1 Steam Cars : Phorum
General Steam Car topics
fuel atomization
Posted by: Andy Patterson (IP Logged)
Date: March 26, 2004 02:51PM
<HTML>On the hot head thread. The subject of fuel atomization using an ultrasonic "evaporator" was brought up.
That sounds very interesting. But there are passably many many ways to atomize fuel for combustion. Or combinations.
I really doubt that the ultrasonic device is vaporizing the fluid. Only very finely atomizing it. But that is just what we wont in a burner.
I would think that heating the fuel as in a vaporizing type burner is a good method. But needs good control to keep from carbonizing it. Perhaps a combination heat and ultrasonic might solve the problem. Just preheat the fuel and it would be easier to mechanically/ultrasonic vaporize in a nozzle.
There is also the Babb.. something or other burner. Can't remember the spelling sorry. The main problem I see with it, is it's dependency on gravity flow and the need for compressed air. The bigger problem being the gravity flow. How well would it work in a mobile installation? Can it be designed so as not to depend on gravity. Would vibrations and/or inclines disrupt the fuel flow over the sphere?
Andy</HTML>
That sounds very interesting. But there are passably many many ways to atomize fuel for combustion. Or combinations.
I really doubt that the ultrasonic device is vaporizing the fluid. Only very finely atomizing it. But that is just what we wont in a burner.
I would think that heating the fuel as in a vaporizing type burner is a good method. But needs good control to keep from carbonizing it. Perhaps a combination heat and ultrasonic might solve the problem. Just preheat the fuel and it would be easier to mechanically/ultrasonic vaporize in a nozzle.
There is also the Babb.. something or other burner. Can't remember the spelling sorry. The main problem I see with it, is it's dependency on gravity flow and the need for compressed air. The bigger problem being the gravity flow. How well would it work in a mobile installation? Can it be designed so as not to depend on gravity. Would vibrations and/or inclines disrupt the fuel flow over the sphere?
Andy</HTML>
Re: fuel atomization
Posted by: Andy Patterson (IP Logged)
Date: March 26, 2004 05:19PM
<HTML>Hi George
How about a sort of throttle body injector combining an ultrasonic atomization. The injector would meter the fuel going to the ultrasonic atomizer. It would still have a blower fan on it. The fuel could also go through a heater coil as well.
Andy</HTML>
How about a sort of throttle body injector combining an ultrasonic atomization. The injector would meter the fuel going to the ultrasonic atomizer. It would still have a blower fan on it. The fuel could also go through a heater coil as well.
Andy</HTML>
Re: fuel atomization
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: March 26, 2004 07:47PM
<HTML>Hi Andy, Dick, and Jim,
I found a cheap ultrasonic atomizer of Middle Kingdom origin that might run a small ultrasonic atomizing burner, though you have to promise not to laugh at the app. It is part of the "Halloween Foggy Cauldron", Model #XMF001, LK-AC-240100 (UL-Listed Adapter), W79A3044, marketed under the Planet Halloween brand, 1-800-645-3867 is the phone number given in the info sheet. I got mine at Sav-On Drugs last year for $14.99.
This includes a wee ultrasonic atomizer, a sealed submersible unit ~1.5" dia x 1.125" tall, that weighs ~5 oz w/o the AC adaptor, sits just under the water level in a black plastic mock witch's cauldron, and makes a nice cloud of cold fog for hours. The fog piles up and pours slowly over the edge of the cauldron, creeping out the trick or treaters and offending with sterotypical parody any touchy neopagans who attend your Halloween party.
The AC adaptor is rated at 24VAC 1000mA, and after about 2-3 minutes of warm-up it seems to evaporate about .5 to 1 inch of water out of the approx 9" cauldron over maybe 3-4 hours of having the neighborhood Goths turn one's creepy old house into an underground dance club. I think it might need some mods to be safely used with most fuels, gasoline for example is an excellent solvent for many plastics similar to the insulation on this thing's power cord.
One caveat is that "This product is not designed for continuous use -- do not use for more than 8 hours at a time. Allow product to cool completely between uses." So maybe 2 or more units that cycle back and forth every 8 hours on your cross-country road trip?
Warm fuels might atomize more easily than cold water, and I'm not sure how much juice or how big a unit, or what kind of controls, would be needed to fog up fuel at a steamcarable rate. But this 24 watt unit (like, 1/30 hp at 100% efficiency?) might be a good starting point for a small proof-of-concept burner. Maybe larger units are available, or a number of these smaller ones could be ganged together to help blow the doors off of some hapless Viper or Lamborghini.
It might also be possible to do the Radio Shack thing and roll your own larger & more durable custom unit.
