1 Steam Cars : Phorum
General Steam Car topics
Solution's for inedaquate condensors the practical, impractical and absurd.
Posted by: Caleb Ramsby (IP Logged)
Date: October 27, 2002 05:32PM
<HTML>Well as for the absurd just look at the thread I started "Placing the condensor inside the feed water tank". Although that type of system is used in industry, it is very impractical for a motorized vehicle. Thus, it is absurd.
One very practical system that may have already been used independantly, is to modify the steam engine to run in condensing and non-condensing mode. This could easily be done with the adition of two valves right after the expander and before the condensor. Valve one, when opened would admit the steam into the condensor. Valve two, when opened would admit the steam into the atmosphere. One could set up a lever placed in the cab that opens one valve while closing the other. Under a light load one could leave it in condension mode and when a hill is encountered one could switch it into non-condension mode. Thus the feed water tank would stop being heated by the condensed steam and would not begin to cavitate. It would also give the operator the thrill of hearing their steam engine exhausting when they want to and saving their water when they need to.
Although, there may be a need for a larger feed water tank with this arangement but mabey not since it would usualy be in condensing mode.
I think this system would work wonderfully for those of you that are lucky enough to actualy own a steam car and have problems with condensor inadaquacy.
Another idea that fits into the slightly impractical side of things and would be best used in a from scratch system. Is submerging the condensor in water. Then pumping said water into a regular off the shelf radiator for a IC vehicle. There would be a need for baffaling around the condensor to utalize the cooling water to the tenth degree. I belive that a steam to water condensor could be made much smaller than a steam to air condensor. This type of system is very close in nature to that of a nuclear power plant, where they use water to cool their condensors but they let their water turn into steam and go into the air via the stacks. We would need to cool the cooling water which I think would be rather easy with forced air and a tunnel made for the actual radiator so one could control air velocity and cooling power.
I am interisted to hear if any of you have heard of anyone using an alternating condensing, non-condension system like the one I proposed!
If the condensed water was fed into the feed water via pump. Then would there be a problem with it cavatating when the system was on non-condension? Is any one willing to try this system and let us know if it works?
Actualy I think that the afore mentioned mode changing system should be used even if the car has an adequate condensor. Just so one would have the ability to hear the steam engine!
Thanks for everyones never ending patience with my often absurd questions and helping to destroy my ignorence step by step.
I have read almost all of the old threads and have learned so much. I have also colected a few books to use in steam reference since first finding this great site and plan to add many, many more!
Caleb Ramsby</HTML>
One very practical system that may have already been used independantly, is to modify the steam engine to run in condensing and non-condensing mode. This could easily be done with the adition of two valves right after the expander and before the condensor. Valve one, when opened would admit the steam into the condensor. Valve two, when opened would admit the steam into the atmosphere. One could set up a lever placed in the cab that opens one valve while closing the other. Under a light load one could leave it in condension mode and when a hill is encountered one could switch it into non-condension mode. Thus the feed water tank would stop being heated by the condensed steam and would not begin to cavitate. It would also give the operator the thrill of hearing their steam engine exhausting when they want to and saving their water when they need to.
Although, there may be a need for a larger feed water tank with this arangement but mabey not since it would usualy be in condensing mode.
I think this system would work wonderfully for those of you that are lucky enough to actualy own a steam car and have problems with condensor inadaquacy.
Another idea that fits into the slightly impractical side of things and would be best used in a from scratch system. Is submerging the condensor in water. Then pumping said water into a regular off the shelf radiator for a IC vehicle. There would be a need for baffaling around the condensor to utalize the cooling water to the tenth degree. I belive that a steam to water condensor could be made much smaller than a steam to air condensor. This type of system is very close in nature to that of a nuclear power plant, where they use water to cool their condensors but they let their water turn into steam and go into the air via the stacks. We would need to cool the cooling water which I think would be rather easy with forced air and a tunnel made for the actual radiator so one could control air velocity and cooling power.
I am interisted to hear if any of you have heard of anyone using an alternating condensing, non-condension system like the one I proposed!
If the condensed water was fed into the feed water via pump. Then would there be a problem with it cavatating when the system was on non-condension? Is any one willing to try this system and let us know if it works?
Actualy I think that the afore mentioned mode changing system should be used even if the car has an adequate condensor. Just so one would have the ability to hear the steam engine!
Thanks for everyones never ending patience with my often absurd questions and helping to destroy my ignorence step by step.
