1 Steam Cars : Phorum
General Steam Car topics
<b>Force-fired Stanley -- Cyclone furnace</b>
Posted by: JW (IP Logged)
Date: May 25, 2003 06:01PM
<HTML>There is a force-fired Stanley (now owned by Chris Roberts) back on the streets after many years in storage. I understand that Barney Becker built this replacement burner for this 1919 735A using favorable attributes of the Doble burner. Fire control is auto/electric. Boiler pressure signals the blower to cycle, and fuel is switched on/off by an air pressure sensor between the blower and the fire box. The burner is a pressure atomized gun type,...... all still mysteriously enclosed until trouble or service needs warrant inspection. .....geeze, just gotta mess with the jets some time!
The 23" Stanley VFT boiler looks standard enough until you notice the burner pan is an inch or so deeper than normal....... and no venturis to be found. There are a couple of sight glasses in the general area where the mixers would usually be located. Next to the lowest portion of the exhaust stack, below the kidney, is a 12v blower assembly, and components for fuel delivery directly into the gun burner setup.
The fuel rate is adjusted from the Stanley dash main burner control lever, and the blower is operator-controlled from a nearby button. Ignition is constant from a battery/buzz coil, I believe linked to blower operation. There is no pilot. The blower is quiet but audibly whirring at curbside, and the forced fire produces a pleasant low rumble. The fire can be heard only until the car speed reaches 10-15 mph, then it blends into the breeze of touring.
No howling, no pops or backfires, no branch fork scalding of finger tips, no gravel in the hair .............hmmmmmm, how long can this last? LOL
The blower draws about 12 amps that is replenished at 10 mph by an overdriven alternator mounted offset from the original generator location. A 1:3 belt pulley step-up makes the alternator spin in it's happy range.
This car also has an Austin Oil Separator piped into the exhuast near the engine. It seems to work very well, though it looks like a residential natural gas meter where it lives under the back seat.
Some careful engineering went into this alternative system for a Stanley to keep up steam. My first day out in the car, ..... I am impressed.
JW
</HTML>
The 23" Stanley VFT boiler looks standard enough until you notice the burner pan is an inch or so deeper than normal....... and no venturis to be found. There are a couple of sight glasses in the general area where the mixers would usually be located. Next to the lowest portion of the exhaust stack, below the kidney, is a 12v blower assembly, and components for fuel delivery directly into the gun burner setup.
The fuel rate is adjusted from the Stanley dash main burner control lever, and the blower is operator-controlled from a nearby button. Ignition is constant from a battery/buzz coil, I believe linked to blower operation. There is no pilot. The blower is quiet but audibly whirring at curbside, and the forced fire produces a pleasant low rumble. The fire can be heard only until the car speed reaches 10-15 mph, then it blends into the breeze of touring.
No howling, no pops or backfires, no branch fork scalding of finger tips, no gravel in the hair .............hmmmmmm, how long can this last? LOL
The blower draws about 12 amps that is replenished at 10 mph by an overdriven alternator mounted offset from the original generator location. A 1:3 belt pulley step-up makes the alternator spin in it's happy range.
This car also has an Austin Oil Separator piped into the exhuast near the engine. It seems to work very well, though it looks like a residential natural gas meter where it lives under the back seat.
Some careful engineering went into this alternative system for a Stanley to keep up steam. My first day out in the car, ..... I am impressed.
JW
</HTML>
Re: Force-fired Stanley
Posted by: George Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: May 25, 2003 06:15PM
<HTML>JW,
Jim Crank has talked about that retrofit in the past. For those people who think a Doble type cyclone furnace will lift the water off the crownsheet compared to a vaporizing burner they should take note that it worked well.
I am sure Becker and Bill Besler worked it out carefully for this car. Glad to hear it was out on the road again.
Craig Standbridge just installed a 6 gallon "cyclone" firebox in his Chevy S-10 and it is working wonderfully firing a Derr boiler. The actual flame length of the cyclone furnace is something like 50-80 feet long and actually becomes a vaporizing burner when the firebox gets to red-orange heat.
Yup, sure saves a lot of time and crawling around under the car in the morning---no blowtorch needed. I don't think Stanley purists would appreciate the car but I like the low frequency rumbling of the cyclone furnace, anything is better than the hooting of a forced vaporizing burner. Do you/he have any idea of the fuel burn rate??, probably the standard 4 GPH for safety. Glad you had a good day of it John with this car, nobody deserves it more.
George</HTML>
Jim Crank has talked about that retrofit in the past. For those people who think a Doble type cyclone furnace will lift the water off the crownsheet compared to a vaporizing burner they should take note that it worked well.
I am sure Becker and Bill Besler worked it out carefully for this car. Glad to hear it was out on the road again.
Craig Standbridge just installed a 6 gallon "cyclone" firebox in his Chevy S-10 and it is working wonderfully firing a Derr boiler. The actual flame length of the cyclone furnace is something like 50-80 feet long and actually becomes a vaporizing burner when the firebox gets to red-orange heat.
Yup, sure saves a lot of time and crawling around under the car in the morning---no blowtorch needed. I don't think Stanley purists would appreciate the car but I like the low frequency rumbling of the cyclone furnace, anything is better than the hooting of a forced vaporizing burner. Do you/he have any idea of the fuel burn rate??, probably the standard 4 GPH for safety. Glad you had a good day of it John with this car, nobody deserves it more.
George</HTML>
<b>Re: Force-fired Stanley</b>
Posted by: JW (IP Logged)
Date: May 25, 2003 11:24PM
<HTML>I will try to determine the burn rate next time we get the car out. The GPH should be whatever the jet will flow at 125 psi, current set pressure, as the fuel system is still all Stanley past the accumulator.
