Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Beeswax

Expand Messages
  • Jack Rowe
    Well the beeswax clothing is at least of historical interest, if in bear country (which I am) and trying this one I d accept the guilt and use paraffin.
    Message 1 of 21 , Mar 2 10:02 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Well the beeswax clothing is at least of historical interest, if in bear country (which I am) and trying this one I'd accept the guilt and use paraffin. Old-timers might have considered themselves lucky, shot the bear, dried it and ate it.

      My current thought on this one is trying a similar thing with silicone diluted w/ mineral spirits...put on enough (spray?) to make the fabric very uninterested in water, but not enough to fill pores. I'll report if/when I actually get around to trying it.

      I don't think The Bad Place (W-M, of course) sells much ripstop as I just got 16 yds from their $1/yd table.

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Randy
      ... and am currently working with used coffee grounds and beeswax to make a fire starter/heat source for a small army surplus metal stove. I m trying to get
      Message 2 of 21 , Mar 23 9:18 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In hammockcamping@yahoogroups.com, ian toal <powersurj2002@...> wrote:
        >
        > I'm working on making as eco-friendly camping supplies as possible
        and am currently working with used coffee grounds and beeswax to make
        a fire starter/heat source for a small army surplus metal stove. I'm
        trying to get something that will boil tea while I'm using my other
        stove to cook dinner. Of course once I opened up the package of
        beeswax it smelt like honey and started me wondering... Would burning
        beeswax or beeswax candle attract bears?? Does anyone have any
        insight into this one? I'ld like to hear it before the spring...
        >
        > Enjoy,
        >
        > Ian
        >
        >
        > ---------------------------------
        > No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go
        > with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

        What are you currently using as a fire starter now and how are coffee
        grounds and beeswax anymore eco-friendly?

        I think that wood is the most eco-friendly thing you can burn on the
        trail and it's readily available. Burning wood has a net neutral
        effect on C02, it helps clean up the forest floor and helps eliminate
        fire hazards. Why not use it.
        >
      • ian toal
        Hey Randy, I started the post in the winter when it was a little tough to get any wood. I didn t want to use any petroleum based fire starters for a number of
        Message 3 of 21 , Mar 26 2:42 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          Hey Randy,

          I started the post in the winter when it was a little tough to get any wood. I didn't want to use any petroleum based fire starters for a number of reasons, and up till now had been using a camping stove. I was looking for something else. I went with coffee grounds and beeswax because they were a chemical free alternative for the winter. They burn very clean too with hardly any residue and the smoke didn't bother my eyes.

          Now that spring is here, I was just, and I mean 15 minutes ago, trying out a wood burning stove I made using two tin cans. It needs some modifications but if I can get it to boil water then I'll be using it this Spring through Fall. I agree with using downed branches and twigs and certainly love the smell of a nice fire. It's a little tough in the rain though to get them going, I tried once on a morning hike to cook breakfast when it had rained the night before. After two hours I was cold, smoked out and didn't keep down what I had heated up to luke warm and forced myself to eat. It wasn't one of my better trips.

          Thanks for the input and Enjoy,

          Ian

          Randy <randyacton@...> wrote: --- In hammockcamping@yahoogroups.com, ian toal <powersurj2002@...> wrote:
          >
          > I'm working on making as eco-friendly camping supplies as possible
          and am currently working with used coffee grounds and beeswax to make
          a fire starter/heat source for a small army surplus metal stove. I'm
          trying to get something that will boil tea while I'm using my other
          stove to cook dinner. Of course once I opened up the package of
          beeswax it smelt like honey and started me wondering... Would burning
          beeswax or beeswax candle attract bears?? Does anyone have any
          insight into this one? I'ld like to hear it before the spring...
          >
          > Enjoy,
          >
          > Ian
          >
          >
          > ---------------------------------
          > No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go
          > with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

          What are you currently using as a fire starter now and how are coffee
          grounds and beeswax anymore eco-friendly?

