1 Steam Cars : Phorum
Attachments: Feedwter heater parrallel.JPG (252.6KB) Feedwater Heater plumbing.JPG (283.2KB)
General Steam Car topics
Stanley Feed Water Heater
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: January 15, 2002 08:46PM
<HTML>How many square feet of steam-side heat-transfer surface are in a typical stock (OE) 20 HP Stanley feedwater heater?
Peter</HTML>
Peter</HTML>
Re: Stanley Feed Water Heater
Posted by: David K. Nergaard (IP Logged)
Date: January 17, 2002 12:17PM
<HTML>I don't know about the Stanley made ones. My homemade one uses 12 feet of 3/8 O. D. tube or about one square foot and produces 200-220 degree feed depending on the superheat in the exhaust steam.</HTML>
Re: Stanley Feed Water Heater
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: January 18, 2002 07:27AM
<HTML>Hi David,
Thanks for the info, much appreciated. You anticipated my next question, which was the temperature increase in the feedwater. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but from illustrations I have seen it looks like the stock condensing FW heaters used 4 runs of tubing (one tube, bent 3 times to give 4 straight parallel runs), and I have vague recollections of seeing finned tubing in a picture of an opened-up unit. The finned tubing (baffles?) may have been in an aftermarket or homebuilt unit, though.
A 1920s Stanley test report in the SAE Journal (I think) said that the stock FW heater plus boiler gave overall fuel-to-steam efficiency (equivalent of boiler with no FWH) at something like 85%. Wish I could find that article again, or had thought to photocopy it. Maybe somebody has it, and can comment. As I recall, it said that the feedwater heater does roughly the same job as an economizer, but also shifts some of the waste heat rejection from condenser to boiler exhaust, for better condensing with a standard radiator.
Peter</HTML>
Thanks for the info, much appreciated. You anticipated my next question, which was the temperature increase in the feedwater. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but from illustrations I have seen it looks like the stock condensing FW heaters used 4 runs of tubing (one tube, bent 3 times to give 4 straight parallel runs), and I have vague recollections of seeing finned tubing in a picture of an opened-up unit. The finned tubing (baffles?) may have been in an aftermarket or homebuilt unit, though.
A 1920s Stanley test report in the SAE Journal (I think) said that the stock FW heater plus boiler gave overall fuel-to-steam efficiency (equivalent of boiler with no FWH) at something like 85%. Wish I could find that article again, or had thought to photocopy it. Maybe somebody has it, and can comment. As I recall, it said that the feedwater heater does roughly the same job as an economizer, but also shifts some of the waste heat rejection from condenser to boiler exhaust, for better condensing with a standard radiator.
Peter</HTML>
Re: Stanley Feed Water Heater - but for a 10hp
Posted by: Peter Turvey (IP Logged)
Date: January 18, 2002 11:14AM
<HTML>I don;t know about a 20hp car but our Stanley Model 607 no 7644 has a heater in the exhaust line outside the flue. There seem to be only two pipes inside, as there are only inlet and outlet connections (both Stanley type fittings) and the heater is about 40 inches long and three inched in diameter. Now is this the orignal heater but moved outside the flue about 1959 (I lnow becuase the exhaust pipe hole in the flue was still bunged up with a 1951 Newspaper - goodness knows why it didnt catch fire) or a later repacement I wonder - any ideas? Its definitely not like the heaters in other Model 607 photos I have seen, and the diagrams in the Stanley to Galloways of Newcastle correspondence I acquired with the car?
Peter Turvey</HTML>
Peter Turvey</HTML>
Re: Stanley Feed Water Heater
Posted by: Daivd K. Nergaard (IP Logged)
Date: January 18, 2002 12:14PM
<HTML>Finned tubing in the feed water heater is not needed, steam is very good at heating any surface it touches. I believe 85 % is about right, if based on the lower heat value of the fuel. It is possible to gain an additional 7 % with an econmizer in the breaching on the top of the boiler. But here finned tubing is essential, you need 40 sq. ft. of fin area as it is hot air, not steam you are trying to get heat out of. I have an economizer made out of an old air conditioner condensor (41 sq. ft. fin area) which reduces the flue gas temp from 550 deg. F. to 250-300 deg. and raises the feed temp to 270-300 deg. F.</HTML>
Re: Stanley Feed Water Heater - but for a 10hp
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: January 19, 2002 10:37AM
<HTML>I don't know if it is original, but there may be more than two straight runs inside. It seems like the factory feedwater heaters (at least in some condensing cars) and some rebuilds had/have several loops in the feedwater pipe.
The April 2001 issue of The Steam Car (#11), has a good picture of the feedwater heater of John Liming's H5 opened up (p.21). His article says he built this with 50' of 1/2" plain stainless and 15' of ESCOA finned stainless. This isn't the picture of finned tubing which I (vaguely) remember, and it is an experimental homebuilt design. No report on results yet, but very nicely done. Eyeball scaling it and comparing to your description, this 20 hp heater looks generally like a scaled-up version of yours, and has about 6 loops in the unfinned tube, with only 2 fittings visible outside.
