A molecule of alcohol does not contain a molecule of water.

As has already been pointed out in this thread and elsewhere, and which
I pray is not in dispute, is that ALL hydrocarbon combustion yields
water vapor as a product.

The question has been whether to expect a greater (and to capture the
essence of the thread, unacceptable) amount of water vapor from a btu
generated by burning alcohol, than from a btu generated by burning, say,
propane. Even better, we would like to know how much more water vapor is
generated from alcohol combustion if in fact there is more. Because
different alcohols can be used (methanol, ethanol, isopropyl, etc.)
combustion chemistry is likely to be difficult to generalize.

But ultimately, we don't really care if alcohol produces, say 10% more
water vapor than propane. What we care about is whether the water vapor
alcohol combustion produces is sufficiently troublesome to cause us to
prefer other fuel types. That may not even be something the chemists can
tell us.

I do not know the answers to all of those questions (though it is
difficult to resist pretending that I do).

I do know the answer to the question of whether my use of alcohol as a
galley stove fuel results in more troublesome production of water vapor
than either pressurized kerosene or propane. And as I have stated,
alcohol has not produced a clammy cabin for me.

Others may have had different experiences using multiple fuels. Even
making a reproducible A/B comparison is quite a difficult undertaking.
The tests would have to be done at the same temperature/relative
humidity conditions in the same vessel. That would rule out successive
trials of each stove. About the only way this can be done is over a long
period of time.

Unless someone can provide the detailed chemical analyses, we cruisers
are stuck with testing and observation. Someone suggests a hypothesis
that burning alcohol will make my cabin clammy. I conduct a thousand
experiments, the results of which contradict the hypothesis. Therefore,
I have demonstrated that I believe gravity is just hype! Now there's a
brand of science only Fox could sell.

Chuck


Mys Terry wrote:
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 01:24:03 GMT, chuck wrote:


Are you saying that you have had a clammy cabin from burning alcohol?

My experience, based on something like 1,000 meals cooked in a 34 foot
sailboat doesn't support this conclusion.

Chuck



Really? And what's your feeling about gravity? Does it really work, or is it
just a bunch of hype?

The primary byproduct output from burning alcohol is H2O, and lots of it. It has
nothing to do with experience, and everything to do with science.



Mys Terry wrote:

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 21:24:26 GMT, chuck wrote:



Roger, the non-pressurized alcohol stoves have to be the safest of the
liquid fuel types in terms of the fuel itself.



Two problems with alcohol stoves, even if not pressurized:

1) major by-product of burning alcohol is water, and lots of it. It's a great
way to make your cabin clammy in a hurry

2) The real problem with all alcohol stoves from a safety standpoint is that the
flame is almost completely invisible. If somebody doesn't see that as a
significant safety issue, they just aren't thinking clearly.