I have read almost all of the old threads and have learned so much. I have also colected a few books to use in steam reference since first finding this great site and plan to add many, many more!
Caleb Ramsby</HTML>
Re: Solution's for inedaquate condensors the practical, impractical and absurd.
Posted by: Pat Farrell (IP Logged)
Date: October 27, 2002 08:28PM
<HTML>I have a noncondensing valve control on my dash board of our 1922 Stanley 735 B. In climbing hills, I go noncondensing because at full throttle I am then operating without the back pressure of the condensor, and I can also get a little more power to the wheels. Only one noncondensing valve is used instead of the two as you suggested. Yes, it tends to bark a little in the noncondensing mode. What is really visual is, instead of being condensed, the sudden release of vapor in the air, fogs out all the traffic behind me. And running in non condensing, my water pumps will still work because my water supply tank keeps from boiling by not getting the heated return water. The noncondensing valve is plumbed in between the exhaust feedwater heater and the condensor inlet.</HTML>
Re: Solution's for inedaquate condensors the practical, impractical and absurd.
Posted by: Jeff Theobald (IP Logged)
Date: October 27, 2002 10:11PM
<HTML>I also have a noncondensing valve fitted to my 1924 Brooks, operated from the driving seat when climbing hills, I have fitted mine directly after the exhaust manifold, the feed to the valve being in a straight line where as the condenser feed curves away, I find that the oil is shot down the stright pipe and collects there until the valve is opened, this helps a lot with keeping oil out of the feed water tank, Jeff.</HTML>
Re: Solution's for inedaquate condensors the practical, impractical and absurd.
Posted by: Dick Vennerbeck (IP Logged)
Date: October 28, 2002 01:02AM
<HTML>Calib,
You have a lot of great ideas. If you study the energy produced by the burner, the work done by the engine, and the "left over BTU's (minus the inefficiencies etc) I think you will find that the condenser will be so massive as to be impractical. The Stanley's already have a very large automotive type radiator with multiple rows of tubes, and to make matters worse..it has an oil film in the heat transfer equation. Dick</HTML>
You have a lot of great ideas. If you study the energy produced by the burner, the work done by the engine, and the "left over BTU's (minus the inefficiencies etc) I think you will find that the condenser will be so massive as to be impractical. The Stanley's already have a very large automotive type radiator with multiple rows of tubes, and to make matters worse..it has an oil film in the heat transfer equation. Dick</HTML>
Re: Solution's for inedaquate condensors the practical, impractical and absurd.
Posted by: Caleb Ramsby (IP Logged)
Date: October 28, 2002 04:48AM
<HTML>Pat and Jeff,
I had a fealing that it had already been done. I like the built in oil seperator you have there. What kind of valve's are you guys using?
The reason I was suggesting two valves is to close off the condensor so there would be no opening from the condensor to the atmoshpere. No real reason, just thought it would keep things more seperated.
On your systems is the condensed water being pushed into the feed water tank with the pressure of the exhaust steam or is it pumped into the feed water tank?
Dick,
Thanks for the compliment. I will do some calculations on just how much waste energy there is that needs to be dispensed with. I am thinking about the application of "hamster wheel" fans that are used to supply the air into the cab of cars and trucks as a supplier of cooling air to the water radiator which in turn is taking the heat away from the condensor.
Since the condensor doesn't need any air flow it can be placed practicaly anywhere that you can fit it and the plumbing. The circulating pump for the cooling water could be driven be the engine or eletricaly. The former would dictate pump alocation, while the later would give one more freedom. I am considering the usage of a series of heater cores from automobiles placed into a hand made sealed tunnel, into which the air would be forced with a large "hamster wheel" fan. These fans are installed in cars with multi power toggle switchs and run on 12V so one could control them manualy. One serious down side, is that if the pump that circulates the water that cools the condensor gave out, there would be no way to cool the exhausted steam.
The power it will take to run the circulation pump and all of those fans could easily make the whole system impractical and just a bunch of added weight that basicly only gives you more toggle switchs, and nifty levers.
I will check and see what the numbers say. Calculating the heat transfer effeciency and rate from saturated steam to oil to metal to water to metal to air. This will take a little while. . .
Caleb Ramsby</HTML>
I had a fealing that it had already been done. I like the built in oil seperator you have there. What kind of valve's are you guys using?
The reason I was suggesting two valves is to close off the condensor so there would be no opening from the condensor to the atmoshpere. No real reason, just thought it would keep things more seperated.
