1 Steam Cars : Phorum
General Steam Car topics
Secondary independent burner for the superheater?
Posted by: Caleb Ramsby (IP Logged)
Date: October 17, 2002 06:24PM
<HTML>Many of the boiler designs that I have studied have had the superheater placed right in front of the main burner. I believe this is for a constant and intense heat. I was considering what benefits there would be if one were to utilize a second smaller burner dedicated to superheating the steam. The discussion of metal fiber burners had influinced me to begin considering what could be improved in a boiler design.
Another configeration(which I have come up with) that I think deserves attention is the use of a system of rail burners. Which are supplied by one of the companies mentioned in the metal fiber talk. These burners are produced especialy for boilers.
I am thinking of a water tube boiler with a series of rail burners.
Assuming a vertical boiler, I would use four sets of rails and one metal fiber burner.
Rails:
1. At the bottem.
2. 1/4 way up.
3. 1/2 way up.
4. 3/4 way up.
Metal Fiber burner:
1. Used for the superheater
I would have the rails of burners wrap around the boiler. Each using it's own fuel line and it's own air suply. Placing the superheater in an adjacent canister with it's own metal fiber burner.
I know this sounds like a redundent amount of piping and complexity but I think the benefit of controling the amount of heat at the seperate stages of the boiler would out weight the obstacles.
I believe there should only be one flue at the top of the boiler. The bottem burners would compound their heat with the top burners. After the flue goes out of the boiler I would feed it back through the center of the boiler to compleatly burn all of the fuel. Then sending the exhaust through the feed water tank.
I also think that the air for combustion should be fed via forced induction with a motor. The air should first go through the feed water tank via coil tubeing gaining a bit of heat, then sent through the center of the boiler via another coil of tubeing thus the air used for combustion would be very hot and not be affected by the ambient temperature in the least. Removing the worry about cold air cooling the boiler as it is blasted in.
I am also wondering how often if ever forced air induction is used for a boiler. I know that the locomotives used the steams exhaust to induce a stronger draft, but I am not know to what extent this technology was taken.
Do you believe there would be a real benefit in using a seperate burner for the superheater?
I am looking forward to hearing what the residents here think about my ideas and acquiring answers to my elemental questions!
Caleb Ramsby</HTML>
Another configeration(which I have come up with) that I think deserves attention is the use of a system of rail burners. Which are supplied by one of the companies mentioned in the metal fiber talk. These burners are produced especialy for boilers.
I am thinking of a water tube boiler with a series of rail burners.
Assuming a vertical boiler, I would use four sets of rails and one metal fiber burner.
Rails:
1. At the bottem.
2. 1/4 way up.
3. 1/2 way up.
4. 3/4 way up.
Metal Fiber burner:
1. Used for the superheater
I would have the rails of burners wrap around the boiler. Each using it's own fuel line and it's own air suply. Placing the superheater in an adjacent canister with it's own metal fiber burner.
I know this sounds like a redundent amount of piping and complexity but I think the benefit of controling the amount of heat at the seperate stages of the boiler would out weight the obstacles.
I believe there should only be one flue at the top of the boiler. The bottem burners would compound their heat with the top burners. After the flue goes out of the boiler I would feed it back through the center of the boiler to compleatly burn all of the fuel. Then sending the exhaust through the feed water tank.
I also think that the air for combustion should be fed via forced induction with a motor. The air should first go through the feed water tank via coil tubeing gaining a bit of heat, then sent through the center of the boiler via another coil of tubeing thus the air used for combustion would be very hot and not be affected by the ambient temperature in the least. Removing the worry about cold air cooling the boiler as it is blasted in.
I am also wondering how often if ever forced air induction is used for a boiler. I know that the locomotives used the steams exhaust to induce a stronger draft, but I am not know to what extent this technology was taken.
Do you believe there would be a real benefit in using a seperate burner for the superheater?
I am looking forward to hearing what the residents here think about my ideas and acquiring answers to my elemental questions!
Caleb Ramsby</HTML>
Re: Secondary independent burner for the superheater?
Posted by: Peter Heid (IP Logged)
Date: October 17, 2002 07:29PM
<HTML>Caleb,
Some stationary power plants use a seperate heater for the superheater but it was usually just an add on to put a superheater on an older design. They do not run in on/off operation but any newer designs include the superheater in the fire of the main burner. Many designs use a damper to restrict the amount of heat reaching the superheater at low loads. You would want to be careful that the upper burners did not get too hot or you may end up cracking the fuel before burning it. A forced draft is very comon on newer designs of steam generators but preheating the air of combustion air is less common. With multipule burners you will probably need seperate air feeds for each and the speed of the combustion gasses passing the upper burners may cause trouble.
Peter Heid</HTML>
Some stationary power plants use a seperate heater for the superheater but it was usually just an add on to put a superheater on an older design. They do not run in on/off operation but any newer designs include the superheater in the fire of the main burner. Many designs use a damper to restrict the amount of heat reaching the superheater at low loads. You would want to be careful that the upper burners did not get too hot or you may end up cracking the fuel before burning it. A forced draft is very comon on newer designs of steam generators but preheating the air of combustion air is less common. With multipule burners you will probably need seperate air feeds for each and the speed of the combustion gasses passing the upper burners may cause trouble.
Peter Heid</HTML>
Re: Secondary independent burner for the superheater?
Posted by: David K Nergaard (IP Logged)
Date: October 18, 2002 10:43AM
<HTML>As Peter says, separately fired superheaters are seldom used except as a way to fit superheating to existing power plants. Even that is obsolete now, such conversions were mostly done 1890-1920. Most modern power boilers control superheat by having dual furnaces in the boiler, one of which heats the superheater as well as heating the boiler, or altering the location of the flame within a single large furnace. For a plant as small as a car's, I don't think dual firing is practical.
It is probably much easier to design the engine to be tolerant of a range of steam temperatures and design the boiler to provide the desired temperature under average driving conditions. It certainly worked for Serpollet. And, at a much lower temp., it worked for Stanley.</HTML>
It is probably much easier to design the engine to be tolerant of a range of steam temperatures and design the boiler to provide the desired temperature under average driving conditions. It certainly worked for Serpollet. And, at a much lower temp., it worked for Stanley.</HTML>
Re: Secondary independent burner for the superheater?
Posted by: Caleb Ramsby (IP Logged)
Date: October 19, 2002 03:29PM
<HTML>Thanks for the responses.
It sounds like I am trying to re-invent the 2x4.
So what it boils down to is that the extra weight, cost, and operational complexities in a simple automobile are not actually warented.
It sound's like just a simple adjustable deflector would take care of the "problem".
Yesterday, instead of responding to your replies I decided to read a bunch of information on the site here. Atempting to reduce my level of ignorance.
It apears that the Lamount boiler or a similar design would reduce the need for a deflector completely. Since the circulation would keep a controled average temperature.
I will begine another thread with some questions about the Lamount.
Thanks for the help.
Caleb Ramsby</HTML>
It sounds like I am trying to re-invent the 2x4.
So what it boils down to is that the extra weight, cost, and operational complexities in a simple automobile are not actually warented.
It sound's like just a simple adjustable deflector would take care of the "problem".
Yesterday, instead of responding to your replies I decided to read a bunch of information on the site here. Atempting to reduce my level of ignorance.
It apears that the Lamount boiler or a similar design would reduce the need for a deflector completely. Since the circulation would keep a controled average temperature.
I will begine another thread with some questions about the Lamount.
Thanks for the help.
Caleb Ramsby</HTML>
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.