Refilling Gas Canisters

[Chrissie Pebbles]

We've been refilling gas canisters with that gadget thing, for a few years now, but I've always wondered about it, in case the seal on a gas canister is designed for one filling, really Just the other night, I was convinced one of mine has a slow leak (I put it outside the tent overnight), and the next morning I barely got one brew out if it. Incidentally, I always split the stove and canister overnight, so it was certainly nothing to do with the control on the stove. Anyone else had/heard anything like this?

 

[Winki]

Yeah, twice. Wasn't slow. Five or ten mins max and gone. I used to use the tiny wee Korean one off the tall tubey can.
Each had been re-filled (to about half) more than forty or fifty times though before the can valve failed.

Not had an issue though since I changed to the proper two-piece screw on set-up off the tall butane cans for refilling which I use most of the time. Hundreds done.

 

[Chrissie Pebbles]

Yeah, twice. Wasn't slow. Five or ten mins max and gone. I used the tiny wee Korean one off the tall tubey can.
Each had been re-filled (to about half) more than forty or fifty times though before the can valve failed.

Not had an issue though since I changed to the proper two-piece screw on set-up off the tall butane cans.

That's interesting, thanks for that. I couldn't say how many times this one had been refilled, but it was certainly a fair number.
I'm not sure which gadget it is that we use, tbh. Hubby tends to do the actual refilling - in fact I didn't even know there was more than one type available, but it is a screw-on thing...

 

[grattygruff]

I’ve always marked on the underside of the canister with a sharpie the weight when bought and then a mark every time it’s refilled to its original weight
After 10 refills it gets recycled
I just assumed the valve had a finite life and don’t want to push my luck

 

[timday]

Yes, the finite life of the valves is the reason there isn't more of an industry around refilling/reusing them, and the refill gadgets are on dodgy ground health-and-safety wise (I don't think I've ever seen one for sale in/by a UK gear shop, or one with a "CE" or "UKCA" mark.)

Cans engineered for long term multiple refill and reuse would need to have valves more like what you get on the big refillable Calor Gas tanks, at last if you wanted to be sure about safety.

 

[Mole]

Yes, the finite life of the valves is the reason there isn't more of an industry around refilling/reusing them, and the refill gadgets are on dodgy ground health-and-safety wise (I don't think I've ever seen one for sale in/by a UK gear shop, or one with a "CE" or "UKCA" mark.)

Cans engineered for long term multiple refill and reuse would need to have valves more like what you get on the big refillable Calor Gas tanks, at last if you wanted to be sure about safety.

Whilst this is true, there's not a huge difference between screwing something onto refill a can and screwing something on to use the gas from it? Doesn't plain logic suggest that actual stove usage with the time and repetition involved has magnitudes more effect on the valve than refilling?
Canisters are designed to be used many many times or over a long period of time, because certain items they work with (like blow torches or occasional campers stoves) might only be used once or twice a year before being put away in storage.
The safety marginwith valve durability is huge. The main safety issue with refilling is overfilling?


In my experience the failure issue for lindal valve canisters have been threads wearing from repeated use rather than the seal leaking.


I have had 7 years (a few dozen refills) with one 100g coleman canister, before I only ditched it because it looked rusty/tatty rather than was leaking. I'm still regularly using two jetboil canisters which are probably five years old. The main stove I use them with is a Soto windmaster, which has a good build quality which may make a difference in wear?

 

[Chrissie Pebbles]

I’ve always marked on the underside of the canister with a sharpie the weight when bought and then a mark every time it’s refilled to its original weight
After 10 refills it gets recycled
I just assumed the valve had a finite life and don’t want to push my luck

Thanks, that's a good idea!

 

[Chrissie Pebbles]

Yes, the finite life of the valves is the reason there isn't more of an industry around refilling/reusing them, and the refill gadgets are on dodgy ground health-and-safety wise (I don't think I've ever seen one for sale in/by a UK gear shop, or one with a "CE" or "UKCA" mark.)

Cans engineered for long term multiple refill and reuse would need to have valves more like what you get on the big refillable Calor Gas tanks, at last if you wanted to be sure about safety.

