Spannaz
Member
see....knew someone would know. However, handy to know as i might need some heating when out night fishing, ideal on the back deck to keep the frost off.....................yes i am nuts...or just mega keen lol
Really small heater for 18ft boat
- Thread starter chrisbitz
- Start date
see....knew someone would know. However, handy to know as i might need some heating when out night fishing, ideal on the back deck to keep the frost off.....................yes i am nuts...or just mega keen lol
cliff
Well-Known Member
Guess your boat does not rock during the night............
Zagato
Well-Known Member
mikemonty
Well-Known Member
Sorry to take so long to respond - real life got in the way again.
I re-worked because I didn't like your shorthand and your arbitrary units
3rd edit: And to make a comparison between two scenarios - see below
I use excel as a scratchpad because I don't have to do the base arithmetic by hand.
Anyone can - in seconds - put together a sheet that will solve for any change in given variables and a simple copy and paste allows two scenarios to be compared side by side immediately. (you see?)
It also allows a cut and paste into the post without having to transcribe.
Second edit: Did you think I'd transcribed that by hand to 10 digit precision? why is there no incredulity emoticon on here?
I used the nett heat of combustion because I assumed that - in the short term - the water vapour produced would remain uncondensed.
edit - and when it does condense it will probably give its heat up to a cold surface and so add no energy to the air.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_of_combustion
You are welcome to join us in the 21st century when you feel like it.
Last edited:
Mirror Painter
Well-Known Member
Now people are fighting about heat calculations for somebody else's boat. I wish I was clever enough to participate. But if I was I'd probably be smart enough to refrain.
mikemonty
Well-Known Member
Wish I was!
AntarcticPilot
Well-Known Member
Because it is for perfect combustion, which does not produce CO; VicS equations are a good summary of the OVERALL chemistry of the flame, providing combution is complete. However, what actually happens is more complex, as different zones of the flame have different reactions going on; and in some zones of the flame, CO is being produced. You can see that different things are going on in different bits of the flame by the various colours in the flame; bright pale blue bits (the bit near the wick of a candle or the bit near the jet of a pressure burner) are where CO is being produced. Normally the CO is burnt to CO2 in the next bit of the flame, but if there is EITHER insufficient Oxygen going into the flame OR the flame is cooled, either the CO producing area of the flame expands or the Oxidizing part of the flame is reduced, so the CO is not oxidized to CO2. Either situation is dangerous! A simple convective flame (candle or hurricane lamp) is unlikely to have this happen, because the combustion itself controls the rate of burning, and tends to remain in balance. However, for that reason, the rate of heat production is limited as well. But a pressure fed flame (paraffin or gas) can easily get out of balance and produce CO, but can produce a lot more heat.
And, as I said some posts ago, the amount of heat produced is pretty well directly proportional to the amount of water produced. More heat = more water!
VicS
Well-Known Member
"Sorry to take so long to respond"
I dont know why you bothered ... you are not contributing anything useful
"I didn't like your shorthand and your arbitrary units"
I dont know what you mean. although ther was atypographical error in the original which I subsequently corrected
It was only done as abit of fun to see very roughly how much heat one might get from a few candles.
"I use excel as a scratchpad because I don't have to do the base arithmetic by hand.
Anyone can - in seconds - put together a sheet that will solve for any change in given variables and a simple copy and paste allows two scenarios to be compared side by side immediately. (you see?)
It also allows a cut and paste into the post without having to transcribe."
Anyone can - in seconds - put together a sheet that will solve for any change in given variables and a simple copy and paste allows two scenarios to be compared side by side immediately. (you see?)
It also allows a cut and paste into the post without having to transcribe."
Total overkill. I can do simple arithmetic like that in my head, or with the aid of a pocket calculator.
"Did you think I'd transcribed that by hand to 10 digit precision?"
How you did it is immaterial!
You posted a result , based on some very approximate input date, to 10 figures.
It's wrong and you make yourself look a fool by doing so.
You did it even if you are trying to shift the blame to a spreadshhet
"You are welcome to join us in the 21st century when you feel like it."
If you are typical of what I'll find, No thanks. I'll spend the last few years I have on this earth in the 20th century.
I donot understand why your decided to stick your oar in in the forst place. As i said it was only a bit of fun.
You just wanted to score afew points I suppose. You certainly contributed noting useful
Dont bother to respond again. I ma not interested in anything you may have to say. You will only be digging a deeper hole for yourself and making yourself look a bigger fool than you have already.
Last edited:
Zagato
Well-Known Member
Been doing a bit of research and current/later Tilleys are not so good for quality. Same goes with Petromax lamps, early ones again very good though.
Vapalux have a very good reputation all round. They stopped making them a couple of years ago but are now back in production but I have not heard of a review of the quality of new ones.
Reading all the comments on a lamp forum It does appear how ever careful you are there will be a chance you will get a flare up at some point - many have concerns about using it in a boat for this reason and advise lighting it outside...
http://www.base-camp.co.uk/Used_lanterns/used_lamps.htm are the guys to speak to, they sell older second hand ones of most makes and other related items.
http://www.classicmarine.co.uk/boatstore/product.asp?strParents=0,34&CAT_ID=71&P_ID=248 Are the guys for oil lamps.
