A catalyst by definition is something that causes a change in something else without itself changing. I suppose that if one were to use a liberal interpretation of the definition a tube that causes vaporization could be called a catalyst.
But I’m just playing with words. It’s late in the evening here on the East coast. .
I always thought a catalyst augments the rate of a naturally-spontaneous reaction, or allows it to happen at lower energies…while remaining un-consumed.
So, are enzymes catalysts?
That varies from what I understood a catalyst to be. Separation of the nitrogen and oxygen atoms would not be a naturally spontaneous reaction. Unaffected by some force outside of them, they would remain bound.
My understanding of an enzyme is that it is a biological catalyst.
I’m not a chemist, however. The inputs of one would be welcome.
I’ve understood that catalysts do as @meanjoe75fan said, which includes enzymes. Separating nitrogen from oxygen in air doesn’t use a catalyst. It either uses a membrane separator, a cryogenic process, or some other non-chemical-reaction means. Changing NOx back into N2 and O2 in an exhaust system uses a catalyst.
Are you sure its not like a thermo couple to shut the gas off if theres no heat? Got a lantern but never had a camp stove so not familiar with them. Had a stove that hooked to the propane in the camper instead.
Separation of the nitrogen and oxygen atoms would not be a naturally spontaneous reaction.
Are you sure that’s true at STP? Some chemical reactions change their direction based on stuff like temperature…since NOx doesn’t accumulate over time, I thought it’d (eventually) degrade in the atmosphere? (Obviously N has a STRONG desire to exist as N2, which is why ANFO is such nasty stuff…)
Nope, it’s a tube on the first burner that is used to vaporize the gasoline, otherwise it would be a smokey mess. Only vapors actually burn, liquids don’t.
Yeah I always thought that heavier fuels burned dirtier than light ones due to insufficient vaporization associated with vapor pressure. I don’t suppose pre-vaporizing gasoline would be “worth it” when you can just have a cat clean up all that crud, but it looks like it should work in theory.
(Coleman fuel is just purer gasoline with a low octane rating. I also have heard but cannot verify that it isn’t hydrocracked and therefore takes longer to go stale. At any event, I run gasoline in my stove.)
Before unleaded gas it was a bad idea to use leaded gas, both because of cooking with lead and the deposits. No such problems with unleaded gas. But I wouldn’t want to leave the tank full of gasahol.
Didnt Smokey Yunicks research vehicle use a pretreatment for the gasoline to help achieve high mileage?-Kevin(yes liquids do not burn usaully-its the gas or vapor)
Texases, I understand your point (I think). But in my defense I DID say “if one uses a liberal interpretation of the definition I suppose one could call the coil a catalyst”. Perhaps I shouldn’t have tried to spread the word “catalyst” that thin… I knew it was problematic when I wrote it. 
No problem…an area of interest of mine, so I decided to dump some of my stored up class notes (what few I remember).
In the 50’s we called it “white gas”. I believe it was just unleaded to be used in camp stoves, etc.
It’s actually Naphtha. And it does not have any additives or anti-knock compounds in it. However, an unleaded gas with high volatily is the best fuel for campstoves and lanterns.
Regular unleaded gas still has those anti-knock compunds and detergents. It will no doubt work in you camp stove and lantern, but I would not use it for long durattion.
I lived in the bush once in complete isolation for 5 months and had 2 Coleman stoves for all our cooking. We took great care of them, as with the lanterns.
I agree with texases that the zig-zag wire simply provides turbulence and more heat transfer surface. Remember, that vaporizing tube gets really hot and stays hot. An exhaust manifold will vary in temperature depending on engine load. Once black goo starts forming - game over.
Here’s another puzzler then. That zig zag wire is replaceable. If the stove starts to produce pillowing high rising smokey yellow flames like a candle, instead of the normal non-smoking blue-ish flames, you purchase a new generator (the zig zag wire) and it fixes the problem. The old wire still looks fine, darker in color, less shiny, than the new wire, but other than that not that much different in appearance. I wonder, what’s the explanation why the new zig zag wire works better than the old one?
From Google search for Coleman parts: “New generator includes new gas tip, spring, and tip cleaning wire.” I can only guess that all these parts wear out to degrade performance, e.g., the gas tip enlarges to produce a richer (yellower) flame. I’m also guessing this “spring” is the zig-zag wire talked about. (I haven’t run a Coleman stove in 30 years.)
The old generator gets clogged with carbon to the point where trying to clean it distorts the spacing between the coils that make it work.
I still use coleman stoves when we camp but can’t use by best working “C” model from the early 50s because the larger diameter generator wire that it takes has not been made in 30 years.
I converted one of my newer ones to propane- much less work and fuss.
It seems like the gasoline versions of Coleman camp stoves are not sold in a lot of stores these days. The Target in my area for example has no gasoline versions on the shelves. Propane only. Propane has its advantages, true. No pumping needed. Still, I prefer the gasoline version b/c I don’t have to haul around those clumsy, heavy propane cylinders when I go camping. And I don’t have the propane cylinders getting knocked off the camp table and damaging the hose connection, or worse, landing on my toe – ouch!! And with my gasoline stove, if I run out of fuel out in the boondocks, I’m not dead in the water. I can siphon some fuel from the truck’s gas tank and be cooking up a storm in minutes.
Mazda has some gasoline engines with even higher compression ratios than the US SkyActiv engines. They need higher octane fuel than is sold in the US, but which is available elsewhere. They also make a diesel engine that is very similar to that high compression gas engine and we’ll be seeing that first. Direct injection causes faster evaporation and a cooler charge, inhibiting premature combustion. Injecting a bit of ethanol is another solution for cooling the intake charge. It can be a very small amount, injected directly, nothing like all the corn ethanol we’re currently wasting.
Mazda is doing very original work for such a small company. The gas mileage on their current cars is excellent, and we’d probably own a Maxda3 if the current model had come out a year earlier. We’re happy with our Elantra, but the better gas mileage would be pleasant. I wish the Mazda interiors were a little nicer, but the other mainstream Japanese companies do no better. That was one of the reasons we bought the Hyundai. It was just a little better equipped and more comfortable. I appreciate that Mazda’s exterior styling is first rate and has a nice corporate look.