I am curious to see how the fire box is built to handle the change of direction from a horizontal to vertical flow. It must circulate, and thus the term cyclone burner? There must be a firewall/baffle of some sort to change the direction of flow of the blast and allow fire to equally reach the tubes. The tubes are copper and are equipped with turbulators .....those twisted inserts that make about 2-3 turns per foot.
The turbulator insert is a flat piece of steel maybe .030, the length and with of the inside of the tube. The end is split for about 1/2 inch and the 2 split pieces folded outward to form tabs that hold the insert in place at the rolled end. These tabs add some restriction to tube flow, ......likely a beneficial effect
The fire rate seems to be average to conservative as the boiler will hold about 400 psi at 30 mph on level ground, and about 300 psi at 40. The burner kicks out at 550.
With no pilot/vaporizer to worry about while inside the pizza joint, it is easy to refire and get under way, ....... open the fuel, switch on the blower. Fuel automatic allows fuel to flow only when blower outlet air pressure reaches its setting, so this provides a consistent couple seconds of purge air before fuel is admitted. Restarts have proven reliable, cold starts resemble a coal-burner - LOL
Next steam run in 2 weeks -hope to add some photos and more info on this reliable non-OEM improved steaming accessory.
JW
</HTML>
I am curious to see how the fire box is built to handle the change of direction from a horizontal to vertical flow. It must circulate, and thus the term cyclone burner? There must be a firewall/baffle of some sort to change the direction of flow of the blast and allow fire to equally reach the tubes. The tubes are copper and are equipped with turbulators .....those twisted inserts that make about 2-3 turns per foot.
The turbulator insert is a flat piece of steel maybe .030, the length and with of the inside of the tube. The end is split for about 1/2 inch and the 2 split pieces folded outward to form tabs that hold the insert in place at the rolled end. These tabs add some restriction to tube flow, ......likely a beneficial effect
The fire rate seems to be average to conservative as the boiler will hold about 400 psi at 30 mph on level ground, and about 300 psi at 40. The burner kicks out at 550.
With no pilot/vaporizer to worry about while inside the pizza joint, it is easy to refire and get under way, ....... open the fuel, switch on the blower. Fuel automatic allows fuel to flow only when blower outlet air pressure reaches its setting, so this provides a consistent couple seconds of purge air before fuel is admitted. Restarts have proven reliable, cold starts resemble a coal-burner - LOL
Next steam run in 2 weeks -hope to add some photos and more info on this reliable non-OEM improved steaming accessory.
JW
</HTML>
Re: Force-fired Stanley
Posted by: jdcrank@pacbell.net (IP Logged)
Date: May 26, 2003 01:12PM
<HTML>Hi John,
The burner Barney Becker made for Carsten Henningson was a very simple cyclone firebox, identical to the usual Besler smoke generators of WW-2 and the Besler Chevy conversion for G.M.. Besler had nothing to do with it.
The nozzle was, if I recall correctly, a Monarch atomizing of the same approximate capacity as the Stanley burner. We knew that any larger burner would be prone to burning out the crown sheet, as Carl Guth found out the hard way. Take the nozzle out and read what it says on one of the flats. They state the angle of the spray cone and the gph at 100 psi. Monarch nozzles are rated at 100 psi.
There was one problem with it that was never corrected. The flame pattern coming out of the central hole is somewhat directed towards one side. At least when fired out in the open, that was evident. When attached to the boiler, the backpressure may have made it even out, that I don't know. If not, a baffle should be added to correct the flame pattern.
The boiler was made by Ocean Shore Iron in S. F. and does not have any wire winding, they wouldn't make a non ASME boiler like the Stanley. If I recall correctly, it has a 5/8" shell and is very heavy.
With the exception of the flame pattern, this was a nice burner that replaced the Stanley version, and was very close in output; but without the usual problems of the Stanley. If it is just left alone, and not "improved" then it will certainly serve quite well.
Jim</HTML>
The burner Barney Becker made for Carsten Henningson was a very simple cyclone firebox, identical to the usual Besler smoke generators of WW-2 and the Besler Chevy conversion for G.M.. Besler had nothing to do with it.
The nozzle was, if I recall correctly, a Monarch atomizing of the same approximate capacity as the Stanley burner. We knew that any larger burner would be prone to burning out the crown sheet, as Carl Guth found out the hard way. Take the nozzle out and read what it says on one of the flats. They state the angle of the spray cone and the gph at 100 psi. Monarch nozzles are rated at 100 psi.
There was one problem with it that was never corrected. The flame pattern coming out of the central hole is somewhat directed towards one side. At least when fired out in the open, that was evident. When attached to the boiler, the backpressure may have made it even out, that I don't know. If not, a baffle should be added to correct the flame pattern.
The boiler was made by Ocean Shore Iron in S. F. and does not have any wire winding, they wouldn't make a non ASME boiler like the Stanley. If I recall correctly, it has a 5/8" shell and is very heavy.
With the exception of the flame pattern, this was a nice burner that replaced the Stanley version, and was very close in output; but without the usual problems of the Stanley. If it is just left alone, and not "improved" then it will certainly serve quite well.
Jim</HTML>
<b>Re: Force-fired Stanley</b>
Posted by: JW (IP Logged)
Date: May 26, 2003 09:00PM
<HTML>Hey Jim--
Yes this was Carsten's car.
The steam output seems very similar to what an OEM generator provides, ....and the low rumble is a real pleasure to ride behind.
It is good to know the psi rating on the Monarch as the fuel pressure has been peaking at 120, which we thought low at the time.
When the burner does come down maybe we can tell what the flame pattern has been.
I will let you know what else we find out--
Thanks for all the info,
JW</HTML>
Yes this was Carsten's car.
The steam output seems very similar to what an OEM generator provides, ....and the low rumble is a real pleasure to ride behind.
