1 Steam Cars : Phorum
General Steam Car topics
Lamont Boiler
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: February 04, 2002 01:13PM
<HTML>Hi George and all,
Mention of the Lamont inspired me to try a new (guaranteed attention-getting) subject line. The Lamont is not a true monotube, though the economizer and superheater are "once-through" sections. Perhaps we could call it a "tritube" boiler? By the same token, would a 23" Stanley boiler be a "septacentisesquitube"?
My question is about water level sensing in the Lamont. Don't mean to pry into proprietary info, but the outlet velocity from the generating coil must be tremendous due to the generation and expansion of steam bubbles (?) in the water progressively accelerating the moving water mass inside the tube. Plus this velocity would vary with steam rate. The question is, does this varying (?) & high (?) velocity, combined with the tangent entry to the drum, throw the rotating water up the side of the drum (with a conical water surface), thus throwing off the water level reading? Obviously the Lamonts of the past used some method of water level sensing which wasn't fooled by this effect, or which took it into account.
Assuming that a tangent inlet to drum is used, that is. From the Baker boiler blueprint I have, it looks like Baker aimed the inlets from generating coils to drum straight down, perhaps to avoid coning the water surface and fooling an expansion-tube feedwater automatic? It was a wild design; I did some scaling work on the print years back (complete dimensions weren't on it) and figured he used about 5 different tube diameters! Reportedly worked like a dream, though blowdowns with the indexed cleaning hook must have been fun.
The Baker didn't have the Lamont's cyclonic separation, at least not in the drum, (has anyone tried tangent arms in a Bolsover?), but perhaps the downward-flying water droplets coalescing into the water surface, well below the steam outlet, helped keep water out of the exiting steam. Plus the kinetic energy of that "flying water" would translate (?) into an accelerated outward flow from the bottom of the drum, into the generating coils, not dissipated by the fluid friction of rotating inside the drum (never mind turbulence). No circulating pump and if I recall correctly only about a 4" ID drum. Welder's nightmare, though, and big/heavy despite the wee drum. I read that some Stanleys (SV's?) had to have the frame rails cut to fit a Baker. Anyway. What a digression. :)
Peter</HTML>
Mention of the Lamont inspired me to try a new (guaranteed attention-getting) subject line. The Lamont is not a true monotube, though the economizer and superheater are "once-through" sections. Perhaps we could call it a "tritube" boiler? By the same token, would a 23" Stanley boiler be a "septacentisesquitube"?
My question is about water level sensing in the Lamont. Don't mean to pry into proprietary info, but the outlet velocity from the generating coil must be tremendous due to the generation and expansion of steam bubbles (?) in the water progressively accelerating the moving water mass inside the tube. Plus this velocity would vary with steam rate. The question is, does this varying (?) & high (?) velocity, combined with the tangent entry to the drum, throw the rotating water up the side of the drum (with a conical water surface), thus throwing off the water level reading? Obviously the Lamonts of the past used some method of water level sensing which wasn't fooled by this effect, or which took it into account.
Assuming that a tangent inlet to drum is used, that is. From the Baker boiler blueprint I have, it looks like Baker aimed the inlets from generating coils to drum straight down, perhaps to avoid coning the water surface and fooling an expansion-tube feedwater automatic? It was a wild design; I did some scaling work on the print years back (complete dimensions weren't on it) and figured he used about 5 different tube diameters! Reportedly worked like a dream, though blowdowns with the indexed cleaning hook must have been fun.
The Baker didn't have the Lamont's cyclonic separation, at least not in the drum, (has anyone tried tangent arms in a Bolsover?), but perhaps the downward-flying water droplets coalescing into the water surface, well below the steam outlet, helped keep water out of the exiting steam. Plus the kinetic energy of that "flying water" would translate (?) into an accelerated outward flow from the bottom of the drum, into the generating coils, not dissipated by the fluid friction of rotating inside the drum (never mind turbulence). No circulating pump and if I recall correctly only about a 4" ID drum. Welder's nightmare, though, and big/heavy despite the wee drum. I read that some Stanleys (SV's?) had to have the frame rails cut to fit a Baker. Anyway. What a digression. :)
Peter</HTML>
Re: Lamont Boiler
Posted by: Jim Crank (IP Logged)
Date: February 04, 2002 02:48PM
<HTML>Peter,
The steam/water drum in the Lamont certainly has to have a good baffle system, like any steam drum on any high output water tube boiler. It doesn't take much to do good separation in there, reverse cones, perforated plates, etc.. One certainly doesn't just blast the incoming mixture into the drum without some good control over the events taking place in there.
The Baker has the tubes from the evaporating section pointing down so that his cleaning system will work. Otherwise how would you blow down the individual sections? And yes, cleaning a Baker was a real pain!
I had one in my 1918 Stanley and it worked quite well until the oil carboned up the thing and finally it was useless. Baker's cleaning system does get the crud out; but had no effect on the carbon from the cylinder oil.
Also, two Bakers that I know of, had to be repaired many times at the bend down at the bottom of the central drum. Inspection showed pure erosion damage. Figure that one!!
Jim</HTML>
The steam/water drum in the Lamont certainly has to have a good baffle system, like any steam drum on any high output water tube boiler. It doesn't take much to do good separation in there, reverse cones, perforated plates, etc.. One certainly doesn't just blast the incoming mixture into the drum without some good control over the events taking place in there.
The Baker has the tubes from the evaporating section pointing down so that his cleaning system will work. Otherwise how would you blow down the individual sections? And yes, cleaning a Baker was a real pain!
I had one in my 1918 Stanley and it worked quite well until the oil carboned up the thing and finally it was useless. Baker's cleaning system does get the crud out; but had no effect on the carbon from the cylinder oil.
Also, two Bakers that I know of, had to be repaired many times at the bend down at the bottom of the central drum. Inspection showed pure erosion damage. Figure that one!!
Jim</HTML>
Re: Lamont Boiler
Posted by: George K. Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: February 04, 2002 04:30PM
<HTML>Peter,
Thats quite a name for the Stanley that you came up with!!
Lots of variables to play with on the Lamont to get to where one wants to go.
If we consider the one Rod and I are testing consider a 400#/hr boiler output and a 5X circulation ration(minimum) is circulating 2000# water per hour, lets also consider its running at 400psig. As the steam exhausting into the drum is 20% by weight and over 90% by volume the total steam water velocity coming out of our Lamont coil is 34 feet per second moving tangentially into the drum(we need a northern and southern hemisphere model to take advantage of the coriolis effect!!). This acts like a centrifuge, much like the internal "cyclone" steam separators in a big B&W top drum, the water running around the inside diameter and the steam being drawn off from the center. This spinning action creates a head pressure on the outlet to the circulating pump inlet and helps keep the pump from cavitating, the velocity entering the pump inlet is 2.6 feet per second. When the boiler is full on we could have 1psi or more on the tangential outlet to the pump. I would assume a parabolic water surface, highest at the drum diameter---we have not noticed drawing any water out of it during the last test. The boiler has an XXS staypipe in the center that has small holes in it at the very top of the upper dome for drawing steam off. The bottom of this "staypipe" has larger holes in it for blowing down any crud that accumulates during the day. We are monitoring the water level at the center, very close to the XXS staypipe where the relative velocity is at a minimum and the level sensors act very stabile. We realy don't care about close water level control, as this boat boiler has a tall drum, and the water level can go up or down +/- 5-6" without effecting performance. It appears to control much better than that. As far as I know all boilers designed by Lamont as original boilers, and not the many of his additions/conversions of conventional boilers, used a vertical drum with tangential connections. It would be easy to install an additional separater in the top as we have a 4" opening in the top header for boiler inspection. The Lamont performance and stability improves as the pressure goes up as the ratio between the steam and water specific volumes goes down, also decreases demands on the circulating pump.
It would not make a good 100psig boat boiler.
The Baker really had me going for a few years as all I had was the cut away view of it in Clymer's book. A few years ago an original sales brochure on the Baker boiler came up on Ebay and I grabbed it!! What a work of complexity it is as a natural circulation boiler. Blowing the incoming steam-water mixture straight down could create a lot of turbulence but as you mentioned a downward presure---hey if it worked thats a real plus. One of our SACA/NE members has one and says it is very heavy! Very small boilers have very little downcomer pressure as that depends upon the height of the water column, about .35psi per foot height and it is hard to get enough adequate circulation, certainly different then a big industrial boiler with 40 foot water walls!! My father was a boilermaker and he was in charge of one job where the vertical risers were over 50 feet!! It was like standing in a huge cage, very humbling.
Best, George</HTML>
Thats quite a name for the Stanley that you came up with!!
Lots of variables to play with on the Lamont to get to where one wants to go.