The (external) picture of the condensing-era feedwater heater which I mentioned (p. 138 of Floyd Clymer's Steam Car Scrapbook, 1984 ed, picture from Stanley literature) shows inlet/outlet fittings and a return bend with 2 fittings visible outside, suggesting at least 4 straight runs of pipe inside. I wonder if all the return bends in original Stanley feedwater heaters were separate external pieces with fittings? Perhaps to accomodate early unbendable (heavy? finned?) tubing? Or maybe for see-thru inspection, leak-locating tests, or cleaning? Perhaps they had stress crack problems with tight water line bends inside the exhaust line (earlier models), and later made the bends easily replaceable, as separate U-shaped fittings. I have read of nasty water leaks inside feedwater heaters, which were a bear to track down and fix. No mention of this in the Stanley Dealer Bulletins, but the change may already have been made by the time they started issuing these in 1918.
What do the other Model 607 feedwater heaters look like?
Peter Brow</HTML>
The April 2001 issue of The Steam Car (#11), has a good picture of the feedwater heater of John Liming's H5 opened up (p.21). His article says he built this with 50' of 1/2" plain stainless and 15' of ESCOA finned stainless. This isn't the picture of finned tubing which I (vaguely) remember, and it is an experimental homebuilt design. No report on results yet, but very nicely done. Eyeball scaling it and comparing to your description, this 20 hp heater looks generally like a scaled-up version of yours, and has about 6 loops in the unfinned tube, with only 2 fittings visible outside.
The (external) picture of the condensing-era feedwater heater which I mentioned (p. 138 of Floyd Clymer's Steam Car Scrapbook, 1984 ed, picture from Stanley literature) shows inlet/outlet fittings and a return bend with 2 fittings visible outside, suggesting at least 4 straight runs of pipe inside. I wonder if all the return bends in original Stanley feedwater heaters were separate external pieces with fittings? Perhaps to accomodate early unbendable (heavy? finned?) tubing? Or maybe for see-thru inspection, leak-locating tests, or cleaning? Perhaps they had stress crack problems with tight water line bends inside the exhaust line (earlier models), and later made the bends easily replaceable, as separate U-shaped fittings. I have read of nasty water leaks inside feedwater heaters, which were a bear to track down and fix. No mention of this in the Stanley Dealer Bulletins, but the change may already have been made by the time they started issuing these in 1918.
What do the other Model 607 feedwater heaters look like?
Peter Brow</HTML>
Re: Stanley Feed Water Heater
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: January 19, 2002 11:43AM
<HTML>Steam is definitely a more effective heat-transfer medium, which may be why FE and FO chose an exhaust-steam feedwater heater over an economizer -- in an effort to save on tubing cost/weight and help out the condenser. Also, I don't think that compactly-bendable finned tubing suitable for boiler use was available or economical in their day. Your economizer gives really phenomenal results! Flue temperatures in many later automotive steam generators typically run about 400°F, so your approach compares very favorably. In fact, a 250°F flue temp is pretty close to the practical boiler efficiency limit, before stack condensation at low firing rates starts kicking in, with all the attendant gas-side corrosion problems. The Stanley brothers would be impressed.</HTML>
Re: Stanley Feed Water Heater - but for a 10hp
Posted by: Peter Turvey (IP Logged)
Date: January 20, 2002 01:34PM
<HTML>Peter
Thoe other model 607 feed heaters that I have seen photographs of are identical to the illustration on page 138 of Clymer The Steam Car Scraphoob. But they have been either cars in the USA or recent imports from the USA. Ours was new to the UK and I wonder if we have a dealer modification. Perhaps not. I will also ask the Stanley Museum if they have a drawing of a Model 607 (or a Model 65) heater so I can make a new one.
Peter</HTML>
Thoe other model 607 feed heaters that I have seen photographs of are identical to the illustration on page 138 of Clymer The Steam Car Scraphoob. But they have been either cars in the USA or recent imports from the USA. Ours was new to the UK and I wonder if we have a dealer modification. Perhaps not. I will also ask the Stanley Museum if they have a drawing of a Model 607 (or a Model 65) heater so I can make a new one.
Peter</HTML>
Re: Stanley Feed Water Heater - but for a 10hp
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: January 21, 2002 09:32AM
<HTML>I forgot to mention that the feedwater heater in John Liming's H5 is in the boiler exhaust flue, rather than in the exhaust steam line.
Peter</HTML>
Peter</HTML>
Re: Stanley Feed Water Heater
Posted by: George Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: January 21, 2002 07:57PM
<HTML>Peter,
Have read with interest your posts on feedwater/economiser units on Stanleys, including your last post of 21 Jan on the H-5 exhaust flue economiser.
