Dumb Question (?) - Propane Torches

Mark Thorson said:

I didn't say it was the best, and I certainly didn't
"scramble" for it, whatever that means. Here's three more
that mention "food grade propane" (do a text search to
skip to the places where it is mentioned):

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,066,350.WKU.&OS=PN/6,066,350&RS=PN/6,066,350

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,361,814.WKU.&OS=PN/6,361,814&RS=PN/6,361,814

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,610,343.WKU.&OS=PN/6,610,343&RS=PN/6,610,343

I believe these references are talking about using the propane and
butane as a solvent for food products; they're not actually using
the propane as a fuel.

I would thnk it's safe to use any propane, butane, or natural gas,
scented or not, for carmelizing sugar.

-sw

Steve Wertz said:

I believe these references are talking about using the propane
and butane as a solvent for food products; they're not actually
using the propane as a fuel.

Dave seemed to be questioning whether there even
was such a thing as "food grade propane".
I think that question is completely settled.

Quoted message said:

I would thnk it's safe to use any propane, butane, or
natural gas, scented or not, for carmelizing sugar.

Note that a warning scent is not the only feature
that distinguishes between a fuel-grade and food-grade
product. Gases derived from petroleum may be
contaminated with lightweight aromatic compounds
such as napthalene ("aromatic" in the sense of
having benzene-type ring systems, not necessarily
anything with an odor). Many aromatics are
carcinogens. With a propane that meets regulatory
standards for a food-grade product, you can be
sure that these contaminants are not present.

Mark Thorson said:

Quoted message said:

At least one??? That one is so obscure that it is in Chinese,
and appears to have something to do with someone tendering out
a project. For all I know it could be the Chinese version of
the Nigerian scam.

Huh? It's accompanied by a full English translation.
You do read English, right?

Yes, I read English. Do you? Or is your use of language limited to entering words in Google searches and then text searches for the appearance of word combinations?
If you are going to cite a web page to support something you calmed you really should read it to see if t has anything at all to do with what we were talking about.
In case you had not noticed, none of the pages that you cited had anything at all to do with the use of propane torches for caramelizing sugar. For the benefit of
those who didn't bother to check your link, here is a cut and paste of the English portion of it:

Equipment Requirements:
Equipment must use propane, butane or iso-butane as an edible oil solvent. We would initially be interested in three unit sizes:
1.) a piloting unit that we could use in the lab with a capacity of about 50lbs.
2.) a commercial unit with a capacity of about 30 tons
3.) a commercial unit with a capacity of about 100 tons
4.) We would prefer that all units to be stainless steel / food grade, but we
would also be interested in units make of carbon steel.
5.) We would be interested in receiving an immediate price quote in US$.
6.) We presently have toll processing business that could be booked
for these units as soon as we could get them up and running.
7.) Is it possible to get some photographs of this equip. and some
basics specifications as to size, weight and scale for each unit.
Also space requirements for unit's operation and set up.
8.) Can a standardized protocol be written in English both for the
operation and maintenance of the units?
9.) How many operators per shift are required to run a unit?
10.)How skilled are the operators?
11.)Does the unit fully desolventize the separated oil or meal during
a desolventizing phase of the extraction cycle? If desolventizing
does not occur in the unit itself, then what is the protocol for
desolventizing after extraction.
12.) Is there a unit now functioning in China that runs on propane (food grade) alone - not a mix of propane / butane or butane only.
13.) We need a unit that can reliably run on odorless / food grade propane
at ambient temperature and low pressure. What are the temperature and pressure ranges for this equipment?
14.) The energy requirements for running the unit.
15.) The type and kind of energy used by the unit
16.) Does the unit price include a compressor? If so what type of compressor is specified?
17.) How is heat introduced to the unit? Is a heating element such as a boiler inlcuded with the equip.
and is it reflected in the price quote?
18.) If the desolventizing phase of the extraction cycle is performed outside of the unit is equipment
for same included for the set up / installation and is it included in the price.
19.) Where in China is this equip. manufactured and where is the closest sea port for shipping same.

Pray tell..... where does it say anything about using food grade propane for caramelizing?

Quoted message said:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,066,350.WKU.&OS=PN/6,066,350&RS=PN/6,066,350

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,361,814.WKU.&OS=PN/6,361,814&RS=PN/6,361,814

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,610,343.WKU.&OS=PN/6,610,343&RS=PN/6,610,343

Yes, these three versions of the same thing deal with the use of food grade propane as a solvent in the in the process of extracting cocoa fat from cocoa mass and has
nothing to do with using food grade propane for caramelizing sugar. For crying out loud, if you are going to cite a web source to help prove your point you should at
least read it and ensure that it has something to do with the issue you are discussing and not just the simple appearance of the words you used.