          I think that wood is the most eco-friendly thing you can burn on the
          trail and it's readily available. Burning wood has a net neutral
          effect on C02, it helps clean up the forest floor and helps eliminate
          fire hazards. Why not use it.
          >






          ---------------------------------
          Be a PS3 game guru.
          Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games.

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Eric Sandberg
          I m curious. How did you make the beeswax/coffee grounds fire starter. Burning for 5 min on .6 oz sounds pretty good to me. Can you give us a recipie?
          Message 4 of 21 , Apr 5, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            I'm curious. How did you make the beeswax/coffee grounds fire
            starter. Burning for 5 min on .6 oz sounds pretty good to me. Can you
            give us a recipie?
          • hacktorious
            Burning wood has a net neutral effect on C02 NET NEUTRAL, that is news to me. Anything I ever read stated burning wood creates Co2 and is bad for the
            Message 5 of 21 , Apr 6, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              "Burning wood has a net neutral effect on C02"

              NET NEUTRAL, that is news to me. Anything I ever read stated burning
              wood creates Co2 and is bad for the environment. Do you have a
              reference for this information? Thanks.
            • Ralph Oborn
              ... The idea is that wood in the forest (especially dead downed forest litter) will decompose soon anyway and release most of it s carbon as CO2 into the
              Message 6 of 21 , Apr 6, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                On 4/6/07, hacktorious <hacktorious@...> wrote:
                >
                > "Burning wood has a net neutral effect on C02"
                >
                > NET NEUTRAL, that is news to me. Anything I ever read stated burning
                > wood creates Co2 and is bad for the environment. Do you have a
                > reference for this information? Thanks.


                The idea is that wood in the forest (especially dead downed forest litter)
                will decompose soon anyway and release most of it's carbon as CO2 into the
                environment. Unlike fossil fuels that would have stayed intact in the ground
                from geological times (Hence: fossil fuels).

                Which is why I am skeptical about the benefit of planting trees to tie up
                carbon, within a few decades any carbon pulled from the atmosphere will be
                returned anyway.

                Ralph Oborn


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Rick
                Getting off topic, but I learned about the long-term carbon cycle (calcium carbonate or limestone) from Bill Bryson s A History of Nearly Everything . As you
                Message 7 of 21 , Apr 6, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  Getting off topic, but I learned about the long-term carbon cycle
                  (calcium carbonate or limestone) from Bill Bryson's "A History of Nearly
                  Everything". As you know Bryson also wrote Walk in the Woods, in which
                  he suffered because he had not discovered lightweight hiking, of which
                  Hammock Camping is a descendant.

                  Limestone eventually gets subducted into the Earth's magma, and the
                  carbon is released as CO2, but it stays in a tied up form for a LONG
                  time, unlike the carbon in vegetation.

                  Rick

                  Ralph Oborn wrote:
                  > On 4/6/07, hacktorious <hacktorious@...> wrote:
                  >> "Burning wood has a net neutral effect on C02"
                  >>
                  >> NET NEUTRAL, that is news to me. Anything I ever read stated burning
                  >> wood creates Co2 and is bad for the environment. Do you have a
                  >> reference for this information? Thanks.
                  >
                  >
                  > The idea is that wood in the forest (especially dead downed forest litter)
                  > will decompose soon anyway and release most of it's carbon as CO2 into the
                  > environment. Unlike fossil fuels that would have stayed intact in the ground
                  > from geological times (Hence: fossil fuels).
                  >
                  > Which is why I am skeptical about the benefit of planting trees to tie up
                  > carbon, within a few decades any carbon pulled from the atmosphere will be
                  > returned anyway.
                  >
                  > Ralph Oborn
                  >
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >

                  --
                  Walk Well!

                  Rick (Risk)

                  *********************************
                  http://www.imrisk.com
                  author of
                  A Wildly Successful 200 Mile Hike
                  www.wayahpress.com
                  *********************************
                • Scott
                  That is an interesting concept, I have never thought of it that way. As far as planting trees, I think it is a good idea because it will help make up for all
                  Message 8 of 21 , Apr 6, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    That is an interesting concept, I have never thought of it that way.

