Preparedness for when

sb44

Ok folks (especially Bedsit Bob ), I seem to have developed the bug for experimenting with these little penny stoves (as I posted a few pages ago).

I want to have a go at baking either bread or muffins/cakes on it (should we have a SHTF long term scenario and have no gas/electric ) but need a slow/weaker flame than I had been getting with my woodgas stove or trangia (I could use the simmer ring on the trangia but the flame is then on one side of the pot so would have to turn it during cooking and the burn wasn't as long as I would want it).

Anyway, I found a way to get a longer burn which isn't as fierce as the other penny stoves I have used.





Instead of putting holes on the outer part of the can, I put them on the inside of the ring and only put 8 instead of 16.

Another difference was to put 3 cotton wool balls inside the stove to soak up the meths.

Also, I made 7 holes in the centre instead of the 5 I normally make and didn't use a 2p, I left the middle uncovered.

The result was an orange flame in the centre and blue flames around the edge (bit of a naff pic above, you can't really see the blue flame on that).

It lasted for just over 40 mins before it went out. I don't think you could have done much for the last 3 or 4 mins as the flames were really low, still, a long burn time using just 50ml of fuel (90% meths, 10% water mix).

I think I will use a cake in a mug recipe later, just to try it out.

Not sure whether to dry bake it or steam it yet.

Will let you all know how I get on.

Frugalsod

Karmacat wrote: »

Frugalsod - thanks for the expansion you wrote about the crash, and Lehmans not being the first - I was being very lazy, and I appreciate what you wrote.

I think it was a couple of hedge funds that were the first to fail. The real problem is that TPTB have not fixed any of the problems, simply papered over them and hope nothing goes wrong while they are in power.

Karmacat wrote: »

Volcanoes - there *is* one prep we can do, I researched it a couple of months ago: buy about 4 packets of clingfilm, so you can wrap your electronics up completely, and put them away for the duration of the fall (wrote about it at length on my prepping blog) - thats mostly for anything Icelandic that kicks off, bigger than last time.

I would also add dust masks and eye protection to stop any dust getting into you as you go outside. Though having plenty of stores indoors to cope with several weeks indoors will also be necessary. More so if you are closer to the volcano.

Karmacat wrote: »

Cash - I missed that announcement! Found it now, on a Daily Wail article. Really nasty, patronising tone: "Richard Jolly of the London Business School told The Independent: 'Human beings hate losing and when they do they behave irrationally. Keeping money at home is an absurd thing to do but it makes us really risk-adverse.'
He added: 'It is not rational, it might get stolen and it is not earning any interest but money is like a child's comfort blanket for adults. It might not ward off the monsters but it makes us feel better. It is an emotional feeling of being in control."

While that might also be true the fact that the banks now have bail in rules why take that additional risk? Especially if that is all you have. It might be more vulnerable if you have a family and they know you have a big stash of cash for emergencies.

Also the comment about not earning interest is irrelevant if they start to impose negative interest rates. Earning nothing beats losing a percentage when it is supposed to be earning you money is a joke.

thriftwizard

The tone of that first paragraph has just leapt out at me:

'Human beings hate losing and when they do they behave irrationally. Keeping money at home is an absurd thing to do but it makes us really risk-adverse.'

So keeping money at home makes us losers, eh? What a very 1980s attitude!

[Deleted User]

They can say and think what they like, we can do what we like, it makes us people who are individuals who make individual choices as to what we do with our own posessions, we each have a different life and no one set of advice suits all, we must do what is best for US, not the banks or the financial experts.

Frugalsod

MrsLurcherwalker wrote: »

They can say and think what they like, we can do what we like, it makes us people who are individuals who make individual choices as to what we do with our own posessions, we each have a different life and no one set of advice suits all, we must do what is best for US, not the banks or the financial experts.

Exactly and calling us childish is not really going to make me think differently. That said if they had not imposed bail in laws and had done more to help people with debts rather than low rates which were rarely passed on, then maybe we would be thinking differently. Also people holding cash is usually a sign of insecurity somewhere or other. People who go bankrupt start hoarding cash as it is outside the system so to speak.

