1 Steam Cars : Phorum
General Steam Car topics
Coupling two, 13b Wankels
Posted by: Caleb Ramsby (IP Logged)
Date: March 01, 2003 04:35PM
<HTML>Jim,
This is mainly going to you. From reading some previous discussions I see that you are seriously considering using a Wankel for you steam car.
Have you acquired that three rotor yet?
If not, or even if so you might want to consider coupling two 13b's. There are some guys who did so for a dirt track race car and were very succesfull. They have a web page that describes with words and pictures what it took and how they did it. They are at:
[members.tripod.com]
Well, some things that I can think of that would be adventages are.
1. You would have 1/3 more dispalcement, thus power.
2. I would consider using a small rectangular steam chest that accepted a main steam line from the boiler, with a throttle valve in it(the main line). Then having two lines coming from the chest one going to each engine. You could have a valve in each of these two lines and shut off one of the engines in stride to increase effeciency.
3. It would be possible to have seperate valve trains for each engine. Then one could operate one engine at a short cutoff and the other at a longer cutoff. This would require two seperate actuators for the valves and two seperate controls. I am not sure if the engines would like operating at seperate powers though.
There are disadvantages however.
1. It would take more time to produce and be more difficult.
2. If one utilized the one on, one off, idea. Then when the second engine was needed it would be cold and would not like the full pressure/heat steam that would be abruptly admited to it.
3. When using only one engine the other would produce parasitic drag and be causing various problems.
Well, you may have already considered this option. What do you think about it? How are your valve designs going?
Caleb Ramsby</HTML>
This is mainly going to you. From reading some previous discussions I see that you are seriously considering using a Wankel for you steam car.
Have you acquired that three rotor yet?
If not, or even if so you might want to consider coupling two 13b's. There are some guys who did so for a dirt track race car and were very succesfull. They have a web page that describes with words and pictures what it took and how they did it. They are at:
[members.tripod.com]
Well, some things that I can think of that would be adventages are.
1. You would have 1/3 more dispalcement, thus power.
2. I would consider using a small rectangular steam chest that accepted a main steam line from the boiler, with a throttle valve in it(the main line). Then having two lines coming from the chest one going to each engine. You could have a valve in each of these two lines and shut off one of the engines in stride to increase effeciency.
3. It would be possible to have seperate valve trains for each engine. Then one could operate one engine at a short cutoff and the other at a longer cutoff. This would require two seperate actuators for the valves and two seperate controls. I am not sure if the engines would like operating at seperate powers though.
There are disadvantages however.
1. It would take more time to produce and be more difficult.
2. If one utilized the one on, one off, idea. Then when the second engine was needed it would be cold and would not like the full pressure/heat steam that would be abruptly admited to it.
3. When using only one engine the other would produce parasitic drag and be causing various problems.
Well, you may have already considered this option. What do you think about it? How are your valve designs going?
Caleb Ramsby</HTML>
Re: Coupling two, 13b Wankels
Posted by: Jim Crank (IP Logged)
Date: March 01, 2003 06:39PM
<HTML>Caleb,
I am more than seriously considering the 20-B Mazda engine. To date, there is nothing I know of that can give the power in such a small package as the Wankel, and the problems of converting it to steam are not so bad. New housings and a new valve gear, heat loss attention and whatnot.
I know about several 13-B engines that were stacked together. Unfortunately, the bulk of such an engine gets to be too big to put in the transmission tunnel.
A 20-B can easily get 1200 Hp and well over 800 lb/ft torque on steam and I really don't need that much. In fact, the pressure I was planning on can probably be reduced with that 3 rotor and still tear the tires off.
As to your questions: #1, don't need any more displacement than the 3 rotor.
#2 One throttle at the boiler and operate more on varying cutoff. #3 way too complex and no need to do it that way. Varying cutoff at the valve gear for the one engine is all one needs. #3 compounding is not as efficient in a car as is short cutoff. With three rotors, or three or four cylinders, you get everything you need, much easier, with short cutoff.
The valve design is progressing very well, with several good options. All give from 40% to 5% and that is all I need.
Jim</HTML>
I am more than seriously considering the 20-B Mazda engine. To date, there is nothing I know of that can give the power in such a small package as the Wankel, and the problems of converting it to steam are not so bad. New housings and a new valve gear, heat loss attention and whatnot.
I know about several 13-B engines that were stacked together. Unfortunately, the bulk of such an engine gets to be too big to put in the transmission tunnel.
A 20-B can easily get 1200 Hp and well over 800 lb/ft torque on steam and I really don't need that much. In fact, the pressure I was planning on can probably be reduced with that 3 rotor and still tear the tires off.
