Good day. I have cleaned numerous vapourisers with the heat quench method. This has sometimes created a small leak where the bottom of the vape has become loose at the crimped area. I have looked at lots of posts regarding different methods i.e. ultrasonic cleaners, also carb cleaner. I was wondering has anybody tested Wynns off car solution and letting them soak for a number of hours. The product is around £30.00 for 5 litres. Just have not found any posts or any feedback. This is for cleaning catalytic boxes and various parts on the emission side of vehicles. I am very tempted to try it. Thanking you for any feed back.
I’m unable to visualise the vapouriser you’re referring to. The cleaning method I use is to get the vaporiser up to red heat and omit the ‘quench’, tapping it gently on a hard surface to dislodge the burnt deposits loosened by the level of heat they don’t reach in use. Another £20 or so above the price of the Wynns would buy an air compressor, which blows out the debris effectively.
Thank you for your reply. The various tilley vapourisers I have heated on a wood burner stove and got to cherry red. I have then tapped and dropped in cold water as I see some time ago the water and heat created the quench that caused the carbon to release. Not all vapourisers have had a problem but some of them become loose at the bottom where they were crimped from manufacture. I have a compressor which is used also. Kind regards
This was a method used by Primus (and possibly other) dealers to clean out stove burners - a footpump blew air through the heated burner. I could be wrong but I've always imagined the method was intended to oxidise the carbon deposits to carbon dioxide rather than dislodge them and blow them out. I think you might have to be careful with a compressor that the airflow wasn't too great and you didn't overheat the vapouriser at the same time thus producing a sort of 'thermic lance' which would end up oxidising the vapouriser as well as the carbon deposits!
@Steptoe Tilley vapourisers are the biggest challenge because not only does the lack of a removable jet prevent a through-put of compressed air, but the pricker wire guides built into the vapouriser become debris traps, holding onto the bulk of any deposits dislodged by the heat treatment and hindering attempts to release the debris by tapping. In addition, their steel construction makes it probable that oxide scale is created in the red hot condition, adding to the material held on the ledges of the pricker wire guides. Here’s a sectioned Tilley vapouriser showing a pricker wire guide in place (there are two in the vapouriser at intervals. Here’s one of the guides removed, the ‘funnel’ shape is pointing towards the jet when installed, so getting debris out is problematical, since it has to find its way through the central hole, Tilley advised replacement of clogged vapourisers, not simply to sell more I’d say, but because they considered servicing them was impossible.
@presscall Thankyou for your time and illustrations. I can see the problems caused by the structure of the vapouriser.
David thank you for your explanation also. I may just bite the bullet and try this solvent . I was hoping somebody had tried it and give an opinion on the product. Thank you again for your remarks.
@Steptoe Glad I’ve maybe helped you decide. My apologies for not giving you my thoughts about the solvent. Truth is, I’ve nothing useful to offer, but @MYN is knowledgeable about industrial chemicals and their action and reaction with other chemicals and substances. He’d need to know what the Wynns stuff is made of exactly. If used on a Tilley vaporiser, to stand any chance of the solvent getting past those pricker wire guides and not reaching interior surfaces where air pockets persisted, it would have to be suspended vertically in the substance. Even then, jet orifice end uppermost would be the only way to ensure air pockets wouldn’t be trapped in those pricker guide cones. How successful you’d be thoroughly flushing the stuff out complete with dissolved deposits is another matter.
@presscall Thank you once again for all your advice and although you have no knoweldge of the solvent being used you have still raised some interesting facts. I read some reviews on the chemical and my thoughts were if it loosened carbon in car components it should maybe do the same on deposits in the vapouriser. I was hoping to just find a member who has used it kind regards.
