1 Steam Cars : Phorum
General Steam Car topics
More mystery photos
Posted by: Per Nielsen (IP Logged)
Date: March 08, 2004 02:17PM
<HTML>As a follow-up to the "Mystery photo"-discusion, the 7 dias found togeter with the first two, is now on display on this site. Look under Mystery Photos. Each photo is commented and has a question. Looking forward to your comments.
[stanleysteamers.com]
Per</HTML>
[stanleysteamers.com]
Per</HTML>
Re: More mystery photos
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: March 10, 2004 05:40AM
<HTML>Hi Per, Jim, & Andy,
Both the 4-cylinder engine photo and the noncirculating grid boiler photo are indentical to photos in the Gearless Motor Corp booklet "How It Works -- A Brief Non-Technical Description of the Gearless Steamer", reprint available from SACA. The sprocket in the middle may be to drive a cross-shaft to the pump drive crank, or to drive the electrical generator. Boiler design seems inspired by the Doble-Detroit boiler.
The steam truck might be a (H.O.) Baker.
Peter</HTML>
Both the 4-cylinder engine photo and the noncirculating grid boiler photo are indentical to photos in the Gearless Motor Corp booklet "How It Works -- A Brief Non-Technical Description of the Gearless Steamer", reprint available from SACA. The sprocket in the middle may be to drive a cross-shaft to the pump drive crank, or to drive the electrical generator. Boiler design seems inspired by the Doble-Detroit boiler.
The steam truck might be a (H.O.) Baker.
Peter</HTML>
Re: More mystery photos
Posted by: Jim Crank (IP Logged)
Date: March 10, 2004 02:55PM
<HTML>Peter,
The boiler is nothing like the Doble-Detroit version. This one is a lot better.
Jim</HTML>
The boiler is nothing like the Doble-Detroit version. This one is a lot better.
Jim</HTML>
Re: More mystery photos
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: March 11, 2004 07:53AM
<HTML>Hi Jim,
The similarity is that the Gearless boiler is a non-circulating grid design. I suspect they got the idea of using a non-circulating grid boiler from the D/D of a few years earlier. The central tube geometry and square footage are about the same as the Doble, and even the ad copy is similar. Gearless Booklet (p.7): "It is not a flash generator, but has many of the much sought characteristics of one, its action being nearly that of a flash generator with a gravity feed." Doble-Detroit booklet (p.7): "...it should be noted that the Doble generator possesses the most distinctive advantages of both the fire-tube and flash boilers."
Gearless definitely picked a better plumbing layout than the D/D, mainly better water distribution & better water-level control due to the feedwater inlets and steam outlets on both sides of the grids. And they did not use a separate economizer section, unlike Doble. In the center, though, the Gearless boiler is just like Doble's grid boiler: horizontal steam and water headers with vertical generating tubes between them.
Another difference is that Gearless was just a stock swindle, whereas it looks like Doble was really trying for successful production with the Doble-Detroit.
Peter</HTML>
The similarity is that the Gearless boiler is a non-circulating grid design. I suspect they got the idea of using a non-circulating grid boiler from the D/D of a few years earlier. The central tube geometry and square footage are about the same as the Doble, and even the ad copy is similar. Gearless Booklet (p.7): "It is not a flash generator, but has many of the much sought characteristics of one, its action being nearly that of a flash generator with a gravity feed." Doble-Detroit booklet (p.7): "...it should be noted that the Doble generator possesses the most distinctive advantages of both the fire-tube and flash boilers."
Gearless definitely picked a better plumbing layout than the D/D, mainly better water distribution & better water-level control due to the feedwater inlets and steam outlets on both sides of the grids. And they did not use a separate economizer section, unlike Doble. In the center, though, the Gearless boiler is just like Doble's grid boiler: horizontal steam and water headers with vertical generating tubes between them.
Another difference is that Gearless was just a stock swindle, whereas it looks like Doble was really trying for successful production with the Doble-Detroit.
Peter</HTML>
Re: More mystery photos
Posted by: Arnold Walker (IP Logged)
Date: March 11, 2004 12:39PM
<HTML>How big is that gearless engine...
Size premitting looks like a shoe in for modern zero-turn radius lawnmower/tractors/track crawler running a split cutout.Instead of dual hydrostatic transmissions on an ICE.
Or twin screw boat.....
Eyeballing the picture looks like 2.5x3 cylinders....</HTML>
Size premitting looks like a shoe in for modern zero-turn radius lawnmower/tractors/track crawler running a split cutout.Instead of dual hydrostatic transmissions on an ICE.
Or twin screw boat.....
Eyeballing the picture looks like 2.5x3 cylinders....</HTML>
Re: More mystery photos
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: March 12, 2004 01:05AM
<HTML>Hi Arnold,
The Gearless engine was 3" bore x 6" stroke, single expansion, basically two 2-cylinder inline horizontal double-acting engines built together in a unit, one driving each rear wheel. The booklet states that pump drive is "from the engine by means of a rod with adjustable ends and automatic lubrication" (no other details), and an electric generator "driven from the engine by gears and mounted on the engine rear case".
