress and I am not a chemist, so please bear with me. There are alot of facts and figures (just one look at an MSDS sheet and you'll know what I mean) but ultimately there are only one we're interested in:

"heat of combustion" - this is the amount of energy the candle outputs using calorimetry.
A few others I might throw in randomly. Ultimately the ABOVE is the holy grail of figures. It basically tells you exactly how much energy per pound is stored in the candle.

What are the benefits of a candle stove?
- Decent heat output for a reasonable length of time
- light source
- can be used to cook
- can be used for heat
- relatively safe when not lit
- easily portable (i.e. no messy liquids or containers)

Now the first thing before we get too heavy is there are various grades of wax. The primary ones are:
Paraffin (a petroleum product)
Soy-based
and Beeswax.

Now many sources state that beeswax is the hottest burning and longest lasting. The claims are wide but there is nothing that is extremely compelling or 'hard' evidence immediately available. This is because there are many different grades of beeswax. Contrary to how it might sound, the only type of beeswax most people use is 'cappings' beeswax. This is the beeswax used to literally cap off the end of the honeycomb to store the honey.

There seems to be alot of misinformation about beeswax in particular though, specifically regarding it's capabilities. It's generally acclaimed that they do better but no one ever seems to indicate 'why' or provide proof.

There is one specific myth I will address before getting to the more 'meat and potatoes' area regarding heat output.

The negative ION arguement:
There are many proponents who claim that there was a japanese laboratory that tested beeswax and found it
produced negative ions, which supposedly creates better health. I have found no such report. What
I have found is a great dissertation on why this is BS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ion#Beware_the_.22Healthful_Negative_ions.22_pseudo-science_scams:_the_folks_who_sell_them_don.27t_even_know_what_ions_are.

Now, on to the heat output portion. As stated before, it's generally acclaimed that beeswax burns longer.
I could find no specific study of this but I did find this:
http://www.honeyflowfarm.com/articles/whybeeswax/whybeeswax.htm

While at first comparable you can readily see that the beeswax candle is about 10-15% fatter than the other candle at the top, with less of a taper. Regardless though, it does obviously burn significantly slower, despite having a thicker wick (which is necessary for beeswax candles to burn properly).
Really the only way to know for sure would be to take candles of similar weights and burn them. It's good for illustrating the point. The pillar candles supposedly last even longer. You'll also notice that there are NO WAX DRIPPINGS. Something to do with the higher heat of fusion results in a more complete burn for the beeswax. On that note here's some figures:


There's alot of good info on http://www.watlow.com/reference/files/nonmetallic.pdf
Note that beeswax does not list a specific heat (of combustion).
It also has a higher melt point, heat of fusion, density and thermal conductivity than paraffin.

How to check the heat of combustion:
http://www.sciencebyjones.com/heat_of_combustion.htm

I emailed candle makers, beeswax industry associations, chemists, etc. No one had an answer as to what the specific heat of combustion for beeswax is. This is a great deal in part because there is little consistency in beeswax. It can be various colors and grades. It can be filtered or unfiltered.
Bleached or unbleached. You get the idea. Eventually I found an Americal Chemical Society journal from 1920 that had part of the answer..

http://books.google.com/books?id=QQkSAAA...JYyUjTZ8vA8xe8w
hard paraffin: 11210cal/g
heat of fusion: 30.7 c/g

hard white commercial beeswax: 12660cal/g
heat of fusion: 42c/g

Now, it's important to note it's 'hard white commercial' beeswax and 'hard paraffin'. Most paraffin is variable in melt point. It operates on a range based on hardness. The harder it is, the better it burns. So this is basically high quality paraffin.

Also, the hard white commercial beeswax indicates it's likely the 'triple filtered, chemically bleached' variety of white beeswax. I am not sure if it produces more or less output than unfiltered, unbleached beeswax.

So let's say we have a half pound of each type of wax in a typical can with 1 wick.
1/2 pound is roughly 227g.

11210*227 = 2544670 total calories
12660*227 = 2873820 total calories
1 calorie = 4.185 joules

2544670 * 4.185 = 10649443.95 Joules
2873820 * 4.185 = 12026936.7 Joules
1 joule = 0.0009478134 BTU.

which gives us:
.5 lbs paraffin = ~10,093.68 total btu
.5 lbs beeswax = ~11,399.29 total btu

This makes the beeswax candle have a total of about 12.9% additional total output over the 'good' hard paraffin wax. Less sturdy paraffin (i.e. the stuff most candles are made of) should produce even less energy.