As to your questions: #1, don't need any more displacement than the 3 rotor.
#2 One throttle at the boiler and operate more on varying cutoff. #3 way too complex and no need to do it that way. Varying cutoff at the valve gear for the one engine is all one needs. #3 compounding is not as efficient in a car as is short cutoff. With three rotors, or three or four cylinders, you get everything you need, much easier, with short cutoff.
The valve design is progressing very well, with several good options. All give from 40% to 5% and that is all I need.
Jim</HTML>
Re: Coupling two, 13b Wankels
Posted by: Caleb Ramsby (IP Logged)
Date: March 03, 2003 11:02PM
<HTML>Jim,
The Wankel is my favorite engine design(well besides mine) and I am very glad that someone is going to use it to make a steam car. I actually came up with my first engine design trying to figure out a better air pump for the RX-7 that I was going to by, then bought, ran into the ground(very fun!) and took apart(even more fun!). This is all within the last four years.
Anyway, I am wondering if you are planing on using the stock seals or are you going to have to use some hi performance ones? What pressure and temp of steam are you planing on using? It sounds like you are going to pack the engine into the transmission tunnel and then use the remaining engine compartment for the boiler, condensor and feed water tank. Is this right? Also, are you going to use a battery aray and electric motors to run the various pumps and such, a donkey engine or off of the main engine? I prefer the idea of a simple ineficient oscilating steam engine runing all the accesories. For starting the donkey I would use a weight that would drop and give the flywheel a nudge to start the engine turning, then once it was going the engine would raise the weight again, thus returning the nudging device to a ready position when it was needed. This nudger could be controlled with a simple electric relay that would activate a catch spring and release the nudger when it was needed.
It sounds like power is not a problem at all.
I wasn't talking about compounding, I was talking about shutting off one of the engine all together(it would still spin though), this would reduce your power output by half and with proper cutoff get the engine close to a 70% - 80% load that is very effecient.
You are right though this is all very impractical and the increase in effeciency, if there was one, would be off set by the increase in complexity and work needed to complete the project.
I for one would rather have more power and simplicity of operation in a smaller package than fuel efficiency any day.
Oh yeah, are you going to have the cutoff controled with a computer, aray of mechanisms conected to the throttle control or a hand or foot direct connection design.
My prefence is having a lever in the cab that would control the cutoff, this is for siplicity and direct control, it would also give me something else that could be handforged by me in my car.
Caleb Ramsby</HTML>
The Wankel is my favorite engine design(well besides mine) and I am very glad that someone is going to use it to make a steam car. I actually came up with my first engine design trying to figure out a better air pump for the RX-7 that I was going to by, then bought, ran into the ground(very fun!) and took apart(even more fun!). This is all within the last four years.
Anyway, I am wondering if you are planing on using the stock seals or are you going to have to use some hi performance ones? What pressure and temp of steam are you planing on using? It sounds like you are going to pack the engine into the transmission tunnel and then use the remaining engine compartment for the boiler, condensor and feed water tank. Is this right? Also, are you going to use a battery aray and electric motors to run the various pumps and such, a donkey engine or off of the main engine? I prefer the idea of a simple ineficient oscilating steam engine runing all the accesories. For starting the donkey I would use a weight that would drop and give the flywheel a nudge to start the engine turning, then once it was going the engine would raise the weight again, thus returning the nudging device to a ready position when it was needed. This nudger could be controlled with a simple electric relay that would activate a catch spring and release the nudger when it was needed.
It sounds like power is not a problem at all.
I wasn't talking about compounding, I was talking about shutting off one of the engine all together(it would still spin though), this would reduce your power output by half and with proper cutoff get the engine close to a 70% - 80% load that is very effecient.
You are right though this is all very impractical and the increase in effeciency, if there was one, would be off set by the increase in complexity and work needed to complete the project.
I for one would rather have more power and simplicity of operation in a smaller package than fuel efficiency any day.
Oh yeah, are you going to have the cutoff controled with a computer, aray of mechanisms conected to the throttle control or a hand or foot direct connection design.
My prefence is having a lever in the cab that would control the cutoff, this is for siplicity and direct control, it would also give me something else that could be handforged by me in my car.
Caleb Ramsby</HTML>
Re: Coupling two, 13b Wankels
Posted by: Terry Williams (IP Logged)
Date: March 04, 2003 03:20PM
<HTML>Has anybody run steam rate tests on steam wankels?</HTML>
Re: Coupling two, 13b Wankels
Posted by: Jim Crank (IP Logged)
Date: March 05, 2003 02:01PM
<HTML>Terry,
The only Wankel I ever heard about that was run on steam, was one used as the second stage on a project the late Peter Scott-Brown worked on maybe 25 years ago. It worked; but the sponsor ran out of money before any meaningfull testing was done.