Mark Thorson said:

Steve Wertz said:

I believe these references are talking about using the propane
and butane as a solvent for food products; they're not actually
using the propane as a fuel.

Dave seemed to be questioning whether there even
was such a thing as "food grade propane".
I think that question is completely settled.

No. This Dave was questioning where you came up with the nonsense
about using food grade propane for caramelizing sugar. The OP had
asked a legitimate question about using the type of propane torch
available in hardware stores for caramelizing, and you replied
"Food-grade propane is odourless. If it has an odour, don't use it
for food." which is utter nonsense since nobody was talking about a
process that involved eating the gas, just using it for heat.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I would thnk it's safe to use any propane, butane, or
natural gas, scented or not, for carmelizing sugar.

Note that a warning scent is not the only feature
that distinguishes between a fuel-grade and food-grade
product. Gases derived from petroleum may be
contaminated with lightweight aromatic compounds
such as napthalene ("aromatic" in the sense of
having benzene-type ring systems, not necessarily
anything with an odor). Many aromatics are
carcinogens. With a propane that meets regulatory
standards for a food-grade product, you can be
sure that these contaminants are not present.

Mark Thorson said:

Note that a warning scent is not the only feature
that distinguishes between a fuel-grade and food-grade
product. Gases derived from petroleum may be
contaminated with lightweight aromatic compounds
such as napthalene ("aromatic" in the sense of
having benzene-type ring systems, not necessarily
anything with an odor). Many aromatics are
carcinogens. With a propane that meets regulatory
standards for a food-grade product, you can be
sure that these contaminants are not present.

Do you know of any health and safety codes that
prohibit use of non food grade propane? Without
that, this would be of no concern to me.

When you breath exhaust fumes from a car,
even at low concentrations when walking down the
street, you're being exposed to carcinogens too.
I don't know of a way to attain zero exposure
to any and all carcinogens, which seems to
be your criteria here.

--
Reg email: RegForte (at) (that free MS email service) (dot) com

In article <[email hidden]>,

Mark Thorson said:

Steve Wertz said:

I believe these references are talking about using the propane
and butane as a solvent for food products; they're not actually
using the propane as a fuel.

Dave seemed to be questioning whether there even
was such a thing as "food grade propane".
I think that question is completely settled.

Quoted message said:

I would thnk it's safe to use any propane, butane, or
natural gas, scented or not, for carmelizing sugar.

Note that a warning scent is not the only feature
that distinguishes between a fuel-grade and food-grade
product. Gases derived from petroleum may be
contaminated with lightweight aromatic compounds
such as napthalene ("aromatic" in the sense of
having benzene-type ring systems, not necessarily
anything with an odor). Many aromatics are
carcinogens. With a propane that meets regulatory
standards for a food-grade product, you can be
sure that these contaminants are not present.

And how much of those *flammable* odorants and impurities do you think
make it through the 2500 F flame on the front of the torch and get stuck
to the food?

Isaac

Dave Smith said:

Mark Thorson said:

~patches~ said:

Can I just use a regular run of the mill propane torch for browning?
You know, the propane torches you can buy at the hardware or do I have
to buy something special?

Food-grade propane is odorless.
If it has an odor, don't use it for food.

WTF ?????
Where the hell did you come up with this food grade propane stuff?

Ain't ya ever heard of food-grade electricity?

Mark Thorson said:

~patches~ said:

Can I just use a regular run of the mill propane torch for browning?
You know, the propane torches you can buy at the hardware or do I have
to buy something special?

Food-grade propane is odorless.
If it has an odor, don't use it for food.

Don't think there is such a thing. I think both propane and nat gas must
include an odorant (usually methyl mercaptan).

Dave Smith said:

Mark Thorson said:

Dave seemed to be questioning whether there even
was such a thing as "food grade propane".
I think that question is completely settled.

No. This Dave was questioning where you came up with the nonsense
about using food grade propane for caramelizing sugar.

May I remind you of your earlier words.
You know seem to be back-pedalling.

Quoted message said:

WTF ?????
Where the hell did you come up with this food grade propane stuff?

You also said this, which seemed to reject the
evidence of a website for no better reason than
you didn't scroll down to the English version
of the text (as I had instructed):

Quoted message said:

At least one??? That one is so obscure that it is in Chinese,
and appears to have something to do with someone tendering out
a project. For all I know it could be the Chinese version of
the Nigerian scam.

I don't know what you meant by the "Nigerian scam"
comment, but it sure seemed like you were rejecting
the evidence of the website for reasons that had
nothing to do with carmelizing sugar.

You'll have to try better than that if you want
to wiggle out of this one.

Isaac Wingfield said:

And how much of those *flammable* odorants and impurities
do you think make it through the 2500 F flame on the front
of the torch and get stuck to the food?