Thank you

 

[Chrissie Pebbles]

Whilst this is true, there's not a huge difference between screwing something onto refill a can and screwing something on to use the gas from it? Doesn't plain logic suggest that actual stove usage with the time and repetition involved has magnitudes more effect on the valve than refilling?
Canisters are designed to be used many many times or over a long period of time, because certain items they work with (like blow torches or occasional campers stoves) might only be used once or twice a year before being put away in storage.
The safety marginwith valve durability is huge. The main safety issue with refilling is overfilling?


In my experience the failure issue for lindal valve canisters have been threads wearing from repeated use rather than the seal leaking.


I have had 7 years (a few dozen refills) with one 100g coleman canister, before I only ditched it because it looked rusty/tatty rather than was leaking. I'm still regularly using two jetboil canisters which are probably five years old. The main stove I use them with is a Soto windmaster, which has a good build quality which may make a difference in wear?

Mine is also a Soto Windmaster

 

[timday]

Whilst this is true, there's not a huge difference between screwing something onto refill a can and screwing something on to use the gas from it? Doesn't plain logic suggest that actual stove usage with the time and repetition involved has magnitudes more effect on the valve than refilling?
Canisters are designed to be used many many times or over a long period of time, because certain items they work with (like blow torches or occasional campers stoves) might only be used once or twice a year before being put away in storage.
The safety marginwith valve durability is huge. The main safety issue with refilling is overfilling?


In my experience the failure issue for lindal valve canisters have been threads wearing from repeated use rather than the seal leaking.


I have had 7 years (a few dozen refills) with one 100g coleman canister, before I only ditched it because it looked rusty/tatty rather than was leaking. I'm still regularly using two jetboil canisters which are probably five years old. The main stove I use them with is a Soto windmaster, which has a good build quality which may make a difference in wear?

Yes sorry I'm using "valve" to mean the gubbins on the top as a whole including screwthread and Lindal valve inside. I'm not actually sure which of those elements is more likely to wear out first. (I've also seen it suggested that accumulating dirt is the most likely cause of eventual valve leakiness.) And I'm not singling out refilling as being particularly wearing... it'd just be another instance of a screw/operate valve/unscrew cycle which a can probably goes through many many times in its lifetime

I'm sure they are overengineered... but given the scope of the EN-417 standard is "non-refillable metallic gas cartridges", as soon as you start refilling them they (in theory) become subject to a whole bunch of different (and much more demanding) legislation that EN-417 cans as we know them would have no chance of complying with. In practice that's not a problem for Joe Camper DIYing refills with a Flip Fuel... but it would be for anyone endeavouring to do refilling or recycle-to-refill commerically. And a lot of that is because the valve/attachment/whatever you want to call it on top of EN-417 cans simply doesn't have the robustness or longevity that complying with the regulatory regime for refillable cans would demand.

 

[Chrissie Pebbles]

Yes sorry I'm using "valve" to mean the gubbins on the top as a whole including screwthread and Lindal valve inside. I'm not actually sure which of those elements is more likely to wear out first. (I've also seen it suggested that accumulating dirt is the most likely cause of eventual valve leakiness.) And I'm not singling out refilling as being particularly wearing... it'd just be another instance of a screw/operate valve/unscrew cycle which a can probably goes through many many times in its lifetime

I'm sure they are overengineered... but given the scope of the EN-417 standard is "non-refillable metallic gas cartridges", as soon as you start refilling them they (in theory) become subject to a whole bunch of different (and much more demanding) legislation that EN-417 cans as we know them would have no chance of complying with. In practice that's not a problem for Joe Camper DIYing refills with a Flip Fuel... but it would be for anyone endeavouring to do refilling or recycle-to-refill commerically. And a lot of that is because the valve/attachment/whatever you want to call it on top of EN-417 cans simply doesn't have the robustness or longevity that complying with the regulatory regime for refillable cans would demand.

Yes, I get that. Anyway, managed to buy myself a new canister today when I passed through Castleton on today's route (as well as a magnificent All Day Breakfast...), so the two old ones are now defunct and I'm starting afresh with a new one!

 

[jg8]

I have heard of a few people getting slow leaks after refilling, usually down to the valve not sealing properly afterwards. It doesn’t happen often, but it’s definitely a known risk. Leaving it outside overnight is a good test though, sounds like yours did lose a bit..

 

[James B]

Not had a leak (slow or otherwise) but once the refilled cannister always noticeably emitted more gas than usual when screwed/unscrewed from the stove...

