1 Steam Cars : Phorum
General Steam Car topics
Steam Turbine Question
Posted by: chuk williams (IP Logged)
Date: September 29, 2003 01:30PM
<HTML>Hi all-
After following the link to the British Land Speed Record
Challenge-- [www.steamcar.co.uk] --I read that they're
planning to use a small steam turbine for their power plant,
with four boilers supplying a total of aproximately 2500 lbs/hr
for an output of 300 bhp at 12,000 RPM.
Now, if my math skills haven't failed me, that works out to
around 8 lbs/hp/hr-----do they know something we don't??
According to the latest news on the site, they are testing the
car as we write, and are planning to set a new land speed
record next spring sometime.......should we worry about the
Brits taking the LSR away from us or are they just "whistlin
dixie"??</HTML>
After following the link to the British Land Speed Record
Challenge-- [www.steamcar.co.uk] --I read that they're
planning to use a small steam turbine for their power plant,
with four boilers supplying a total of aproximately 2500 lbs/hr
for an output of 300 bhp at 12,000 RPM.
Now, if my math skills haven't failed me, that works out to
around 8 lbs/hp/hr-----do they know something we don't??
According to the latest news on the site, they are testing the
car as we write, and are planning to set a new land speed
record next spring sometime.......should we worry about the
Brits taking the LSR away from us or are they just "whistlin
dixie"??</HTML>
Re: Steam Turbine Question
Posted by: Jim Crank (IP Logged)
Date: September 29, 2003 02:16PM
<HTML>Chuck,
No, they don't know what we know!! This is very typical of academic people trying to do something in a field where they know absolutely nothing about the subject. We had the same thing in the early 1960's with various firms trying to build "clean air cars", total failure. Lots of hot air, posturing, and loads of press releases, and then nothing.
Their statements and power out puts are simply fairy tale dreaming on their part. They are using, according to their latest publicity, a double wheel, counter rotating impulse turbine that is 12" in diameter.
Do the math yourself: The correct wheel speed for peak efficiency for an impulse turbine is had when the turbine buckets are going past the steam nozzle at one half the spouting velocity of the steam.
Their 12" wheel circumference is Pi X D, or 12" x 3.1416 divided by 12 = 3.14'
The spouting velocity of superheated steam at, let us assume, 1,200 psi is some 4,000 ft/sec. So, 4,000 divided by 3.14= 1273.88 X 60 divided by 2 comes to a wheel speed of 38,216.56 rpm. At that mismatch and knowing impulse turbines quite well, as I used one in the racer remember, I would be very surprised if they got a water rate of anything less than 50-80 lbs/hp/hr.
As to controlling several monotube steam generators in parallel, well, good luck old boy!
Plus, as to their actually making the car and developing it to where it will run reliably, personally, I doubt it will ever happen. I know several people in England who know some of these people, and their information was that the whole project has gone down the drain. The cost, lack of knowing what they are doing and the various students, the free labor, departing, are the reasons. They all said the project is dead.
Believe it when it happens. If they are really building the car and testing it, let us see some real photographs and not the "artist's renderings".
Then believe they really have a car. Then they have to make it work.
Jim</HTML>
No, they don't know what we know!! This is very typical of academic people trying to do something in a field where they know absolutely nothing about the subject. We had the same thing in the early 1960's with various firms trying to build "clean air cars", total failure. Lots of hot air, posturing, and loads of press releases, and then nothing.
Their statements and power out puts are simply fairy tale dreaming on their part. They are using, according to their latest publicity, a double wheel, counter rotating impulse turbine that is 12" in diameter.
Do the math yourself: The correct wheel speed for peak efficiency for an impulse turbine is had when the turbine buckets are going past the steam nozzle at one half the spouting velocity of the steam.
Their 12" wheel circumference is Pi X D, or 12" x 3.1416 divided by 12 = 3.14'
The spouting velocity of superheated steam at, let us assume, 1,200 psi is some 4,000 ft/sec. So, 4,000 divided by 3.14= 1273.88 X 60 divided by 2 comes to a wheel speed of 38,216.56 rpm. At that mismatch and knowing impulse turbines quite well, as I used one in the racer remember, I would be very surprised if they got a water rate of anything less than 50-80 lbs/hp/hr.
As to controlling several monotube steam generators in parallel, well, good luck old boy!
Plus, as to their actually making the car and developing it to where it will run reliably, personally, I doubt it will ever happen. I know several people in England who know some of these people, and their information was that the whole project has gone down the drain. The cost, lack of knowing what they are doing and the various students, the free labor, departing, are the reasons. They all said the project is dead.