Lots, especially the aromatics. Propane is
a linear chain only three carbon atoms long.
Combustion initiates from the ends, and
propane is mostly end.

Aromatics are rings (although they also may
have stubs sticking out of the rings).
They can burn in a flame, but they won't burn
nearly so readily as propane. The optimal
conditions for burning propane are not sufficient
for efficient burning of aromatics.

A flame front is not some magic thing that
completely burns every flammable molecule that
passes through it. If such were the case,
it would not be possible to get soot from
a gas flame. In fact, the opposite is true.
The vast majority of all carbon black (lampblack),
which is an industrial commodity manufactured
in huge amounts for coloring ink, plastics,
car tires, etc., comes from deposition of
soot from gas flames.

George said:

Mark Thorson said:

Food-grade propane is odorless.
If it has an odor, don't use it for food.

Don't think there is such a thing. I think both propane
and nat gas must include an odorant (usually methyl mercaptan).

Why don't you go to this page and search
on "odorless":

http://www.oilcn.com/Detail_Offer.aspx?id=14145

Reg said:

Do you know of any health and safety codes that
prohibit use of non food grade propane? Without
that, this would be of no concern to me.

I've never heard of any codes specific to making
creme brulee, if that's what you mean. It's such
a specialty, that I wouldn't expect such codes
to exist, even if there were a known hazard.

Quoted message said:

When you breath exhaust fumes from a car,
even at low concentrations when walking down the
street, you're being exposed to carcinogens too.
I don't know of a way to attain zero exposure
to any and all carcinogens, which seems to
be your criteria here.

I didn't say that. You're inventing a clearly
absurd criterion, and using that to criticize me.

Mark Thorson said:

Quoted message said:

No. This Dave was questioning where you came up with the nonsense
about using food grade propane for caramelizing sugar.

May I remind you of your earlier words.
You know seem to be back-pedalling.

Quoted message said:

WTF ?????
Where the hell did you come up with this food grade propane stuff?

Yes of course. You had warned the OP not to use propane for food unless
it us food grade. The OP had asked about using a regular propane torch
or if a special one was needed.

Quoted message said:

You also said this, which seemed to reject the
evidence of a website for no better reason than
you didn't scroll down to the English version
of the text (as I had instructed):

What a curiously asinine suggestion that is. You have tried to
discredit by rebuttal with the suggestion that I can not read. That was
after I made a comment to the effect that it appeared to have something
to do with someone trying to tender out a project. Since I my system
does not recognize Chinese characters and I do not read Chinese, it is
pretty lame on your part to suggest that I cannot read English. To make
matters worse, when I went back and quoted the English portion of the
cited page, you stupidly question whether I had followed your
instructions. We duh.... how stupid can you be to suggest that.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

At least one??? That one is so obscure that it is in Chinese,
and appears to have something to do with someone tendering out
a project. For all I know it could be the Chinese version of
the Nigerian scam.

I don't know what you meant by the "Nigerian scam"
comment, but it sure seemed like you were rejecting
the evidence of the website for reasons that had
nothing to do with carmelizing sugar.

I am sorry if the reference to the Nigerian scam went over your head. I
find it ironic that you would accuse me of not following your
instructions to scroll to the English text, or to be unable to read
English in light of the fact that I cut and pasted the entire English
text on that site. You're so damned smart maybe you can tell us what
the hell the guy is asking about. It's got nothing to with using a
propane torch to caramelize sugar.

Quoted message said:

You'll have to try better than that if you want
to wiggle out of this one.

There is nothing for me to wiggle out of. I wasn't the one who suggested
that you had to use food grade propane for the purposes of the OP.
Accusing me of not being able to read your obscure and irrelevant web
sites isn't going to help you much.

Dave Smith said:

What a curiously asinine suggestion that is. You have tried to
discredit by rebuttal with the suggestion that I can not read. That was
after I made a comment to the effect that it appeared to have something
to do with someone trying to tender out a project. Since I my system
does not recognize Chinese characters and I do not read Chinese, it is
pretty lame on your part to suggest that I cannot read English. To make
matters worse, when I went back and quoted the English portion of the
cited page, you stupidly question whether I had followed your
instructions. We duh.... how stupid can you be to suggest that.

Dave, you obviously have some sort of emotional issues.
It's wrong for you to displace your anger from whatever
source -- perhaps those women at the bake sale -- on
to me. You need psychiatric help.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

At least one??? That one is so obscure that it is in Chinese,
and appears to have something to do with someone tendering out
a project. For all I know it could be the Chinese version of
the Nigerian scam.

I don't know what you meant by the "Nigerian scam"
comment, but it sure seemed like you were rejecting
the evidence of the website for reasons that had
nothing to do with carmelizing sugar.