It is good to know the psi rating on the Monarch as the fuel pressure has been peaking at 120, which we thought low at the time.
When the burner does come down maybe we can tell what the flame pattern has been.
I will let you know what else we find out--
Thanks for all the info,
JW</HTML>
Re: Force-fired Stanley
Posted by: Jim Crank (IP Logged)
Date: May 26, 2003 10:00PM
<HTML>John,
120 psi won't hurt one bit, in fact it helps atomize the fuel. I would leave it alone.
Jim</HTML>
120 psi won't hurt one bit, in fact it helps atomize the fuel. I would leave it alone.
Jim</HTML>
Re: Force-fired Stanley
Posted by: George Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: May 28, 2003 09:41PM
<HTML>JW,
Keep in mind that most atomizing nozzles will produce a greater output of the square root of the difference in rated pressure; that is 120/100 would be about an 11% increase in fuel output. Sounds like a normal firing rate of 4GPH when the car rolls along at 40mph+ on the level.
Interesting note on Craig Standbridges S-10 with the new cyclone firebox with 12 volt DC Beckett burner at 5.5GPH---went over and heard it Monday in the rain, wonderfull deep rumbling sound. The firebox is less than half the size recommended by Beckett and according to Craig does better on the hills and recovers faster---this revolving firebox design was a great step forward, no wonder that B&W used the "cyclone" firebox for its huge coal fired burners.</HTML>
Keep in mind that most atomizing nozzles will produce a greater output of the square root of the difference in rated pressure; that is 120/100 would be about an 11% increase in fuel output. Sounds like a normal firing rate of 4GPH when the car rolls along at 40mph+ on the level.
Interesting note on Craig Standbridges S-10 with the new cyclone firebox with 12 volt DC Beckett burner at 5.5GPH---went over and heard it Monday in the rain, wonderfull deep rumbling sound. The firebox is less than half the size recommended by Beckett and according to Craig does better on the hills and recovers faster---this revolving firebox design was a great step forward, no wonder that B&W used the "cyclone" firebox for its huge coal fired burners.</HTML>
Re: Force-fired Stanley -- Cyclone furnace
Posted by: Brian Drake (IP Logged)
Date: May 29, 2003 04:10AM
<HTML>Say, are there any detailed specs on this type of burner set up on the web? Detailed plans would be nice, but not absolutely necessary.</HTML>
Re: Force-fired Stanley -- Cyclone furnace
Posted by: Jim Crank (IP Logged)
Date: June 02, 2003 12:04PM
<HTML>Brian,
You don't need detailed plans for this type of burner. It is well illustrated in past SACA newsletters and Walton's book on the Doble, the F type steam generator burner. It has been successfully used with both a carburetor and a pressure atomizing nozzle.
The fire can is as large in diameter as the coil stack, or the crown sheet.
It is at least 5" in depth. There is a centrally located flange with an opening about 8" in diameter, for the gasses to exit towards the boiler. Give as much distance as is reasonable between this central opening and the bottom of the boiler/coil stack, what you do not want is flame directly impinging on them. The opening for the nozzle and the air is at least 3" in diameter, with a little bill like a baseball cap that directs the air into the opening. Uneven flame pattern, when fired in the open air is corrected by additional air openings around the fire can, small rectangular openings with the lip directed to help the air into the burner. The best version has an air jacket completely surrounding the fire can. Or, the burner can sits in the middle of a helical coil that surrounds the fire box area.
The whole reason for this type of burner, is that any unburned fuel particles are thrown against the hot walls and vaporized. In addition they swirl around several time before exiting the central opening, thus rather clean burning when hot due to a long residence time.
Jim</HTML>
You don't need detailed plans for this type of burner. It is well illustrated in past SACA newsletters and Walton's book on the Doble, the F type steam generator burner. It has been successfully used with both a carburetor and a pressure atomizing nozzle.
The fire can is as large in diameter as the coil stack, or the crown sheet.
It is at least 5" in depth. There is a centrally located flange with an opening about 8" in diameter, for the gasses to exit towards the boiler. Give as much distance as is reasonable between this central opening and the bottom of the boiler/coil stack, what you do not want is flame directly impinging on them. The opening for the nozzle and the air is at least 3" in diameter, with a little bill like a baseball cap that directs the air into the opening. Uneven flame pattern, when fired in the open air is corrected by additional air openings around the fire can, small rectangular openings with the lip directed to help the air into the burner. The best version has an air jacket completely surrounding the fire can. Or, the burner can sits in the middle of a helical coil that surrounds the fire box area.
The whole reason for this type of burner, is that any unburned fuel particles are thrown against the hot walls and vaporized. In addition they swirl around several time before exiting the central opening, thus rather clean burning when hot due to a long residence time.
Jim</HTML>
Re: Force-fired Stanley -- Cyclone furnace
Posted by: Christopher W. Roberts (IP Logged)
Date: June 04, 2003 04:16AM
<HTML> I now own the 1919 with the gun force fired Stanley once owned by Carsten Henningsen. It works wonderfully. It is easy to controll and makes all the steam wanted. It is also nice that if anyone would want to build this type of burner, no alterations are needed to the car with the single exception of converting it to a 12 volt system. In examineing the car with the hood up, one can not see that there is anything non Stanley on the car at a first glance. The burner runs off the same Stanley fuel system and elimaniates all the troubble with a pilot going out or backfires due to cloged jets. It is a well thought desighn that has made me very impressed with the desighn. If you are considering putting one in, it is well worth it.