If we consider the one Rod and I are testing consider a 400#/hr boiler output and a 5X circulation ration(minimum) is circulating 2000# water per hour, lets also consider its running at 400psig. As the steam exhausting into the drum is 20% by weight and over 90% by volume the total steam water velocity coming out of our Lamont coil is 34 feet per second moving tangentially into the drum(we need a northern and southern hemisphere model to take advantage of the coriolis effect!!). This acts like a centrifuge, much like the internal "cyclone" steam separators in a big B&W top drum, the water running around the inside diameter and the steam being drawn off from the center. This spinning action creates a head pressure on the outlet to the circulating pump inlet and helps keep the pump from cavitating, the velocity entering the pump inlet is 2.6 feet per second. When the boiler is full on we could have 1psi or more on the tangential outlet to the pump. I would assume a parabolic water surface, highest at the drum diameter---we have not noticed drawing any water out of it during the last test. The boiler has an XXS staypipe in the center that has small holes in it at the very top of the upper dome for drawing steam off. The bottom of this "staypipe" has larger holes in it for blowing down any crud that accumulates during the day. We are monitoring the water level at the center, very close to the XXS staypipe where the relative velocity is at a minimum and the level sensors act very stabile. We realy don't care about close water level control, as this boat boiler has a tall drum, and the water level can go up or down +/- 5-6" without effecting performance. It appears to control much better than that. As far as I know all boilers designed by Lamont as original boilers, and not the many of his additions/conversions of conventional boilers, used a vertical drum with tangential connections. It would be easy to install an additional separater in the top as we have a 4" opening in the top header for boiler inspection. The Lamont performance and stability improves as the pressure goes up as the ratio between the steam and water specific volumes goes down, also decreases demands on the circulating pump.
It would not make a good 100psig boat boiler.
The Baker really had me going for a few years as all I had was the cut away view of it in Clymer's book. A few years ago an original sales brochure on the Baker boiler came up on Ebay and I grabbed it!! What a work of complexity it is as a natural circulation boiler. Blowing the incoming steam-water mixture straight down could create a lot of turbulence but as you mentioned a downward presure---hey if it worked thats a real plus. One of our SACA/NE members has one and says it is very heavy! Very small boilers have very little downcomer pressure as that depends upon the height of the water column, about .35psi per foot height and it is hard to get enough adequate circulation, certainly different then a big industrial boiler with 40 foot water walls!! My father was a boilermaker and he was in charge of one job where the vertical risers were over 50 feet!! It was like standing in a huge cage, very humbling.
Best, George</HTML>
Re: Lamont Boiler
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: February 06, 2002 10:15AM
<HTML>Hi Jim,
Good separation doesn't look too tough for the Lamont with the right baffles, etc.. Upward steam velocity in a properly-sized drum should be low, so entrained water droplets should be relatively few and far between. This brings to mind the separator in the top drum (or compartment) of the Delling boiler, which was nothing more than a perforated tube at the very top of the steam space. Delling claimed that this worked well, but I haven't found any independent reports on road experience with these apparently very rare cars.
Right, the downward-pointing inlets to the Baker drum are probably the best possible way of cleaning it. Tangent inlets would probably require a bunch of extra mechanism for the moveable cleaning stopper, or maybe multiple valves, not just a simple indexed hook. Thanks for the report on the Baker erosion damage; I found that extremely interesting. The downward velocity of the water in the drum must have been tremendous! Either that, or there was an awful lot of grit circulating in the water, or maybe some combination of both. That is a head-scratcher.
The carbon gremlin rears its ugly head again! Unless you have an "oil trap" boiler like a Stanley, it looks like the oil content of feedwater needs good control. And Stanleys benefit from oil control too, mainly for different reasons ... do standard Stanley boilers have carbon trouble? I haven't seen any reports on this.
Peter</HTML>
Good separation doesn't look too tough for the Lamont with the right baffles, etc.. Upward steam velocity in a properly-sized drum should be low, so entrained water droplets should be relatively few and far between. This brings to mind the separator in the top drum (or compartment) of the Delling boiler, which was nothing more than a perforated tube at the very top of the steam space. Delling claimed that this worked well, but I haven't found any independent reports on road experience with these apparently very rare cars.
Right, the downward-pointing inlets to the Baker drum are probably the best possible way of cleaning it. Tangent inlets would probably require a bunch of extra mechanism for the moveable cleaning stopper, or maybe multiple valves, not just a simple indexed hook. Thanks for the report on the Baker erosion damage; I found that extremely interesting. The downward velocity of the water in the drum must have been tremendous! Either that, or there was an awful lot of grit circulating in the water, or maybe some combination of both. That is a head-scratcher.
The carbon gremlin rears its ugly head again! Unless you have an "oil trap" boiler like a Stanley, it looks like the oil content of feedwater needs good control. And Stanleys benefit from oil control too, mainly for different reasons ... do standard Stanley boilers have carbon trouble? I haven't seen any reports on this.
Peter</HTML>
Re: Lamont Boiler
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: February 06, 2002 12:13PM
<HTML>Hi George,
Well, I think there are some etymological problems with my Stanley boiler name; just came off the top of my head. Not recommended terminology!
34 feet per second is a pretty leisurely fluid velocity by steam car standards. An article on the Scott-Newcomb boiler (Clymer yet again, p. 164 of 1984 edition) claims 450 feet per second steam velocity at outlet, about 307 mph? And the Lamont's velocity drop from drum inlet to outlet (to 2.6 fps) is substantial to boot. So the water surface shouldn't be too far from flat, and the center is the place to measure water level (also for blowoff and steam takeoff). Plus lower fluid velocity means lower circulator pump HP. Jerry Peoples once mentioned this in connection with his "S.P.A.T." microtube multimultipath pump-circulated boiler concept. As I recall, he was evaluating a boiler with ~1/8" (or less) OD tubes and a spherical "drum" (with central float sensor to control feed and circulation from one pump) which was only 2-3 (?) inches ID.
Right, a rotating water surface would have a _parabolic_ cross-section; I should have remembered those odd astronomical telescopes with a horizontal rotating pan of mercury forming a parabolic mirror surface. Only good for looking straight up, but the mirror can be huge for low bucks ...
When I bought a set of Stanley engine blueprints from Herb Schick in the 1980's, he threw in the Baker factory blueprint along with a stack of other fascinating "bonus drawings", allowing a closer study than the tantalizing pic in Clymer. Yep, it is quite a design! But a high price to pay for natural circulation. The book "Steamy Dreamer" has material on Baker boilers, including several patent drawings showing the stages of development, from simple to complex.
Since we don't have 40-50 feet of vertical space to work with (wow!), I think a simpler tube stack with circulator, like the Lamont, is perfect for cars -- lighter, easier to build, and more compact, by far, than something like a Baker. Plus cyclonic separation and recouping kinetic energy of fluid thru tangent inlet to pump/coil, are advantages. And a boiler which works better when working harder seems a natural for automotive use.
For harnessing the Coriolis Effect on either side of the Equator, how about reverseable inlet & outlet nozzles in the boiler drum? These could flip over automatically via a GPS sensor as you pass the Equator, with a safety shutoff in case you drive along the Equator. :)
Peter</HTML>
Well, I think there are some etymological problems with my Stanley boiler name; just came off the top of my head. Not recommended terminology!
34 feet per second is a pretty leisurely fluid velocity by steam car standards. An article on the Scott-Newcomb boiler (Clymer yet again, p. 164 of 1984 edition) claims 450 feet per second steam velocity at outlet, about 307 mph? And the Lamont's velocity drop from drum inlet to outlet (to 2.6 fps) is substantial to boot. So the water surface shouldn't be too far from flat, and the center is the place to measure water level (also for blowoff and steam takeoff). Plus lower fluid velocity means lower circulator pump HP. Jerry Peoples once mentioned this in connection with his "S.P.A.T." microtube multimultipath pump-circulated boiler concept. As I recall, he was evaluating a boiler with ~1/8" (or less) OD tubes and a spherical "drum" (with central float sensor to control feed and circulation from one pump) which was only 2-3 (?) inches ID.
Right, a rotating water surface would have a _parabolic_ cross-section; I should have remembered those odd astronomical telescopes with a horizontal rotating pan of mercury forming a parabolic mirror surface. Only good for looking straight up, but the mirror can be huge for low bucks ...
When I bought a set of Stanley engine blueprints from Herb Schick in the 1980's, he threw in the Baker factory blueprint along with a stack of other fascinating "bonus drawings", allowing a closer study than the tantalizing pic in Clymer. Yep, it is quite a design! But a high price to pay for natural circulation. The book "Steamy Dreamer" has material on Baker boilers, including several patent drawings showing the stages of development, from simple to complex.
Since we don't have 40-50 feet of vertical space to work with (wow!), I think a simpler tube stack with circulator, like the Lamont, is perfect for cars -- lighter, easier to build, and more compact, by far, than something like a Baker. Plus cyclonic separation and recouping kinetic energy of fluid thru tangent inlet to pump/coil, are advantages. And a boiler which works better when working harder seems a natural for automotive use.
For harnessing the Coriolis Effect on either side of the Equator, how about reverseable inlet & outlet nozzles in the boiler drum? These could flip over automatically via a GPS sensor as you pass the Equator, with a safety shutoff in case you drive along the Equator. :)
Peter</HTML>
Re: Lamont Boiler
Posted by: Jim Crank (IP Logged)
Date: February 06, 2002 02:15PM
<HTML>Peter,
No, I would agree with you, the Lamont is not a problem to get good separation inside the drum. The engine's consumption is not so awful high that it is going to lift water out of the drum. Reverse cones and perforated baffled outlet pipes do work quite well.
Boy, don't I wish we had more information on the Delling!! I spent two days looking for one some years ago that was supposed to be in Watts in L.A. Two separate sources told me about it, a sedan. No luck.
I met Delling one day at Beslers, didn't get much time to talk to him, only to ask him how many cars he made, he said about 22. I didn't then know he was the chief engineer at Stanley and supposed to be the author of the 740 and all the ones after that. After that SV at Harrah's I sure wouldn't brag about it, if I were he, what a sorry steam car that was!!