It was rated at 65 hp (again, similar to Doble-Detroit booklet claims), and had D-slide valves and variable cutoff via "Walchaert" valve gear (isn't there supposed to be an "s" in there somewhere?), with 3 forward hookup positions and 1 reverse. At 60 mph, it ran at 600 rpm.. Boiler pressure was 600 psig..
Problem with the gearless approach is that slight cyclic torque variations between the two engines can make the drive wheels "woggle" a bit under high load, under some conditions. A single slightly larger engine driving a differential is a better way to go, much less expensive, much easier to build & maintain, and lighter and more compact. A differential costs & weighs a lot less than a whole nother engine. Interesting idea, though.
Peter</HTML>
The Gearless engine was 3" bore x 6" stroke, single expansion, basically two 2-cylinder inline horizontal double-acting engines built together in a unit, one driving each rear wheel. The booklet states that pump drive is "from the engine by means of a rod with adjustable ends and automatic lubrication" (no other details), and an electric generator "driven from the engine by gears and mounted on the engine rear case".
It was rated at 65 hp (again, similar to Doble-Detroit booklet claims), and had D-slide valves and variable cutoff via "Walchaert" valve gear (isn't there supposed to be an "s" in there somewhere?), with 3 forward hookup positions and 1 reverse. At 60 mph, it ran at 600 rpm.. Boiler pressure was 600 psig..
Problem with the gearless approach is that slight cyclic torque variations between the two engines can make the drive wheels "woggle" a bit under high load, under some conditions. A single slightly larger engine driving a differential is a better way to go, much less expensive, much easier to build & maintain, and lighter and more compact. A differential costs & weighs a lot less than a whole nother engine. Interesting idea, though.
Peter</HTML>
Re: More mystery photos
Posted by: Andy Patterson (IP Logged)
Date: March 12, 2004 02:48PM
<HTML>Hi Peter
I played with the multiple engine approach idea. In fact I was thinking of having 4 engines. This was when I was considering a Wankel steam engine. One on each wheel. But figuring the low RPM of steam engines the torque differential makes that just impractical. I am very sure it the effect would be something like driving a car with bad CV joints.
Using very high speed engine with a flywheel might reduce the torque variations to acceptable limits. But would still would not be as cost effective as a single engine and differentials.
Besides the torque problems a multiple engine configuration would have more heat loss problems.
Andy</HTML>
I played with the multiple engine approach idea. In fact I was thinking of having 4 engines. This was when I was considering a Wankel steam engine. One on each wheel. But figuring the low RPM of steam engines the torque differential makes that just impractical. I am very sure it the effect would be something like driving a car with bad CV joints.
Using very high speed engine with a flywheel might reduce the torque variations to acceptable limits. But would still would not be as cost effective as a single engine and differentials.
Besides the torque problems a multiple engine configuration would have more heat loss problems.
Andy</HTML>
Re: More mystery photos
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: March 13, 2004 05:15AM
<HTML>Hi Andy,
Me too, my idea was compact dual single-acting flat-4s, using definned/insulated VW cylinders, pistons, and conrods, 90° cranks, one engine per rear wheel, no differential or gears. Started with rotary valves and then poppet valves, and that one would have had very short cutoff at high speed, very low clearance, and very high expansion (~214 CID in a small car). Cams could have been ground for high compression too. This was late 1990s, right before the VW conversion engine design & the Lightsteam List. Besides other problems (taking forever to warm up, 16 multicam valves etc), the torque plot circle ended up pretty wavy even at long admission for starting, and I soon had visions of the rear end wagging around during takeoff. A "design learning experience".
Peter</HTML>
Me too, my idea was compact dual single-acting flat-4s, using definned/insulated VW cylinders, pistons, and conrods, 90° cranks, one engine per rear wheel, no differential or gears. Started with rotary valves and then poppet valves, and that one would have had very short cutoff at high speed, very low clearance, and very high expansion (~214 CID in a small car). Cams could have been ground for high compression too. This was late 1990s, right before the VW conversion engine design & the Lightsteam List. Besides other problems (taking forever to warm up, 16 multicam valves etc), the torque plot circle ended up pretty wavy even at long admission for starting, and I soon had visions of the rear end wagging around during takeoff. A "design learning experience".
Peter</HTML>
Re: More mystery photos
Posted by: Per Nielsen (IP Logged)
Date: March 20, 2004 09:16PM
<HTML>Peter,
Dr. Bakes steam truck useed plate wheel an the frame was rounded in the front. This truck have a square front on the frame. Also the condenser of the Baker truck was V-shaped. What else could it be?
Per</HTML>
Dr. Bakes steam truck useed plate wheel an the frame was rounded in the front. This truck have a square front on the frame. Also the condenser of the Baker truck was V-shaped. What else could it be?
Per</HTML>
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.