Jump to content

Fumes from spirit cooker


Mad Harold

Featured Posts

I have recently aquired an Origo meths stove.When lit without the kettle or a pan on it,it burns away quite merrily with no discernable smell. However,when the kettle or pan is put on,it is very fumey and frequently sets the carbon monoxide alarm off.I initially thought that the kettle was too close to the flame and damping it down and not burning properly.but putting a couple of spanners between the kettle and the pan rest grill lifting the kettle about an inch made no difference.

Anyone got any ideas?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately I have been told that that is a common occurrence with putting pans on an Origo stove.

Probably not a lot of use to you, but as a result we generally only tend to use the one on Sickle outside on the tug deck, as I'm not a fan of breathing Carbon Monoxide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Sir Nibble said:

Carbon deposits on the kettle being burned off?

 

14 hours ago, alan_fincher said:

Unfortunately I have been told that that is a common occurrence with putting pans on an Origo stove.

Probably not a lot of use to you, but as a result we generally only tend to use the one on Sickle outside on the tug deck, as I'm not a fan of breathing Carbon Monoxide.

Thank you both.I am a little doubtful that Origo cookers should give off CO fumes when boiling a kettle.I think Sir Nibble is on the right track with carbon being burnt off.My kettle bottom is quite clean,so I will investigate the innards of the stove and report back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where a volatile carbon fuel flame impinges on a cold metal surface, the reduction in flame temperature will result in incomplete combustion and the product is CO rather than CO2.

If you space the kettle so that the flame does not impinge on the kettle at all it should be better. I would doubt that a spirit burner is truly a safe item to use inside a boat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Tracy D'arth said:

I would doubt that a spirit burner is truly a safe item to use inside a boat.

The Origo stove has been the standard stove / hob in offshore boats 'for ever' (I have used it for 30+ years at least).

 

The problem is when people use the wrong fuels.

Some manufacturers of 'spirit burner stoves ' actually say not to use UK 'Meths'.

When using unscented ethyl alcohol it is close to perfect. But, people started drinking the alcohol, and many countries came up with a way to block this by adding methyl alcohol using the strong scent to indicate it is not good to drink, it has never been the same since.

 

Try and source some methyl hydrate (often found in the paint department of many hardware stores) Non-perfumed and seems to work fine.

 

Others use 'Fireplace Alcohol' (used in the artificial - for flame effect - fires). Never tried it myself.

 

Try camping shops as well.

https://www.gooutdoors.co.uk/15901414/vango-bio-ethanol-spirit-fuel-1-litre-15901414/?istCompanyId=c2ec8a5d-93c1-4850-a97a-f4d89d7c99c8&istFeedId=2755fba0-7dfe-46a9-bfd0-09b37aed8b93&istItemId=warpptmii&istBid=t&gclid=Cj0KCQiAqY3zBRDQARIsAJeCVxNf0H1CiVjHH1B_DVAd8EIMsq_9OFoda_o6nfA2FvChfYv9oQBA3fIaAhSyEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Methylated spirits ("metho") is a mixture of ethyl alcohol (95%) and methyl alcohol (%5). The methyl alcohol is poisonous and is added to prevent the methylated spirits being used as cheap drinking alcohol.

Ethyl alcohol

Ethyl alcohol, or ethanol, is produced by the fermentation of sugars, or from direct synthesis from ethylene. It is a renewable energy source.

Ethanol's formula is C2H5OH. 

 

http://www.diamondspirit.net/adunk/metho.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sir Nibble said:

Meths is alcohol. Is there even carbon in there?

C2H5OH

Any fuel you burn has a potential to produce carbon monoxide , coal , charcoal,  wood , butane, propane , petrol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, MartynG said:

C2H5OH

Any fuel you burn has a potential to produce carbon monoxide , coal , charcoal,  wood , butane, propane , petrol

 

Not quite true. Hydrogen produces no CO or CO2 in combustion, AIUI. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tracy D'arth said:

Where a volatile carbon fuel flame impinges on a cold metal surface, the reduction in flame temperature will result in incomplete combustion and the product is CO rather than CO2.

If you space the kettle so that the flame does not impinge on the kettle at all it should be better. I would doubt that a spirit burner is truly a safe item to use inside a boat.

 

So why doesn't this happen with LPG?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mac of Cygnet said:

 

So why doesn't this happen with LPG?

 

It does, which is why CO monitors have the complicated time Vs concentration algorithm to prevent nuisance alarms. 

 

 

Without it, your CO monitor would scream at you every time you put the kettle on.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

It does, which is why CO monitors have the complicated time Vs concentration algorithm to prevent nuisance alarms. 