                    As far as planting trees, I think it is a good idea because it will help
                    make up for all the loss due to deforestation. This is a tremendous amount
                    of trees. Of course the combination of more trees with the number of
                    existing automobiles could potentially make things worse.

                    --
                    Scott
                    www.AntiFuel.com
                    www.groups.yahoo.com/group/PATC

                    Minds are like parachutes, they only function when they are open.

                    On 4/6/07, Rick <ra1@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Getting off topic, but I learned about the long-term carbon cycle
                    > (calcium carbonate or limestone) from Bill Bryson's "A History of Nearly
                    > Everything". As you know Bryson also wrote Walk in the Woods, in which
                    > he suffered because he had not discovered lightweight hiking, of which
                    > Hammock Camping is a descendant.
                    >
                    > Limestone eventually gets subducted into the Earth's magma, and the
                    > carbon is released as CO2, but it stays in a tied up form for a LONG
                    > time, unlike the carbon in vegetation.
                    >
                    > Rick
                    >
                    > Ralph Oborn wrote:
                    > > On 4/6/07, hacktorious <hacktorious@... <hacktorious%40gmail.com>>
                    > wrote:
                    > >> "Burning wood has a net neutral effect on C02"
                    > >>
                    > >> NET NEUTRAL, that is news to me. Anything I ever read stated burning
                    > >> wood creates Co2 and is bad for the environment. Do you have a
                    > >> reference for this information? Thanks.
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > The idea is that wood in the forest (especially dead downed forest
                    > litter)
                    > > will decompose soon anyway and release most of it's carbon as CO2 into
                    > the
                    > > environment. Unlike fossil fuels that would have stayed intact in the
                    > ground
                    > > from geological times (Hence: fossil fuels).
                    > >
                    > > Which is why I am skeptical about the benefit of planting trees to tie
                    > up
                    > > carbon, within a few decades any carbon pulled from the atmosphere will
                    > be
                    > > returned anyway.
                    > >
                    > > Ralph Oborn
                    > >
                    >


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Ralph Oborn
                    ... Nice tie in Rick (With a hangers knot I suppose) Ralph [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    Message 9 of 21 , Apr 6, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On 4/6/07, Rick <ra1@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Getting off topic, but I learned about the long-term carbon cycle
                      > (calcium carbonate or limestone) from Bill Bryson's "A History of Nearly
                      > Everything". As you know Bryson also wrote Walk in the Woods, in which
                      > he suffered because he had not discovered lightweight hiking, of which
                      > Hammock Camping is a descendant.
                      >
                      > Limestone eventually gets subducted into the Earth's magma, and the
                      > carbon is released as CO2, but it stays in a tied up form for a LONG
                      > time, unlike the carbon in vegetation.
                      >
                      > Rick


                      Nice tie in Rick (With a hangers knot I suppose)

                      Ralph


                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • C C Wayah
                      But trees do convert C02 to carbom and relese 02 in photosynthesis while liveing. So they have a natural conversion process that industry does not. I;ve read
                      Message 10 of 21 , Apr 6, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        But trees do convert C02 to carbom and relese 02
                        in photosynthesis while liveing. So they have a natural
                        conversion process that industry does not.

                        I;ve read large cities would quickly litterialy suffocate if it weren';t for
                        the tress with the winds blowing near them from the forested areass around
                        them I'm guessing that the life spoan of a tree out converts the C02 it
                        does releae when it dies.