[Deleted User]

In these uncertain times it seems to me to only be common sense to hold a reserve of cash somewhere other than in a financial institution. In an emergency situation I would rather have cash in hand than know I have cash in the bank and find I cannot access it when I need it even just because it's 3am and the banks are shut, the electricity supply is out, the cash machines are not working or it is just too dangerous to be out on the street. Call that childish if you like, but for me it's safety!

Frugalsod

MrsLurcherwalker wrote: »

In these uncertain times it seems to me to only be common sense to hold a reserve of cash somewhere other than in a financial institution. In an emergency situation I would rather have cash in hand than know I have cash in the bank and find I cannot access it when I need it even just because it's 3am and the banks are shut, the electricity supply is out, the cash machines are not working or it is just too dangerous to be out on the street. Call that childish if you like, but for me it's safety!

Having a small stash of cash at home for such late night emergencies is sensible, because cash points can be empty and as many HSBC customers discovered they lost access to funds for several days recently because of a glitch. You might need to get an emergency taxi home and need to be sure that you have enough cash to cope with that. For most events £100 would cover most peoples needs.

Personally I would still continue to build up cash reserves but I think food stores and equipment would also be a great way to keep bank balances low. Though for most people they are not rich and do not have tens of thousands in cash to worry about. Most workers have big mortgages and little savings anyway, or high rents and are in the same boat. So even a few hundred pounds in the house is probably as much as they have anywhere.

jk0

Frugalsod wrote: »

Having a small stash of cash at home for such late night emergencies is sensible, because cash points can be empty and as many HSBC customers discovered they lost access to funds for several days recently because of a glitch. You might need to get an emergency taxi home and need to be sure that you have enough cash to cope with that. For most events £100 would cover most peoples needs.

Personally I would still continue to build up cash reserves but I think food stores and equipment would also be a great way to keep bank balances low. Though for most people they are not rich and do not have tens of thousands in cash to worry about. Most workers have big mortgages and little savings anyway, or high rents and are in the same boat. So even a few hundred pounds in the house is probably as much as they have anywhere.

One thing you might want to do is have a smallish stash in various places. Maybe £100 in the car BOB, for emergencies. A larger amount could be stored securely somewhere away from your house, in case your house burns to the ground. Otherwise you'd probably have a week with no cards or cash, until they could send you new ones. Also, I tend to keep £4.30 in change in the inside pockets of my coats. I can get home from anywhere in Reading on the bus with that amount, if I have car trouble.

Frugalsod

jk0 wrote: »

One thing you might want to do is have a smallish stash in various places. Maybe £100 in the car BOB, for emergencies. A larger amount could be stored securely somewhere away from your house, in case your house burns to the ground. Otherwise you'd probably have a week with no cards or cash, until they could send you new ones. Also, I tend to keep £4.30 in change in the inside pockets of my coats. I can get home from anywhere in Reading on the bus with that amount, if I have car trouble.

I have lots of little stashes so would be impossible for burglars to find them all. Plus the biggest stash is easily grabbed in an emergency. Keeping a sum in a BOB is sensible but I would think you will need a lot more for a BOB rather than a get home bag, as you could be away for months rather than a couple of days. A get home bag only needs to be enough to get you home, plus a possible couple of nights stay in a hotel in case all travel was restricted. It all depends on the emergencies that you are preparing for. If a volcano basically stopped all air traffic then you might need a plan to cope with that as an example.

Blue_Doggy

Did anyone see that Andy Haldane of the Bank of England proposed recently (at the end of last week) both negative interest rates and the abolition of cash with the stated intention of making possible for the banks to get their sticky little mitts on our hard-won gold.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11875529/We-musnt-ban-cash-or-inflate-the-pound.html refers. I first spotted it in the FT on Saturday, (https://www.ft.com/cms/s/.../7967908e-5ded-11e5-9846-de406ccb37f2.html‎) where the cash-grabbing intention was clearer, but the article is now behind the FT pay-wall.

Just as you've been saying!