After living with two Bakers, they are just too heavy and awkward to consider for a modern car. Yes, that erosion at the bend in the drum was very puzzling to me too. Way down there you wouldn't think that there was much circulation: but it was right over the burner.
As a replacement for a Stanley boiler, I guess they would be OK; but if I had a Stanley again I think I would just stick with the original and live with it.
As you perhaps noticed now, most steam car people pay little attention to the oil problem; but after decades working on Dobles, I asssure you it is a very serious thing. Right at the transition zone between saturated and dry steam and in the superheater. Always right around where the normalizer went in.
Yes Stanleys have carbon problems, especially if the owner is using a swaged copper tube boiler in a condensing car. It seems to work its way between the tube and crown sheet and if it is serious, you can't just swage the tubes again, they still leak. The welded tube boiler got around this mess; but of all the steamers, the Stanley demands a good separator for long life.
Really, after all these years, now I wouldn't consider anything except the Lamont, pump or no pump.
Jim</HTML>
No, I would agree with you, the Lamont is not a problem to get good separation inside the drum. The engine's consumption is not so awful high that it is going to lift water out of the drum. Reverse cones and perforated baffled outlet pipes do work quite well.
Boy, don't I wish we had more information on the Delling!! I spent two days looking for one some years ago that was supposed to be in Watts in L.A. Two separate sources told me about it, a sedan. No luck.
I met Delling one day at Beslers, didn't get much time to talk to him, only to ask him how many cars he made, he said about 22. I didn't then know he was the chief engineer at Stanley and supposed to be the author of the 740 and all the ones after that. After that SV at Harrah's I sure wouldn't brag about it, if I were he, what a sorry steam car that was!!
After living with two Bakers, they are just too heavy and awkward to consider for a modern car. Yes, that erosion at the bend in the drum was very puzzling to me too. Way down there you wouldn't think that there was much circulation: but it was right over the burner.
As a replacement for a Stanley boiler, I guess they would be OK; but if I had a Stanley again I think I would just stick with the original and live with it.
As you perhaps noticed now, most steam car people pay little attention to the oil problem; but after decades working on Dobles, I asssure you it is a very serious thing. Right at the transition zone between saturated and dry steam and in the superheater. Always right around where the normalizer went in.
Yes Stanleys have carbon problems, especially if the owner is using a swaged copper tube boiler in a condensing car. It seems to work its way between the tube and crown sheet and if it is serious, you can't just swage the tubes again, they still leak. The welded tube boiler got around this mess; but of all the steamers, the Stanley demands a good separator for long life.
Really, after all these years, now I wouldn't consider anything except the Lamont, pump or no pump.
Jim</HTML>
Re: Lamont Boiler
Posted by: Peter Heid (IP Logged)
Date: February 08, 2002 03:37PM
<HTML>Hi,
I was really like the concept of the lamont boiler but I was wondering if the seal could be done away with ? could a non magnetic drum be used with the equivelant of the stator from a car alternator around it ? The impeller could have a ring of magnets in it to complete the motor. It would be nice to eliminate the drag of the seal. I know that temperatures over 700 degrees F. are no problem when a motor is designed for it.
concerning bearings for the pump, snowmobiles use a bushing very similar to an automotive cam bearing that runs in extreame conditions and uses no lubrication. The inner surface is impregnated with a lubricating substance and they ride on a steel shaft. I don't know if they would stand up under boiler conditions but a 1 3/4 inch id bushing is about $5.00.
Peter Heid</HTML>
I was really like the concept of the lamont boiler but I was wondering if the seal could be done away with ? could a non magnetic drum be used with the equivelant of the stator from a car alternator around it ? The impeller could have a ring of magnets in it to complete the motor. It would be nice to eliminate the drag of the seal. I know that temperatures over 700 degrees F. are no problem when a motor is designed for it.
concerning bearings for the pump, snowmobiles use a bushing very similar to an automotive cam bearing that runs in extreame conditions and uses no lubrication. The inner surface is impregnated with a lubricating substance and they ride on a steel shaft. I don't know if they would stand up under boiler conditions but a 1 3/4 inch id bushing is about $5.00.
Peter Heid</HTML>
Re: Lamont Boiler Pump
Posted by: George K. Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: February 08, 2002 04:26PM
<HTML>Peter,
In the beginning of the search for an "off the shelf" boiler circulating pump two years ago contacted virtually every pump manufacturer in the Thomas Register--two companies returned bids of $17,000 and $23,000 as there was no pump small enough to do the job. The higher bid was for an internal can motor that needed coolant water pumped into it, plus some seals.
Magnetic drives were also investigated; unless you are very wealthy and afford a research contract with a few of these companies forget about it!! Using magnetic drive thru a plate thick enough to resist failure at 1000-1500psi results in low magnetic efficiency or a non-magnetic cylinder drive were also investigated to eliminate the seal requirements.
Weights and power requirements for both quotes were very high. The original Lamonts had overhanging shafts with stuffing boxes and in a large boiler a bunch of horsepower to overcome shaft seal friction was not a concern---in a very small boiler it is. In going around with a lot of pump engineers on this thing decided we would make our own. A major concern in pump seal friction is when carbon type face seals are used and at high pressure use horsepower like a Stanley slide valve!! By not using face seals and the smallest diameter drive shaft( and lowest feet per minute sliding velocity) there are modern high temperature seals that require very little power and seal nicely, they are $20 apiece.
The original design goal for the pump was a limit of 10 amperes@ 12 volts, about 1/10th horsepower for the whole pump system. Rod's Lamont is at present using 5-6 amperes @ 13.5(charging) volts and pumps a helluvalota water with pressure to spare, less than 10 pounds weight all up. All the thrust load power/friction is taken up by a small deep groove stainless ball bearing and that almost eliminates that part of the power requirement.
I would love it if someone would pursue the perfect pump as we have control systems and air aspirated burners to work on. Anyone ever work on the great but forgotten "Williams Oilomatic" burner???
Best, George</HTML>
In the beginning of the search for an "off the shelf" boiler circulating pump two years ago contacted virtually every pump manufacturer in the Thomas Register--two companies returned bids of $17,000 and $23,000 as there was no pump small enough to do the job. The higher bid was for an internal can motor that needed coolant water pumped into it, plus some seals.
Magnetic drives were also investigated; unless you are very wealthy and afford a research contract with a few of these companies forget about it!! Using magnetic drive thru a plate thick enough to resist failure at 1000-1500psi results in low magnetic efficiency or a non-magnetic cylinder drive were also investigated to eliminate the seal requirements.
Weights and power requirements for both quotes were very high. The original Lamonts had overhanging shafts with stuffing boxes and in a large boiler a bunch of horsepower to overcome shaft seal friction was not a concern---in a very small boiler it is. In going around with a lot of pump engineers on this thing decided we would make our own. A major concern in pump seal friction is when carbon type face seals are used and at high pressure use horsepower like a Stanley slide valve!! By not using face seals and the smallest diameter drive shaft( and lowest feet per minute sliding velocity) there are modern high temperature seals that require very little power and seal nicely, they are $20 apiece.
The original design goal for the pump was a limit of 10 amperes@ 12 volts, about 1/10th horsepower for the whole pump system. Rod's Lamont is at present using 5-6 amperes @ 13.5(charging) volts and pumps a helluvalota water with pressure to spare, less than 10 pounds weight all up. All the thrust load power/friction is taken up by a small deep groove stainless ball bearing and that almost eliminates that part of the power requirement.
I would love it if someone would pursue the perfect pump as we have control systems and air aspirated burners to work on. Anyone ever work on the great but forgotten "Williams Oilomatic" burner???
Best, George</HTML>
Re: Lamont Boiler Pump
Posted by: Peter Heid (IP Logged)
Date: February 08, 2002 09:57PM
<HTML>George,
Darn flux gap !
If you don't mind, what material and thickness do you use for the drum ?
I have seen a pump of this type for hot corrosive enviroments that performed quite well through 11 ga stainless but it only pumped vapors.
I believe it used super magnets.
Sounds like you have very good results with the pump and seal you are using. I'm always looking for another way, quite often the wrong way, but I try.
Pete</HTML>
Darn flux gap !
If you don't mind, what material and thickness do you use for the drum ?
I have seen a pump of this type for hot corrosive enviroments that performed quite well through 11 ga stainless but it only pumped vapors.
I believe it used super magnets.
Sounds like you have very good results with the pump and seal you are using. I'm always looking for another way, quite often the wrong way, but I try.
Pete</HTML>
Re: Lamont Boiler Pump
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: February 09, 2002 01:16PM
<HTML>Hi George,
Sounds like the Lamont pump may be approaching the "don't mess with a going machine" stage.
Haven't worked with a Williams Hi-Pressure / Oil-O-Matic burner (natural gas heating around here), but I do have a 1940 Williams Installation and Service Manual. Model HP-1 used a 1/16 hp motor and put out 1 gph thru a 3.5" OD x 11" "draft pipe". Model HP-3A used a 1/12 hp motor and was rated 1.35 to 3 gph thru a 4" x 13" draft pipe. Fuel pressure was 100 psi, developed in a Sundstrand S1 or S2 internal gear pump. Specs go on and on. Firing rates sound low for steam car use, but it was a very sophisticated design. Motor, scirocco fan, and pump all in line (in that order) on one shaft assembly, disassembly by set screws. No belts, gears, etc, just one rotating part @ 1725 rpm.. Not counting the oil bypass valve or other controls. Manual sez "continuous ignition", and recommends a compact refractory firebox for best combustion of heavy fuel oil. Outlet end of draft pipe has canted fins to spin burning fuel/air mix into a compact "ball of fire".
