SailNet Community banner
1 - 2 of 2 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,940 Posts
There are a lot of disparagers but it seems that the product is intended to compete with alcohol stoves. Some people like unpressurized alcohol stoves for the safety and simplicity, but are sad that alcohol doesn't burn as hot as other fuels and usually involves putting more water vapor into the cabin. Another issue is that alcohol is a comparatively expensive fuel.

If this new stove were as simple and safe as unpressurized alcohol, with similarly available fuel, but burned hotter and with less humidity, and had cheaper fuel, then it beats unpressurized alcohol.

If the product was intended to compete with pressurized alcohol, that's probably a non-starter. Pressurized alcohol is plenty hot, but nobody uses it because of the danger and difficulty in starting, so this stove would have to promise that it doesn't have the same danger and difficulty of starting. Basically, people who want pressure will use CNG/LPG, and people who don't will used unpressurized alcohol, so that's what you have to compete with.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,940 Posts
You don't need to convince me! I have a two-burner Cookmate and am satisfied with it. Not enamored, just satisfied. It was inexpensive, I don't overnight very much so we really spend pennies on fuel every year, and it does cook my food. I wish it would cook it a little faster. And I have noticed condensation after using it, but I don't have anything to compare it to besides a pressurized kerosene stove :)

So that's an issue. It's nice that you have some numbers, but what does that translate to in terms of user experience? At that btu ratio it's gonna take at least 9% longer to cook food, not accounting for the fact that your food doesn't radiate heat slower when you use alcohol. Similarly, what does that 21% difference in heat/water ratio translate to in terms of lost heat when cooking, and discomfort and mildew growth in the cabin?

The real issue is how much power (energy/time) a burner produces. By this measure, non-pressurized ethanol stoves are within about 10% of most marine propane stoves (6800 btu verses 7500 btu); although some propane stoves do have larger burners (~10,000 btu).

An oft-repeated exaggeration. Propane produces about 555 kJ of heat per mol water vapor produced, while ethanol produces about 457 kJ of heat per mol water vapor; about a 21% difference. Add in the water dissolved in the ethanol (ethanol is never completely water free) and the difference is maybe 30%. In other words, not enough to get too excited about.

True, but you don't need to buy and maintain propane tanks, regulator(s), hoses, vapor sniffers, et cetera. You might also be able to get a bit of a break on your boat insurance. Unless you are burning an awful lot of fuel every year, it would take quite some time to make up the difference. In any case, any added expense is worth the peace of mind, IMHO.
 
1 - 2 of 2 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top