 

[Chrissie Pebbles]

Not had a leak (slow or otherwise) but once the refilled cannister always noticeably emitted more gas than usual when screwed/unscrewed from the stove...

I think I've noticed that too...

 

[Robert P]

I am sure that canisters can leak after refilling, but is there any reason this is more likely with a transfer device per se than if attaching and detaching a stove as I presume they open the valve in the same way? It just seems odd intuitively. Maybe there is a subtle factor (eg different direction of flow) that makes a difference, or maybe the pins on some poor quality transfer devices are more likely to cause damage to the Lindahl valve in the canister?

 

[Mole]

I am sure that canisters can leak after refilling, but is there any reason this is more likely with a transfer device per se than if attaching and detaching a stove as I presume they open the valve in the same way? It just seems odd intuitively. Maybe there is a subtle factor (eg different direction of flow) that makes a difference, or maybe the pins on some poor quality transfer devices are more likely to cause damage to the Lindahl valve in the canister?

Confirmation bias. People are a little bit suspicious because refilling is a novel thing (with some negative chatter around it), so they pay more attention after doing so, and become aware that a little bit of gas always escapes when connecting a cartridge.
Connecting, using and disconnecting a stove is no different than doing a refill from the valve's point of view.
Surely, just by the numbers, regular connection/usage/disconnection to a stove will have greater impact on the valve wear than occasionally refilling it?

 

[Johnny3000]

I can imagine the valve could leak if you got sand or dirt in it during the refilling process. Not very likely to happen, but could be possible.

 

[Chrissie Pebbles]

Confirmation bias. People are a little bit suspicious because refilling is a novel thing (with some negative chatter around it), so they pay more attention after doing so, and become aware that a little bit of gas always escapes when connecting a cartridge.
Connecting, using and disconnecting a stove is no different than doing a refill from the valve's point of view.
Surely, just by the numbers, regular connection/usage/disconnection to a stove will have greater impact on the valve wear than occasionally refilling it?

But by the time my canister emptied itself, it had had countless connections and disconnections, due to it having been refilled - and then used again - loads of times over several years, so there's the wear and tear. And far more wear and tear than you'd get from just using a canister once, without ever refilling it to use again...

 

[Tychonius]

To me, no question that refilling a canister increases wear on the valve. The valve has, I presume, been engineered to be filled at the source and to then be connected multiple times to a stove until depleted, with an unknown safety margin beyond that level of use to insure nobody blows themselves up, and then discarded. Thankfully that safety margin seems large because I refilled one 100 gm and one 230 gm canister for many years. Valve never failed on either. Replaced the 100 because I've used it the most, but still have and use the same 230. And neither was/is babied by simple pure N-Butane fills; they get filled (slightly underfilled) with a mix of 30/70 propane/butane pre-blended in a hearty green Coleman 1 lb. cylinder. That mix arrived at because I've purchased numerous 30/70 and even 40/60 canisters at retail.

 

[Diddi]

Put a drop of fairy liquid over the connection and watch for any bubbles.

 

[Robert P]

There is a timely article (published yesterday) and accompanying thread on Backpackinglight.com:

Fuel Transfer Valves for Backpacking: Fuel Physics, Myths, Risks, and Real-World Performance - Backpacking Light

Technical guide to canister fuel transfer devices - how Alpenflow and FlipFuel work, physics, safety limits, and best practices.

backpackinglight.com

Fuel Transfer Valves for Backpacking: Fuel Physics, Myths, Risks, and Real-World Performance - Backpacking Light

Companion forum thread to: Fuel Transfer Valves for Backpacking: Fuel Physics, Myths, Risks, and Real-World Performance This article examines canister fuel transfer devices from a thermodynamics and engineering perspective, focusing...

backpackinglight.com

The article 'Fuel Transfer Valves for Backpacking: Fuel Physics, Myths, Risks, and Real-World Performance' is accessible to non-members. On a quick look I didn't see anything about long-term durability of canisters in terms of threads and valve opening / closing cycles; it focuses more on the transfer process itself.