Not counting the protruding draft pipes, these units take up an ~14.5" cube and are built like a tank, so size/weight might be a problem in some vehicle installations. However, I have read that they were installed in a few steam cars (caveat: at least one user complained of run-down 6V car battery), and of course a modern version could be much lighter and smaller, even with a higher firing rate.
Peter</HTML>
Sounds like the Lamont pump may be approaching the "don't mess with a going machine" stage.
Haven't worked with a Williams Hi-Pressure / Oil-O-Matic burner (natural gas heating around here), but I do have a 1940 Williams Installation and Service Manual. Model HP-1 used a 1/16 hp motor and put out 1 gph thru a 3.5" OD x 11" "draft pipe". Model HP-3A used a 1/12 hp motor and was rated 1.35 to 3 gph thru a 4" x 13" draft pipe. Fuel pressure was 100 psi, developed in a Sundstrand S1 or S2 internal gear pump. Specs go on and on. Firing rates sound low for steam car use, but it was a very sophisticated design. Motor, scirocco fan, and pump all in line (in that order) on one shaft assembly, disassembly by set screws. No belts, gears, etc, just one rotating part @ 1725 rpm.. Not counting the oil bypass valve or other controls. Manual sez "continuous ignition", and recommends a compact refractory firebox for best combustion of heavy fuel oil. Outlet end of draft pipe has canted fins to spin burning fuel/air mix into a compact "ball of fire".
Not counting the protruding draft pipes, these units take up an ~14.5" cube and are built like a tank, so size/weight might be a problem in some vehicle installations. However, I have read that they were installed in a few steam cars (caveat: at least one user complained of run-down 6V car battery), and of course a modern version could be much lighter and smaller, even with a higher firing rate.
Peter</HTML>
Re: Lamont Boiler Pump
Posted by: Jim Crank (IP Logged)
Date: February 09, 2002 02:59PM
<HTML>Peter, et al,
Don't think about a PM motor, many of the ones we used at Lockheed got very weak at high temperatures over time. Cobalt based super magnet materials don't like temperature.
With a brushless DC PM motor you need good electronics and sensors for rotor position switching. Sensors next to the rotor and they don't like temperature either!
Consider the AC induction motor. Either with everything inside the drum or the rotor inside and the field coils outside with non magnetic stainless tubing. Cheap electronics.
Used for deep well hot brine recovery pumps, at 600°F plus and they last for years.
George was talking about some low pressure Williams burner, I think, not the one you mentioned that sounds just like the usual RAY type high pressure atomizing burner. He mentioned a cloud of fog in front of the burner, sub micron particle size, just what we need for a clean burner.
Jim</HTML>
Don't think about a PM motor, many of the ones we used at Lockheed got very weak at high temperatures over time. Cobalt based super magnet materials don't like temperature.
With a brushless DC PM motor you need good electronics and sensors for rotor position switching. Sensors next to the rotor and they don't like temperature either!
Consider the AC induction motor. Either with everything inside the drum or the rotor inside and the field coils outside with non magnetic stainless tubing. Cheap electronics.
Used for deep well hot brine recovery pumps, at 600°F plus and they last for years.
George was talking about some low pressure Williams burner, I think, not the one you mentioned that sounds just like the usual RAY type high pressure atomizing burner. He mentioned a cloud of fog in front of the burner, sub micron particle size, just what we need for a clean burner.
Jim</HTML>
Re: Lamont Boiler Pump
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: February 10, 2002 09:30AM
<HTML>Hi Jim,
Thanks for the tip on PM motors. I have been thinking about heat problems with electric motors. Induction motors also have the advantage of being brushless, and at these fractional horsepowers, a DC to AC converter would be pretty compact.
I don't know whether Williams made a substantially different type of burner, maybe so. The manual I have was published by the Williams Oil-O-Matic Division, Eureka-Williams Corporation, Bloomington, Illinois. An ad from the same company appears in the January 1925 issue of National Geographic magazine, page 131, showing a different-looking unit of about the same size. This is shaped like a round-topped treasure chest, standing on 3 legs, and seems to have the end of a motor and/or circular air inlet in one end, and a fuel/air tube sticking out the other, leading into the furnace. The motor would appear to be coaxial with the draft tube, unlike the perpendicular-axis 1940 units. "Oil-O-Matic" is printed on the side of the 1925 unit. Details in the ad are scarce, though the copy notes that
"Oil cannot burn perfectly without reflected heat. So unless the firebox of your heating plant is lined with brick, it is impossible to get perfect combustion." (Personally, I'd skip the brickwork in a steam car.)
This, the ad informs us, is the fourth of "Williams' Famous Four Natural Laws of Oil Burning" (also referred to in the 1940 manual). "The first law says that oil must be broken up into a fine mist", "the second law demands that it be burned before it touches anything", & "According to the third law, the amount of air that is mixed with the oil must be exact."
Apparently 1920s consumers found it reassuring to buy oil burners from a company which also enacted laws of nature!
Peter</HTML>
Thanks for the tip on PM motors. I have been thinking about heat problems with electric motors. Induction motors also have the advantage of being brushless, and at these fractional horsepowers, a DC to AC converter would be pretty compact.
I don't know whether Williams made a substantially different type of burner, maybe so. The manual I have was published by the Williams Oil-O-Matic Division, Eureka-Williams Corporation, Bloomington, Illinois. An ad from the same company appears in the January 1925 issue of National Geographic magazine, page 131, showing a different-looking unit of about the same size. This is shaped like a round-topped treasure chest, standing on 3 legs, and seems to have the end of a motor and/or circular air inlet in one end, and a fuel/air tube sticking out the other, leading into the furnace. The motor would appear to be coaxial with the draft tube, unlike the perpendicular-axis 1940 units. "Oil-O-Matic" is printed on the side of the 1925 unit. Details in the ad are scarce, though the copy notes that
"Oil cannot burn perfectly without reflected heat. So unless the firebox of your heating plant is lined with brick, it is impossible to get perfect combustion." (Personally, I'd skip the brickwork in a steam car.)
This, the ad informs us, is the fourth of "Williams' Famous Four Natural Laws of Oil Burning" (also referred to in the 1940 manual). "The first law says that oil must be broken up into a fine mist", "the second law demands that it be burned before it touches anything", & "According to the third law, the amount of air that is mixed with the oil must be exact."
Apparently 1920s consumers found it reassuring to buy oil burners from a company which also enacted laws of nature!
Peter</HTML>
Re: Lamont Boiler Pump
Posted by: Jim Crank (IP Logged)
Date: February 10, 2002 03:13PM
<HTML>Peter,
Brushless is what it is all about and no packing glands. That is the course I want to take for the pump for the Jaguar, an induction motor.
The Williams burner George was telling me about is some sort or carburator air aspiring thing; but definitely low pressure. I am waiting for him to send me a copy of the catalog, so I can borrow the design if it is adaptable. I want a sort of carburator burner because of the draft booster. Doble used one and for good reason, it adapts to varying air flow automatically. The pressure atomizing don't and you have to add complication to keep the air/fuel mixture constant as the air flow varies. All fun things to design, however.
Jim</HTML>
Brushless is what it is all about and no packing glands. That is the course I want to take for the pump for the Jaguar, an induction motor.
The Williams burner George was telling me about is some sort or carburator air aspiring thing; but definitely low pressure. I am waiting for him to send me a copy of the catalog, so I can borrow the design if it is adaptable. I want a sort of carburator burner because of the draft booster. Doble used one and for good reason, it adapts to varying air flow automatically. The pressure atomizing don't and you have to add complication to keep the air/fuel mixture constant as the air flow varies. All fun things to design, however.
Jim</HTML>
Re: Lamont -Williams brner
Posted by: coburn benson (IP Logged)
Date: February 10, 2002 07:16PM
<HTML>Lo pressure 4-6 psi on air,,the oil jet hole around 1/8'' w/ a ball just behind ,adjustable ,closer -further from hole,,,Blower air as usual,,,,,The oil was meter'd by a ADJUSTABLE pump,,,,to a FLOAT chamberXXXX Oil ran down the feed tube,around the ball and as it exit'd the hole the 4# air atomized it,then the air blast from the blower carried it into the burning chamber,,,XXXXXthe model[?] k-1.5 and k-3 were no' I recall,,My book is lost in a sea of paper,,,I do recall corresponding w/someone out [n] west around 1975 about parts,,,they suggested looking for a French source as they had exported them in quantity an thought there may now[1975] be a local source of parts,,,Cheers Ben</HTML>
Re: Lamont Boiler Pump
Posted by: Peter Heid (IP Logged)
Date: February 11, 2002 07:30PM
<HTML>George,
You said you are using a stainless ball bearing to take the thrust load of the impeller, can I assume you are using an open impeller ? If you experience any trouble with the bearing, you can (as you probably know) cover your impeller to eliminate most of the thrust involved and reduce power consumption. The closed impeller can also opperate with greater housing clearance and doesn't suffer the losses across the vanes.
Thanks for the continued Lamont info, everyone seems to be listening for your latest developments.