Believe it when it happens. If they are really building the car and testing it, let us see some real photographs and not the "artist's renderings".
Then believe they really have a car. Then they have to make it work.
Jim</HTML>
Re: Steam Turbine Question
Posted by: Arnold Walker (IP Logged)
Date: September 29, 2003 02:18PM
<HTML>You are probably on track with your numbers and they would have to use reheat/recyle .....which is a might long push to hit the ball park even with that.
Turbines eat many times more steam than a piston per horse unless you are constant full throttle like on a light plant then the tide turns.Not even a diesel can beat the fuel comsumption numbers that those plants hit.</HTML>
Turbines eat many times more steam than a piston per horse unless you are constant full throttle like on a light plant then the tide turns.Not even a diesel can beat the fuel comsumption numbers that those plants hit.</HTML>
Re: Steam Turbine Question
Posted by: Caleb Ramsby (IP Logged)
Date: September 29, 2003 03:33PM
<HTML>The only way I could see that working, is if they used the turbine to spin a big hydraulic pump with a vast gear reduction. Then use that pump to spin a big hydraulic motor, simular to one on a bobcat except for much more powerfull. Then hook up the hydraulic motor to a differential to drive the wheels, using a hydraulic valve to adjust the power output, keeping the turbine at optimum rpm at all times(this would require a governor or a very skilled driver).
I am with Jim, the project is doomed.
One very odd thing is that if the poeple involved in said project came to this site looking for knowledge and wisdom, they would have a much greater chance of success. However, they are not here. It is sad actually.
Caleb Ramsby</HTML>
I am with Jim, the project is doomed.
One very odd thing is that if the poeple involved in said project came to this site looking for knowledge and wisdom, they would have a much greater chance of success. However, they are not here. It is sad actually.
Caleb Ramsby</HTML>
Re: Steam Turbine Question
Posted by: Jim Crank (IP Logged)
Date: September 29, 2003 05:02PM
<HTML>Caleb,
Adding a unecessary hydraulic loop would only make matters infinitely worse. For such a car, direct drive and push start it.
Arnold,
Reheat is useless on a one shot non condensing system, it is only used with huge powerhouse turbines that have to squeeze every last BTU out of the steam. Also, where they have boilers expressly designed for incorporating the not so small reheat tubing area, not to mention the control problems that they would have controlling the reheat temperature. Not at all feasible. It looks like they are using a two stage non condensing turbine.
A steam record car is all about brute power, the right gearing to keep the engine from flying apart, and a steam generator/burner capable of keeping up. Economy is not on the screen, burn all you can and go for it.
Dobles got over 25 lbs/hr/sq/ft and that can be done today, so a powerful steam generator is a known entity.
Steam turbines are simply useless for a car. The crossover point where they are starting to equal a triple or a quad compound engine in efficiency, is somewhere around 500 hp. Under that they have the efficiency of a half inch hole in the steam line. Look, if a turbine was in the least bit usable at the 200 hp level I wanted, cost notwithstanding, I would leap on it. Tiny for the power output, no cylinder oil, one moving part. It just isn't there. Small turbines won't work well enough to do the job as it has to be done today.
I tried so very hard, long talks with Bob Barber, the Lear turbine designer, the experts at Sundstrand, and several most expert turbine designers at Garrett Air Research, it just won't work in a car, so forget them.
I looked at the Brit's web site again, and quite frankly just don't believe what is said there.
My questions are: 1) Not one person with steam car experience in any fashion. 2) Four steam generators in parallel, give me a break!! 3) Propane fuel with it's low BTU per pound? 4) Not one mention of the control system and how it is going to syncronize and control the four generators in parallel.
5) An inpulse turbine with two counter rotating wheels, apparently one acting as the second stage? 6) Four nozzles for all the steam flow they would need to even get the car going, and yet keep the steam velocity up? 7) Getting the water flow correctly proportioned to each of the four coil stacks under all conditions? 8) Adjusting the said flow to keep each sections steam temperature under control, when running full out? 9) Throttles?
Not to mention that there is one horrible problem with monotube steam generators with little water inventory, trying to get the car up to speed, even with a push car? That one they can just pay for the information, which I seriously doubt they will want to even know about. I know, I fought this for a long time before successfully overcoming it in my car.
If the car is ready to test, as they claim, how about one of our British steam car club member friends photographing the car and then let us all see some real proof that it even exists. Then let's all hear how successful it was, or wasn't, and what the problems were that they experienced. Let them be open about it.
