1 Steam Cars : Phorum
General Steam Car topics
Boiler Discussion Thread-continued
Posted by: George Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: September 23, 2002 10:06AM
<HTML>Mike Bennett,
Saw your new post on the second page of threads so as long as their is interest will restart the Boiler Discussion Thread--Boilers Only on the first page.
Your question about overfiring a Lamont/flame impingement are sort of two different conditions, the forced circulation Lamont section should take a considerable amount of overfiring. Compared to any other boiler its heat transfer rates would be equivalent to overfiring and cause tube overheating, but not as long as the Lamont circulating pump has the capacity to keep the forced circulation going. You ask a key question as the circulating pump is the "heart" of the system and if the Lamont circuit pressure differential increases with increased firing rate there could be a point where the particular circulating pump would no longer meet the pressure and flow required.
Make sure the pump deadhead pressure is at least 2 times the pressure differential required for a 100% firing rate and all should be very safe. Flame impingement on relatively cool tubes at saturation temperature would soot up as any other boiler would do as well. If most of the Lamont circuit is behind a 310SS firebox and receives its heat thru radiation than no tube carbonization would occure, the firebox at a white heat would burn off any unburned fuel caused by overfiring. Soot would collect on that part of the Lamont circuit in the high heat convective zone just next to the fire.
Did I ever respond to your other post on the B&W book???
Best, George</HTML>
Saw your new post on the second page of threads so as long as their is interest will restart the Boiler Discussion Thread--Boilers Only on the first page.
Your question about overfiring a Lamont/flame impingement are sort of two different conditions, the forced circulation Lamont section should take a considerable amount of overfiring. Compared to any other boiler its heat transfer rates would be equivalent to overfiring and cause tube overheating, but not as long as the Lamont circulating pump has the capacity to keep the forced circulation going. You ask a key question as the circulating pump is the "heart" of the system and if the Lamont circuit pressure differential increases with increased firing rate there could be a point where the particular circulating pump would no longer meet the pressure and flow required.
Make sure the pump deadhead pressure is at least 2 times the pressure differential required for a 100% firing rate and all should be very safe. Flame impingement on relatively cool tubes at saturation temperature would soot up as any other boiler would do as well. If most of the Lamont circuit is behind a 310SS firebox and receives its heat thru radiation than no tube carbonization would occure, the firebox at a white heat would burn off any unburned fuel caused by overfiring. Soot would collect on that part of the Lamont circuit in the high heat convective zone just next to the fire.
Did I ever respond to your other post on the B&W book???
Best, George</HTML>
Re: Boiler Discussion Thread-continued
Posted by: Mike Bennett (IP Logged)
Date: September 23, 2002 01:17PM
<HTML>George: Thanks for the info. Gilbert and Peter helped out with the book.
Thanks to all. I have learned more in this forum than anywhere else on the web. regards: mike</HTML>
Thanks to all. I have learned more in this forum than anywhere else on the web. regards: mike</HTML>
Re: Boiler Discussion Thread-continued
Posted by: George Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: September 23, 2002 03:09PM
<HTML>Mike,
Do you mean Peter Brow?? He has the same copy that I do so we can talk about the same page numbers---did you get the same copy? I sent Peter Brow a private e-mail re a private subject and as I don't have your e-mail address please get in touch with him to learn more about it--all I can say for now. You are so right about this forum.
Best, George</HTML>
Do you mean Peter Brow?? He has the same copy that I do so we can talk about the same page numbers---did you get the same copy? I sent Peter Brow a private e-mail re a private subject and as I don't have your e-mail address please get in touch with him to learn more about it--all I can say for now. You are so right about this forum.
Best, George</HTML>
Re: Boiler Discussion Thread-continued
Posted by: Mike Bennett (IP Logged)
Date: September 25, 2002 09:30PM
<HTML>George,
I now have editions 37 & 38 ( found them cheap locally). My email address is mbennett@royaltycarpetmills.com
regards,
Mike</HTML>
I now have editions 37 & 38 ( found them cheap locally). My email address is mbennett@royaltycarpetmills.com
regards,
Mike</HTML>
Re: Boiler Discussion Thread-continued
Posted by: George Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: October 29, 2002 11:32AM
<HTML>Mike,
Thought I would answere you over here---The Lamont patent # is 294,619 and believe it was in 1927. It is 14 pages long and a rather different approach than I would have expected. His burner is totally separate from the boiler part and he had a powered condensor fan forcing its hot air around the burner box that must have added a great deal of combustion air temperature.
Best, George</HTML>
Thought I would answere you over here---The Lamont patent # is 294,619 and believe it was in 1927. It is 14 pages long and a rather different approach than I would have expected. His burner is totally separate from the boiler part and he had a powered condensor fan forcing its hot air around the burner box that must have added a great deal of combustion air temperature.
Best, George</HTML>
Re: Boiler Discussion Thread-continued
Posted by: George Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: November 03, 2002 04:05PM
<HTML>Mike,
Thanks for the PM, will post here so everyone knows: the patent # is from Great Britain and is GB294,619 although it appears he was offered patent protection in the U.S. under the same number. I copied the 14 pages form a patent websearch site.
Best, George</HTML>
Thanks for the PM, will post here so everyone knows: the patent # is from Great Britain and is GB294,619 although it appears he was offered patent protection in the U.S. under the same number. I copied the 14 pages form a patent websearch site.
Best, George</HTML>
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.