All The Best,
Peter Heid</HTML>
You said you are using a stainless ball bearing to take the thrust load of the impeller, can I assume you are using an open impeller ? If you experience any trouble with the bearing, you can (as you probably know) cover your impeller to eliminate most of the thrust involved and reduce power consumption. The closed impeller can also opperate with greater housing clearance and doesn't suffer the losses across the vanes.
Thanks for the continued Lamont info, everyone seems to be listening for your latest developments.
All The Best,
Peter Heid</HTML>
Re: Lamont Boiler Pump
Posted by: George K. Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: February 11, 2002 08:15PM
<HTML>Jim,
Our friend Coburn is the one who copied all the factory manual stuff on the "Williams Oilomatic" and gave to me, several different models and approaches.
The most interesting one is the 6-8 gallon per hour model using a sealed carburator float chamber and the fuel and air was forced at the same pressure into the atomising nozzle, believe it was only 3.5psi!!!
If I would get off my arse and take the factory manual to Concord(Staples) and copy it you would have it---sorry it has taken me so long. Today the roads were icy and didn't dare make the 50 mile trip, came home thru Concord last night as the rain started and no manual!! Soon.
Apologies, George</HTML>
Our friend Coburn is the one who copied all the factory manual stuff on the "Williams Oilomatic" and gave to me, several different models and approaches.
The most interesting one is the 6-8 gallon per hour model using a sealed carburator float chamber and the fuel and air was forced at the same pressure into the atomising nozzle, believe it was only 3.5psi!!!
If I would get off my arse and take the factory manual to Concord(Staples) and copy it you would have it---sorry it has taken me so long. Today the roads were icy and didn't dare make the 50 mile trip, came home thru Concord last night as the rain started and no manual!! Soon.
Apologies, George</HTML>
Re: Lamont Boiler Pump
Posted by: George K. Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: February 11, 2002 08:28PM
<HTML>Peter,
Thanks for your interest in the Lamont, he was a great and prolific inventor.
The thrust ball bearing we are using is several inches away from the pump housing at the end of the shaft and after the seals, we have a small air impeller on the shaft to cool the bearing and seals down a bit, the overhanging shaft housing is of a low conductivity stainless to keep the bearing/seal end at a lower temperature. The only force the bearing sees thrust wise is the area of the small diameter shaft times the boiler pressure, 50# thrust @ 1000psi.
Rod and I are still trying to make the pump have less volume output and more deadhead pressure, a try at a Tesla bladeless pump may do it and they have been very successful in industry---I believe Discflo make a great deal of them and they advertise a greater efficiency that the standared bladed impeller type, have a bunch of their engineering data. Rod is making it and testing will soon be in my bathtub as far as pressure differential and flow volume---something to do during the snow and ice storms.
Best, George</HTML>
Thanks for your interest in the Lamont, he was a great and prolific inventor.
The thrust ball bearing we are using is several inches away from the pump housing at the end of the shaft and after the seals, we have a small air impeller on the shaft to cool the bearing and seals down a bit, the overhanging shaft housing is of a low conductivity stainless to keep the bearing/seal end at a lower temperature. The only force the bearing sees thrust wise is the area of the small diameter shaft times the boiler pressure, 50# thrust @ 1000psi.
Rod and I are still trying to make the pump have less volume output and more deadhead pressure, a try at a Tesla bladeless pump may do it and they have been very successful in industry---I believe Discflo make a great deal of them and they advertise a greater efficiency that the standared bladed impeller type, have a bunch of their engineering data. Rod is making it and testing will soon be in my bathtub as far as pressure differential and flow volume---something to do during the snow and ice storms.
Best, George</HTML>
Re: Lamont Boiler Pump
Posted by: Peter Heid (IP Logged)
Date: February 11, 2002 10:36PM
<HTML>George,
Good luck on the pump, thanx for the info and don't forget the bubble bath !
Peter Heid</HTML>
Good luck on the pump, thanx for the info and don't forget the bubble bath !
Peter Heid</HTML>
Re: Lamont Boiler Pump
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: February 12, 2002 12:10PM
<HTML>George & all,
What is the motor HP of the low pressure Williams burner? The different operating method might explain the different appearance of the 1925 Williams burner, which was stated in the ad to have been used successfully for 6 years. Why on earth they switched to a high pressure fuel pump in the later (1940) gun type burner is anybody's guess. Better to have the fan do most of the work in a forced-draft heavy-oil-capable unit, especially for a steam car as Jim notes, and I would think in a home furnace too. Maybe a high pressure pump manufacturer bought a controlling interest in the company later on.
Mention of the Tesla pump for boiler circulation was an eye-opener. I didn't know that these were still used & have higher efficiency than bladed impellers. They are sure easier to make, very home-shoppable with shims and disks. A steam friend who reads this forum has been arguing for cavitation-proof (?) Tesla boiler circulators for the past several years, despite my uninformed arguments to the contrary. He is a steam plant operator, and probably knew all about this -- though he never mentioned these particular details to me. More evidence that the technology most known and used (burners, pumps, monotubes, etc) isn't necessarily best ... but every steam car fan should know that already.
From the private correspondence I've been getting recently, I can attest that Lamont discussions/developments are being closely followed by numerous quiet readers. There may be some excellent new boilers in the making out there. Keep up the good work!
Peter</HTML>
What is the motor HP of the low pressure Williams burner? The different operating method might explain the different appearance of the 1925 Williams burner, which was stated in the ad to have been used successfully for 6 years. Why on earth they switched to a high pressure fuel pump in the later (1940) gun type burner is anybody's guess. Better to have the fan do most of the work in a forced-draft heavy-oil-capable unit, especially for a steam car as Jim notes, and I would think in a home furnace too. Maybe a high pressure pump manufacturer bought a controlling interest in the company later on.
Mention of the Tesla pump for boiler circulation was an eye-opener. I didn't know that these were still used & have higher efficiency than bladed impellers. They are sure easier to make, very home-shoppable with shims and disks. A steam friend who reads this forum has been arguing for cavitation-proof (?) Tesla boiler circulators for the past several years, despite my uninformed arguments to the contrary. He is a steam plant operator, and probably knew all about this -- though he never mentioned these particular details to me. More evidence that the technology most known and used (burners, pumps, monotubes, etc) isn't necessarily best ... but every steam car fan should know that already.
From the private correspondence I've been getting recently, I can attest that Lamont discussions/developments are being closely followed by numerous quiet readers. There may be some excellent new boilers in the making out there. Keep up the good work!
Peter</HTML>
Re: Lamont Boiler Pump
Posted by: Jim Crank (IP Logged)
Date: February 12, 2002 12:43PM
<HTML>Peter,
That Tesla pump/turbine is one of those most frustrating ideas. Does it/doesn't it???
Just for fun, look at: www.discflo.com a good web site.
I am watching what George and Rod are doing too, as the Lamont needs a pump and the more efficient the pump the less power I have to feed it. Unless Discflo are spinning tales, which I sure doubt, this Tesla pump may be the real answer. We need a big flow rate and low pressure and there the Tesla shines.
Since in my car project, the Lamont will be asked for 2500 lbs/hr at full draft booster output, the poor pump will need to flow some 12,000 lbs hr. Sounds like with the induction motor drive a variable speed (frequency) drive is indicated.
Right now the focus is on converting the three rotor Wankel and two racing engine builders have been contacted about machining the new iron rotor housings. If that works out as it looks like it will, then the Lamont and its pump are the next in line for design work.
All great fun however.
Jim</HTML>
That Tesla pump/turbine is one of those most frustrating ideas. Does it/doesn't it???
Just for fun, look at: www.discflo.com a good web site.
I am watching what George and Rod are doing too, as the Lamont needs a pump and the more efficient the pump the less power I have to feed it. Unless Discflo are spinning tales, which I sure doubt, this Tesla pump may be the real answer. We need a big flow rate and low pressure and there the Tesla shines.
Since in my car project, the Lamont will be asked for 2500 lbs/hr at full draft booster output, the poor pump will need to flow some 12,000 lbs hr. Sounds like with the induction motor drive a variable speed (frequency) drive is indicated.
Right now the focus is on converting the three rotor Wankel and two racing engine builders have been contacted about machining the new iron rotor housings. If that works out as it looks like it will, then the Lamont and its pump are the next in line for design work.
All great fun however.
Jim</HTML>
Re: Lamont Boiler Pump
Posted by: Peter Heid (IP Logged)
Date: February 12, 2002 01:46PM
<HTML>George,
I was looking through some books last night and as far as higher pressure goes, it seems hard not increase volume with it. Greater speed will afford a greater head but volume is generally increased with it and power consumption follows the same path. An increase in impeller diameter seems to give the same results. I did notice, the enclosed impeller uses the same blade design for high and low pressure applications. The picture in the book seemed to indicate that the outlet of the high pressure impeller was reduced in thickness (vane height) around the rim more than the low pressure. Wish I had more than a few pictures to go by.
Keep The Pressure Up
Peter Heid</HTML>
I was looking through some books last night and as far as higher pressure goes, it seems hard not increase volume with it. Greater speed will afford a greater head but volume is generally increased with it and power consumption follows the same path. An increase in impeller diameter seems to give the same results. I did notice, the enclosed impeller uses the same blade design for high and low pressure applications. The picture in the book seemed to indicate that the outlet of the high pressure impeller was reduced in thickness (vane height) around the rim more than the low pressure. Wish I had more than a few pictures to go by.