I have tested, and designed economisers for, several Stanleys over the years but until last year at the annual Stanley meet in Vermont did not have a chance to test a "transition" V condensor car that had its original steam exhaust feedwater heater on it plus one of my economisers. The owner, being very interested in performance, had done several tests with about 7 thermocouples with a digital, cold junction compensated digital meter prior to this and we did additional tests last July. He was very happy with the original feedwater heater performance, as starting of with 50F water in the tank saw a great temperature increase to 200F+ reflecting about a 150 BTU/# increase in the feedwater, meanwhile the boiler not really up to roaring temperature showed the economiser adding only about an additional 50 degrees F. Getting down the road a bit, burner full on at almost all times(and hitting 55+mph for periods) he noticed the exhaust steam feedwater heater adding very little and the economiser slightly more---the expected results of two things in series does not add up to adding the two separate things by themselves, like feedwater heater alone and economiser alone. Before long the water tank "hotwell" was at 170 degrees, and with a steam exhaust temperature of about 230 degrees the exhaust feedwater heater did very little as the temperature differential from the steam exhaust temperature to the inlet water temperature entering it had closed up so much---never get much heat transfer with a small amount of temperature differential. Meanwhile the gas flue temperature had risen to 550+ degrees and the economiser was adding more energy to the incoming feedwater than the feedwater heater. The economiser was two Doble type spiral coils, about 40 feet each of 1/2"OD tubing and a 1/8" gas pass space, this is a L/d=1.25 and gives very good heat transfer due to the high velocity, turbulence and Reynolds number. The advantage of this kind of economiser is that the 1/8th" flue gas space will not clog up as fast as finned tubing with possibly ony 1/32" spacing when the burner is not behaving properly---unlike the later Doble cars Stanleys do not have steam soot blowers included. Always remember that flue gas of a pure hydrocarbon fuel produces only carbon dioxide and water vapor as byproducts, the amount of carbon dioxide about 19% and the water/superheated steam about 9+% of the total flue gas mass. That is if the burner is working perfectly well, no smoke or soot nor luminosity---it unfortunately apppears on these tours that the Stanley burner does not always properly burn well or behave. Clouds of soot, over forcing of burners creating howling and a deficiency of oxygen seem to occure on a regular fashion. As steam is a rather good heat transfer gas(superheated is considered an invisible gas) the heat transfer of the flue gases(H2O and CO2), even at such lower temperatures as 550-300 degrees these two invisible gases can impart a additional amount of energy to the 12-14 square feet of economiser area in total convection and a small amout of intertube radiation. Both of these gases are powerful radiators of energy and contribute slightly to the heat transfer even at such low gas temperatures. The partial pressures of these two gases, in this case, is 28% of the total flue gas mass. If one were to take a 20HP original Stanley burn rate of 4 gallons per hour with a flue exhaust temperature of 550F it would have about 78% thermal efficiency. The 4 gallon burn rate would produce about 450 pounds of flue gas, and on a steady state basis about 320 pounds of steam. In the case of the economiser what is given up by the flue gas is all there is to transfer to the incoming feedwater---too bad Alan Greenspan can't print up 5 billion BTU's every day and hand them out to Stanley owners---free energy!!! The enthalpy drop of this flue gas dropping form 550F to 300F would be about 62 BTU/#, almost 28,000BTU total per hour. Divide this by the steady state output of 320# steam per hour and the most we can get out of this economiser is about a 87 degree F increase with this 250F degree gas temperature drop, about a 6% increase in total heat transfer efficiency.
Fluctuations in temperatures do occure as the feed pumps are turned on or off,this is a steady state model that supports the test results. When doing testing use a calibrated thermocouple with temperature compensated cold junction or the temperatures readings could swing 50 degrees in total from actual. All in all, if a person has a non-condensing car with-feedwater always cold the exhaust feedwater heater is the way to go, in a condensing car, in the long haul of things down the road, the economiser is the way to go---or simply do both!
Whew, Best George</HTML>
Have read with interest your posts on feedwater/economiser units on Stanleys, including your last post of 21 Jan on the H-5 exhaust flue economiser.