Peter</HTML>
I found a cheap ultrasonic atomizer of Middle Kingdom origin that might run a small ultrasonic atomizing burner, though you have to promise not to laugh at the app. It is part of the "Halloween Foggy Cauldron", Model #XMF001, LK-AC-240100 (UL-Listed Adapter), W79A3044, marketed under the Planet Halloween brand, 1-800-645-3867 is the phone number given in the info sheet. I got mine at Sav-On Drugs last year for $14.99.
This includes a wee ultrasonic atomizer, a sealed submersible unit ~1.5" dia x 1.125" tall, that weighs ~5 oz w/o the AC adaptor, sits just under the water level in a black plastic mock witch's cauldron, and makes a nice cloud of cold fog for hours. The fog piles up and pours slowly over the edge of the cauldron, creeping out the trick or treaters and offending with sterotypical parody any touchy neopagans who attend your Halloween party.
The AC adaptor is rated at 24VAC 1000mA, and after about 2-3 minutes of warm-up it seems to evaporate about .5 to 1 inch of water out of the approx 9" cauldron over maybe 3-4 hours of having the neighborhood Goths turn one's creepy old house into an underground dance club. I think it might need some mods to be safely used with most fuels, gasoline for example is an excellent solvent for many plastics similar to the insulation on this thing's power cord.
One caveat is that "This product is not designed for continuous use -- do not use for more than 8 hours at a time. Allow product to cool completely between uses." So maybe 2 or more units that cycle back and forth every 8 hours on your cross-country road trip?
Warm fuels might atomize more easily than cold water, and I'm not sure how much juice or how big a unit, or what kind of controls, would be needed to fog up fuel at a steamcarable rate. But this 24 watt unit (like, 1/30 hp at 100% efficiency?) might be a good starting point for a small proof-of-concept burner. Maybe larger units are available, or a number of these smaller ones could be ganged together to help blow the doors off of some hapless Viper or Lamborghini.
It might also be possible to do the Radio Shack thing and roll your own larger & more durable custom unit.
Peter</HTML>
Re: fuel atomization
Posted by: Peter Heid (IP Logged)
Date: March 26, 2004 08:43PM
<HTML>Andy, Atomization is often a misused term but if the particle size is small enough to be at the level of fog, Thats the stuff we want for clean firing on startup.
The particle size should be varied somewhat so that all the fuel doesn't all try to burn right close to the nozzel. The fire has to spread out to insure the fuel particles have enough air for combustion. Particles all of one size will try to burn mainly in one location and incomplete combustion may occurr. Larger particles will take longer to reach the temperature of combustion and therefore travel farther from the nozzel before igniting while the small ones ignite sooner. The books on oil burners and fuel injection systems both agree on the need for more than one particle size. I think they shoot for particles in the 0.1 to 20 micron range if I remember right.
Peter Heid</HTML>
The particle size should be varied somewhat so that all the fuel doesn't all try to burn right close to the nozzel. The fire has to spread out to insure the fuel particles have enough air for combustion. Particles all of one size will try to burn mainly in one location and incomplete combustion may occurr. Larger particles will take longer to reach the temperature of combustion and therefore travel farther from the nozzel before igniting while the small ones ignite sooner. The books on oil burners and fuel injection systems both agree on the need for more than one particle size. I think they shoot for particles in the 0.1 to 20 micron range if I remember right.
Peter Heid</HTML>
Re: fuel atomization
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: March 27, 2004 05:54AM
<HTML>A follow-up note on ultrasonic fog generators. Tonight I went to a local Chinese buffet with some friends, and noticed a fountain in the front of the restaurant, equipped with a miniature mountain, waterfalls, bonsai and other plants, and fish in the fountain. At the top of the model mountain, a few of the same kind of ultrasonic fog machines were installed. These were bigger than the "foggy cauldron" unit mentioned in the previous post, and they emitted a really impressive flow of misty fog.
This leads me to think that these ultrasonic foggers may be relatively common, and available separately, though I am not sure what kind of store would sell them. An arts and crafts or decorative/display supply place?
Now if the miniature foggy mountain at the Chinese restaurant had been fogging fuel instead of water, that amount of atomized fuel could have made quite a large fire!
Peter</HTML>
This leads me to think that these ultrasonic foggers may be relatively common, and available separately, though I am not sure what kind of store would sell them. An arts and crafts or decorative/display supply place?
Now if the miniature foggy mountain at the Chinese restaurant had been fogging fuel instead of water, that amount of atomized fuel could have made quite a large fire!