Keep The Pressure Up
Peter Heid</HTML>
Re: Lamont Boiler Pump
Posted by: George K. Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: February 12, 2002 04:08PM
<HTML>Peter and all,
The original Williams Oilomatic was rather complex in that it had a vane air pump that also had a fuel metering valve adjustment to roughly pull both in at a nominal air fuel ratio---this was then dumped into the carbureter float chamber and excess fuel returned. I was told by a very experienced oil burner technician(he works and installs all the CleanBurn multi waste oil air aspirated systems around Mass. and NH) that the reason the old system went out of business was there were no field oil burner people who knew how to set them up and regulate them;that when someone had an old Williams Oilomatic burner and called the local oil service guy they would be told that it sas not repairable and would install a Carlin or Beckett that they knew how to adjust.
This technician, who has a warehouse full of every kind of burner ever made(his hobby) said the Oilomatic burned much cleaner than the new burners that replaced them and the company had no field support for repair or adjustment---probably why they went to a more conventional system. I don't remember the motor horsepower but it was quite low.
Rod and I have tested about ten circulating pump configurations and have test graph plots of #/hr pumped versus delta psi using several different impeller designs and three different DC motors. The current 2.6 inch diameter impeller will pump 7,000#/hr with a 5 psi(design goal) pressure differential, 2200#/hr with a 8psi pressure differential and deadheads at 10psi. This pump is much bigger than needed for Rods 6GPH Lamont shown in the picture attached to last years test paper.
Discflo would NEVER mention that their pumps are Tesla pumps as his patents ran out so long ago. The interesting thing about the Tesla pump is that the amount circulated and the deadhead pressure can be changed easily by the number of discs and the spacing between them, that is one pump housing could have several different disc configurations depending upon the volume output and the pressure required by the resistance of the Lamont coil involved---will keep you informed on the bathtub laboratory results!! Of course test results with cold water have to be modified to compensate for the change in viscosity and density of water at boiler design pressure.
Glad to hear that you know of a few interested in the Lamont, most people I know are very happy with there 100 year old Stanley technology and all this prototyping and testing can become a lonely process over a few years--your interest helps give me renewed energy to continue on with it!! Go visit the TEBA website (Tesla Engine Builders Association) and there is a lot of information on the pumps and other links.
Best, George</HTML>
The original Williams Oilomatic was rather complex in that it had a vane air pump that also had a fuel metering valve adjustment to roughly pull both in at a nominal air fuel ratio---this was then dumped into the carbureter float chamber and excess fuel returned. I was told by a very experienced oil burner technician(he works and installs all the CleanBurn multi waste oil air aspirated systems around Mass. and NH) that the reason the old system went out of business was there were no field oil burner people who knew how to set them up and regulate them;that when someone had an old Williams Oilomatic burner and called the local oil service guy they would be told that it sas not repairable and would install a Carlin or Beckett that they knew how to adjust.
This technician, who has a warehouse full of every kind of burner ever made(his hobby) said the Oilomatic burned much cleaner than the new burners that replaced them and the company had no field support for repair or adjustment---probably why they went to a more conventional system. I don't remember the motor horsepower but it was quite low.
Rod and I have tested about ten circulating pump configurations and have test graph plots of #/hr pumped versus delta psi using several different impeller designs and three different DC motors. The current 2.6 inch diameter impeller will pump 7,000#/hr with a 5 psi(design goal) pressure differential, 2200#/hr with a 8psi pressure differential and deadheads at 10psi. This pump is much bigger than needed for Rods 6GPH Lamont shown in the picture attached to last years test paper.
Discflo would NEVER mention that their pumps are Tesla pumps as his patents ran out so long ago. The interesting thing about the Tesla pump is that the amount circulated and the deadhead pressure can be changed easily by the number of discs and the spacing between them, that is one pump housing could have several different disc configurations depending upon the volume output and the pressure required by the resistance of the Lamont coil involved---will keep you informed on the bathtub laboratory results!! Of course test results with cold water have to be modified to compensate for the change in viscosity and density of water at boiler design pressure.
Glad to hear that you know of a few interested in the Lamont, most people I know are very happy with there 100 year old Stanley technology and all this prototyping and testing can become a lonely process over a few years--your interest helps give me renewed energy to continue on with it!! Go visit the TEBA website (Tesla Engine Builders Association) and there is a lot of information on the pumps and other links.
Best, George</HTML>
Re: Lamont-Williams
Posted by: coburn benson (IP Logged)
Date: February 12, 2002 05:43PM
<HTML>In winter, when a burner fails ,It needs to be running in 4-6 hrs! the williams motor uses part ef the basic casting as an end bell,,,the armature has 14'' of shaft to fit blower,pump#1,,pump #2 etc,,THERE is no replaceable separate motor as such,,as parts were not easily at hand,,the house gettin colder,,,,the williams were junked ,,about,,,,1960-1975 It would be possible to fit a pulley where the armature was and fit an external motor,,,Cheers Ben</HTML>
Re: Lamont Boiler
Posted by: Timothy J. Senior (IP Logged)
Date: February 13, 2002 12:24PM
<HTML>Anyone.
As a Stanley owner with a fried boiler I thought of the Lamont. As this is a new concept to me can someone inform me if the following idea been considered.
Instead of an external pump why not put it inside the drum and drive it by some form of turbine on the steam inlet a la. motor car turbo. I know that this might sound silly but can anyone tell me why not.
Tim Senior.</HTML>
As a Stanley owner with a fried boiler I thought of the Lamont. As this is a new concept to me can someone inform me if the following idea been considered.
Instead of an external pump why not put it inside the drum and drive it by some form of turbine on the steam inlet a la. motor car turbo. I know that this might sound silly but can anyone tell me why not.
Tim Senior.</HTML>
Re: Lamont Boiler
Posted by: George K. Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: February 13, 2002 03:09PM
<HTML>Tim,
A great idea and you would be surprised to know that Abner Doble(in his Boiler notes) considered an external drum and an internal turbine at the drum top and pump impeller at the drum bottom!!!! He was so very close to solving the carbonizing problem that plagued the monotube but he crossed the idea out in his (Bancroft) notes. Lamont was quite insistent that water always be circulated for complete tube safety. In the "great idea" the flaw is there would be times when the fire was on, the throttle shut, and very little steam or water movement in the Lamont coil, otherwise a very good idea. The other factor that I have not resolved is to insure that such an internally spinning turbine-pump would never sieze up from rust or other deposits, this must be an absolutely fail safe internal pump. Great thoughts Tim, keep them coming!
George</HTML>
A great idea and you would be surprised to know that Abner Doble(in his Boiler notes) considered an external drum and an internal turbine at the drum top and pump impeller at the drum bottom!!!! He was so very close to solving the carbonizing problem that plagued the monotube but he crossed the idea out in his (Bancroft) notes. Lamont was quite insistent that water always be circulated for complete tube safety. In the "great idea" the flaw is there would be times when the fire was on, the throttle shut, and very little steam or water movement in the Lamont coil, otherwise a very good idea. The other factor that I have not resolved is to insure that such an internally spinning turbine-pump would never sieze up from rust or other deposits, this must be an absolutely fail safe internal pump. Great thoughts Tim, keep them coming!
George</HTML>
Re: Lamont Boiler
Posted by: Timothy J. Senior (IP Logged)
Date: February 13, 2002 06:06PM
<HTML>George (May I)
Wouldn't ceramic bearings do the job? and some sensor or other to make sure the pumps pumping.
How about a wide bore hairpin vertical (filled by gravity via. non return valve) at the start of the tube section, this will (might?) give the initial pulse to start the turbine. I don't like the idea of the N.R.V but the water has to be pushed into the main part of the tube against a back pressure.
I appreciate Mr. Lamonts idea that it should be pumped costantly, but is this vital for the boiler to work? No fire, no circulation, so whats going to happen?
Tim</HTML>
Wouldn't ceramic bearings do the job? and some sensor or other to make sure the pumps pumping.
How about a wide bore hairpin vertical (filled by gravity via. non return valve) at the start of the tube section, this will (might?) give the initial pulse to start the turbine. I don't like the idea of the N.R.V but the water has to be pushed into the main part of the tube against a back pressure.
I appreciate Mr. Lamonts idea that it should be pumped costantly, but is this vital for the boiler to work? No fire, no circulation, so whats going to happen?
Tim</HTML>
Re: Lamont Boiler
Posted by: Timothy J. Senior (IP Logged)
Date: February 13, 2002 08:01PM
<HTML>George
Had another thought. If the temperature in the drum is low enough to condense the steam from the generator could circulation be forced by an injector inside or outside the drum, the pressure differential is very low.
I realise that they are fickle beasts but it's just another idea. As yet a haven't considered the thermodynamics
Sorry to burden you with my ramblings.
Regards Tim.</HTML>
Had another thought. If the temperature in the drum is low enough to condense the steam from the generator could circulation be forced by an injector inside or outside the drum, the pressure differential is very low.
I realise that they are fickle beasts but it's just another idea. As yet a haven't considered the thermodynamics
Sorry to burden you with my ramblings.