I have tested, and designed economisers for, several Stanleys over the years but until last year at the annual Stanley meet in Vermont did not have a chance to test a "transition" V condensor car that had its original steam exhaust feedwater heater on it plus one of my economisers. The owner, being very interested in performance, had done several tests with about 7 thermocouples with a digital, cold junction compensated digital meter prior to this and we did additional tests last July. He was very happy with the original feedwater heater performance, as starting of with 50F water in the tank saw a great temperature increase to 200F+ reflecting about a 150 BTU/# increase in the feedwater, meanwhile the boiler not really up to roaring temperature showed the economiser adding only about an additional 50 degrees F. Getting down the road a bit, burner full on at almost all times(and hitting 55+mph for periods) he noticed the exhaust steam feedwater heater adding very little and the economiser slightly more---the expected results of two things in series does not add up to adding the two separate things by themselves, like feedwater heater alone and economiser alone. Before long the water tank "hotwell" was at 170 degrees, and with a steam exhaust temperature of about 230 degrees the exhaust feedwater heater did very little as the temperature differential from the steam exhaust temperature to the inlet water temperature entering it had closed up so much---never get much heat transfer with a small amount of temperature differential. Meanwhile the gas flue temperature had risen to 550+ degrees and the economiser was adding more energy to the incoming feedwater than the feedwater heater. The economiser was two Doble type spiral coils, about 40 feet each of 1/2"OD tubing and a 1/8" gas pass space, this is a L/d=1.25 and gives very good heat transfer due to the high velocity, turbulence and Reynolds number. The advantage of this kind of economiser is that the 1/8th" flue gas space will not clog up as fast as finned tubing with possibly ony 1/32" spacing when the burner is not behaving properly---unlike the later Doble cars Stanleys do not have steam soot blowers included. Always remember that flue gas of a pure hydrocarbon fuel produces only carbon dioxide and water vapor as byproducts, the amount of carbon dioxide about 19% and the water/superheated steam about 9+% of the total flue gas mass. That is if the burner is working perfectly well, no smoke or soot nor luminosity---it unfortunately apppears on these tours that the Stanley burner does not always properly burn well or behave. Clouds of soot, over forcing of burners creating howling and a deficiency of oxygen seem to occure on a regular fashion. As steam is a rather good heat transfer gas(superheated is considered an invisible gas) the heat transfer of the flue gases(H2O and CO2), even at such lower temperatures as 550-300 degrees these two invisible gases can impart a additional amount of energy to the 12-14 square feet of economiser area in total convection and a small amout of intertube radiation. Both of these gases are powerful radiators of energy and contribute slightly to the heat transfer even at such low gas temperatures. The partial pressures of these two gases, in this case, is 28% of the total flue gas mass. If one were to take a 20HP original Stanley burn rate of 4 gallons per hour with a flue exhaust temperature of 550F it would have about 78% thermal efficiency. The 4 gallon burn rate would produce about 450 pounds of flue gas, and on a steady state basis about 320 pounds of steam. In the case of the economiser what is given up by the flue gas is all there is to transfer to the incoming feedwater---too bad Alan Greenspan can't print up 5 billion BTU's every day and hand them out to Stanley owners---free energy!!! The enthalpy drop of this flue gas dropping form 550F to 300F would be about 62 BTU/#, almost 28,000BTU total per hour. Divide this by the steady state output of 320# steam per hour and the most we can get out of this economiser is about a 87 degree F increase with this 250F degree gas temperature drop, about a 6% increase in total heat transfer efficiency.
Fluctuations in temperatures do occure as the feed pumps are turned on or off,this is a steady state model that supports the test results. When doing testing use a calibrated thermocouple with temperature compensated cold junction or the temperatures readings could swing 50 degrees in total from actual. All in all, if a person has a non-condensing car with-feedwater always cold the exhaust feedwater heater is the way to go, in a condensing car, in the long haul of things down the road, the economiser is the way to go---or simply do both!
Whew, Best George</HTML>
Re: Stanley Feed Water Heater
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: January 22, 2002 11:34AM
<HTML>Hi George,
Whew is right! Thanks for the engineering lesson, fascinating stuff and much appreciated. Steam cars read like a good mystery novel! Your test report explains a comment I found today in the Stanley Dealer Bulletins to the effect that the feedwater heater was designed for noncondensing cars, and was being eliminated from (~1919/later?) condensing cars. The change seems to have been made to eliminate the wintertime draining/replumbing hassle inherent in the feedwater heater. The later Stanley engineers probably did all this testing too (albeit with more primitive equipment than we are blessed with, thanks btw for the calibration tip) and figured that the feedwater heater was nearly dead weight in a warmed-up car. However, owners of earlier Stanleys may have had the last laugh, in that the feedwater heater helps when starting out with a cold water tank, a common condition in short urban trips. Now, if they had also added a few dozen pounds of economizer tubing for long trips, they could have had the best of both worlds!
Interesting that the tank temp went to 170°F. I have read that 180(?) or so is where vapor lock occurs in Stanley feed pumps, and had thought a bigger margin would be designed-in. 170 is pushing it right to the edge. Well, better than excessive condensate depression -- unless vapor lock occurs on a long summer tour.
Did you happen across any figures on stock (20 hp) feedwater heater square footage during your tests? I am currently guesstimating/eyeballing it at about 3 sq ft, assuming no finned tubing in the "muffler".
Peter</HTML>
Whew is right! Thanks for the engineering lesson, fascinating stuff and much appreciated. Steam cars read like a good mystery novel! Your test report explains a comment I found today in the Stanley Dealer Bulletins to the effect that the feedwater heater was designed for noncondensing cars, and was being eliminated from (~1919/later?) condensing cars. The change seems to have been made to eliminate the wintertime draining/replumbing hassle inherent in the feedwater heater. The later Stanley engineers probably did all this testing too (albeit with more primitive equipment than we are blessed with, thanks btw for the calibration tip) and figured that the feedwater heater was nearly dead weight in a warmed-up car. However, owners of earlier Stanleys may have had the last laugh, in that the feedwater heater helps when starting out with a cold water tank, a common condition in short urban trips. Now, if they had also added a few dozen pounds of economizer tubing for long trips, they could have had the best of both worlds!