Peter</HTML>
Re: fuel atomization
Posted by: Jim Crank (IP Logged)
Date: March 27, 2004 02:23PM
<HTML>Peter, Peter and Andy,
What you are not including is the RATE of atomization these transducers produce and the amount of power they need. A unit that vaporizes a gallon an hour is one thing; but one that can handle 10-20 per hour is a whole new ball game. There is also another problem, as Dick described to me when I saw one of his units in action. These cast plate transducers cannot stand any high temperature. So, unless you can very well isolate the vaporizer from the conducted heat out of the firebox, they will be ruined in short order.
One that can do the 25 gallons per hour I want at full tilt, seems to need some 10kw of input power, spread over many transducers. That is just not practical for a car unit. Dick V. can explain the surface area needed and the amount of power needed, he knows a lot about this subject.
Andy, the post mix vaporizer concept has a great many advantages over any pre mix version, like the Stanley burner. Carbon is not a problem with them.
Fed with a carburetor, so as to handle varying draft automatically, it does look more than promising for a clean burner. Vaporizing function can be either recirculating hot gas or a hot plate type, both done before with grand success. Go look at a backpack camping stove and take a good look at the burner, then think about it. Also look at those early British gas turbine burners with the "J" tube vaporizers, they were certainly successful and powerful.
Jim</HTML>
What you are not including is the RATE of atomization these transducers produce and the amount of power they need. A unit that vaporizes a gallon an hour is one thing; but one that can handle 10-20 per hour is a whole new ball game. There is also another problem, as Dick described to me when I saw one of his units in action. These cast plate transducers cannot stand any high temperature. So, unless you can very well isolate the vaporizer from the conducted heat out of the firebox, they will be ruined in short order.
One that can do the 25 gallons per hour I want at full tilt, seems to need some 10kw of input power, spread over many transducers. That is just not practical for a car unit. Dick V. can explain the surface area needed and the amount of power needed, he knows a lot about this subject.
Andy, the post mix vaporizer concept has a great many advantages over any pre mix version, like the Stanley burner. Carbon is not a problem with them.
Fed with a carburetor, so as to handle varying draft automatically, it does look more than promising for a clean burner. Vaporizing function can be either recirculating hot gas or a hot plate type, both done before with grand success. Go look at a backpack camping stove and take a good look at the burner, then think about it. Also look at those early British gas turbine burners with the "J" tube vaporizers, they were certainly successful and powerful.
Jim</HTML>
Re: fuel atomization
Posted by: Dick Vennerbeck (IP Logged)
Date: March 29, 2004 02:42AM
<HTML>No time for a lengthly discussion from a two fingered typist. You guys are on the right track. Do some Googles on "ultrasonic nozzles" and "air amplifiers" These two gizmo's put together will make more fire than anyone can deal with. Jim's request for 25 GPH made me think " why not cool the transducer with the fuel and keep it more remote from the firebox".
The Curie point for PZT piezeo transducers is about 180C. This is the temperature when they loose their (magnetism) or Piezeoelectric effect.
Dick
ps: The Halloween stuff is a good start.. check out lizard stuff and terrarium accessories on eBay. They must have more of those gizmo's for sale someplace.</HTML>
The Curie point for PZT piezeo transducers is about 180C. This is the temperature when they loose their (magnetism) or Piezeoelectric effect.
Dick
ps: The Halloween stuff is a good start.. check out lizard stuff and terrarium accessories on eBay. They must have more of those gizmo's for sale someplace.</HTML>
Re: fuel atomization
Posted by: Andy Patterson (IP Logged)
Date: March 29, 2004 03:33PM
<HTML>Hi Jim
Very good points.
For the record I do think about such things as the rate of atomization required. I just think it best to let others contribute.
I have read that fuel can be carbonized by temperature in a post-mix. It's just a matter of the temperature. I could be confused on that though. But as I remember, depending on the fuel ,it occures at a little above the vaporization temperature.
On my boiler I plane to run a few cool feed water coil loops around burner tube close to the blower fan. The idea being to catch conducted heat and prevent it geting the blower fan.
I think the power requirments of ultrasonic atomization would be reduced be pre heating the fuel close to the vaporization point.
It is something that is worth a try.
Andy</HTML>
Very good points.
For the record I do think about such things as the rate of atomization required. I just think it best to let others contribute.
I have read that fuel can be carbonized by temperature in a post-mix. It's just a matter of the temperature. I could be confused on that though. But as I remember, depending on the fuel ,it occures at a little above the vaporization temperature.
On my boiler I plane to run a few cool feed water coil loops around burner tube close to the blower fan. The idea being to catch conducted heat and prevent it geting the blower fan.
I think the power requirments of ultrasonic atomization would be reduced be pre heating the fuel close to the vaporization point.