So the short answer is yes, beeswax candles do put out more heat based on the above. Further, they have a higher heat of combustion, higher specific heat, higher melt point, etc. They are effectively superior to paraffin. I have too much free time at work. That's about it

That's 87 year old data. I'd rather try to compare burn/boil times for modern products. 12.9% is not really impressive. From the other side: "Cappings beeswax is also a pure fuel, which burns up its own emissions, without the toxic fumes that contribute to asphyxiation from paraffin." Anyway, a great example of in deep research! Thanks!

Wow! Great research and analysis. Beeswax rules. My favorite use for beeswax though is for treating wooden handle tools, expecially axes, hatchets, tomahawks, hammers, and hoes. It seals/preserves the wood, improves the grip, and is good for your hands. Some people oil wooden handles and though that preserves them, it makes them slippery. Wooden handles treated with beeswax are not slippery even when wet. Beeswax will even improve the grip of plastic and fiberglass handled tools. I don't know the science behind it, it just works. When I get or make a new wooden handled tool, I sand off the the slick varnish (put on by manufacturers for appearance only because it is slippery and raises blisters when you sweat) then I melt as much beeswax as I can into the wooden handle with my wife's hair dryer (when she's out shopping). After that I will occasionally rub down the handle with a block of beeswax I keep in my shop. I also use beeswax to treat leather sheaths I make for my axes, knives, and tomahawks. A pliable piece of leather becomes very stiff when it is saturated with melted beeswax. Leather sheaths treated in this manner are also waterproof. Carbon steel will rust if stored in a sheath of leather that is acid tanned, but the beeswax treatment eliminates that problem. I would love to hear other uses for beeswax.

Other than tiny traces of certain hydrocarbons (benzine, etc) that are going to be in levels similiar to those found in commercially bottled drinking water, the paraffin and beeswax will have the same emissions: carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and water. Yes, you'll get formaldehyde and related chemicals from the paraffin, but honey and bees wax both contain formaldehyde. And ammonia. Because it has bee pee in it.

All that being said, food-grade paraffin is eaten by most of us pretty much every day or so- glossy chocolates, the coatings on M&Ms and Reeses Pieces, the shells on glazed chewing gum, etc. It is biologically inert, and the the contaminates are at or below the levels allowed for commercial bottlers. If those are to high or not is another debate and not one that applies here.

However, beeswax contains various "natural" contaminants, such as bee pee, but also pollen which can trigger various allergic reactions in amazingly small doses. It also accumulates various pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers that the bees carry in with them on their bodies. Any and all of these can be bad when burned.

Oh, and dismissing a nearly 13% efficiency difference as "not really impressive" is kinda funny. While I agree more modern data should be sought, and I might go hunting this weekend if I've got time, in any other kind of fuel you'd be treated like a rock star if you could put that kind of efficiency improvement off without having to completely reinvent your mechanism, manufacturing techniques and distribution. Plaques for the walls, trophies for the mantel, grant money out the wazzoo, talk show circuit, speaking engagements, honorary degrees and tenure, companies sending hit teams out so that the other companies' HR guys never to talk to you, and geek girls wanting to have your children. Nope, not really impressive, not at all.

Bees are dropping like flies in the ointment... Lookie, a mixed metaphor.

Seriously though, I'm wondering what, if any, affect Colony Collapse Disorder will have on such items as bees wax. I'm a big fan of bees and their leavings.

Interesting info, garland. Thanks!

"However, beeswax contains various "natural" contaminants, such as bee pee, but also pollen which can trigger various allergic reactions in amazingly small doses. It also accumulates various pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers that the bees carry in with them on their bodies. Any and all of these can be bad when burned."

All that may be totally true. However, just googling around, I ran across this site http://www.tahoma-clinic.com/beeswax.shtml which is by a doctor (M.D.) who operates the Tahoma Clinic ('Pioneers in combining natural treatments with conventional medicine'). He sells '100% pure beeswax candles' that are made by nuns.

He says just the opposite of your statement (not that it's any more true --- I'm just stirring the pot here):

"But beeswax candles don't cause any of those problems. In fact, Mother Thecla told me people with allergies, sinus problems, and asthma have reported significant improvement in their symptoms, breathing better and sleeping better after burning the 100 percent beeswax candles in their bedrooms for three to four hours before bedtime. One person who burned a beeswax candle all day when she was home reported that her asthma gradually went away completely.

"After the nuns left, I did a bit of my own research to see if I could turn up any scientific evidence on bees-wax's effects. Although scientists still don't know all the intricacies of the complex molecules in beeswax, there's at least a partial explanation for the healthful action of burning beeswax candles. According to entomologist Bill Reno, burning beeswax produces negative ions.1 Negative ions are nature's air purifiers, cleaning the air of dust, mold, bacteria, viruses, and other pollutants.

"... to get any of these benefits, the candle has to be 100 percent beeswax. And, unfortunately, a candle only needs to contain 51 percent beeswax to be labeled as a beeswax candle. The rest can be paraffin (or anything else burnable), so it may not be as easy as picking one up the next time you're at the mall."