Interesting that the tank temp went to 170°F. I have read that 180(?) or so is where vapor lock occurs in Stanley feed pumps, and had thought a bigger margin would be designed-in. 170 is pushing it right to the edge. Well, better than excessive condensate depression -- unless vapor lock occurs on a long summer tour.
Did you happen across any figures on stock (20 hp) feedwater heater square footage during your tests? I am currently guesstimating/eyeballing it at about 3 sq ft, assuming no finned tubing in the "muffler".
Peter</HTML>
Re: Stanley Feed Water Heater
Posted by: George Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: January 22, 2002 12:23PM
<HTML>Peter,
I will telcon the owner on your square foot question. as he has several non-condensing cars and a lot of factory data. Much like the "buyer beware"
slogan when getting a lot of free info on this wonderful Phorum of John Woodsons
realize that there is a lot of variance of opinions on steam stuff and Stanleys.
i would hate to admit how many perfectly good erasers I have worn out doing mechanical engineering computations!
170F is on the high side but this car went over 20 miles flat out and could burn at a 30HP rate of up to 6 gallons per hour, a lot of stuff was coming back to the water tank at a rapid rate. Also I know a few people who have lost there pump prime, especially with the water tank quite hot and very low water level--one foot of water exerts .43 psi so keep the water from getting too low, especially in a condensing car.
A very good source of all kinds of thermocouple gauges and other equipment is
Omega [www.omega.com] . They have digital thermocouple meters of very good accuracy starting off at about $79, many are multimeters as well and are cold junction compensated.
Best to you, George</HTML>
I will telcon the owner on your square foot question. as he has several non-condensing cars and a lot of factory data. Much like the "buyer beware"
slogan when getting a lot of free info on this wonderful Phorum of John Woodsons
realize that there is a lot of variance of opinions on steam stuff and Stanleys.
i would hate to admit how many perfectly good erasers I have worn out doing mechanical engineering computations!
170F is on the high side but this car went over 20 miles flat out and could burn at a 30HP rate of up to 6 gallons per hour, a lot of stuff was coming back to the water tank at a rapid rate. Also I know a few people who have lost there pump prime, especially with the water tank quite hot and very low water level--one foot of water exerts .43 psi so keep the water from getting too low, especially in a condensing car.
A very good source of all kinds of thermocouple gauges and other equipment is
Omega [www.omega.com] . They have digital thermocouple meters of very good accuracy starting off at about $79, many are multimeters as well and are cold junction compensated.
Best to you, George</HTML>
Re: Stanley Feed Water Heater
Posted by: Christopher W. Roberts (IP Logged)
Date: January 24, 2002 12:19AM
<HTML> You want to water to be as hot as possible with it not turning into steam once it gets to the boiler. In the condensing car if the condenser is hooked up to the watertank, starting cold the feed water heater helps tremendously. Once the car warms up and the exaust steam and water have been dumping into the tank, the feed water heater will still heat the water but the temp coming out of the feed water heater will still be hotter than the water in the tank, adding 40-50 degrees to the tempatur of the water. As the car is run the tempature that the feed water heated is adding slowly deminishes. Upon taking on water the feed water heater once again proves it's worth. On my 1919 Carsten Henningsen had several tempature gauges placed on the water supply line and wrote them down in a day's run.
The feed water heater must be between the pumps and the boiler. The return line to the water tank must not go through a feed water heater. This will heat the water so hot that the water pumps will slowly begin to pump less and less water. It is also a good idea in my openion to insulate the feed water lines to the boiler to reducde as much heat loss as possible.
CWR</HTML>
The feed water heater must be between the pumps and the boiler. The return line to the water tank must not go through a feed water heater. This will heat the water so hot that the water pumps will slowly begin to pump less and less water. It is also a good idea in my openion to insulate the feed water lines to the boiler to reducde as much heat loss as possible.
CWR</HTML>
Re: Stanley Feed Water Heater
Posted by: David K. Nergaard (IP Logged)
Date: January 24, 2002 11:20AM
<HTML>I haven't found any reason to insulate the feed line. The under hood temperature is typically more than 150 degrees F.! I do suggest fitting an economizer to absorb some of the heat remaining in the flue gases after passing through the boiler. As I mentioned earlier, my final feed temp. is 270-300 deg. F.
