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