Now, would a doctor lie? (Probably) Would a nun lie? Well.....
they would be struck by a lightning bolt, wouldn't they?

I don't know which is true, or if they both are, or neither.

Sue... just kicking up dust

VERY IMPRESSIVE--
i'm so "old school" that i would have heated a cup of
water with a couple different candles and pronounced one
better than the other..
the ones i use in my UCO lamp sure make my tent smell
fresher..i hope that bee smell woun't attract bears!!

By pure, they mean unbleached and unscented. It's a common problem in the "organic" world. I heard of someone who bought a bunch of organic rubarb, ate the leaves, and had to get thier stomach pumped. And they spent the entire time saying "but it was organic". People don't think about what is IN their natural products in the first place.

As for the negative ion thing, I'm still on the bench. There is a lot of really interesting data out of Canadian and German labs, but the concentrations they are talking about just seem really, really high.

As for nuns lieing, don't make me go there. I'll get banned. :P

I can understand where you're coming from. 87 year old data, for sure. The thing you have to understand is that even carbon dated neolithic era beeswax is almost identical to modern day beeswax in molecular structure. I read this somewhere in my studies but unfortunately could not readily find it for you. I know there's a paper about the chemistry of neolithic beeswax that you can pay for that probably has that information. By that accord, really it doesn't matter terribly much that it's 87 years old. The only changes in it are effectively from the environmental differences (such as pollen types).

I should also further mention that I've done alot of searching on paraffin as well. Paraffin has an exceedingly wide variance in the calorie/g output in terms of heat. This is dependant from what I've seen on the 'hardness' or grade of the paraffin. In fact, the rating which this journal of the american chemical society used was actually the highest I'd seen anywhere! Most tests actually put paraffin in the 8500-9500 cal/g range. It's alot easier to find that figure than one for beeswax, though I'm not sure why.

There's alot of BS about paraffin, soy and beeswax. The reality is the only true measure I have is:

A) beeswax has higher melt point
B) beeswax has a higher ignition point
C) beeswax seems to burn slower though this could be because
it doesn't melt it's fuel as easily and waste half of it
D) beeswas puts out more heat

Soy candles are odd, but alot of testing is being done on them. They have their own set of problems but for the most part I see no real reason to use them over paraffin except the renewable resource arguement.

Now one could say that this is a super expensive wax but on the whole I found it's 5 dollars per pound if you know where to look. Further, it's far more effective than other similiar 'high grade' waxes. For instance, bayberry wax only has an energy of about 39.3kj/g, which is actually less than that of even paraffin! Paraffin is about 42 kj/g (it ranges, obviously but this is about the average I saw).

Using the calorie value of 12660 for the 'commercial' beeswax you get a KJ/g of about 53!

So from a purely survival standpoint in terms of heat output, fuel usage, candle duration it is clearly the superior fuel. Unfortunately alot of people know this and hike the price up. My recommendation? Learn to make your own, or find someone who sells them cheap.

on a side note, if you take 42kj/g and convert it to calories you get 10038. So not much more than that 9500 I quoted earlier.

Personally I'd be more worried about colony collapse disorder's effect on food production

but you're welcome by the way

Well. I do understand, that the neolithic era beeswax should be the same as the modern one, but what's about paraffin then? The modern paraffin making technology must be superior over that of 1920's. Not to mention that paraffin is not the only known material for candles (Stearin, for example, is still popular).

Similarly, the beeswax treatment technology could be improved over years too. I doubt that the above mentioned http://www.philoxia.com/survival.htm employs any nuns to hand sculpture and enchant for slower burning times their survival candles

Also, I believe that 13% is not much, because it's below the mean deviation of burning times stated for that same beeswax survival candles from www.philoxia.com : "SC72 80-100 hours". Too many factors could affect the real numbers.

Hey hey, you know this isn't true statistical math

Computing mean deviation would require actual work, as opposed to me just doing some web surfing looking for answers on my lunch break. I mean comon, work? Who does that, I mean really!

Joking aside; I don't think paraffin has been improved too much. From what I understand the chemical formula is pretty well standard. Kind of like petroleum jelly. On that note, they are both chemically similar. From what I understand at least.

http://www.henriettesherbal.com/eclectic/bpc1911/paraffin.html

That being said, one can see by the chemical formulas for paraffin that they are basically very simplistic. To my knowledge they haven't changed since their discovery.

Similiarly it's funny how effectively the filtration/bleaching system of making medically acceptable beeswax is pretty much the same as was (except now many times they use peroxide as the bleaching agent).

What I'd like to do is a formal test; make two comparable candles of the 'survival' variety to as stringent or symmetrical build as possible. Then test them on a homemade calorimeter.