The later Lane steam car boilers used "steaming economizers", the feed was partially boiled before reaching the boiler. The feed entered the boiler via a centrifugal separator which fed the steam to the top and water to the bottom of the main boiler.</HTML>
The later Lane steam car boilers used "steaming economizers", the feed was partially boiled before reaching the boiler. The feed entered the boiler via a centrifugal separator which fed the steam to the top and water to the bottom of the main boiler.</HTML>
Re: Stanley Feed Water Heater
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: January 24, 2002 12:08PM
<HTML>Hi George,
Thanks for inquiring about the feedwater heater, and for the link to temp sensors. I didn't know those were so affordable, and will have to get one (if not several). Much easier than the early-1900s method of pulling over all the time and opening things up to check thermometers which cool off (or heat up) before you can get to them!
The handiest eraser I've found is the Sanford "Tuff Stuff" click-advance refillable fine-point eraser, available through larger office supply stores. If they don't have it, it is worth having them order it. I've worn out a few myself on (my often inaccurate, hindsight 20/20) steam calcs, sketches, and notes. Erasers seem to come with the territory.
I've participated in a few internet steam forums (fora?) in the past, plus have been following the SACA publications for 23 years, and have noted the many controversies surrounding steam cars (even among top experts), so your warning rings true. Caveat emptor, for sure. But, as Mr. Natural once said, "'twas ever thus"; I doubt whether the Stanley Bros, Rollin White, and Abner Doble ever agreed on much of anything regarding steam car design. Imagine the fur flying at a roundtable discussion between them!
However, I think everyone can agree that this is a superbly informative & entertaining phorum (hats off to John Woodson for hosting it!), and that a full water tank is always best. :)
Thanks again for the fascinating and useful info, and btw best of luck with your excellent boiler project. Looking forward to your next progress report.
Peter</HTML>
Thanks for inquiring about the feedwater heater, and for the link to temp sensors. I didn't know those were so affordable, and will have to get one (if not several). Much easier than the early-1900s method of pulling over all the time and opening things up to check thermometers which cool off (or heat up) before you can get to them!
The handiest eraser I've found is the Sanford "Tuff Stuff" click-advance refillable fine-point eraser, available through larger office supply stores. If they don't have it, it is worth having them order it. I've worn out a few myself on (my often inaccurate, hindsight 20/20) steam calcs, sketches, and notes. Erasers seem to come with the territory.
I've participated in a few internet steam forums (fora?) in the past, plus have been following the SACA publications for 23 years, and have noted the many controversies surrounding steam cars (even among top experts), so your warning rings true. Caveat emptor, for sure. But, as Mr. Natural once said, "'twas ever thus"; I doubt whether the Stanley Bros, Rollin White, and Abner Doble ever agreed on much of anything regarding steam car design. Imagine the fur flying at a roundtable discussion between them!
However, I think everyone can agree that this is a superbly informative & entertaining phorum (hats off to John Woodson for hosting it!), and that a full water tank is always best. :)
Thanks again for the fascinating and useful info, and btw best of luck with your excellent boiler project. Looking forward to your next progress report.
Peter</HTML>
Re: Stanley Feed Water Heater
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: January 24, 2002 12:46PM
<HTML>Well, every BTU counts, so the feedwater heater and insulation, being relatively cheap, sound worthwhile to me (as does an economizer, except where strict authenticity is desired). Your comments bring to mind a recent article in The Steam Car, in which a Stanley owner noted that he has connected the feedwater bypass downline from the feedwater heater. Don't know if he's found problems or changed this yet, but it does sound inadviseable. He also uses two loops in the feedwater heater, plumbed in parallel -- a multi-path feedwater heater, not a bad idea. Somebody once wrote that no two Stanleys ever left the factory plumbed the same. Sounds like an exaggeration to me, though the Dealer Bulletins note several changes within some model years. Come to think of it, maybe I shouldn't wade too deep into these controversies?
Peter</HTML>
Peter</HTML>
Re: Stanley Feed Water Heater
Posted by: George Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: January 24, 2002 01:32PM
<HTML>Peter,
My Stanley friend in Florida told me his 20HP non-cindensing cars had 4-7/8" diameter tubes 4 feet long, that alone gives 3.66 square feet plus it had three smaller diameter "U"-bends so maybe 4 square feet in total. His 1917 "interim" car we tested had less area but still worked very well. The steel tubes in it were rusted/rotted badley so he had to make new ones for that feedwater heater.
Best, George</HTML>
My Stanley friend in Florida told me his 20HP non-cindensing cars had 4-7/8" diameter tubes 4 feet long, that alone gives 3.66 square feet plus it had three smaller diameter "U"-bends so maybe 4 square feet in total. His 1917 "interim" car we tested had less area but still worked very well. The steel tubes in it were rusted/rotted badley so he had to make new ones for that feedwater heater.
Best, George</HTML>
Re: Stanley Feed Water Heater
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: January 26, 2002 09:03AM
<HTML>Hi George,
Thanks! One more piece in the Stanley puzzle! The trend seems to be toward copper tubing for these heaters; I guess the rust explains why.
Peter</HTML>
Thanks! One more piece in the Stanley puzzle! The trend seems to be toward copper tubing for these heaters; I guess the rust explains why.