                        Rogene


                        Subject: Re: [Hammock Camping] Re: Beeswax


                        > That is an interesting concept, I have never thought of it that way.
                        >
                        > As far as planting trees, I think it is a good idea because it will help
                        > make up for all the loss due to deforestation. This is a tremendous
                        > amount
                        > of trees. Of course the combination of more trees with the number of
                        > existing automobiles could potentially make things worse.
                      • Ralph Oborn
                        I;ve read large cities would quickly litterialy suffocate if it weren ;t for the tress with the winds blowing near them from the forested areass around them
                        Message 11 of 21 , Apr 6, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          I;ve read large cities would quickly litterialy suffocate if it weren';t for
                          the tress with the winds blowing near them from the forested areass around
                          them I'm guessing that the life spoan of a tree out converts the C02 it
                          does releae when it dies.

                          Rogene


                          Sorry, every bit of CO2 a tree stores as carbohydrates comes out again as it
                          decomposes to CO2, UNLESS it gets buried in a swamp and converted to coal
                          etc.

                          I'm not saying that trees are bad, I'm just saying that they are only a
                          temporary carbon storage device (for a few decades).


                          Ralph

                          Besides we need them to hang hammocks.


                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Jack Rowe
                          Much of the carbon tied up in trees goes into the soil s organic matter upon tree s death...soil is now considered to hold more carbon (humus and live biomass)
                          Message 12 of 21 , Apr 7, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Much of the carbon tied up in trees goes into the soil's organic matter upon tree's death...soil is now considered to hold more carbon (humus and live biomass) than above-ground sources.

                            re: hammock tree damage, if the same tree were used over and over like a campsite, I think it would suffer greatly. Viva stealth camping!

                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Cara Lin Bridgman
                            ... Burning anything produces CO2, but pound for pound, I assume wood produces less CO2 than fossil fuels. Of the fossil fuels (data from Wright & Nebel 2002.
                            Message 13 of 21 , Apr 8, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              hacktorious wrote:
                              > "Burning wood has a net neutral effect on C02"
                              >
                              > NET NEUTRAL, that is news to me. Anything I ever read stated burning
                              > wood creates Co2 and is bad for the environment. Do you have a
                              > reference for this information? Thanks.


                              Burning anything produces CO2, but pound for pound, I assume wood
                              produces less CO2 than fossil fuels. Of the fossil fuels (data from
                              Wright & Nebel 2002. Environmental Science: Towards a Sustainable
                              Future), coal is the big baddie. It produces almost twice as much CO2
                              as natural gas. Gasoline produces about 1.3 times as much as natural gas.

                              The nice thing about burning wood is that it can be much more efficient
                              than burning fossil fuels, especially if you're using an efficient wood
                              burning stove. The problem with all the other sources (alcohol,
                              canisters, esbit, white gas) is that it takes energy (often
                              petrochemical) and water to harvest it and to make it. When you're
                              burning alcohol, there's a net energy loss: harvest, fermentation,
                              distillation, burning. The distilling, especially, requires lots of
                              energy. Just think how the revenue officers tracked down stills during
                              prohibition. For processing esbit and natural gas and white gas, you
                              have the same problem. We're not burning the stuff exactly as it comes
                              out of the ground, we have to use energy (usually by burning oil) to
                              turn it into a usable form. And then there's the packaging and the
                              energy required to make and recycle it.

                              Now, the real problem with burning wood is: where did the wood come
                              from? Folks in Europe recently discovered this problem with their
                              palm-oil ethanol. Burning ethanol made from palm oil was great for
                              lowering EU's CO2. The problem was, it was increasing the planet's
                              atmospheric CO2. This was because Indonesia was (and is) cutting down
                              (and burning) tropical forest to plant palm trees for palm oil.

                              So, the point really isn't to plant trees, but to stop deforestation.
                              There is no way that new plantations of baby trees (or even 40-year-old
                              plantations of young trees) can capture and hold more CO2 than old
                              forests. It's not just the CO2 in the trees, it's the CO2 that's been
                              pumped into the ground as organic matter.

                              And let's face it, a plantation full of baby trees is no place to hang a
                              hammock. Baby trees are too bushy and too small. You'll end up
                              sleeping on the ground. And the ground won't be any good for sleeping
                              because it won't have that cushiony organic layer.

                              CL
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.