My car's steam generator, just to mention the base line, had an output of 5500 lbs/hr @ 1200 psi and 1100°F, and the little 5-1/4" Lear turbine was spinning at 85,000 rpm, still not optimum. The burner gave some 8.5 million BTUs and burned 72 gallons per hour of JP-A commercial jet fuel. The burner air blower took 420 amps at 24 volts and screamed like an air raid siren.
It was an all out brute force design and nothing else. Economy or air pollution concerns didn't enter the equation. Racing is an all out effort to win, gentlemen, nothing else matters in the least.
I do wish them well, I really do; but until I see actual proof that there is a real steam racer in existence and it runs as intended, I still think this is just posturing and B....S..... Not unknown in the steam car world, is it.
Then, should they actuall succeed, why not borrow a Doble F engine and blow their car into the weeds.
It sure can be done and not overly expensive to do. Ex multi engined streamliners are around to be carted away and now I can wind any coils I want up to 36" in diameter, the rest is easy. Geared correctly, the F engine can easily push such a streamlined Bonneville car up to 250-275 mph.
Let us see if this car really exists, then let's see it run. Then go from there.
Jim</HTML>
Adding a unecessary hydraulic loop would only make matters infinitely worse. For such a car, direct drive and push start it.
Arnold,
Reheat is useless on a one shot non condensing system, it is only used with huge powerhouse turbines that have to squeeze every last BTU out of the steam. Also, where they have boilers expressly designed for incorporating the not so small reheat tubing area, not to mention the control problems that they would have controlling the reheat temperature. Not at all feasible. It looks like they are using a two stage non condensing turbine.
A steam record car is all about brute power, the right gearing to keep the engine from flying apart, and a steam generator/burner capable of keeping up. Economy is not on the screen, burn all you can and go for it.
Dobles got over 25 lbs/hr/sq/ft and that can be done today, so a powerful steam generator is a known entity.
Steam turbines are simply useless for a car. The crossover point where they are starting to equal a triple or a quad compound engine in efficiency, is somewhere around 500 hp. Under that they have the efficiency of a half inch hole in the steam line. Look, if a turbine was in the least bit usable at the 200 hp level I wanted, cost notwithstanding, I would leap on it. Tiny for the power output, no cylinder oil, one moving part. It just isn't there. Small turbines won't work well enough to do the job as it has to be done today.
I tried so very hard, long talks with Bob Barber, the Lear turbine designer, the experts at Sundstrand, and several most expert turbine designers at Garrett Air Research, it just won't work in a car, so forget them.
I looked at the Brit's web site again, and quite frankly just don't believe what is said there.
My questions are: 1) Not one person with steam car experience in any fashion. 2) Four steam generators in parallel, give me a break!! 3) Propane fuel with it's low BTU per pound? 4) Not one mention of the control system and how it is going to syncronize and control the four generators in parallel.
5) An inpulse turbine with two counter rotating wheels, apparently one acting as the second stage? 6) Four nozzles for all the steam flow they would need to even get the car going, and yet keep the steam velocity up? 7) Getting the water flow correctly proportioned to each of the four coil stacks under all conditions? 8) Adjusting the said flow to keep each sections steam temperature under control, when running full out? 9) Throttles?
Not to mention that there is one horrible problem with monotube steam generators with little water inventory, trying to get the car up to speed, even with a push car? That one they can just pay for the information, which I seriously doubt they will want to even know about. I know, I fought this for a long time before successfully overcoming it in my car.
If the car is ready to test, as they claim, how about one of our British steam car club member friends photographing the car and then let us all see some real proof that it even exists. Then let's all hear how successful it was, or wasn't, and what the problems were that they experienced. Let them be open about it.
My car's steam generator, just to mention the base line, had an output of 5500 lbs/hr @ 1200 psi and 1100°F, and the little 5-1/4" Lear turbine was spinning at 85,000 rpm, still not optimum. The burner gave some 8.5 million BTUs and burned 72 gallons per hour of JP-A commercial jet fuel. The burner air blower took 420 amps at 24 volts and screamed like an air raid siren.
It was an all out brute force design and nothing else. Economy or air pollution concerns didn't enter the equation. Racing is an all out effort to win, gentlemen, nothing else matters in the least.
I do wish them well, I really do; but until I see actual proof that there is a real steam racer in existence and it runs as intended, I still think this is just posturing and B....S..... Not unknown in the steam car world, is it.
Then, should they actuall succeed, why not borrow a Doble F engine and blow their car into the weeds.
It sure can be done and not overly expensive to do. Ex multi engined streamliners are around to be carted away and now I can wind any coils I want up to 36" in diameter, the rest is easy. Geared correctly, the F engine can easily push such a streamlined Bonneville car up to 250-275 mph.