Peter</HTML>
Re: Stanley Feed Water Heater
Posted by: Ron Parola (IP Logged)
Date: January 26, 2002 06:38PM
<HTML>I guess I might as well weigh into the fray also. My 22 did not come with a feed water heater and I supposed the company was just cheaping out toward the end. I installed one first in the steam exhaust but this left me no room for the oil separator. I now have two pancake coils in the exhaust bonnet, out of stainless, copper would probably be fine ( obviously a better conducter) but I felt better about the corrosion resistence of stainless to the exhaust gasses. Also I have seen some of the copper lines get blued from the heat, although with feed water cooling that probably wouldn't be a problem either. Before the heater with a cold tank you could see the pressure drop when water was being pumped into the boiler, since installation it is indicernable. After the car has been run for many hours, (like to the steamboat meet, on the highway at full cruise speed) the water tank temp has hit 180f after which,usually when going slower you can hear the pumps cavitate, but so far they have never vapour locked. Time to stop and get cold water . Ron Parola</HTML>
Re: Stanley Feed Water Heater
Posted by: George Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: January 28, 2002 06:14PM
<HTML>Ron,
That is interesting that you have seen 180F in your "hotwell" like a few tested. The pumps can get a little bit noisy with your cavitation. Your burner on the 1922 must be working well, do you have a slotted burner that puts out more heat than a drilled burner, that is more than the factory 4 gallons per hour?? Any idea on your burn rate?? Wouldn't it be nice if someone made a fuel flowmeter that could me mounted on the dashboard after the fuel valve
so one would know this, it would also tell the driver if his jets or vaporisor were getting clogged if the flow rate went down at full fuel pressure.
Thanks, George</HTML>
That is interesting that you have seen 180F in your "hotwell" like a few tested. The pumps can get a little bit noisy with your cavitation. Your burner on the 1922 must be working well, do you have a slotted burner that puts out more heat than a drilled burner, that is more than the factory 4 gallons per hour?? Any idea on your burn rate?? Wouldn't it be nice if someone made a fuel flowmeter that could me mounted on the dashboard after the fuel valve
so one would know this, it would also tell the driver if his jets or vaporisor were getting clogged if the flow rate went down at full fuel pressure.
Thanks, George</HTML>
<b>Re: Fuel Flow Gauge - In Dash</b>
Posted by: JW (IP Logged)
Date: January 29, 2002 08:35PM
<HTML>I found a site that has Floscan marine fuel monitoring computers and gauges. There is one dash-mount, blackface, center-swing gauge that is calibrated from 0-10 GPH, for under $300.
I think the hole size for the case is 3 3/8".
Worth a look => [www.vitmarine.com]
JW</HTML>
I think the hole size for the case is 3 3/8".
Worth a look => [www.vitmarine.com]
JW</HTML>
Re: Fuel Flow Gauge - In Dash
Posted by: George K. Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: February 07, 2002 05:02PM
<HTML>John,
Vitmarine never answered the phone so called Floscan and talked to a tech rep. .
The main concern is what internal pressure they could take and how high fuel pressures andfuel viscosities would effect guage accuracy. If burning gasoline a separate model would be used, if kero or diesel another---it was stated that they could be (safely) run with fuel pressures of 200psi, the cost $250-$350. Accuracy would be within a few percent. For those with spare cash it would be nice to know what your Stanley flow rate was in GPH and reflect if your vaporiser or jets were clogging up. Their 0-10GPH units would be applicable for 20-30 horsepower Stanleys.
Best, George</HTML>
Vitmarine never answered the phone so called Floscan and talked to a tech rep. .
The main concern is what internal pressure they could take and how high fuel pressures andfuel viscosities would effect guage accuracy. If burning gasoline a separate model would be used, if kero or diesel another---it was stated that they could be (safely) run with fuel pressures of 200psi, the cost $250-$350. Accuracy would be within a few percent. For those with spare cash it would be nice to know what your Stanley flow rate was in GPH and reflect if your vaporiser or jets were clogging up. Their 0-10GPH units would be applicable for 20-30 horsepower Stanleys.
Best, George</HTML>
Re: Fuel Flow Gauge - In Dash
Posted by: Ron Parola (IP Logged)
Date: February 18, 2002 01:24AM
<HTML>George, I can't tell you the flow rate, BUT I do know the gas milage will vary down to 3mpg! This is of course in hill country where our speed can drop to nill. I have a 30hp burner and it is drilled, made by John Gould in the UK. Ron Parola</HTML>
shell and tube heat exchanger design
Posted by: expensive (IP Logged)
Date: April 18, 2002 11:33PM
<HTML>PLS give me information to design a steam power plant which is proaduced the 130 MW and steam flow rate is 300 ton/ hour</HTML>
Re: Stanley Feed Water Heater
Posted by: SSsssteamer (IP Logged)
Date: April 22, 2016 02:42AM
About ten years ago, my feed water heaters on a couple of our Stanleys were both assembled by me out of 3/4" copper household water pipe. I sweated my custom brass ends on so that I could use my 5/16" copper tubing fittings for the returning ends. I had used lead solder for the copper/brass joints and that was a big mistake. On our model 85, the sweated ends have blown loose because the lead solder couldn't take the high pressure or the heat. I have now used a higher temperature silver solder to braze the tubing fitting ends to the copper pipes. This had better be a permanent fix.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/02/2016 02:44AM by SSsssteamer.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/02/2016 02:44AM by SSsssteamer.
