Being a "newbie" here I've been reading quite a few posts about making, replacing, or converting burners to silents. I understand the theory involved in the silents thanks to the many threads here. My question is why, other than the noise difference? Is there an appreciable difference in fuel consumption between the two? Does one or the other provide greater BTU output per fuel volume consumed? Is there better BTU output control? Trying to learn why, other than because I can, which can be fun in and of itself.
Hi Cavry, there is no significant difference in fuel efficiency between properly operating roarer and silent burners of the same rating. Roarers are perhaps more robust (fewer burner parts) and less temperamental and can perform better outdoors where they are less prone to the effect of cross-winds or draughts. For domestic or camp site use a silent burner can be "friendlier" than a roarer at full throttle. You pays your money and makes your choice. Best Regards, Kerophile.
There have been many posts on this over the years. At the end of it all an amount of fuel if burned efficiently has an amount of heat. This cant change. The only variables are how efficient the burner is and how good it is at getting all this heat into the pot on top. Efficiency can be measured 2 ways. You can measure carbon monoxide(CO). The lower the figure the more efficient the burner. Or boil times. There is a catch though. CO is affected by interaction of the flame with the pot which cools the flame so an efficient burner might not be once you put the billy on. This might be why some set ups work very well when converted to silent ie 123r and similar stoves where the pot stand is quite close to the flame. However in some cases the wider flame of the silent burner might result in some heat going round the pot instead of into it. This will work better with a roarer. My dragonfly experiments fell into this category. A litre of water in a large pan boils about the same both ways but use a 4 pint billy with the same amount of water and the roarer walks all over the silent. This might be able to be solved with a different size silent cap but might not as well. Hope this enlightens as much as it confuses.
The velocity of the hot exhaust gasses is greater in a roarer than in a silent burner. This is sometimes a good thing, sometimes a bad one. Efficiency, and ability to withstand winds are minute reasons to choose between the two in my opinion. I think the silence vs. simplicity is the main consideration. I like the silents, because, well they're silent. Many times they come with a control spindle and self cleaning needle, which is nice. A silent that goes into underburn all the time is a pain, though. A roarer without control spindle is less likely to malfunction, or loose critical parts, and is probably lighter in weight too. Sound is a problem if you like your peace and quiet when camping.
Love those roarers! And yes, they have given me less trouble than silents as well, underburn can be a real drag. If you like Led Zep, The Who and shotgun exhausts (like me), it's roarers all the way I sometimes fire up my 111 to hear the noise...
I like silence in camp all right, but the best kind of silence is that produced when you turn the 123 off when dinner is done cooking. 8)
Thanks everyone. I couldn't conceive of any mechanical efficiency reasons and wondered if I was missing something. Usually when I do, it's something really obvious.
Hi NZMike Loved your reply. My kind of guy. I do the same thing with my stoves and love to look at those flames.
I have to admit I love the sound of a roarer. The silent burners are elegant but I liken them to the sounds of a gas log fire place. The fire is there but the snap-crackle of the fire isn't.
Hi, Difference between my Primus Himalaya and coleman 'suitcase' is like a car with/without exhaust muffler. Unfortunately, at some places I like to camp, there are people who only want to hear their own voices, so I try to be 'decnt' about it.