Interesting thread.. some good advice regarding heat and quench There is a post in the Fettling Forum/Fettlers Masterclass under a heading “Restoring Q99s and Safe Starting..” where member furry flivver uses a spray type of carbon cleaner then heats the Q99 to remove the carbon. I admit i don’t know if this method would work with a Tilley vapouriser? It may only work with a generator with an asbestos type core? The sprays mentioned in the thread are available though and for less than the £30 mentioned so perhaps worth a shot? here’s the heading/thread
@Steptoe Are you referring to this product?: It is always good to give anything available a try as long as it is within your budgetary means. I do not know if it'd work to remove the hard carbon deposit in pressure lamp or lantern vaporizers. In general, the MSDS would not necessarily show all the constituents. It contains C9-11 ethoxylated alcohols and tetrasodium ethylene diamine tetraacetate(sodium salt of EDTA). It is slightly alkaline, with a pH 8-10. There had been a number of patents with similar chemical carbon deposit removing solutions. Nobody would have taken the trouble to patent anything if the ideas or inventions don't actually work to some extents. These carbon, soot, etc removers would often contain a combination surfactants, co-solvents, penetrants, dispersants, chelators, emulsifying agents. The proportions of the selected constituents would be tailored to suit the needs for removing the intended stuffs. One of their findings which might or might not be generally applicable here would be: The carbon deposit is relatively complex in components and mainly contains hydroxy acid, asphaltene, oil coke, ash and the like. The carbon deposit attachments are generally cation attachments, cations of the carbon deposit attachments lose one or more electrons, so that the number of the electrons at the outermost layer of the carbon deposit attachments reaches a stable structure of 8 or 2 electrons, the larger the atomic radius of atoms, the stronger the electron losing capability of the atoms, the stronger the carbon deposit cation deposits are tightly adsorbed on the metal surface, and the carbon deposit cation deposits are often difficult to clean when being tightly adsorbed on the surface of an inner cavity part of an engine. Most would deploy some detergent mode of action to free up the carbon deposits. To my understanding, the carbon-rich particulates that are deposited in Diesel Particulate Filters aren't formed in exactly the same manner as those in lantern vaporizers. In the former, the carbon-rich particulates are formed due to incomplete combustion of fuels in the engines and would therefore be present in the exhausts. These are rather 'loose' or free particles suspended in the gaseous combustion products. The carbon/sooty particulates would then be arrested by the DPFs. The buildup of individual particulate carbon-rich matter would eventually be high enough to form a substantial layer. In general they are relatively loose and less consolidated than those formed in lantern vaporizers. In the latter(vaporizers), the carbon-rich deposits are formed purely by thermal decomposition in the absence of oxygen within the confines of the pressurized vaporizers. The manner in which it is formed produces a carbon-rich deposit structure that is more cohesive than that in the former(DPF). It has a somewhat higher structural integrity. The mode of action in most carbon deposit cleaners might not be fully effective on this type of deposit, especially if they have already been coked to nearly pure carbon. With purely chemical means, one possibility of removing hard carbon deposit would be by using 'Piranha Solution', which is basically some mixtures of concentrated sulphuric acid and hydrogen peroxide@30% or more concentration.(a relatively hazardous stuff).
This stuff works by completely oxidizing the carbon to carbon dioxide in situ. The mixture produces a highly reactive nascent oxygen(atomic oxygen) to react with the carbon.
@MYN Would Pirhana Solution corrode the base metal, brass or steel, of a vapouriser? Thanks again for your excellent insights into such matters.
Unfortunately, in most cases, yes. It would eventually corrode many metals if left in for long enough. Highly concentrated sulphuric acid with an oxidizer like higher concentrations of hydrogen peroxide would decompose many organics and carbon. Surprisingly, it does not corrode steel and stainless steel that much.
@MYN Thank you for your very interesting descriptive findings on the solution. Yes that is the product I was thinking of trying. Thanks also to Presscall for contacting yourself to comment on this subject. Kind and best regards to you both.
@podbros Hello and good morning. Thank you for your comments regarding the spray solutions for vehicles. Yes I believe many companies produce a product to spray in various parts of the vehicle in a spray foam method. I was wondering if this 5 litre tub in liquid form would have worked leaving the items to soak. However it seems this mixture of sulphuric acid and Hydrogen peroxide mixture may work better. Thank you for your remarks. Best wishes.
I use a product called Seafoam. It's a carburettor and fuel system cleaner which I use in Motorbike fuel tanks. After heating the vaporiser with a blow torch and then tapping out the remaining crud onto a wooden block then suspend the vaporiser vertically in the vice I use an old syringe to drip the solvent down the tube, leave it to soak for an hour then blow out the crud and then burn it out again with the blow torch method. I polish the needle with fine emery paper and always do the squirt test before replacing the burner
Despite the effectiveness, this solution is extremely dangerous to make or work with. It'd be best to avoid it under normal circumstances.
@Andrew Carnochan Thank you Andrew for another thought on another cleaning way to remove the crud. I am now also using a different fuel which hopefully may result in less cleaning time on my lamps.