On your systems is the condensed water being pushed into the feed water tank with the pressure of the exhaust steam or is it pumped into the feed water tank?
Dick,
Thanks for the compliment. I will do some calculations on just how much waste energy there is that needs to be dispensed with. I am thinking about the application of "hamster wheel" fans that are used to supply the air into the cab of cars and trucks as a supplier of cooling air to the water radiator which in turn is taking the heat away from the condensor.
Since the condensor doesn't need any air flow it can be placed practicaly anywhere that you can fit it and the plumbing. The circulating pump for the cooling water could be driven be the engine or eletricaly. The former would dictate pump alocation, while the later would give one more freedom. I am considering the usage of a series of heater cores from automobiles placed into a hand made sealed tunnel, into which the air would be forced with a large "hamster wheel" fan. These fans are installed in cars with multi power toggle switchs and run on 12V so one could control them manualy. One serious down side, is that if the pump that circulates the water that cools the condensor gave out, there would be no way to cool the exhausted steam.
The power it will take to run the circulation pump and all of those fans could easily make the whole system impractical and just a bunch of added weight that basicly only gives you more toggle switchs, and nifty levers.
I will check and see what the numbers say. Calculating the heat transfer effeciency and rate from saturated steam to oil to metal to water to metal to air. This will take a little while. . .
Caleb Ramsby</HTML>
Re: Solution's for inedaquate condensors the practical, impractical and absurd.
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: October 28, 2002 08:29AM
<HTML>Hi Caleb,
About 20 years ago (start "Gabby Hays voice") when I was first getting into steam cars, I met local Stanley owner Jim Doughty at a classic car show at the local Auto Museum. He had a nice '20s Stanley Touring off in some remote corner of the display area, pretty much ignored by the crowd. It was the first time I had ever seen a steam car first-hand. I introduced myself, pestered him with technical questions, looked at everything I could see, and after a while he jacked up one wheel, pulled off the radiator cap, and cracked open the throttle. The raised wheel turned incredibly slowly and smoothly, and the radiator cap gave a very soft chuff chuff and blew puffs of steam about 10 feet in the air. I think that every person at the show, including the other car owners, abandoned the other cars and crowded around the previously-ignored Stanley to watch this and ask what the heck was going on. After that, I couldn't get a word in edgewise and soon left. A few years later I read in the paper that this car was tragically destroyed by a rampaging horse at a local parade! Perhaps horses still harbor some resentment at being sidelined by these upstart machines ...
Anyway, so yes, it is nice to hear that engine and watch the steam sometimes. Even gas car folks are fascinated.
The hamster wheel, squirrel cage, or "Scirocco" fan is the most efficient type. Good choice. Much more efficient than a propellor fan. Best for anything needing a fan, if you can find the room.
In the Steam Automobile Bulletin, somewhat more recently, somebody(?) estimated that you could use 1/6 the radiator area if you condensed the steam with a water spray and kept the radiator full of water.
Check out "[John] Wetz's Handy-Dandy Percolator-Circulator Condenser" in Vol. 26 #1 of The Steam Automobile (back issues available from SACA Storeroom @ [www.steamautomobile.com] ). This has a small-diameter column of water into the bottom of which the exhaust steam is percolated (ideally with a screen or perforated flow divider to break it up into small bubbles). As the steam bubbles rise in the column, they rapidly condense into the water and also set up an upward flow in the column. The hot water spills over into the top of a water-filled radiator, circulates down thru the radiator as it cools, and exits the bottom of the radiator as it is drawn back into the bottom of the percolator-condenser column. Excess water (condensate) overflows from the top of the radiator, and returns to the water tank. Column is as tall as radiator, and connected to it at top & bottom. There are a couple other interesting wrinkles in his system too, details in the article.
This gives the advantages (if any) of a water-filled radiator, without an extra steam-to-liquid heat exchanger. H.O. Baker tried the secondary heat exchanger idea you mentioned, BTW, and it took up a huge amount of space in his car.
The downside of a water-filled radiator is possible freezing in cold weather, but the antifreeze-capable 2-stage condensing system is an overkill solution to that, IMO.
I am looking into the Saab/Philips "v-front" radiator/condenser, which has 4x the surface area/condensing capacity of a conventional radiator, for a given volume. Not commercially available to my knowledge, and a challenge to build (looking into that too), but a lot of condensing power in a small space. See my & Peter Heid's latest posts under "Condenser/Boiler Area Ratio" in this forum for description & comments.