Vapalux have a very good reputation all round. They stopped making them a couple of years ago but are now back in production but I have not heard of a review of the quality of new ones.
Reading all the comments on a lamp forum It does appear how ever careful you are there will be a chance you will get a flare up at some point - many have concerns about using it in a boat for this reason and advise lighting it outside...
http://www.base-camp.co.uk/Used_lanterns/used_lamps.htm are the guys to speak to, they sell older second hand ones of most makes and other related items.
http://www.classicmarine.co.uk/boatstore/product.asp?strParents=0,34&CAT_ID=71&P_ID=248 Are the guys for oil lamps.
Last edited:
lw395
Well-Known Member
I'm completely unconvinced that candles won't produce carbon monoxide.
They produce soot, so there is clearly incomplete combustion in action.
AntarcticPilot
Well-Known Member
As I said, candles and other similar flames are unlikely to produce CO; the mechanics and lower temperature of the flame mean it is unlikely. But it isn't impossible.
You only get soot from a properly trimmed wick if the flame plays on a cool surface.
lw395
Well-Known Member
Is that 'unlikely' as in say, less than 1% of the carbon will turn to carbon mon?
The 'safe' level is 30ppm.
Take care.
AntarcticPilot
Well-Known Member
Either the flame (overall) produces CO, or it doesn't. Candle flames are unlikely to (overall) produce CO as an output. But CO is produced within the flame, and bad burning conditions COULD produce CO as an output. 30ppm is a tiny amount of CO; how much candle you'd have to burn to acheive it is determined by the volume of the cabin, air-flow and so on!
The point is that all flames produce CO somewhere within the flame. The question is whether there are circumstances where the CO which is normally oxidized to CO2 is released into the atmosphere instead. This is linked to a variety of possible "error conditions".
lw395
Well-Known Member
The question is, is 100% of the CO fully oxidised to CO2?
And if not 100%, what percentage?
mikemonty
Well-Known Member
Excellent! Vic goes off on one!
Did da ikkle bitty post make Viccy-Wiccy a grumpy ol' chemist den?
Izza dummy-wummy all ditty from bein' onna floor?
Not 'peakin' to da nasty man any mo'?
Strangely,
For a "bit of fun" you are taking it VERY seriously.
I originally had no interest in scoring points off you
I contributed the reasoned working that you seem to think that us mere mortals don't require.
I contributed a real figure for calorific value.
I contributed a comparison between your candles and Dylans
I kept my response reasoned and almost civil.
I like the way you mention that you can do the calc in your head - big deal - so can I (despite the implication that I can't) - but I can't cut and paste it from my head - twice - with different variables. If you have the time, inclination and psychokinetic talent - knock yourself out! (Please, KNOCK YOURSELF OUT)
I like the way you use my total indifference to the precision of my answer as an excuse to call me a fool.
I like the way you try to slur my character by implying some contrived motive on my part to "shift the blame" to the software - I don't CARE about the precision! - "it was only a bit of fun" (your words)!
I like the way that you built a straw man out of my "foolish" indifference to arithmetic precision - and then tried to fireproof it by suggesting that responding makes me an even bigger fool.
(Would anyone fall for that logic? You must be using the scattergun approach to argument - fire enough low-grade shot and hope some hits?)
I (and lots of people) use a spreadsheet like you use a calculator, the difference is that the results remain on the screen until you are finished with them and you can dip in and out of the results for side calcs without having to backtrack.
I realise by the tenor of your posts that you are a bit overawed by spreadsheets, but it's alright, the days when you would need them appear to be over according to your sig. (I'm taking lessons on snideyness from you here - I prostrate myself at the feet of a master!)
I like the perjorative "stick your oar in" - 99% of this forum is "sticking an oar in" - your only problem is that I stuck an oar in your water.
I PARTICULARLY like the fact that you did not respond to my comment on your ridiculous "gross calorific value" mistake.
If I'm a fool for not rounding up, at least that's less of a fool than one who wants to suck the heat energy out of a boat hull in cold water contrary to the second law of thermodynamics.
And the best bit is that - because you are not interested in anything I have to say - any reply from you to this post will be a u-turn.(Oh look - I can do the "try to manoeuvre myself into the last word" thing too!)
Have fun with this, it's obviously what you enjoy.
AntarcticPilot
Well-Known Member
It should be 100% where combution is complete! But there are conditions where combustion isn't complete, and then all bets are off.
lw395
Well-Known Member
I would say that in the real world, combustion is never 100.00% complete.
I can't find any info on how much CO a candle will generate typically, it might only be a small amount, but it won't be zero.
ghostlymoron
Well-Known Member
I haven't read the full thread but would say that this kind of slanging match has no place on this forum (or any other). A serious question was asked and deserves a serious (or at least amusing) answer.
tarik
Well-Known Member
Swg
Well-Known Member
Had a new Vapalux for about 3 yrs and use on a Cornish shrimper and in a tent. Always light outside, always turn out when I turn in. Does the job with old world charm. Can be a little bit smelly when extinguished but I fall asleep so quickly it doesn't bother me.