Re: Stanley Feed Water Heater
Posted by: Ben (IP Logged)
Date: April 22, 2016 08:35PM
The tubing is,,I assume on the line,,,pump to boiler,,taking
full hammar of pumping water,,the serge pressure can be
in the area of 1200 to 1800#,,,,Cant recall who posted it
some time ago,,,Hope my memory is correct,,Cheers,,Ben
full hammar of pumping water,,the serge pressure can be
in the area of 1200 to 1800#,,,,Cant recall who posted it
some time ago,,,Hope my memory is correct,,Cheers,,Ben
Re: Stanley Feed Water Heater
Posted by: SSsssteamer (IP Logged)
Date: December 02, 2016 02:41AM
A few points here. The feed water heater coils in the smoke bonnet are called economizer coils. It would be prudent to make the economizer coils out of stainless tubing because of the pump pulse vibrations will soon work hardening the copper lines, breaking the tubing nut flares off. Second: when one puts a 30 hp boiler and burner behind a 20 hp condenser, then drives at 50 mph, the water tank will become over heated and the pumps will cavitate. Mine did. Slowing down to 40 mph will make all of the difference in the world with water tank temperature. When the condenser gets dirty, the same results happen again with the water tank getting too hot. We had the same problem with our 1922 model 735B. Another feed water fix that I have had to do on all of our Stanleys that have a feed water heater is to: The feed water lines from our water pumps used are from 3/8" to 7/16" copper tubing lines. The Art Hart feed water heaters that I have purchased through the years have had only 5/16" copper tubing lines connecting all the feed water heater pipes into series. With the 30 HP cars, they cannot survive climbing the mountains with only a 5/16" copper tubing feed water line restriction. I have since corrected this by taking pairs of the four copper feed water pipes and pairing them up by plumbing the back ends with the 5/16" copper tubing connections into parallel, and on the front ends, again hooking the pairs up in parallel using 1/4" pipe. Use nothing smaller than 3/8" copper tubing to the feed water heaters. You will get twice the volume through the parallel plumbed copper feed water pipes. See the attached photos. In the Yellowstone national park a couple of years ago, our Mt. Wagon had a full load of people and luggage and we were climbing up the mountain going in to the North Entrance of the park. I had to plumb around past my feed water heater so that I could get enough water flow to the boiler. After by passing the feed water heater by replumbing, I had more than enough water to climb the mountain into Yellowstone park. We experienced less performance without the feed water water heater, but we were still the fastest bus up the mountain arriving at the hotel 10 minutes ahead of the rest of the vintage Yellowstone buses.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/03/2016 06:48PM by SSsssteamer.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/03/2016 06:48PM by SSsssteamer.
Attachments: Feedwter heater parrallel.JPG (252.6KB) Feedwater Heater plumbing.JPG (283.2KB)
Re: Stanley Feed Water Heater
Posted by: Caleb Ramsby (IP Logged)
Date: December 11, 2016 08:13PM
The pumps are positive displacement type, so the only way that an increase in line resistance would decrease the volume pumped at a given vehicle speed, would be if the pump was leaking.
The only other way high resistance could decrease the pumping, would be if it was severe enough to rob enough power to slow the vehicle, with the boiler still having a high demand for it. There would be a point where the boiler demand was greater then the pumps could supply.
From what you've said, it sounds like the former is the cause, maybe a leaky suction valve or packing?
Having said the above, getting the same heat transfer with less pump side resistance is a good thing.
Happy Travels.
The only other way high resistance could decrease the pumping, would be if it was severe enough to rob enough power to slow the vehicle, with the boiler still having a high demand for it. There would be a point where the boiler demand was greater then the pumps could supply.
From what you've said, it sounds like the former is the cause, maybe a leaky suction valve or packing?
Having said the above, getting the same heat transfer with less pump side resistance is a good thing.
Happy Travels.
Re: Stanley Feed Water Heater
Posted by: SSsssteamer (IP Logged)
Date: December 11, 2016 08:42PM
Caleb, Thoughts.... Higher pump resistance to pumping feedwater both results in the pump packing leaking more, and results of the loss of power/water mileage of which was being diverted to running the pumps. Another thought is that the previous excessive pumping pressure could have also prematurely worn out my water pump packing resulting in the water pump drawing more air through the packing on its intake stroke. I made the same feedwater heater plumbing changes to both our 1911 Stanley model 85 and to our 1914 Stanley 606. I had the same positive results on all three of them. Thank you for your ideas.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.