I do think it is theoretically possible to get nearly complete water recovery, but it takes some doing in the design department. Peter Barrett uses a very large condenser (conventional type) with electric fans in his modern steam car, and reported no measurable water loss in some runs. And that is a rear-mount unit, drawing air from the back of a hot boiler/engine compartment, with little or no natural airflow.
Peter</HTML>
About 20 years ago (start "Gabby Hays voice") when I was first getting into steam cars, I met local Stanley owner Jim Doughty at a classic car show at the local Auto Museum. He had a nice '20s Stanley Touring off in some remote corner of the display area, pretty much ignored by the crowd. It was the first time I had ever seen a steam car first-hand. I introduced myself, pestered him with technical questions, looked at everything I could see, and after a while he jacked up one wheel, pulled off the radiator cap, and cracked open the throttle. The raised wheel turned incredibly slowly and smoothly, and the radiator cap gave a very soft chuff chuff and blew puffs of steam about 10 feet in the air. I think that every person at the show, including the other car owners, abandoned the other cars and crowded around the previously-ignored Stanley to watch this and ask what the heck was going on. After that, I couldn't get a word in edgewise and soon left. A few years later I read in the paper that this car was tragically destroyed by a rampaging horse at a local parade! Perhaps horses still harbor some resentment at being sidelined by these upstart machines ...
Anyway, so yes, it is nice to hear that engine and watch the steam sometimes. Even gas car folks are fascinated.
The hamster wheel, squirrel cage, or "Scirocco" fan is the most efficient type. Good choice. Much more efficient than a propellor fan. Best for anything needing a fan, if you can find the room.
In the Steam Automobile Bulletin, somewhat more recently, somebody(?) estimated that you could use 1/6 the radiator area if you condensed the steam with a water spray and kept the radiator full of water.
Check out "[John] Wetz's Handy-Dandy Percolator-Circulator Condenser" in Vol. 26 #1 of The Steam Automobile (back issues available from SACA Storeroom @ [www.steamautomobile.com] ). This has a small-diameter column of water into the bottom of which the exhaust steam is percolated (ideally with a screen or perforated flow divider to break it up into small bubbles). As the steam bubbles rise in the column, they rapidly condense into the water and also set up an upward flow in the column. The hot water spills over into the top of a water-filled radiator, circulates down thru the radiator as it cools, and exits the bottom of the radiator as it is drawn back into the bottom of the percolator-condenser column. Excess water (condensate) overflows from the top of the radiator, and returns to the water tank. Column is as tall as radiator, and connected to it at top & bottom. There are a couple other interesting wrinkles in his system too, details in the article.
This gives the advantages (if any) of a water-filled radiator, without an extra steam-to-liquid heat exchanger. H.O. Baker tried the secondary heat exchanger idea you mentioned, BTW, and it took up a huge amount of space in his car.
The downside of a water-filled radiator is possible freezing in cold weather, but the antifreeze-capable 2-stage condensing system is an overkill solution to that, IMO.
I am looking into the Saab/Philips "v-front" radiator/condenser, which has 4x the surface area/condensing capacity of a conventional radiator, for a given volume. Not commercially available to my knowledge, and a challenge to build (looking into that too), but a lot of condensing power in a small space. See my & Peter Heid's latest posts under "Condenser/Boiler Area Ratio" in this forum for description & comments.
I do think it is theoretically possible to get nearly complete water recovery, but it takes some doing in the design department. Peter Barrett uses a very large condenser (conventional type) with electric fans in his modern steam car, and reported no measurable water loss in some runs. And that is a rear-mount unit, drawing air from the back of a hot boiler/engine compartment, with little or no natural airflow.
Peter</HTML>
Re: Solution's for inedaquate condensors the practical, impractical and absurd.
Posted by: Pat Farrell (IP Logged)
Date: October 28, 2002 02:27PM
<HTML>On condensing Stanleys, the condensed water is returned to the water tank by gravity. I use a molassis valve for my non condensing valve. It is about a 1 1/4 inch opening and it could be bigger. It still make a big difference.</HTML>
Re: Solution's for inedaquate condensors the practical, impractical and absurd.
Posted by: Caleb Ramsby (IP Logged)
Date: October 29, 2002 03:55PM
<HTML>Pat,
Thanks for the information on the valve. Yet another gravity dependant system, huh. 1 1/4" sounds pretty small, but anything is better than nothing. It would be interisting to put a steam whistle on the end of that but it would probaly become iritating after a little while and rob some power.