CWR</HTML>
CWR</HTML>
Re: Force-fired Stanley -- Cyclone furnace
Posted by: Brian Drake (IP Logged)
Date: June 05, 2003 03:18AM
<HTML>Easy for you to say, Jim, but for someone like me, who's never poked his head under a steamer's hood, I need those kinds of things. Still, I'll check into the sources you've mentioned.</HTML>
Re: Force-fired Stanley -- Cyclone furnace
Posted by: Jim Crank (IP Logged)
Date: June 05, 2003 12:25PM
<HTML>Brian,
That is why one builds a library of steam car material. Past issues of Light Steam Power and the SACA newsletters, plus attends SACA meets where such hardware is displayed. Then go on to acquire the various SAE papers and similar documents that were published, and still are available, and that give lots of detailed data on steam car technology.
Jim</HTML>
That is why one builds a library of steam car material. Past issues of Light Steam Power and the SACA newsletters, plus attends SACA meets where such hardware is displayed. Then go on to acquire the various SAE papers and similar documents that were published, and still are available, and that give lots of detailed data on steam car technology.
Jim</HTML>
Re: Force-fired Stanley
Posted by: George Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: June 09, 2003 01:54PM
<HTML> We ran Craig's S-10 Saturday with near a 6GPH burn rate(800,000BTU/hr) in the cyclone firebox and it really does outperform the previous setup. Climbs hills better and the recovery is faster than the old big square Beckett firebox. The cyclone is about 1-1/3 cubic feet and therefore about at the rate of 600K BTU/cu ft that Doble recommended way back. What a pleasure to have a car perform so well.
George</HTML>
George</HTML>
<b>Re: Force-fired Stanley</b>
Posted by: JW (IP Logged)
Date: June 10, 2003 03:33AM
<HTML>George- sounds like a lotta fire in a little chevy!
Is the Derr a circulating boiler?
Does 80 feet of flame emerge out below the car and make the tires smolder at stop lights? ........ LOL!
We had Fran Guldenbrein's 735 parked on the pristine front lawn of an Admiral's mansion at the Mare Island Concourse 2001, a SF Bay Submarine facility in WWII. In order to keep the peanuts roasting all day atop the solid copper smoke box, we fired the boiler every hour or so. This developed a 3 foot burn hole in the lawn, and when we left it looked like a UFO had paid a visit........
*The Stanley Caldera!*
This year the car won "Best Unrestored" and "Best of Show"
Photo, not at the show, ...just beside the road on the Sacramento River Delta => [stanleysteamers.com]
A 1 minute video clip of the Concours and Peanut Roast can be seen here [stanleysteamers.com] It runs in Real Player.
For the dialup visitors, the *Download* option will play the clip nicely after a download nap - hahaha (get RealPlayer 1st)
JW
</HTML>
Is the Derr a circulating boiler?
Does 80 feet of flame emerge out below the car and make the tires smolder at stop lights? ........ LOL!
We had Fran Guldenbrein's 735 parked on the pristine front lawn of an Admiral's mansion at the Mare Island Concourse 2001, a SF Bay Submarine facility in WWII. In order to keep the peanuts roasting all day atop the solid copper smoke box, we fired the boiler every hour or so. This developed a 3 foot burn hole in the lawn, and when we left it looked like a UFO had paid a visit........
*The Stanley Caldera!*
This year the car won "Best Unrestored" and "Best of Show"
Photo, not at the show, ...just beside the road on the Sacramento River Delta => [stanleysteamers.com]
A 1 minute video clip of the Concours and Peanut Roast can be seen here [stanleysteamers.com] It runs in Real Player.
For the dialup visitors, the *Download* option will play the clip nicely after a download nap - hahaha (get RealPlayer 1st)
JW
</HTML>
Re: Force-fired Stanley
Posted by: chuk williams (IP Logged)
Date: June 10, 2003 01:51PM
<HTML>George or JW-
I keep hearing about the "cyclone" firebox--can
you give us a better description of its construction??
I read Jim Cranks' description, but couldn't follow it
well enough to build one. Are there any photos
available of a cyclone firebox??
Chuk</HTML>
I keep hearing about the "cyclone" firebox--can
you give us a better description of its construction??
I read Jim Cranks' description, but couldn't follow it
well enough to build one. Are there any photos
available of a cyclone firebox??
Chuk</HTML>
Re: Force-fired Stanley
Posted by: Roland Evans (IP Logged)
Date: June 10, 2003 11:18PM
<HTML>A cyclone firebox is simply a round combustion chamber with the gun burner, or blower type burner amid in at an angle so as to be parallel with the sidewall and to cause the flame to swirl around the combustion chamber. Most have a lip around the top edge at a slight angle upward. 310 stainless is a good material to use.
Rolly</HTML>
Rolly</HTML>
Re: Force-fired Stanley
Posted by: Roland Evans (IP Logged)
Date: June 10, 2003 11:30PM
<HTML>You can buy a Beckett Model SDC 12 volt burner rated 1.75 to 5.5 Gal from Spray Mart PO Box 6008 Springdale AR 72766-6008
For 2.5 to 5.5 Gal you need the flame retention head F310
Phone 1-800-752-0177 This is the last address I have for them. In 2000 they cost $350 + Shipping.
Rolly</HTML>
For 2.5 to 5.5 Gal you need the flame retention head F310
Phone 1-800-752-0177 This is the last address I have for them. In 2000 they cost $350 + Shipping.
Rolly</HTML>
Re: Force-fired Stanley
Posted by: Brian Drake (IP Logged)
Date: June 11, 2003 02:39AM
<HTML>Are these the folks you're talking about? [www.spraymart.com] They have a Beckett burner, but I don't see any prices.</HTML>
Re: Force-fired Stanley
Posted by: Rolly (IP Logged)
Date: June 11, 2003 09:00AM
<HTML>Looks like it. Call them up. I see they also have the 12-volt Wayne Burner.
Rolly</HTML>
Rolly</HTML>
Re: Force-fired Stanley
Posted by: Caleb Ramsby (IP Logged)
Date: June 11, 2003 01:18PM
<HTML>Chuk,
The cyclone firebox is much like the unit design that Andy came up with.