It is something that is worth a try.
Andy</HTML>
Re: fuel atomization
Posted by: Andy Patterson (IP Logged)
Date: March 29, 2004 04:51PM
<HTML>Hi Peter
I don't think the partical size need be different. It depends on the burner configuration. Vaporizing burners are a counter example to that theory. They would be the ultamate example of that problem if it were always the case.
A flame holder is what makes the differance for vaporizing burners. There is plenty of mixing time before the combustion occures. The S.E.S. burner is another example of using flame holders. A very small uniform partical size shouldn't be all that much of a problem.
Andy</HTML>
I don't think the partical size need be different. It depends on the burner configuration. Vaporizing burners are a counter example to that theory. They would be the ultamate example of that problem if it were always the case.
A flame holder is what makes the differance for vaporizing burners. There is plenty of mixing time before the combustion occures. The S.E.S. burner is another example of using flame holders. A very small uniform partical size shouldn't be all that much of a problem.
Andy</HTML>
Re: fuel atomization
Posted by: Arnold Walker (IP Logged)
Date: March 29, 2004 05:05PM
<HTML>Had that blower fan problem on my wood fired boiler,still wrestling with conducted heat when the fan goes off......
Switching from downdraft to foundry gasifier (looks like oil burner except hot caolbed is sitting on bottom mount blower pipe opening ,with charcoal conversion hopper feeding from top) configuration helped ,but...still a little hot on the conducted heat.(Found out the hard way .....you check to see if the blower is running before opening the hopper.....looked like a blowtorch flame jumped out of the top of my boiler...hair still recovering from that...added safety lockout switch ,too. Since the blower is hooked into pressure switch off an air compressor to cycle with steam pressure.)
Like your water cooling idea will try it on mine to see what happens.....
29gal/hr on the fuel...... sounds like a 160hp gas turbine fuel control,.........
would be a wicked little burner in 2500 lb./hr lamonte,if you pulled that one off.....</HTML>
Switching from downdraft to foundry gasifier (looks like oil burner except hot caolbed is sitting on bottom mount blower pipe opening ,with charcoal conversion hopper feeding from top) configuration helped ,but...still a little hot on the conducted heat.(Found out the hard way .....you check to see if the blower is running before opening the hopper.....looked like a blowtorch flame jumped out of the top of my boiler...hair still recovering from that...added safety lockout switch ,too. Since the blower is hooked into pressure switch off an air compressor to cycle with steam pressure.)
Like your water cooling idea will try it on mine to see what happens.....
29gal/hr on the fuel...... sounds like a 160hp gas turbine fuel control,.........
would be a wicked little burner in 2500 lb./hr lamonte,if you pulled that one off.....</HTML>
Re: fuel atomization
Posted by: Jim Crank (IP Logged)
Date: March 30, 2004 01:53PM
<HTML>Dick,
Yes, the transducers can indeed be mounted where the carburetor would be located, cooled by the fuel flow and thermally isolated from the assembly.
At the inlet of the blower comes to mind, until you consider the amount of vapor in the system and the resulting backfire!!
Think 25 ghp of #2 Diesel. What surface area needed and what power level?
What concerns me is the heat soaking after the car is parked and then the whole thing gets stinking hot. Just try to put your hand on a Doble carburetor after the car is parked for a while, nasty burns, and they do cough a bit before settling down, caused by liquid and vaporized fuel at first.
We need a summit meeting at the Club soon.
Jim</HTML>
Yes, the transducers can indeed be mounted where the carburetor would be located, cooled by the fuel flow and thermally isolated from the assembly.
At the inlet of the blower comes to mind, until you consider the amount of vapor in the system and the resulting backfire!!
Think 25 ghp of #2 Diesel. What surface area needed and what power level?
What concerns me is the heat soaking after the car is parked and then the whole thing gets stinking hot. Just try to put your hand on a Doble carburetor after the car is parked for a while, nasty burns, and they do cough a bit before settling down, caused by liquid and vaporized fuel at first.
We need a summit meeting at the Club soon.
Jim</HTML>
Re: fuel atomization
Posted by: Andy Patterson (IP Logged)
Date: March 30, 2004 03:34PM
<HTML>Hi Jim
Good point. I hadn't thought about heat problems when parked.
Ken Hemeric(Hope I got the spelling right) demenstrated a burner that uses the suction of the blower through a carb. No back fire problems. He made a flame holder of two perferated plates about 1.5" apart. The space between the plates was filled with 0.25" metel or ceramic balls. It worked grate.
S.E.S. also premixed fuel ahead of the blower with good success.
Andy</HTML>
Good point. I hadn't thought about heat problems when parked.