Peter,
Great story about your first steam encounter! Yea, exhausting steam sounds great even through the T.V.'s speakers. Which is the only place I have heard it so far.
William L. Petitjean P.E. was the one suggesting water filled radiator. Condensing the steam with multiple jets of water in the crankcase, using his hot head design. If you look at my recent post under "questions about the Lamont Boiler" you will see that I do not intend to use a piston engine.
The jet stream condendors have been used before and work wonderfully. They are of considerable consideration.
Do you know if H.O. Baker used forced air induction for the second stage of his condensor? The use of centrifugal vane type fans(mouse wheel) are imperative in my design. These would give the control of the variable cubic feet of air needed to extract the heat for the second stage of cooling.
Your V front design has merit but I prefer to use designs that are not dependant on being exposed on the outside of the vehicle. I like to have complete control of the variables thus always knowing what should be happening. Every vehicle I have owned I have disconected the automatic cooling fan toggle switch and hooked it up to a manual switch in the cab, under the seat. So I have complete control of the system. I am just that way.
I like the percolator design but it sounds very gravity dependant. This is very undesirable in my eyes.
Thanks for all of your imput.
Caleb Ramsby</HTML>
Thanks for the information on the valve. Yet another gravity dependant system, huh. 1 1/4" sounds pretty small, but anything is better than nothing. It would be interisting to put a steam whistle on the end of that but it would probaly become iritating after a little while and rob some power.
Peter,
Great story about your first steam encounter! Yea, exhausting steam sounds great even through the T.V.'s speakers. Which is the only place I have heard it so far.
William L. Petitjean P.E. was the one suggesting water filled radiator. Condensing the steam with multiple jets of water in the crankcase, using his hot head design. If you look at my recent post under "questions about the Lamont Boiler" you will see that I do not intend to use a piston engine.
The jet stream condendors have been used before and work wonderfully. They are of considerable consideration.
Do you know if H.O. Baker used forced air induction for the second stage of his condensor? The use of centrifugal vane type fans(mouse wheel) are imperative in my design. These would give the control of the variable cubic feet of air needed to extract the heat for the second stage of cooling.
Your V front design has merit but I prefer to use designs that are not dependant on being exposed on the outside of the vehicle. I like to have complete control of the variables thus always knowing what should be happening. Every vehicle I have owned I have disconected the automatic cooling fan toggle switch and hooked it up to a manual switch in the cab, under the seat. So I have complete control of the system. I am just that way.
I like the percolator design but it sounds very gravity dependant. This is very undesirable in my eyes.
Thanks for all of your imput.
Caleb Ramsby</HTML>
Re: Solution's for inedaquate condensors the practical, impractical and absurd.
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: November 03, 2002 05:36AM
<HTML>Hi Caleb,
Looked over the Baker patent drawings in "Steamy Dreamer", and saw a radiator fan in one of them, so Baker was at least aware of the idea. The texts of the patents are not reproduced in the book, just drawings. I am not sure if he actually installed a radiator fan in his cars. The photos don't seem to show any. A 2-stage condensing system w/o fan can theoretically store waste heat in liquid during acceleration or overload conditions, and then get rid of it during subsequent coasting or high-speed running, when ram air flow increases beyond required level. Baker may have had something like that in mind.
For controlling ram air flow to the radiator, a set of thermostatic air shutters (or just one) can be installed, as in some of the old-time gas cars. This could be used with or without a fan. Probably only needed to prevent freezing with a water-filled radiator, though it might be needed to avoid over-cooling in very cold weather, depending on system design.
For some applications, like aerobatic planes or engines for use in space, gravity-dependence would be a problem. In cars, probably not, and in many places in a steam system, gravity feed/flow/separation can be much simpler, cheaper, lighter, & more compact than pumps, centrifuges, etc. to do the same job. Sometimes gravity is our friend.
Peter</HTML>
Looked over the Baker patent drawings in "Steamy Dreamer", and saw a radiator fan in one of them, so Baker was at least aware of the idea. The texts of the patents are not reproduced in the book, just drawings. I am not sure if he actually installed a radiator fan in his cars. The photos don't seem to show any. A 2-stage condensing system w/o fan can theoretically store waste heat in liquid during acceleration or overload conditions, and then get rid of it during subsequent coasting or high-speed running, when ram air flow increases beyond required level. Baker may have had something like that in mind.