Jim</HTML>
The only Wankel I ever heard about that was run on steam, was one used as the second stage on a project the late Peter Scott-Brown worked on maybe 25 years ago. It worked; but the sponsor ran out of money before any meaningfull testing was done.
Jim</HTML>
Re: Coupling two, 13b Wankels
Posted by: Jim Crank (IP Logged)
Date: March 05, 2003 02:29PM
<HTML>Caleb,
The stock seals are fine for a modest souped up engine, maybe 250 hp. To go higher, like an all out racing engine, the new sintered 3mm seals are used.
Expensive; but they do work and last forever in engines giving over 600 hp.
I like my favorite settings, 1500 psi @ 800°F at the boiler outlet. This would give so much power with the 20-B engine, that I can certainly go lower. That makes the construction costs a bit less, not much; but still lower.
Condensers go in front and under the large hood area. Water tank in what passes for a luggage compartment in the C-4. Almost inaccessable and hard to get to behind the seats, so a custom tank goes there for water. This also puts it high in the vehicle for a good head on the feed pump, a CAT pump.
Right, engine and two speed-neutral/reverse transmission go into the Corvette transmission tunnel, which is very large. The C-4 Corvette actually has more room in it than the Jaguar and is some 350 pounds lighter than the XKE. Better brakes and SO much easier to get new really racy body panels. We measured a C-4 with the engine out of it and it is much wider and taller with almost the same radiator to firewall distance. Also the drive line is a lot tougher than the Jag, with many more low ratios available, like 2.5-1.
Using a Lamont, wouldn't think of anything else, the feed pump will be a two stage feed concept and driven off the main engine, with a bypass solenoid when all feed goes back to the tank, like off by pressure. I do not like the idea of on-off feed for any super light weight coil steam generator, too many problems.The air burner air blower-vacuum pump will be off an electric motor with a draft booster. The Lamont circulating pump will have its own motor and run continuously. Condenser fan probably electric, maybe.
The controls will NOT use any computer or digital processing. Just not needed and a major source of failure. One thing I sure learned at LMSC and NASA is eliminating single points of failure, and electronics are definitely one major source of failure. Simple relay controls, that is all that is needed.
The concept of an independently driven auxiliary is still being considered; but there is to date no suitable engine to drive it. Perhaps a smaller Wankel ; but that will be decided later. Using a Lamont, vs a Doble style, the need for such a system is gone.
Cutoff can almost be fixed with the three rotor Wankel; but we will think about using a 25% for drag racing and hill climbing and perhaps 10% for road use. Manually operated by probably a foot pedal.
Whatever, the construction will definitely be as simple as possible to do the job properly.
Jim</HTML>
The stock seals are fine for a modest souped up engine, maybe 250 hp. To go higher, like an all out racing engine, the new sintered 3mm seals are used.
Expensive; but they do work and last forever in engines giving over 600 hp.
I like my favorite settings, 1500 psi @ 800°F at the boiler outlet. This would give so much power with the 20-B engine, that I can certainly go lower. That makes the construction costs a bit less, not much; but still lower.
Condensers go in front and under the large hood area. Water tank in what passes for a luggage compartment in the C-4. Almost inaccessable and hard to get to behind the seats, so a custom tank goes there for water. This also puts it high in the vehicle for a good head on the feed pump, a CAT pump.
Right, engine and two speed-neutral/reverse transmission go into the Corvette transmission tunnel, which is very large. The C-4 Corvette actually has more room in it than the Jaguar and is some 350 pounds lighter than the XKE. Better brakes and SO much easier to get new really racy body panels. We measured a C-4 with the engine out of it and it is much wider and taller with almost the same radiator to firewall distance. Also the drive line is a lot tougher than the Jag, with many more low ratios available, like 2.5-1.
Using a Lamont, wouldn't think of anything else, the feed pump will be a two stage feed concept and driven off the main engine, with a bypass solenoid when all feed goes back to the tank, like off by pressure. I do not like the idea of on-off feed for any super light weight coil steam generator, too many problems.The air burner air blower-vacuum pump will be off an electric motor with a draft booster. The Lamont circulating pump will have its own motor and run continuously. Condenser fan probably electric, maybe.