 

 

 

Would it happen less with LPG (butane / propane burns at 1970°C / 1980°C in air) than with meths (burns at 1100°C)?

 

Certainly any stove that "soots up" the bottom of a pan/kettle is producing carbon monoxide - if you were getting complete combustion of the carbon, it wouldn't get deposited on the kettle.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flame impingement is always going to produce some CO from a carbon based fuel which is why the flame length on a water heater or boiler is carefully worked out to avoid it, the blue inner cone which is un-burnt gas always ends well before the heat exchanger, the combustion is mostly complete before the surface unless the burner is incorrectly aerated. The main product is then CO2.

So a longer yellow flame on a defective burner produces massive amounts of lethal CO hence the need for appliance servicing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

Would it happen less with LPG (butane / propane burns at 1970°C / 1980°C in air) than with meths (burns at 1100°C)?

 

Dunno.

 

 

3 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

Certainly any stove that "soots up" the bottom of a pan/kettle is producing carbon monoxide - if you were getting complete combustion of the carbon, it wouldn't get deposited on the kettle.

 

I'm not sure that holds. It probably does in practice but what if all the C not deposited was fully combusted? 

 

Where's Dr Bob?!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMHO:

Where you burn stuff it can go straight to CO2 (safe) or it can burn to form CO (toxic) gas which then burns to form CO2.  The aim is to make sure that any CO stays in the hot area where it will burn further to CO2.  If you have a defective device it can allow the CO to escape the burning zone before this further combustion is achieved. The CO gas must be channeled correctly.  

If there is not enough oxygen supplied to the burning zone then this also can result in the further burning stage not being achieved.

I vaguely remember the pan base size being important - was it the pan size must not be so small as to have flame appearing around the edge of base?  I suggest checking the manufacturer's instructions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Checked the inside of the stove today,no soot build up just a couple of scorch marks. There was a thin layer of soot on the kettle base which I cleaned off before putting it on. There was less smell than before,but standing close to the stove (with windows open) I could feel the fumes irritating my eyes.The fumes became less as the kettle heated up which bears out what Tracy D'Ath said.

My thanks to all contributors to my query.

It has been a most interesting (and enlightening) thread.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For many years I used a Trangia meths camping stove, often in the door of my tent when camping. Conventional wisdom was to add a few drops of water to the meths when filling the burner. I think it was supposed to reduce soot- it never seemed to do any harm.

 

the biggest problem was Making sure the burner was out before attempting to add more meths..... 

 

eta : there are some gel based alternatives that can be used in trangias not sure if any of them would be any good in an origo. 

Edited by jonathanA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Had lunch on the boat today while pottering around.

Heated a small pan of soup and there was no smell.

 

Cleaning the kettle base reduced the smell,and after a few minutes when it heated up,the smell went.

The kettle is large enough to cover most of the stove,and the soup pan is much smaller.So it would seem the size of the pan or kettle has a bearing on the fumes produced as  system 4-50 pointed out..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 07/03/2020 at 12:56, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Not quite true. Hydrogen produces no CO or CO2 in combustion, AIUI. 

 

 

i think the earlier quote to which you responded should have said burning (ie producing heat by combining with O) should have specified any fuel with C in its composition. If there is no C there originally chemical processes will not created any (at least it was so back in the day when I migrated from alchemy to atomic physics - a loooonmg time ago)

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

i think the earlier quote to which you responded should have said burning (ie producing heat by combining with O) should have specified any fuel with C in its composition. If there is no C there originally chemical processes will not created any (at least it was so back in the day when I migrated from alchemy to atomic physics - a loooonmg time ago)

 

I think you should have stuck with alchemy, any old fool can do atomic physics. Turning lead into gold is a far more valuable skill! 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

I think you should have stuck with alchemy, any old fool can do atomic physics. Turning lead into gold is a far more valuable skill! 

Turning lead into gold is atomic physics.  Quite simple with the correct kit, at an eyewatering cost for the gold produced.

 

“It would cost more than one quadrillion dollars per ounce to produce gold by this experiment," Seaborg told the Associated Press that year. The going rate for an ounce of gold at the time? About $560.

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-lead-can-be-turned-into-gold/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

Turning lead into gold is atomic physics.  Quite simple with the correct kit, at an eyewatering cost for the gold produced.

 

“It would cost more than one quadrillion dollars per ounce to produce gold by this experiment," Seaborg told the Associated Press that year. The going rate for an ounce of gold at the time? About $560.

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-lead-can-be-turned-into-gold/

 

The usual way alchemists do it is to paint the lump of lead with gold paint. Quite a bit cheaper, then find an idiot to buy it.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.