Chuck, he's just got clammy hands. :-)

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"chuck" wrote in message
ink.net...
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

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.

In article ,
says...


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

As an alcohol stove and heater veteran, that's for sure. It is simply
unbelievable how much water those things generate. They are not vented and it
all stays in the cabin condensinbg oiur all over everything, including you.

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.

You can set your boat on fire and not know it's on fire until it's too late.

In article ,
says...


Hmm, generally speaking, water is a major by-product of burning almost
anything combustible in an oxygen atmosphere.

True, but your propane stove does not leave water dripping from the
overhead. Maybe it's because alcohol already contains a molecule of water
in each molecule. My chemistry is rusty. Too much alcohol?

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.

chuck wrote:
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
I agree with Chuck. Roger, you have once again posed a question that
has stirred the pot. I have both (as you know) a diesel stove to heat
and cook during inclement weather and, when it's nice, I use a non
pressurized alcohol stove. I like it. Of course it is a little slower
than propane and CNG but much safer in every regard. I don't need
sniffers (although I have one because my BBQ is propane) and it never
breaks down. I don't need electricity (you do for the solenoid for a
gas stove) and if it catches fire it can be extinguished with water. I
had a pressurized alcohol stove on my Ranger and it was a little scary
but I still used it all the time. I like the non-pressurized much better.

Propane scares me. It is a bomb (Columbine). It requires special
fittings and maintenance that is beyond me. Gas fitters are
specialists. CNG is almost the same but much more expensive.

Diesel and that sort of fuel is great but smelly and hard to clean up.
In a closed system (Dickenson) they work great but take a loooong time
to get the stove hot.

Alcohol just seems to be right. Cheap, easy to deal with, and it always
works. Screw the little excess moisture.

Check out:http://www.goodoldboat.com/newslette...ewslett46.html

For another opinion.

Gaz

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 02:39:09 GMT, Gary wrote:

Diesel and that sort of fuel is great but smelly and hard to clean up.

The best way to cook with diesel is to burn it in your generator and
use an electric stove.

Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 02:39:09 GMT, Gary wrote:


Diesel and that sort of fuel is great but smelly and hard to clean up.


The best way to cook with diesel is to burn it in your generator and
use an electric stove.

Power boater!

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 05:43:53 GMT, Gary wrote:

Power boater!

Tis true, but there are sailboats with generators as well. We use
cooking as an opportunity to refreeze the cold plates and recharge the
batteries so it is not really a hardship to run the generator once in
awhile.

"chuck" wrote in message
ink.net...
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.

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.

If you ignore the heat output from each reaction, and just look at
the ratio of carbon dioxide molecules to water molecules produced,
there's no doubt that burning an alcohol produces more water.

Methyl alcohol, 2*CH3-OH + 3*O2 = 2*CO2 + 4*H2O
Ethyl alcohol, 2*C2H5-OH + 9*O2 = 4*CO2 + 12*H2O

Propane, C3H8 + 10*O2 = 3CO2 + 5*H2O

Benzene, 2C6H6 + 15*O2 = 12*CO2 + 6*H2O

On the heat equation, since alcohol is already partly oxidised,
you're likely to burn more of it to reach the same heat result.
That means yet more water.

Whether this matters is a subjective judgement . . . it obviously
offends some, and not others. Fine.

JimB

As for the original question, alcohol is widely regarded as
the safest possible stove fuel. Some reasons for this are
spurious, otheres make sense. For one thing, a spill is less
hazardous, more obvious, and easier to clean up.

We used a non-pressurized alcohol stove for years, worked
great. The old-timey pressurized ones are both less
effective & less safe IMHO.


Gary wrote:
Power boater!


???
So is the Navy, since about 1809. Get with the times!

Wayne.B wrote:
Tis true, but there are sailboats with generators as well.

Yep. Some are even configured to work acceptably *while
sailing* (gasp in horror as the opening bars of Bach's
Toccata & Fugue in D minor plays in the background). I've
even seen boats microwaving popcorn & hot chocolate while
racing. What's next, cold beer in cans???


.... We use
cooking as an opportunity to refreeze the cold plates and recharge the
batteries so it is not really a hardship to run the generator once in
awhile.


Is your refrigeration AC or PTO from the genset? We
considered the 120VAC option but went with 12V DC instead...
takes a lot longer to pull down but less dependent on
outside power & works longer "off the grid" IMHO. But then
we invested heavily in insulation, too.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King