For controlling ram air flow to the radiator, a set of thermostatic air shutters (or just one) can be installed, as in some of the old-time gas cars. This could be used with or without a fan. Probably only needed to prevent freezing with a water-filled radiator, though it might be needed to avoid over-cooling in very cold weather, depending on system design.
For some applications, like aerobatic planes or engines for use in space, gravity-dependence would be a problem. In cars, probably not, and in many places in a steam system, gravity feed/flow/separation can be much simpler, cheaper, lighter, & more compact than pumps, centrifuges, etc. to do the same job. Sometimes gravity is our friend.
Peter</HTML>
Re: Solution's for inedaquate condensors the practical, impractical and absurd.
Posted by: Caleb Ramsby (IP Logged)
Date: November 03, 2002 05:43PM
<HTML>Hello Peter,
Thanks for the research. It sounds like Baker was realy on to something!
I just want to say that after reading your's and Peter Heid's earlier discussion about condensors. I realized that "v-front" meant the orientation of the tubes within the radiator/condensor. Not, the orientation of the radiator/condensor to the vehicle. That is actualy a very good design(as if you didn't know). It would make for a much more compact unit! My earlier comments on said design were founded on ignorance, for this I apologize. The "V-front" unit should be able to replace the standard unit with no forseable differences in use. It would just be more effecient.
I defenitaly like the ram air, but I believe that a controlable back-up would almost have to be in existance. For those common unforseable instances.
A thermostaticly controled air valve for the ram air would be a comfort to the operator and not incur much of a weight disadvantage.
Since gravity is an assumed inexhaustable free source of energy one should utilize it in any instance where it is pheasible and uninhibited. Like you stated, there are many cases in which there would be no forseable lack of a consistant force of gravity. Such as automobiles, stationary power, Tractors and the such. Although there are more extreme modes of transport that would require a controled system of condensation. Such as planes, helicoptors, personal watercraft, and the such.
In a supposed production of steam engines there would obavously be a distinction amoungst various applications of said engines. Thus, there should be two or more styles of condensors that could be utilized acording to their various applications.
In an initial test engine I believe that the simple and inexpensive style would overcome the complex and undoubtly finicy pure control design.
May there be a bountiful harvest. On the tail of the historical and mangled Irish celebration comencing the comune between the living and deceased.
Caleb (No, I am not Irish) Ramsby</HTML>
Thanks for the research. It sounds like Baker was realy on to something!
I just want to say that after reading your's and Peter Heid's earlier discussion about condensors. I realized that "v-front" meant the orientation of the tubes within the radiator/condensor. Not, the orientation of the radiator/condensor to the vehicle. That is actualy a very good design(as if you didn't know). It would make for a much more compact unit! My earlier comments on said design were founded on ignorance, for this I apologize. The "V-front" unit should be able to replace the standard unit with no forseable differences in use. It would just be more effecient.
I defenitaly like the ram air, but I believe that a controlable back-up would almost have to be in existance. For those common unforseable instances.
A thermostaticly controled air valve for the ram air would be a comfort to the operator and not incur much of a weight disadvantage.
Since gravity is an assumed inexhaustable free source of energy one should utilize it in any instance where it is pheasible and uninhibited. Like you stated, there are many cases in which there would be no forseable lack of a consistant force of gravity. Such as automobiles, stationary power, Tractors and the such. Although there are more extreme modes of transport that would require a controled system of condensation. Such as planes, helicoptors, personal watercraft, and the such.
In a supposed production of steam engines there would obavously be a distinction amoungst various applications of said engines. Thus, there should be two or more styles of condensors that could be utilized acording to their various applications.
In an initial test engine I believe that the simple and inexpensive style would overcome the complex and undoubtly finicy pure control design.
May there be a bountiful harvest. On the tail of the historical and mangled Irish celebration comencing the comune between the living and deceased.
Caleb (No, I am not Irish) Ramsby</HTML>
Re: Solution's for inedaquate condensors the practical, impractical and absurd.
Posted by: Dan Ullfig (IP Logged)
Date: December 22, 2004 06:23PM
<HTML>Hi all:
What about exhausting the steam directly into the water tank, using some type of injector? after all, boiler steam injectors manage to condense all of the steam in the short combining nozle. You would end up with a tank of hot water, and you would circulate the water through a radiator to keep it from boiling.
Dan</HTML>
What about exhausting the steam directly into the water tank, using some type of injector? after all, boiler steam injectors manage to condense all of the steam in the short combining nozle. You would end up with a tank of hot water, and you would circulate the water through a radiator to keep it from boiling.
Dan</HTML>
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.