[ghlin2.greenhills.net]
If you look at the bottem illustration, take out the tubes and just put a rim about 1/5 to 1/3 of the diameter from the edge then the fire swirls around before the combustion gases leave through the center top hole.
If the inside walls were covered with Kaowool then that would help maintain a complete combustion before the gases reached the steam making surface.
I am sure that the very turbulant initial flame path also helps mix the flame up and burn more of the fuel.
Caleb Ramsby</HTML>
The cyclone firebox is much like the unit design that Andy came up with.
[ghlin2.greenhills.net]
If you look at the bottem illustration, take out the tubes and just put a rim about 1/5 to 1/3 of the diameter from the edge then the fire swirls around before the combustion gases leave through the center top hole.
If the inside walls were covered with Kaowool then that would help maintain a complete combustion before the gases reached the steam making surface.
I am sure that the very turbulant initial flame path also helps mix the flame up and burn more of the fuel.
Caleb Ramsby</HTML>
Re: Force-fired Stanley
Posted by: Arnold Walker (IP Logged)
Date: June 13, 2003 12:11PM
<HTML>Oh my,I think may have accidentally designed a cyclone solid fuel lamonte.
It's Rolly Evan's drawing with a spring loaded & tangent draft(liked airflow thru my shopvac , thought it would work in a firebox for ash separation) in place of the oil burner pipe in the bottom with a top-loader fliudized bed wood hopper thru the center.
And squirrel cage suction blower off-to the side in the top.The blower control is wired to operate like a oil gun burner.So the fire only drafts with the blower running.
My garden tractor boiler looks a little funkier than the lamonte featured on
Stanley site .Since I tried saving construction time going down to the wood stove section at Lowe's Builiding Supply.And picked up a 6inch stovepipe and 12inch stainless double -wall stovepipe for the hopper and outer shell
construction. Got few more stove pipe parts so that by time ...I was done
the 6inch hopper slides out for ash removal and some of the inner wall on
the 12inch stovepipe is your flame shield for the lamonte curcuit.
Still building this thing ....with luck will finish my steam(Mike Brown's engine) Cub Cadet in time to cut some grass this year.
Wanted a pilot plant for a steam truck and didn't do model trains or boating.</HTML>
It's Rolly Evan's drawing with a spring loaded & tangent draft(liked airflow thru my shopvac , thought it would work in a firebox for ash separation) in place of the oil burner pipe in the bottom with a top-loader fliudized bed wood hopper thru the center.
And squirrel cage suction blower off-to the side in the top.The blower control is wired to operate like a oil gun burner.So the fire only drafts with the blower running.
My garden tractor boiler looks a little funkier than the lamonte featured on
Stanley site .Since I tried saving construction time going down to the wood stove section at Lowe's Builiding Supply.And picked up a 6inch stovepipe and 12inch stainless double -wall stovepipe for the hopper and outer shell
construction. Got few more stove pipe parts so that by time ...I was done
the 6inch hopper slides out for ash removal and some of the inner wall on
the 12inch stovepipe is your flame shield for the lamonte curcuit.
Still building this thing ....with luck will finish my steam(Mike Brown's engine) Cub Cadet in time to cut some grass this year.
Wanted a pilot plant for a steam truck and didn't do model trains or boating.</HTML>
Re: Force-fired Stanley
Posted by: George Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: June 13, 2003 04:02PM
<HTML>Arnold,
Good luck with the project and the solid fuel burner. Way back Light Steam Power had a few articles on solid fuel combusiton chambers, I think tangentially fired that were called "tuyures?" or something. an automatic auger feed solid fuel burner would just be great for driving around the yard.
By the way which Mike Brown engine are you talking about?
Best, George</HTML>
Good luck with the project and the solid fuel burner. Way back Light Steam Power had a few articles on solid fuel combusiton chambers, I think tangentially fired that were called "tuyures?" or something. an automatic auger feed solid fuel burner would just be great for driving around the yard.
By the way which Mike Brown engine are you talking about?
Best, George</HTML>
Re: Force-fired Stanley
Posted by: Arnold Walker (IP Logged)
Date: June 15, 2003 01:54PM
<HTML>The 3hp model ....gas had 27ftlbs of torque.3hp hooked up to a
jackshaft with a minibike sprocket set in backwards for a 5:1 overdrive.
200ftlbs./5=40ftlbs has me thinking I would have enorgh torque out of the 3hp engine. To do a instant replay of steam tractor at tractor pull compared to 12hp.gas engine performance while still spinning hydrostatic transmission and mower deck at stock speeds.
But then again I have a boiler shell getting ready to pipe 1/4" coils ,not a machine cutting grass to know for sure at this point.
We will see later, I guess, in the coast bermuda patch.
Do you know if that Light steam article about solid fuel combustions chambers is still available ?</HTML>
jackshaft with a minibike sprocket set in backwards for a 5:1 overdrive.
200ftlbs./5=40ftlbs has me thinking I would have enorgh torque out of the 3hp engine. To do a instant replay of steam tractor at tractor pull compared to 12hp.gas engine performance while still spinning hydrostatic transmission and mower deck at stock speeds.
But then again I have a boiler shell getting ready to pipe 1/4" coils ,not a machine cutting grass to know for sure at this point.
We will see later, I guess, in the coast bermuda patch.
Do you know if that Light steam article about solid fuel combustions chambers is still available ?</HTML>
Re: Force-fired Stanley
Posted by: Caleb Ramsby (IP Logged)
Date: June 16, 2003 05:12PM
<HTML>Arnold,
Sounds like a neet project. I have been wondering how well one of Mike Brown's engines works. Please keep us posted.