Regards Tim.</HTML>
Re: Lamont Boiler Pump
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: February 14, 2002 11:41AM
<HTML>Hi Jim,
Don't know if you ever saw "Back To The Future" (1), but there is a scene where the crazy inventor is told his time machine needs 1.21 gigawatts to work, jumps as if hit with a brick, then dashes around sputtering "1.21 gigawatts! 1.21 gigawatts! How am I ever going to develop that kind of power??" Well, I had the same reaction to 2500 lbs of steam per hour. "2500 lbs per hour!" LOL. Ever considered a new steam land speed record? :) 2500 lbs per hour! Doable, but wow.
I've found that there is no way to prove the best place to start designing, so the engine is as good a place as any. I ended up starting with an engine/axle/springs/pump drive mockup (all this to find one crucial dimension), now nearing completion. Next pumps, fuel system, and burner, mostly dimensioned already, real stuff not mockups. At every step, little bits of other parts get designed here and there, sometimes broad outlines, sometimes fine details, for fit-together purposes. Add redesigns from new info, plus inevitable fascinating digressions, and it should be running some time this century. Man it's a lot of work, but definitely fun.
Thanks for the Discflo link; I'll check it out when I start to digest the rich diet of information discovered here. :)
Peter</HTML>
Don't know if you ever saw "Back To The Future" (1), but there is a scene where the crazy inventor is told his time machine needs 1.21 gigawatts to work, jumps as if hit with a brick, then dashes around sputtering "1.21 gigawatts! 1.21 gigawatts! How am I ever going to develop that kind of power??" Well, I had the same reaction to 2500 lbs of steam per hour. "2500 lbs per hour!" LOL. Ever considered a new steam land speed record? :) 2500 lbs per hour! Doable, but wow.
I've found that there is no way to prove the best place to start designing, so the engine is as good a place as any. I ended up starting with an engine/axle/springs/pump drive mockup (all this to find one crucial dimension), now nearing completion. Next pumps, fuel system, and burner, mostly dimensioned already, real stuff not mockups. At every step, little bits of other parts get designed here and there, sometimes broad outlines, sometimes fine details, for fit-together purposes. Add redesigns from new info, plus inevitable fascinating digressions, and it should be running some time this century. Man it's a lot of work, but definitely fun.
Thanks for the Discflo link; I'll check it out when I start to digest the rich diet of information discovered here. :)
Peter</HTML>
Re: Lamont-Williams
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: February 14, 2002 12:18PM
<HTML>Hi George and Ben,
Thanks for the fascinating info on the Williams burner. More than answers my question about the demise of the earlier Williams. I guess the lesson is, K.I.S.S., keep spares in stock, and train service guys. Any component or subsystem needing tricky adjustments or service should be easily swapped out, and compatibility with off the shelf parts is worthwhile.
Thanks also for the Tesla link; I will check it out. Many people hesitate to use "the T-word", due to the kook-magnet nature of Mr. T's work. This is unfortunate, as he was a true genius. For another genius who went too far too fast, do a websearch on Philo T. Farnsworth's "Fusor". Yes, you too can achieve (hot) nuclear fusion in your home shop. No kidding. Stock up on lead bricks and dielectric gloves first. Who knows where a small investment in this technology could (will?) lead?
Well, that's way off the steam trail, so I'll sign off for now. Good luck with the "T" pump experiments, sounds very promising and I know that many of us are looking forward to future reports.
Peter</HTML>
Thanks for the fascinating info on the Williams burner. More than answers my question about the demise of the earlier Williams. I guess the lesson is, K.I.S.S., keep spares in stock, and train service guys. Any component or subsystem needing tricky adjustments or service should be easily swapped out, and compatibility with off the shelf parts is worthwhile.
Thanks also for the Tesla link; I will check it out. Many people hesitate to use "the T-word", due to the kook-magnet nature of Mr. T's work. This is unfortunate, as he was a true genius. For another genius who went too far too fast, do a websearch on Philo T. Farnsworth's "Fusor". Yes, you too can achieve (hot) nuclear fusion in your home shop. No kidding. Stock up on lead bricks and dielectric gloves first. Who knows where a small investment in this technology could (will?) lead?
Well, that's way off the steam trail, so I'll sign off for now. Good luck with the "T" pump experiments, sounds very promising and I know that many of us are looking forward to future reports.
Peter</HTML>
Re: Lamont Boiler
Posted by: George K. Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: February 14, 2002 05:08PM
<HTML>Tim,
What you call "ramblings" are great thoughts and appreciated, this is an open forum where we take the chance to throw ideas into a pot--the pot is growing!. I have heard of two Lamonts made with an injector instead of a circulating pump and it appears they didn't work well under all conditions, but maybe some one today could get it to work.
It would sure beat all the work and machining and prototyping we have been thru on the pump.
Your previous post in regards to burner off-circulation off, whats the problem is that in actuality there is a problem. Rod and I first fired the Lamont without a circulating pump considering there was 1-1/2' (.5psi) of downcomer pressure. the steam generation, especially during startup would belch/barf all the water out of the Lamont coil in both directions and we stood there listening to all these wierd sounds and water hammerings. Plus all the water in the Lamont coil would end up raising the drum water level by 8" during these belches. Fire off/pump off does not take into consideration the great amount of heat still in the firebox and the white heat energy of the stainless firebox combustion chamber that will be sucked up by the Lamont coil. Next test we run will be how many seconds do we need to keep the circulating pump on after the fire is out to eliminate this instability. It is a particular problem with miniature size boilers that have very little height/downcomer pressure. To insure reliable natural circulation requiring a 5psi downcomer pressure we would need about 15 feet of downcomer height.
For complete safety we need to keep the water in the Lamont coil moving always in the right direction, not blowing out of both ends. It could be that with all the interest in this thing that some one out there will come up with a simple and effective solution to get rid of the pump. I read somewhere that 80-90% of all boiler explosions/malfunctions occure during starting up from cold. Doble's idea of the internal turbine impeller and lower pump impeller would be useful if we could absolutely be assured that hard water deposits, rust and other stuff would not ever sieze one of the vertical shaft bearings.
Lets hope that some one comes up with the answere, then we will all be building Lamonts!!! Keep all the ideas coming, I have a lot to learn as well.
George</HTML>
What you call "ramblings" are great thoughts and appreciated, this is an open forum where we take the chance to throw ideas into a pot--the pot is growing!. I have heard of two Lamonts made with an injector instead of a circulating pump and it appears they didn't work well under all conditions, but maybe some one today could get it to work.
It would sure beat all the work and machining and prototyping we have been thru on the pump.
Your previous post in regards to burner off-circulation off, whats the problem is that in actuality there is a problem. Rod and I first fired the Lamont without a circulating pump considering there was 1-1/2' (.5psi) of downcomer pressure. the steam generation, especially during startup would belch/barf all the water out of the Lamont coil in both directions and we stood there listening to all these wierd sounds and water hammerings. Plus all the water in the Lamont coil would end up raising the drum water level by 8" during these belches. Fire off/pump off does not take into consideration the great amount of heat still in the firebox and the white heat energy of the stainless firebox combustion chamber that will be sucked up by the Lamont coil. Next test we run will be how many seconds do we need to keep the circulating pump on after the fire is out to eliminate this instability. It is a particular problem with miniature size boilers that have very little height/downcomer pressure. To insure reliable natural circulation requiring a 5psi downcomer pressure we would need about 15 feet of downcomer height.
For complete safety we need to keep the water in the Lamont coil moving always in the right direction, not blowing out of both ends. It could be that with all the interest in this thing that some one out there will come up with a simple and effective solution to get rid of the pump. I read somewhere that 80-90% of all boiler explosions/malfunctions occure during starting up from cold. Doble's idea of the internal turbine impeller and lower pump impeller would be useful if we could absolutely be assured that hard water deposits, rust and other stuff would not ever sieze one of the vertical shaft bearings.
Lets hope that some one comes up with the answere, then we will all be building Lamonts!!! Keep all the ideas coming, I have a lot to learn as well.
George</HTML>
Re: Lamont-Williams-steam atom'z
Posted by: coburn benson (IP Logged)
Date: February 14, 2002 07:05PM
<HTML>Now if U guys can get this car -auto thin to work with NO ,,,,NO electric,,,I' ll be a lot happier,,,,,I start the Stanley 50 hp w/a gasoline torch 'n a match Never had a short [or long]ciriuit yet 'n it goes good,,1mi/61sec up 320ft vertocal climb in the mile standing start ,,,,oh yeh she's got gas lamps too,,,,,,Has anyone looked to a STEAM atomizin burner,,,a loop in the fire to superheat the steam to the jet,,,,,If ya keep the steam over 900dg do ya need a pilot??? OOOps Cheers Ben</HTML>
Re: Lamont Boiler
Posted by: Timothy J. Senior (IP Logged)
Date: February 14, 2002 07:17PM
<HTML>George
In the case of the internal turbo pump. Will not the circulation of water continue and the pump still run due to the residual heat, after the burner is out, until the coils cool enough to stop steam production.
The reason I suggested a non return valve was to stop backward flow from the coil when the burner starts. When the slug of stuff starts to move on burner startup, quite fast I would think, will it have have sufficient inertia to draw in more water (similar to inertia scavenging on I.C. engines)and start the turbine?
The water in drum I assume will be rotating quite fast so throwing any solids heavier than water away from the bearings. How about a tangential trap similar to a cyclone seperator?
On another topic.
