Alcohol vs Wallas for heating & cooking

SEA3PO":11k2ktcn said:
OK.....decided the propane unit uses to much fuel....it runs 14 hours per gallon.... I am not sure what that really means...as it is continuous running and I don't have a clue how much a heater in a 22 would run.....15 minutes per hour ?? Guess that would depend on how cold it is outside... we plan on going north in the summer and south in the winter...but still it gets cold in the mornings.... and in some places it even rains all day... (Redding ?)

Joel
SEA3PO
Click to expand...

Joel-

Ha!!!

In Rainy Redding I get 2 years out of a 20 lb (5 gal) tank filling on my Force 10 Cozy Cabin heater and 3-burner stove.

Costs about $20, or $10/year.

But then, I don't use it an awful lot...

Joe
 
I like my Wallas for cooking and for heating. I think it works well. Because I boat year round in the NNW I find I need heat a lot and have even considered putting in a 1300 or 1800 to provide additional heat when I'm using my current wallas as a cook stove. (I may still add the heater but I decided to insulate with the Mascoat Delta T ceramic paint first. It has helped quite a bit and has the added benefit of helping to control condensation.)
One of the things that makes me appreciate the wallas is its very low current draw. Any of the other options such as Espar draw more electricity when running and cycle on and off to control the heat, which requires the higher start up draw. Also without exhaust silencers the Espar is very noisy outside the boat. In some of the anchorages you can hear the heater exhausts much more than you can the generators that are running.
 
Good writeup Mark on the Wallas 1300. Great idea to turn it 90 deg and mount it to the inside cabinet wall -- never thought of that, although I don't think outside the box very well... :? I'm happy with my location, takes up zero usable space, but would have thought hard deciding which would be better before I installed.

I agree about the contorsions you have to get into to install ANYTHING way back there, upside down and sideways with no leg room -- and that's on my larger 25! Sore for days afterwards. Curious how Scan Marine recommends Klean Heat for this heater NOW. It's essentially the same principle as the stove/heater combo, yet they still maintain diesel is best. Hmmm. When I talked to Karl a couple of years ago and mentioned I'd like to use Klean Heat, he didn't have a clue what it was, just said stick to diesel, has better lubricating properties. Maybe he's decided it isn't so bad after seeing some of them come in for repair (not fuel related).
 
I talked to Scan Marine yesterday....they said diesel. They said kerosene and Kleen Heat age...in fact it's not possible to know how old those products are. They said diesel has an indefinite shelf life and not to treat it with Stabil or other additives.

Chuck
 
Thanks Chuck, another reason diesel is preferred. I'm no expert on any of the fuels. I've heard that kerosene will develop 'crud' or precipitates on the bottom over time which will certainly clog the pump and mechanism. After two years I've checked the bottom of the tank with Klean Heat, no evidence whatsoever of crud yet. I think I'll pour it through a filter and examine it. I believe it is synthetically made compared to kerosene which is not.
 
Actually diesel does age--multiple things happen to it--including the precepitation of aspheltines. Also diesel out of the pump is more likely to have contaminations. I suspect that sticking to "Clean" Kleen heat would be one of the best plans. We switched from "aged diesel" in the CD 25 to Kleen heat, and smoking and oder dissapeared within one run of the stove.
 
I have always been a fan of Bio-Diesel.... has a great exhaust smell ...french fries....and is not a hydrocarbon... I wonder how it would do in a Wallas...I know it works gangbusters in my Diesel Model A....not only do I get better fuel mileage (almost 50 with bio-diesel...40+ with #2 diesel) but the cetane of bio-diesel is 50 and #2 is only 45 so the knock that I have with #2 is gone when I burn bio....plus it starts easier...nice stuff.. also it is available at most marinas (for yuppie sail boat diesels...no smoke and nice smell)

I plan on installing a heater only and that may be less fuel delicate than the stove/heater unit.

Joel
SEA3PO
 
You guys bring up an interesting point about fuels derived from crops (Ethanol, Bio Diesel) vs. fuels from fossil remains (oil).

One important factor not mentioned about burning fuels derived from current crops is that you are extracting Carbon from the soil by using the fibrous plant parts, but oil from deep underground does not affect our topsoil.

Additionally, Corn, Soybeans and other crops are government subsidized and artificially inexpensive for fuel use due to Ethanol tax breaks, etc..

Additonally, a great deal of fuel and coal was needed to make, ship and operate the tractors, combines, trucks,etc. to plant and ship the bio-fuel raw materials.

Losing carbon from the topsoil depletes the soil and leaves it less able to hold water and properly hold and release plant nutrients and resist erosion. The Dust Bowl was a result of soil depletion.

Measured in "Carbon Years", the organic content of soil can be thought of as the result of a large tree dying and fully decaying in 20 years into the soil with in it's drip line. That is 20 Carbon Years of organic matter in the soil. When we plant and harvest fibrous crops like Cotton, each harvest removes 12 Carbon Years from the soil. So, 2 years' cotton harvest would take over 20 years of waiting for that tree to break down. It does not take many cotton harvests for the soil to lose all it's organic matter - and that is the end of crops for that area for a very long time. (Note that areas like the Mississippi Valley flood frequently and leave nutrient-loaded silt, so they got away with Cotton longer than say, KS, Neb, OK are going to.) The cane and corn crops use 4-5 times the amount of carbon as wheat. If, instead of plowing the wheat straw back in, send it to be fremented, you lose much more carbon years per harvest. Wheat and grasses generally remove only 1 carbon year per harvest, and if left fallow, put another year back.

Sooooooo..... the long term use of crops for oil product replacements will deplete the soil. Only removing the edible portion of crops allows most of the carbon to go back into the soil. We need some other answers for the long term.

On top of all this, if crop-based fuels were good for the environment and economy, etc., you would be trading being at the mercy of a dozen or so oil magnates to being at the mercy of 2 or 3 large corporations, such as Archers-Daniels-Midland.

John
 
No! You are wrong Dan.

Dr John’s post is not based on lies, like the inconvenient truth is. You will not get the No Peace Prize if you are accurate with your information or thesis.
________
Dave dlt.gif
 
mwilson":1lghrsr8 said:
Flapbreaker. When you run your wallas all night does the battery hold up oK?

m wilson
Click to expand...

Once a Wallace starts up, the current draw is very low. It's on the order
of an amp or two. Startup is 10 amps or so. If that draw causes your
voltage to get too low, then you might have problems with the Wallace
working correctly.

Mike
 
Back
Top