I am sorry if the reference to the Nigerian scam went over your head.

If you have a rational explanation for your comment,
let's hear it. I suspect not.

On Sun 08 Jan 2006 12:49:24p, Thus Spake Zarathustra, or was it Mark
Thorson?

Quoted message said:

Dave Smith said:

What a curiously asinine suggestion that is. You have tried to
discredit by rebuttal with the suggestion that I can not read. That was
after I made a comment to the effect that it appeared to have something
to do with someone trying to tender out a project. Since I my system
does not recognize Chinese characters and I do not read Chinese, it is
pretty lame on your part to suggest that I cannot read English. To make
matters worse, when I went back and quoted the English portion of the
cited page, you stupidly question whether I had followed your
instructions. We duh.... how stupid can you be to suggest that.

Dave, you obviously have some sort of emotional issues.
It's wrong for you to displace your anger from whatever
source -- perhaps those women at the bake sale -- on
to me. You need psychiatric help.

Precisely why he resides in my killfile.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> At least one??? That one is so obscure that it is in Chinese, and
> appears to have something to do with someone tendering out a
> project. For all I know it could be the Chinese version of the
> Nigerian scam.

I don't know what you meant by the "Nigerian scam"
comment, but it sure seemed like you were rejecting
the evidence of the website for reasons that had nothing to do with
carmelizing sugar.

I am sorry if the reference to the Nigerian scam went over your head.

If you have a rational explanation for your comment,
let's hear it. I suspect not.

--
Wayne Boatwright *¿*
__________________________________________________________________
And if we enter a room full of manure, may we believe in the pony.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Mark Thorson said:

Aromatics are rings (although they also may
have stubs sticking out of the rings).
They can burn in a flame, but they won't burn
nearly so readily as propane. The optimal
conditions for burning propane are not sufficient
for efficient burning of aromatics.

I would argue with that...

Most aromatics (afaik) are Esters.
Esters are alcohol based so have a lower burning point
than most hydrocarbons.

I may be wrong, but...

Cheers!
--
Om.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-[censored]." -Jack Nicholson

In article <[email hidden]>,

Mark Thorson said:

The vast majority of all carbon black (lampblack),
which is an industrial commodity manufactured
in huge amounts for coloring ink, plastics,
car tires, etc., comes from deposition of
soot from gas flames.

I NEVER get soot on anything I use a propane torch on!
IMHO it does indeed burn much, much hotter than your average gas flame.

Soot is produced by _incomplete_ burning due to the flame not being hot
enough. The propane torch pretty much solves that with sufficient oxygen
mix. Now if the flame is being used too low of a setting, that would be
different.

I run it as hot and high as I can get it. ;-)
--
Om.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-[censored]." -Jack Nicholson

I think the overall point here is that, no, you really do not need a
special torch.

By far, the vast majority of cooks just use the torches and fuel from
the hardware store...

We are not all getting stomach cancer are we? ;-)

Still waiting for Bob Pastorio to put his 2 cents in here on this one,
and Sheldon.
--
Om.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-[censored]." -Jack Nicholson

OmManiPadmeOmelet said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Mark Thorson said:

Aromatics are rings (although they also may
have stubs sticking out of the rings).
They can burn in a flame, but they won't burn
nearly so readily as propane. The optimal
conditions for burning propane are not sufficient
for efficient burning of aromatics.

I would argue with that...

Most aromatics (afaik) are Esters.

I was referring to the chemical use of the term
"aromatics", i.e. molecules with benzene-like
rings in them. I wasn't referring to molecules
that necessarily have odor.

Quoted message said:

Esters are alcohol based so have a lower burning
point than most hydrocarbons.

Esters are like carboxylic acids, but with
a carbon-based group substituted at the
site of the active (acid) hydrogen. Esters
may be formed by reacting a carboxylic acid
with an alcohol, but do not necessarily have
any of the characteristics of either.
For example, many waxes are esters.

Esters may contain benzene-like rings, but
most do not.

Quoted message said:

I may be wrong, but...

Indeed.

OmManiPadmeOmelet said:

I NEVER get soot on anything I use a propane torch on! IMHO it
does indeed burn much, much hotter than your average gas flame.

Soot is produced by _incomplete_ burning due to the flame not
being hot enough. The propane torch pretty much solves that with
sufficient oxygen mix. Now if the flame is being used too low
of a setting, that would be different.

Even if it produces much less, there will still be
some incompletely combusted by-products. This is
especially concerning for compounds like napthalene
and anthracene which are common in fossil fuels and
while not carcinogenic in their unmodified forms,
become intensely carcinogenic in some of their
modified forms which can occur from the chemistry
in a flame.