As for solid fuel furnaces, there are a numerity of designs for automated fuel induction on the market. Almost all of them are designed to use wood chips, corn cob chips, wood pellets or corn cernels. Most of them use a underfed design, utilizing a auger to feed the fuel from the hopper to the burner. Then they admit the combustion air above the fire from the side. There are also many designs that drop the fuel via an auger onto the top of the fire and admit the air through the fire itself.
I think that a simple viable design would be to have an underfed auger driven design with manual or automatic operation of the auger. They can be purchased from Grainger or any of those establishments.
One fully automated system that looks to be very simple and is applied to industrial boilers and home heating systems is the Messersmith.
[www.burnchips.com]
There design is very simple and availiable. They may even be willing to design a burner system for your aplication. They use electronic control of the auger and fan system so it is completely automated.
For visualization of a system that I think would work, take a basketball and cut the top 1/5 of the ball off. Then cut a hole in the bottem of it to feed the fuel into with the auger. Make another small hole in the side of it that would direct the air around the inside wall horizontally around the ball. So the fuel would come in through the bottem, the air through the side and the hot gases and some radiation would exit through the top hole into the water tube area.
The spherical design of the furnace would allow one to operate the aparatus at high angles without worrying about the fire being disturbed in the boiler and literly hitting the water tubes.
As for ash removal, I would use an excess of air induction(forced) that would shoot the ashes and some cinders into a standard centrifugal ash collector at the exit of the exhaust stack. This would meen that there would be a minimum of ash to take out the the furnace when cleaning was done, but the water tubes would get dirty and need regualr cleansing.
Since weight doesn't matter on a tractor one could construct the furnace from two halves of cement shells and coat the inside of them with furnace cement and possibly fire brick to protect the cement from the intense heat. This a centrifugal fan and a auger with either a hand crank or a geared down power coming from the main engine or a small electric motor also geared way down would be all of the materials needed for the furnace. Note that there is no firegrate with an underfed method that uses combustion air that is admited on top of the fire. However there would most likely need to be a door so that one could inspect the furnace and clean it out every now and then.
Please, tell me if you think it is a viable idea.
Caleb Ramsby</HTML>
Sounds like a neet project. I have been wondering how well one of Mike Brown's engines works. Please keep us posted.
As for solid fuel furnaces, there are a numerity of designs for automated fuel induction on the market. Almost all of them are designed to use wood chips, corn cob chips, wood pellets or corn cernels. Most of them use a underfed design, utilizing a auger to feed the fuel from the hopper to the burner. Then they admit the combustion air above the fire from the side. There are also many designs that drop the fuel via an auger onto the top of the fire and admit the air through the fire itself.
I think that a simple viable design would be to have an underfed auger driven design with manual or automatic operation of the auger. They can be purchased from Grainger or any of those establishments.
One fully automated system that looks to be very simple and is applied to industrial boilers and home heating systems is the Messersmith.
[www.burnchips.com]
There design is very simple and availiable. They may even be willing to design a burner system for your aplication. They use electronic control of the auger and fan system so it is completely automated.
For visualization of a system that I think would work, take a basketball and cut the top 1/5 of the ball off. Then cut a hole in the bottem of it to feed the fuel into with the auger. Make another small hole in the side of it that would direct the air around the inside wall horizontally around the ball. So the fuel would come in through the bottem, the air through the side and the hot gases and some radiation would exit through the top hole into the water tube area.
The spherical design of the furnace would allow one to operate the aparatus at high angles without worrying about the fire being disturbed in the boiler and literly hitting the water tubes.
As for ash removal, I would use an excess of air induction(forced) that would shoot the ashes and some cinders into a standard centrifugal ash collector at the exit of the exhaust stack. This would meen that there would be a minimum of ash to take out the the furnace when cleaning was done, but the water tubes would get dirty and need regualr cleansing.
Since weight doesn't matter on a tractor one could construct the furnace from two halves of cement shells and coat the inside of them with furnace cement and possibly fire brick to protect the cement from the intense heat. This a centrifugal fan and a auger with either a hand crank or a geared down power coming from the main engine or a small electric motor also geared way down would be all of the materials needed for the furnace. Note that there is no firegrate with an underfed method that uses combustion air that is admited on top of the fire. However there would most likely need to be a door so that one could inspect the furnace and clean it out every now and then.
Please, tell me if you think it is a viable idea.
Caleb Ramsby</HTML>
Re: Force-fired Stanley
Posted by: Arnold Walker (IP Logged)
Date: June 17, 2003 05:08PM
<HTML>I started out on my gas tractors with a gasifier,but it was not as flexible as
as I hope a boiler with some form of barometer control will have.In theory
I hope the combustion chamber can self-adjustable to any lawn or garden
item that hits the hopper.Real world would be easier said than done.
You would believe not how many dry runs I have made just playing with the burn on various materials.The thing smothers back thru the hopper with car heater blower off,then goes clear enorgh at 325 flue temp.(1000 firebox) that am only able to see a heatwave in the right light.Heat was rough on the fan ,so eductor temp.150,fan is better now.
Its spooky how much the eductor sounds like a clothes dry vent.
Caleb, there is more than one way to do it and your ideas sound pretty good as well.
As a matter of fact was looking at feed system for a stationary
375kw sawmill LP turbine light plant on sale in South Pacific.Don't know if I can swing the money for it ,but still looking just in case.
Cogeneration....etc. for light company ,if the business plan lines out.
Guess farmers with a business plan maybe a little odd,too
Any rate, hoping for my new crop....electricity.</HTML>
as I hope a boiler with some form of barometer control will have.In theory
I hope the combustion chamber can self-adjustable to any lawn or garden
item that hits the hopper.Real world would be easier said than done.