Let us see if this car really exists, then let's see it run. Then go from there.
Jim</HTML>
Re: Steam Turbine Question
Posted by: Mark Stacey (IP Logged)
Date: September 29, 2003 06:19PM
<HTML>I've been checking the UK Steam LSR record site every month or so for ages now and the burner test that was to be performed in July 2003 has been listed now for over a 9 months. The chassis isn't going to be started until the still incomplete burner is trialled according to the web site so I would guess they are way behind.
The main reason I think they are not serious is as Jim said there are many proven and well performing streamliners avalible to study, copy or even buy such as the late Don Vesco's Turbinator, Goldenrod, White Lightning etc and they are all have a pretty standard low drag shape (elogated teardrop / torpedo).
Deciding a new shape is required especailly one that in profile looks like a cambered wing seems a bit to brave to me.
It also seems really odd to have chosen 500psi 750F as the turbine inlet conditions thus ensuring a much larger boiler is required.
Cheers
Mark Stacey</HTML>
The main reason I think they are not serious is as Jim said there are many proven and well performing streamliners avalible to study, copy or even buy such as the late Don Vesco's Turbinator, Goldenrod, White Lightning etc and they are all have a pretty standard low drag shape (elogated teardrop / torpedo).
Deciding a new shape is required especailly one that in profile looks like a cambered wing seems a bit to brave to me.
It also seems really odd to have chosen 500psi 750F as the turbine inlet conditions thus ensuring a much larger boiler is required.
Cheers
Mark Stacey</HTML>
Re: Steam Turbine Question
Posted by: Peter Heid (IP Logged)
Date: September 29, 2003 07:42PM
<HTML>Arnold,
I was wondering if the new large diesels which are the most efficient prime movers in the world might be more efficient than the best turbine. Most all large ships are now being built with diesel engines and the less efficient turbine is disappearing. I don't know about the peak efficiency of modern turbine used in a generating plant because it is almost never just a turbine making use of the steam. I think the engines have passed the 60% mark.
Peter Heid</HTML>
I was wondering if the new large diesels which are the most efficient prime movers in the world might be more efficient than the best turbine. Most all large ships are now being built with diesel engines and the less efficient turbine is disappearing. I don't know about the peak efficiency of modern turbine used in a generating plant because it is almost never just a turbine making use of the steam. I think the engines have passed the 60% mark.
Peter Heid</HTML>
Re: Steam Turbine Question
Posted by: Jim Crank (IP Logged)
Date: September 29, 2003 08:40PM
<HTML>Peter,
Yes they are and by quite a large amount. Nothing beats a heavily turbocharged and supercharged Diesel engine for fuel efficiency.
The QE-2 was converted from steam to Diesel for exactly this reason.
Until your get to really huge horsepower, like a 100MW generator plant, then the regenerative Rankine cycle rules. The Diesels are one lump, the Rankine is now divided into several buildings. That, I am told, is the reason.
Jim</HTML>
Yes they are and by quite a large amount. Nothing beats a heavily turbocharged and supercharged Diesel engine for fuel efficiency.
The QE-2 was converted from steam to Diesel for exactly this reason.
Until your get to really huge horsepower, like a 100MW generator plant, then the regenerative Rankine cycle rules. The Diesels are one lump, the Rankine is now divided into several buildings. That, I am told, is the reason.
Jim</HTML>
Re: Steam Turbine Question
Posted by: Jim Crank (IP Logged)
Date: September 29, 2003 08:58PM
<HTML>Mark,
Absolutely right on the money again.
500 psi @ 750°F is a gross miscalculation and would never produce the power level even a super low drag body would need to get to 200 mph, especially with that turbine.
There are several multi-engined Bonneville cars available that have already gone over 250-300 mph, so the aerodynamics are a proven item.
Also, making a special fully FIA certified speed run is extremely costly. The last amount I was quoted was $25,000.00, plus all the travel and housing expenses for a crew of five or six.
The USAC organization is FIA certified for speed record runs at Bonneville, Utah, that is why everyone runs there in August who wishes to try for a record. The certified timing is already there and the fee is modest, compared to what it takes for an individual run.
Too many academic types, making uninformed guesses, and no real knowledge of what it takes and how to get there. This car will never be built.
Jim</HTML>
Absolutely right on the money again.
500 psi @ 750°F is a gross miscalculation and would never produce the power level even a super low drag body would need to get to 200 mph, especially with that turbine.
There are several multi-engined Bonneville cars available that have already gone over 250-300 mph, so the aerodynamics are a proven item.