After doing that, also test their burn time and ability to boil water.

But until I get my wedding out of the way, I need every free dollar .. so this research kind of had to suffice

Neolithic beeswax? I am denied university funding to replicate my theory of a seabased migration down the Pacific Coast to show a possible explanation of rapid New World colonisation and somebody writes about neolithic beeswax? I have the article somewhere, give me a few days to find it. Lets test aromatherapy candles. Maybe one will calm predatory grizzle bars and pagan biker gangs. Problem is a recent warning about PRC candles mentions high levels of lead in the wicks.I'll take bee pee-pee over lead poisoning anyday. I've been learning about eastern orthodoxy lately. Anecdotaly I know the beeswax candles smell nice and put my sunday morning fast in a harmony for the after Liturgy break-fast of rolled grape leaves and strong coffee.No, I don't drink the superior survival drink OJ.

Chris,


What would aromatherapy candles made from the wax of killer bees do? One shudders to think of the possible carnage.

Someone ate Rhubarb leaves!

Surely everyone knows the Oxalic acid in the leaves is a notorious poison.

Sorry, getting back to question, Is beeswax a superior survival candle fuel? No, because the tallow candle is a superior candle fuel. Not only does it work as a fuel for lighting and heat but the tallow candle, in a dire emergency be also used as a food source. Not very tasty but could be the difference between life and death.

Someone ate Rhubarb leaves!

And if you think eating a tallow candle sounds disgusting then just look at some of the ingredients in some of the diet crisps which use Olestra. Apparently causes something called anal leakage.

Homer Simpson says, "Hey, Apu, you got any of those potato chips that give you diarrhea? I need to do a little spring cleaning".
Apu responds, "They are in the safety cabinet. I'll get the key."

Someone ate Rhubarb leaves!

While the versatility seems nice on paper, I disagree for several reasons.

1) I cannot readily think of a situation in which I could not find a better use for the candle. It may be because I'm in a northern area(pennsylvania) and deal with relatively cold winters.
2) Seriously, if you can't find something better to eat, you've got issues. I mean, you've got to figure if you have your priorities straight, that you've got a week to figure out how to get some food.. whereas you have only a few hours before you freeze to death.
3) Beeswax is edible too. Unfortunately it really doesn't digest very well. I suspect tallow has the same effect. Anything waxy doesn't seem to digest very well. I'd reckon the beeswax would taste better though.
4) If your knife was edible, would you eat it? Honestly.... only if I was completely paralyzed and unable to *edit* use it. The purpose of that analogy is to relate that tools are designed as tools - they serve better function in their intended role. If you're smart about it, you'd never even have to consider something along those lines. I'd be using the candle to readily start fires to keep me warm so I could try to think of something more realistic to eat. Such as small game, grubs, plants, whatever. The last thing on my mind would be "MMMM.... candle.... *drool*."

I had no idea rhubarb leaves contained a poison. But then again, I don't go making rhubarb because I heard it tastes awful. Live and learn. Not to derail my own thread but does boiling the leaves destroy the poison?

Re Garland



I'm afraid that boiling the leaves does not destroy the poison as the oxalic acid does not break down easily.

Starvation is a complex issue. If a couple of 4 oz Tallow candles can be consumed and the body can absorb that available energy, which would equate to approx 1200 calories, then death from starvation would be delayed by a couple of days. That couple of days might allow someone who is suffering from starvation enough time and energy to locate and procure additional food resources before rescue. Some of the alternatives to death by starvation such as cannibalism are poor alternatives.

As for Rhubarb tasting awful try the following recipe for Rhubarb Crumble (goes nicely with a good buttery Chardonnay)

* Servings: 4
* Level of difficulty: Easy
* Preparation Time: 10 minutes
* Cooking Time: 50 minutes

Ingredients

* 200ml freshly squeezed orange juice
* 125g Sugar
* 2 star anise
* 1 stick Cinnamon, broken in half
* 1 vanilla pod
* 450g rhubarb

For the crumble topping

* 50g Butter
* 75g flour
* 50g demerara sugar
* 50g flaked almonds
* pinch ground cinnamon

To serve

* clotted cream, or custard

Method

1. Preheat the oven to 180C/gas 4.

2. In a small saucepan, heat the orange juice, sugar, star anise, cinnamon and vanilla and simmer gently until the liquid becomes a syrup.

3. Meanwhile, cut the rhubarb into 5cm pieces and lay in a 23cm-square ovenproof dish. When the syrup is ready, pour it over the rhubarb and set aside.

4. To make the crumble topping, rub all the topping ingredients together in a mixing bowl until the mixture looks like coarse breadcrumbs. Scatter it over the prepared fruit.

5. Bake for 35-40 minutes or until the crumble topping is golden. Serve with clotted cream or custard.