You would believe not how many dry runs I have made just playing with the burn on various materials.The thing smothers back thru the hopper with car heater blower off,then goes clear enorgh at 325 flue temp.(1000 firebox) that am only able to see a heatwave in the right light.Heat was rough on the fan ,so eductor temp.150,fan is better now.
Its spooky how much the eductor sounds like a clothes dry vent.
Caleb, there is more than one way to do it and your ideas sound pretty good as well.
As a matter of fact was looking at feed system for a stationary
375kw sawmill LP turbine light plant on sale in South Pacific.Don't know if I can swing the money for it ,but still looking just in case.
Cogeneration....etc. for light company ,if the business plan lines out.
Guess farmers with a business plan maybe a little odd,too
Any rate, hoping for my new crop....electricity.</HTML>
Re: Force-fired Stanley
Posted by: Caleb Ramsby (IP Logged)
Date: June 17, 2003 07:36PM
<HTML>Arnold,
Your bringing up the electrical generation of farmers is actually something I have been giving a great deal of thought for the past few weeks. I live in northern Illinois and am surrounded be farmers who are right on the edge of making it.
If one were to utilize the refuse on a farm for fuel, such as corn cobs, wood chips from brush or excess of corn production. Then one could operate their tractors and machinery on the refuse fuel and also produce electricity with the left overs. I think that farmers who had steam system's availiable to them on a payment plan would benifit greatly.
375kw is a LOT of energy. What are/were you planing on using for fuel. Mabey just anexing the selling of the corn and such to companies and just burning it? What is the electric company willing to pay you for the electricity in comparision with how much they charge for it?
Caleb Ramsby</HTML>
Your bringing up the electrical generation of farmers is actually something I have been giving a great deal of thought for the past few weeks. I live in northern Illinois and am surrounded be farmers who are right on the edge of making it.
If one were to utilize the refuse on a farm for fuel, such as corn cobs, wood chips from brush or excess of corn production. Then one could operate their tractors and machinery on the refuse fuel and also produce electricity with the left overs. I think that farmers who had steam system's availiable to them on a payment plan would benifit greatly.
375kw is a LOT of energy. What are/were you planing on using for fuel. Mabey just anexing the selling of the corn and such to companies and just burning it? What is the electric company willing to pay you for the electricity in comparision with how much they charge for it?
Caleb Ramsby</HTML>
Re: Force-fired Stanley
Posted by: David K Nergaard (IP Logged)
Date: June 18, 2003 11:16AM
<HTML>I once considered using a gas fired Otto cycle electric generator to heat my home. Tthe water jacket and exhaust gas heat would be more than my old fufnace would make with the same fuel! And the electricity would, I hoped, pay for it. NO WAY! The local company offered me less than 2 cents/ kilowatt hour. That wouldn,t have payed for the maintenance of the engine, let alone the fuel.</HTML>
Re: Force-fired Stanley -- Cyclone furnace
Posted by: George Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: June 18, 2003 05:26PM
<HTML>John,
We had our big SACA/NE meet at the Powow Campsite and Craig was there with his S-10 Chevy steam truck with the cyclone furnace burning 6 GPH and he performed wonderfully all weekend. Takes only 5-1/2 minutes for it to fire up a very heavy Derr boiler with about 8 gallons of water in it. As in all cold burners has a smell to it for 20 seconds or so and then perfectly clean. One could stick there hand in the exhausting flue gases and there was absolutely no smell on the hand to be detected! We also fired up the Lamont and its 4 GPH burn rate was also of the same burn quality. All in all a very good auto steam meet.
George</HTML>
We had our big SACA/NE meet at the Powow Campsite and Craig was there with his S-10 Chevy steam truck with the cyclone furnace burning 6 GPH and he performed wonderfully all weekend. Takes only 5-1/2 minutes for it to fire up a very heavy Derr boiler with about 8 gallons of water in it. As in all cold burners has a smell to it for 20 seconds or so and then perfectly clean. One could stick there hand in the exhausting flue gases and there was absolutely no smell on the hand to be detected! We also fired up the Lamont and its 4 GPH burn rate was also of the same burn quality. All in all a very good auto steam meet.
George</HTML>
Re: Force-fired Stanley -- Cyclone furnace
Posted by: Roland Evans (IP Logged)
Date: June 18, 2003 07:09PM
<HTML>I’ll second that George
A great weekend.
Rolly</HTML>
A great weekend.
Rolly</HTML>
Re: Force-fired Stanley
Posted by: Arnold Walker (IP Logged)
Date: June 20, 2003 01:40AM
<HTML>That's one of the problems with co-generation in most of the states.
The state and federal government says we have this many megawatts or percentage of the state total needs to be green power.Then light company comes across with a wholesale rate that is less than the fuel rate marked on the general public's light bill.In Texas that has created "outlaws" that skip the light company and get a utility commission lensence to generate and distribute power......got 5 different companies that inccured the wrath of the light company by doing just that.
That is also the reason,you don't hear about the California inda...heh native americans saving Davis' rear on the rolling blackouts.None of the tribes could fund a powerplant by themself,but all the tribes ganged up from California to Santa Fe could/did fund it.With geothermal sites near
San Francisco and natural gas turbines/steam hybrids all around Southern California.Many environmentlist(I think of a better name ,but fear one shouldn't print that) were at oddies with the tribes being exemple from all rules.So a plant goes up in 3 mos. not 3 years</HTML>
The state and federal government says we have this many megawatts or percentage of the state total needs to be green power.Then light company comes across with a wholesale rate that is less than the fuel rate marked on the general public's light bill.In Texas that has created "outlaws" that skip the light company and get a utility commission lensence to generate and distribute power......got 5 different companies that inccured the wrath of the light company by doing just that.