The controls will NOT use any computer or digital processing. Just not needed and a major source of failure. One thing I sure learned at LMSC and NASA is eliminating single points of failure, and electronics are definitely one major source of failure. Simple relay controls, that is all that is needed.
The concept of an independently driven auxiliary is still being considered; but there is to date no suitable engine to drive it. Perhaps a smaller Wankel ; but that will be decided later. Using a Lamont, vs a Doble style, the need for such a system is gone.
Cutoff can almost be fixed with the three rotor Wankel; but we will think about using a 25% for drag racing and hill climbing and perhaps 10% for road use. Manually operated by probably a foot pedal.
Whatever, the construction will definitely be as simple as possible to do the job properly.
Jim</HTML>
Re: Coupling two, 13b Wankels
Posted by: Terry Williams (IP Logged)
Date: March 05, 2003 06:24PM
<HTML>I saw a steam Wankel in LA in Griffith Park (I think) oir maybe Stockton, sometime in the 1970's. I may have a photo of it. I'll look. (contemplating sorting through hundreds of steam related photos)</HTML>
Re: Coupling two, 13b Wankels
Posted by: Caleb Ramsby (IP Logged)
Date: March 06, 2003 11:30PM
<HTML>Jim,
Thanks for the detailed response that clears up host of my questions!
It sounds like you are going to have a very neat car. That is a good base too, it gives one the ability to compare test results for the performance of the vehicle. Such as aceleration, handling and such. I have always been intruiged with how a steam car's lack of compression braking will effect the driving style in race(manic driving) conditions, it seams to me like it would just begat a different yet equal driving style. Humm, the Vipers have a good sized hood. . .
It doesn't sound like you have finalized the details yet, but with your stated pressure and temp the superheat would only be 188.4 F. would this be enough for a 10%, 25% cutoff with the Wankels high surface area to volume ration? How much superheat have you estimated there to be needed with the Wankel at the stated cutoff's to obstain from producing condensation? However it appears that power and weight are the main focus and a little condensation would not cause any undesirable effect on the Wankels seals. Also, the effeciency lost in pounds of steam used would not out weigh the cost of a better superheat coil.
It is all in the prioraties, isn't it.
I have heard of NASA, but I am lost on LMSC. Is it, "Ludicrously Machined Steam Automobiles"? (I just can't help it sometimes)
Serously though, I am ignorant of LMSC's meaning. It could be "Lunar Modular System Control", this would be in conjunction with the NASA experiance.
I am assuming your statement about on-off devices folowing your discussion of the water feed to be about the water feed.
So, I am wondering if the burner will be on off, or would it be a variable design? I noticed in an earlier discussion you guys discussing the MFI from Bosch, this would give one a good system control for a variable firing rate, just have a forced induction air system and a valve between the fan and the mass flow sensor for the MFI, this would let one directly control the fuel and air flow rates with one valve. Setting this up on automated linkages might make it a bit of a hastle though.
Caleb Ramsby</HTML>
Thanks for the detailed response that clears up host of my questions!
It sounds like you are going to have a very neat car. That is a good base too, it gives one the ability to compare test results for the performance of the vehicle. Such as aceleration, handling and such. I have always been intruiged with how a steam car's lack of compression braking will effect the driving style in race(manic driving) conditions, it seams to me like it would just begat a different yet equal driving style. Humm, the Vipers have a good sized hood. . .
It doesn't sound like you have finalized the details yet, but with your stated pressure and temp the superheat would only be 188.4 F. would this be enough for a 10%, 25% cutoff with the Wankels high surface area to volume ration? How much superheat have you estimated there to be needed with the Wankel at the stated cutoff's to obstain from producing condensation? However it appears that power and weight are the main focus and a little condensation would not cause any undesirable effect on the Wankels seals. Also, the effeciency lost in pounds of steam used would not out weigh the cost of a better superheat coil.
It is all in the prioraties, isn't it.
I have heard of NASA, but I am lost on LMSC. Is it, "Ludicrously Machined Steam Automobiles"? (I just can't help it sometimes)
Serously though, I am ignorant of LMSC's meaning. It could be "Lunar Modular System Control", this would be in conjunction with the NASA experiance.
I am assuming your statement about on-off devices folowing your discussion of the water feed to be about the water feed.
So, I am wondering if the burner will be on off, or would it be a variable design? I noticed in an earlier discussion you guys discussing the MFI from Bosch, this would give one a good system control for a variable firing rate, just have a forced induction air system and a valve between the fan and the mass flow sensor for the MFI, this would let one directly control the fuel and air flow rates with one valve. Setting this up on automated linkages might make it a bit of a hastle though.
Caleb Ramsby</HTML>
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.