Iv'e fried the boiler on my Stanley 63 (non condenser) and intend to have go at retubing it. I would like your opinion stainless boiler tubes. My boiler inspector, here in the U.K., tends to suck his teeth at the mention of stainless.</HTML>
In the case of the internal turbo pump. Will not the circulation of water continue and the pump still run due to the residual heat, after the burner is out, until the coils cool enough to stop steam production.
The reason I suggested a non return valve was to stop backward flow from the coil when the burner starts. When the slug of stuff starts to move on burner startup, quite fast I would think, will it have have sufficient inertia to draw in more water (similar to inertia scavenging on I.C. engines)and start the turbine?
The water in drum I assume will be rotating quite fast so throwing any solids heavier than water away from the bearings. How about a tangential trap similar to a cyclone seperator?
On another topic.
Iv'e fried the boiler on my Stanley 63 (non condenser) and intend to have go at retubing it. I would like your opinion stainless boiler tubes. My boiler inspector, here in the U.K., tends to suck his teeth at the mention of stainless.</HTML>
Re: Lamont Boiler Pump
Posted by: Garry Hunsaker (IP Logged)
Date: March 18, 2002 05:56AM
<HTML>Just a tinker’s thought
I am not sure you could call in an ‘injector’, but the term inductor means something else all together, as in a form of condenser I believe.
I guess I first really need a point of clarification on the requirement of water velocity, or perhaps volume, with varying loads. Do I understand correctly the Lamont requires a greater quantity of water to be pumped as output increases?
If so, would it be possible to create a ‘nozzle’ and properly shaped housing to utilize the boiler feed water to ‘induce’ extra flow in the loop? If this would work, it might lower the power requirement of the pump when feed water was being pumped, especially at higher steam rates. My guess and by golly method of engineering tells me this would probably be best placed just before the pump. Then again perhaps one of the engineering fellows could tell us if this has any chance of working in the first place.
Just another thing that makes me go Hmmm....
Garry</HTML>
I am not sure you could call in an ‘injector’, but the term inductor means something else all together, as in a form of condenser I believe.
I guess I first really need a point of clarification on the requirement of water velocity, or perhaps volume, with varying loads. Do I understand correctly the Lamont requires a greater quantity of water to be pumped as output increases?
If so, would it be possible to create a ‘nozzle’ and properly shaped housing to utilize the boiler feed water to ‘induce’ extra flow in the loop? If this would work, it might lower the power requirement of the pump when feed water was being pumped, especially at higher steam rates. My guess and by golly method of engineering tells me this would probably be best placed just before the pump. Then again perhaps one of the engineering fellows could tell us if this has any chance of working in the first place.
Just another thing that makes me go Hmmm....
Garry</HTML>
Re: Lamont Boiler Pump
Posted by: George K. Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: March 18, 2002 11:31AM
<HTML>Garry,
The velocity going thru the Lamont coil is not the primary consideration, it is the assurance of highly turbulent flow=Reynolds number that is a function of tube diameter, mass flow and absolute viscosity;viscosity is a constantly changing variable that is always changing the Reynolds number-around and around we go! The goal is to never have a water/steam film coefficient that allows more than a 100 degree differential between the bulk temperature and the inner tube temperature. This is all tied in with how much heat transfer is done per foot length of tube/firing rate/operating pressure and a few other variables. The Lamont papers in my possession clearly state that the recirculating flow always be at least five times the full boiler output-always. As Lamont was well aware how many conventional boilers were ruined when starting from cold(some pictures of conventioned superheater vertical protective screen walls leave one the picture of twisted, deformed screen wall sections---Lamont's desire for full time forced circulation was especially important on starting up from cold when boiler tube sections can go thru tremendous thermal stresses and lead to stress/thermal failure.
Nozzles and feedwater induction into the Lamont circuit have been tried, some results are sketchy but they always went back to a driven circulating pump.
When starting up a Lamont from cold there is no feedwater being introduced if the drum water level is at a normal height, nor is there any steam produced until everything is up to saturation temperature. The problem with miniature boilers is that there is so little water column height available that "downcomer pressure" is minimal, maybe .4-.6 psi. Once that Lamont section beltches all the water out of it(in both directions) we are back into that sticky mess unless there is a pump running that always has the capability to force adequate flow thru the Lamont coil(s) in one direction. As we are talking about making a boiler of very high heat transfer rates and evaporation rates per square foot protection on this circuit at all times is most important to eliminate high thermal stresses and highly elevated tube temperatures. There is no doubt that a la Doble an exhaust turbine booster could not only override the blower electrics and greatly increase firing rate but do the same thing for the circulating pump in question, this kind of augmentation would be nice and reduce electrical loads. I will stick with the idea that the pump is absolutely necessary--it is the heart of the whole system. The pump designed for Rod Teel's Lamont is only drawing 6 amperes and will pump 5,000#/hr with a 6psi differential which is good enough for a 12GPH firing rate. Keep in mind the higher the boiler pressure is the less work the Lamont circuit has to do, the less the average specific volume going thru the Lamont section and the less pump energy required per equal pounds per hour evaporated.
George
George</HTML>
The velocity going thru the Lamont coil is not the primary consideration, it is the assurance of highly turbulent flow=Reynolds number that is a function of tube diameter, mass flow and absolute viscosity;viscosity is a constantly changing variable that is always changing the Reynolds number-around and around we go! The goal is to never have a water/steam film coefficient that allows more than a 100 degree differential between the bulk temperature and the inner tube temperature. This is all tied in with how much heat transfer is done per foot length of tube/firing rate/operating pressure and a few other variables. The Lamont papers in my possession clearly state that the recirculating flow always be at least five times the full boiler output-always. As Lamont was well aware how many conventional boilers were ruined when starting from cold(some pictures of conventioned superheater vertical protective screen walls leave one the picture of twisted, deformed screen wall sections---Lamont's desire for full time forced circulation was especially important on starting up from cold when boiler tube sections can go thru tremendous thermal stresses and lead to stress/thermal failure.
Nozzles and feedwater induction into the Lamont circuit have been tried, some results are sketchy but they always went back to a driven circulating pump.
When starting up a Lamont from cold there is no feedwater being introduced if the drum water level is at a normal height, nor is there any steam produced until everything is up to saturation temperature. The problem with miniature boilers is that there is so little water column height available that "downcomer pressure" is minimal, maybe .4-.6 psi. Once that Lamont section beltches all the water out of it(in both directions) we are back into that sticky mess unless there is a pump running that always has the capability to force adequate flow thru the Lamont coil(s) in one direction. As we are talking about making a boiler of very high heat transfer rates and evaporation rates per square foot protection on this circuit at all times is most important to eliminate high thermal stresses and highly elevated tube temperatures. There is no doubt that a la Doble an exhaust turbine booster could not only override the blower electrics and greatly increase firing rate but do the same thing for the circulating pump in question, this kind of augmentation would be nice and reduce electrical loads. I will stick with the idea that the pump is absolutely necessary--it is the heart of the whole system. The pump designed for Rod Teel's Lamont is only drawing 6 amperes and will pump 5,000#/hr with a 6psi differential which is good enough for a 12GPH firing rate. Keep in mind the higher the boiler pressure is the less work the Lamont circuit has to do, the less the average specific volume going thru the Lamont section and the less pump energy required per equal pounds per hour evaporated.
George
George</HTML>
Re: Lamont Boiler Pump
Posted by: Peter Heid (IP Logged)
Date: March 18, 2002 12:23PM
<HTML>The books I have mention flow rates from 5 to 8 times the boiler output and they do show Lamont boilers with only an external turbine powered from the superheater with no provision for circulation during startup being indicated. It doesn't make sense to not provide circulation during startup, the times of greatest thermal stress. They do mention that the pump uses less than 0.5 % of the boiler output to maintain circulation.
Peter Heid</HTML>
Peter Heid</HTML>
Re: Lamont Boiler Pump
Posted by: George K. Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: March 18, 2002 05:38PM
<HTML>Peter,
I think that when you get your copy of STEAM GENERATORS from England, read the Lamont comments, you might have a different interpretation of Lamont's desire for a full running circulating pump. Unfortunately, in this country, his concepts were not accepted and many supposed "Lamont" boilers were retrofited steam drum/mud drum conversions he was paid to do to greatly increase there steaming capacity. Not all of his own ideas could be incorporated into these retrofit boilers. Hey guys, is a 1/10th horsepower DC motor driven pump so overwhelming as to not be considered?? Just my old fashioned viewpoint, I will stick with what papers I have of Lamonts desires.
Remember that we do not have the 10'/20'/30' downcomer pressure available to help circulate as in ship boilers and larger land boilers---we have but a foot or two at best and that doesn't get the job done. Sorry to keep repeating myself on this ;>) , George</HTML>
I think that when you get your copy of STEAM GENERATORS from England, read the Lamont comments, you might have a different interpretation of Lamont's desire for a full running circulating pump. Unfortunately, in this country, his concepts were not accepted and many supposed "Lamont" boilers were retrofited steam drum/mud drum conversions he was paid to do to greatly increase there steaming capacity. Not all of his own ideas could be incorporated into these retrofit boilers. Hey guys, is a 1/10th horsepower DC motor driven pump so overwhelming as to not be considered?? Just my old fashioned viewpoint, I will stick with what papers I have of Lamonts desires.
Remember that we do not have the 10'/20'/30' downcomer pressure available to help circulate as in ship boilers and larger land boilers---we have but a foot or two at best and that doesn't get the job done. Sorry to keep repeating myself on this ;>) , George</HTML>
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.