That is also the reason,you don't hear about the California inda...heh native americans saving Davis' rear on the rolling blackouts.None of the tribes could fund a powerplant by themself,but all the tribes ganged up from California to Santa Fe could/did fund it.With geothermal sites near
San Francisco and natural gas turbines/steam hybrids all around Southern California.Many environmentlist(I think of a better name ,but fear one shouldn't print that) were at oddies with the tribes being exemple from all rules.So a plant goes up in 3 mos. not 3 years</HTML>
<b>Re: PHOTOS - Force-fired Stanley -- Cyclone furnace</b>
Posted by: JW (IP Logged)
Date: July 11, 2003 07:42PM
<HTML>I drove this car back from a July 4th gathering in old town San Leandro. It behaves very well. A fuel supply solenoid occasionally fails to open when the system turns on the blower and ignition, but a light tap with a screw driver produces the needed click and the burner responds with a very satisfying low rumble ..... [sigh]
The link below will display a page where you will find some recent photos showing the exterior of the system while making morning steam.
[steamgazette.com]
More info soon-
JW
</HTML>
The link below will display a page where you will find some recent photos showing the exterior of the system while making morning steam.
[steamgazette.com]
More info soon-
JW
</HTML>
Re: PHOTOS - Force-fired Stanley -- Cyclone furnace
Posted by: Phillip Eun (IP Logged)
Date: March 05, 2004 02:56PM
<HTML>Hi ! There ! I need your help. I invented and the patent is pending now.
I use the restaurant waste cooking oil for fuel and generate over 900
degree F surface heat. It boils water and heat the air. All automatically controls. I need pilot light flame which stay on all the time inside of
combstion chamber. What kind of method and material can I use ?
Where about do live at? thank you regards Phil</HTML>
I use the restaurant waste cooking oil for fuel and generate over 900
degree F surface heat. It boils water and heat the air. All automatically controls. I need pilot light flame which stay on all the time inside of
combstion chamber. What kind of method and material can I use ?
Where about do live at? thank you regards Phil</HTML>
Re: PHOTOS - Force-fired Stanley -- Cyclone furnace
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: March 17, 2004 08:24AM
<HTML>Hi Phil,
For a forced-air burner, I would put a pilot light in a small recess in the bottom of the firebox, with a nichrome wire screen between pilot flame and main firebox. This is to help keep the pilot from blowing out when the main burner comes on, and/or to relight the pilot if it does blow out. Same principle as used in some "windproof" butane cigarette lighters. It should be located as close to the fuel/air inlet as possible, while still far enough into the firebox for the main fire to keep the nichrome screen glowing.
Height of nichrome screen above pilot flame is also crucial -- too close and screen will clog with carbon, too far and it might not glow.
With vegetable oil or other heavy liquid fuel, a pot burner can be used for the pilot light, perhaps burning fuel in a refractory ceramic cup as used in the automobile cabin heaters which are discussed in a newer thread on this forum. Fuel level in the cup could be maintained by a float valve connected to bottom of cup via a long tube. This pilot burner could have air inlet holes just above the fuel level in the pilot light fire chamber, with check valves to close the natural-draft air inlet when main fire comes on. Pilot could get air from an air bleed tube from the main burner air blower, when the main fire comes on.
A nichrome wire or ceramic glow element, just above the fuel level, could be used to light this pot burner pilot light. Perhaps just an off-the-shelf glow plug for diesel engines? A thermocouple or bimetal thermostat could be fitted to sense when the pilot fire is out, and turn on the glow plug starter. The thermostat could also be located right above glow plug, to turn off the glow plug when the pilot fires up, and to turn off glow plug if the glow plug kept glowing without lighting the pilot for some reason.
Just a few ideas to consider.
Best of luck with your project! I live in San Diego, California.
Peter</HTML>
For a forced-air burner, I would put a pilot light in a small recess in the bottom of the firebox, with a nichrome wire screen between pilot flame and main firebox. This is to help keep the pilot from blowing out when the main burner comes on, and/or to relight the pilot if it does blow out. Same principle as used in some "windproof" butane cigarette lighters. It should be located as close to the fuel/air inlet as possible, while still far enough into the firebox for the main fire to keep the nichrome screen glowing.
Height of nichrome screen above pilot flame is also crucial -- too close and screen will clog with carbon, too far and it might not glow.
With vegetable oil or other heavy liquid fuel, a pot burner can be used for the pilot light, perhaps burning fuel in a refractory ceramic cup as used in the automobile cabin heaters which are discussed in a newer thread on this forum. Fuel level in the cup could be maintained by a float valve connected to bottom of cup via a long tube. This pilot burner could have air inlet holes just above the fuel level in the pilot light fire chamber, with check valves to close the natural-draft air inlet when main fire comes on. Pilot could get air from an air bleed tube from the main burner air blower, when the main fire comes on.
A nichrome wire or ceramic glow element, just above the fuel level, could be used to light this pot burner pilot light. Perhaps just an off-the-shelf glow plug for diesel engines? A thermocouple or bimetal thermostat could be fitted to sense when the pilot fire is out, and turn on the glow plug starter. The thermostat could also be located right above glow plug, to turn off the glow plug when the pilot fires up, and to turn off glow plug if the glow plug kept glowing without lighting the pilot for some reason.
Just a few ideas to consider.
Best of luck with your project! I live in San Diego, California.
Peter</HTML>
Re: Force-fired Stanley -- Cyclone furnace
Posted by: William Lewis (IP Logged)
Date: December 24, 2004 10:57PM
<HTML>I'm trying to find my old buddy George Nutz.
I used this venue because I've lost his phone number.
He always loved steam cars (or just technonlogy) george where are you?
Billy 781 324 9111</HTML>
I used this venue because I've lost his phone number.
He always loved steam cars (or just technonlogy) george where are you?
Billy 781 324 9111</HTML>
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.