 

[Balagan]

There is a timely article (published yesterday) and accompanying thread on Backpackinglight.com:

Fuel Transfer Valves for Backpacking: Fuel Physics, Myths, Risks, and Real-World Performance - Backpacking Light

Technical guide to canister fuel transfer devices - how Alpenflow and FlipFuel work, physics, safety limits, and best practices.

backpackinglight.com

Fuel Transfer Valves for Backpacking: Fuel Physics, Myths, Risks, and Real-World Performance - Backpacking Light

Companion forum thread to: Fuel Transfer Valves for Backpacking: Fuel Physics, Myths, Risks, and Real-World Performance This article examines canister fuel transfer devices from a thermodynamics and engineering perspective, focusing...

backpackinglight.com

The article 'Fuel Transfer Valves for Backpacking: Fuel Physics, Myths, Risks, and Real-World Performance' is accessible to non-members. On a quick look I didn't see anything about long-term durability of canisters in terms of threads and valve opening / closing cycles; it focuses more on the transfer process itself.

That's a whole lot of very scientific testing and formulas that basically boil down to: do it carefully.

The phrase "Asia-made knockoffs" (knockoffs of the FlipFuel is implied) is pretty lame when you consider that the FlipFuel is nothing more than a knockoff of the old Korean G-Works transfer unit that came out ten years ago. Also according to their website, FlipFuel is a "proud Arizona Business"... that gets its adapters from China.

 

[Feepole]

That's a whole lot of very scientific testing and formulas that basically boil down to: do it carefully.

The phrase "Asia-made knockoffs" (knockoffs of the FlipFuel is implied) is pretty lame when you consider that the FlipFuel is nothing more than a knockoff of the old Korean G-Works transfer unit that came out ten years ago. Also according to their website, FlipFuel is a "proud Arizona Business"... that gets its adapters from China.

I posted a pic on the 'What Have You Bought?' thread of my recently purchased flipfuel. I got some really helpful comments from some of the regulars here about some of the things to watch out for.

One particular point was about the importance of weighing the cannister to ensure it wasn't overfilling. It did mention in the quickstart guide that came with it not to overfill but i hadn't appreciated how easy that is to do with a warmed up donor and a frozen receiving cartridge. I went back and checked and discovered that I'd ended up with 310 (net) g in a 230g cannister I'm sure even in a very hot environment that would still be within a safe margins in terms of a catastrophic failure but obviously not ideal and would certainly exacerbate the other/linked issue of flaring.

Even filled to 70% I noticed than the slightest movement of the lit stove produced some pretty 'impressive' flaring. It's something I would always avoid inside tent/bothy anyway, as flaring can always be an issue but this did seem quite extreme.

Then there's the issue of cold weather performance of consolidating dregs from old cannisters where the mix may be compromised.

All of these are potential safety hazards that should probably be made clearer in the quick start guide that comes with the device.

 

[Mole]

That's a whole lot of very scientific testing and formulas that basically boil down to: do it carefully.

The phrase "Asia-made knockoffs" (knockoffs of the FlipFuel is implied) is pretty lame when you consider that the FlipFuel is nothing more than a knockoff of the old Korean G-Works transfer unit that came out ten years ago. Also according to their website, FlipFuel is a "proud Arizona Business"... that gets its adapters from China.

#americanexceptionalism

 

[Mole]

I posted a pic on the 'What Have You Bought?' thread of my recently purchased flipfuel. I got some really helpful comments from some of the regulars here about some of the things to watch out for.

One particular point was about the importance of weighing the cannister to ensure it wasn't overfilling. It did mention in the quickstart guide that came with it not to overfill but i hadn't appreciated how easy that is to do with a warmed up donor and a frozen receiving cartridge. I went back and checked and discovered that I'd ended up with 310 (net) g in a 230g cannister I'm sure even in a very hot environment that would still be within a safe margins in terms of a catastrophic failure but obviously not ideal and would certainly exacerbate the other/linked issue of flaring.

Even filled to 70% I noticed than the slightest movement of the lit stove produced some pretty 'impressive' flaring. It's something I would always avoid inside tent/bothy anyway, as flaring can always be an issue but this did seem quite extreme.

Then there's the issue of cold weather performance of consolidating dregs from old cannisters where the mix may be compromised.

All of these are potential safety hazards that should probably be made clearer in the quick start guide that comes with the device.

I think 310 is probably well beyond a safe level!

In the early days of using these a friend filled a 230 can and left it in his garden shed where he had done the filling. (Which admittedly was in a sunny spot). When he went to use it some days later, he noticed the whole dimple on the underside had popped outwards. When he weighed the can he had only gone over by about 30 grams. So adding another 50 g might well be beyond the point where it would be safe.