Also, making a special fully FIA certified speed run is extremely costly. The last amount I was quoted was $25,000.00, plus all the travel and housing expenses for a crew of five or six.
The USAC organization is FIA certified for speed record runs at Bonneville, Utah, that is why everyone runs there in August who wishes to try for a record. The certified timing is already there and the fee is modest, compared to what it takes for an individual run.
Too many academic types, making uninformed guesses, and no real knowledge of what it takes and how to get there. This car will never be built.
Jim</HTML>
Re: Steam Turbine Question
Posted by: Terry Williams (IP Logged)
Date: September 29, 2003 10:48PM
<HTML>I just tilt back my chair and smile. It appears that they believe that they can get the same steam rate with a minimal staged turbine of a few hundred horsepower that a combined impulse/reaction turbine of 40,000 horsepower can. Never happen.</HTML>
Re: Steam Turbine Question
Posted by: Dick Vennerbeck (IP Logged)
Date: September 29, 2003 11:11PM
<HTML>Chuck,
Are you going to give us the details and photos of your record setting 1/8th mile steam dragster run a few weeks ago? I was speaking with engine builder Jim Tangeman at the "Great Delta Steamboat Meet" and tried to get him to elaborate to the 200 in attendance. He seems to be a little shy in front off the mike. He did mention that you made the fastest run. Come on. Give us the lowdown.
Thanks Dick Vennerbeck</HTML>
Are you going to give us the details and photos of your record setting 1/8th mile steam dragster run a few weeks ago? I was speaking with engine builder Jim Tangeman at the "Great Delta Steamboat Meet" and tried to get him to elaborate to the 200 in attendance. He seems to be a little shy in front off the mike. He did mention that you made the fastest run. Come on. Give us the lowdown.
Thanks Dick Vennerbeck</HTML>
Re: Steam Turbine Question
Posted by: Terry Williams (IP Logged)
Date: September 30, 2003 01:35AM
<HTML>I was just talking to Jim T. on the phone. While you're at it Chuk, can you give us the URL to the video clip of you taking off? Jim said you brought it up on your computer this afternoon.</HTML>
Re: Steam Turbine Question
Posted by: chuk williams (IP Logged)
Date: September 30, 2003 01:41AM
<HTML>Well Dick--
What can I tell you?? We built the dragster using a borrowed engine,
and a borrowed steam generator--we tied all that together-put some
wheels on it, and ran it!! Jim T. and I spent a hectic 3 weeks testing
it, fixing breakage and modifying as we went-until we ran out of time
and had to leave for Danville-ready or not!! I didn't get a chance to
actually start to work on building it until March, so we were busy right
up til a few days before Danville. If we hadn't had Jim's well equipped
machine shop available-we'd never have made it....
The car weighs 775 lbs, will do 65-70MPH in the 1/8 at a little
over 10 seconds E.T. The engine is only developing approx 1/2 of
it's rated HP, so we have a bit more up our sleeve for next year!!
There are a few photos at www.desrickinternational.com
Anything else you want to know--contact me off list??
Cheers---Chuk</HTML>
What can I tell you?? We built the dragster using a borrowed engine,
and a borrowed steam generator--we tied all that together-put some
wheels on it, and ran it!! Jim T. and I spent a hectic 3 weeks testing
it, fixing breakage and modifying as we went-until we ran out of time
and had to leave for Danville-ready or not!! I didn't get a chance to
actually start to work on building it until March, so we were busy right
up til a few days before Danville. If we hadn't had Jim's well equipped
machine shop available-we'd never have made it....
The car weighs 775 lbs, will do 65-70MPH in the 1/8 at a little
over 10 seconds E.T. The engine is only developing approx 1/2 of
it's rated HP, so we have a bit more up our sleeve for next year!!
There are a few photos at www.desrickinternational.com
Anything else you want to know--contact me off list??
Cheers---Chuk</HTML>
Re: Steam Turbine Question
Posted by: chuk williams (IP Logged)
Date: October 01, 2003 12:09AM
<HTML>Terry--
A friend back east sent me the video clip as an attachment--I will
send it to you if you'll give me your address......
Chuk</HTML>
A friend back east sent me the video clip as an attachment--I will
send it to you if you'll give me your address......
Chuk</HTML>
Re: Steam Turbine Question
Posted by: indar (IP Logged)
Date: October 07, 2004 03:53PM
<HTML>hi there
i wanted to know how the steam turbine operates...in adverse conditions to obtain specific thermal outputs?</HTML>
i wanted to know how the steam turbine operates...in adverse conditions to obtain specific thermal outputs?</HTML>
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.