Ken Hemeric(Hope I got the spelling right) demenstrated a burner that uses the suction of the blower through a carb. No back fire problems. He made a flame holder of two perferated plates about 1.5" apart. The space between the plates was filled with 0.25" metel or ceramic balls. It worked grate.
S.E.S. also premixed fuel ahead of the blower with good success.
Andy</HTML>
Re: fuel atomization
Posted by: David K. Nergaard (IP Logged)
Date: March 31, 2004 11:40AM
<HTML>25 gph. means about $45 /hr. at todays prices. I think I will consentrate on a more efficient engine.</HTML>
Re: fuel atomization
Posted by: Jim Crank (IP Logged)
Date: March 31, 2004 01:51PM
<HTML>David,
25 gph is in a sports car at full throttle with the draft booster providing some 18" pressure. Normal road driving is 8-10 gph.
I am certainly trying for an engine with no more than a 10 lb water rate.
Jim</HTML>
25 gph is in a sports car at full throttle with the draft booster providing some 18" pressure. Normal road driving is 8-10 gph.
I am certainly trying for an engine with no more than a 10 lb water rate.
Jim</HTML>
Re: fuel atomization
Posted by: Andy Patterson (IP Logged)
Date: March 31, 2004 02:41PM
<HTML>Hi Jim
With that 25 gph figured I thought you were trying for a 150+ MPH.
I figure if one could get 30 MPG at 60 MPH i.e. 2 gph then at 120 MPH one would need 16 gph and at 240 MPH - 120 gph ....
If at 60 MPH you are burning 3 gph (20 mpg) than at 120 you would need 24 gph etc...
Fuel rate goes up with the cube of the speed. Assumming fuel rate is proportional to torque. Wind restance goes up with the square of the speed. Thus the torque must increase with the square of the speed to overcome the wind restance. But for a moment assume constant torque then your fuel rate would be proportional to RPM. Combining both factors the fuel rate increase proportional to RPM and torque increase with the square we arive at the fuel rate increasing proportional to the cube of the RPM or speed.
Assuming constant efficiency.
I seem to recall that Jerry Peoples did a paper on fuel requirmants.
Andy</HTML>
With that 25 gph figured I thought you were trying for a 150+ MPH.
I figure if one could get 30 MPG at 60 MPH i.e. 2 gph then at 120 MPH one would need 16 gph and at 240 MPH - 120 gph ....
If at 60 MPH you are burning 3 gph (20 mpg) than at 120 you would need 24 gph etc...
Fuel rate goes up with the cube of the speed. Assumming fuel rate is proportional to torque. Wind restance goes up with the square of the speed. Thus the torque must increase with the square of the speed to overcome the wind restance. But for a moment assume constant torque then your fuel rate would be proportional to RPM. Combining both factors the fuel rate increase proportional to RPM and torque increase with the square we arive at the fuel rate increasing proportional to the cube of the RPM or speed.
Assuming constant efficiency.
I seem to recall that Jerry Peoples did a paper on fuel requirmants.
Andy</HTML>
Re: fuel atomization
Posted by: Peter Heid (IP Logged)
Date: March 31, 2004 03:11PM
<HTML>Andy,
If all the particles come from a single point or only a few points such as fuel injectors the mixed particle size is critical for a clean burn. When the fuel comes from dozens or hundreds of burner jets giving a much greater area to mix with air it is not so critical but the burner must be made bigger.
If anyone really wanted to get fuel particle size down with simple equiptment and low cost, look at the orbital air assisted direct injection system. The conventional direct injection systems have a Sauter Mean Particle diameter of about 27 micron while the orbital mixed fluid injection is 8 micron. The particle sizes range from about 0.01 to 100 micron in both systems. The orbital does require a air compressor as well as a fuel pump but neither are high pressure.
Injectors are not very heat sensitive, are very easy to add more for bigger systems, they do not leak over a very long service life, and they shut the fuel off at the point closest to the fire.
Peter Heid</HTML>
If all the particles come from a single point or only a few points such as fuel injectors the mixed particle size is critical for a clean burn. When the fuel comes from dozens or hundreds of burner jets giving a much greater area to mix with air it is not so critical but the burner must be made bigger.
If anyone really wanted to get fuel particle size down with simple equiptment and low cost, look at the orbital air assisted direct injection system. The conventional direct injection systems have a Sauter Mean Particle diameter of about 27 micron while the orbital mixed fluid injection is 8 micron. The particle sizes range from about 0.01 to 100 micron in both systems. The orbital does require a air compressor as well as a fuel pump but neither are high pressure.
Injectors are not very heat sensitive, are very easy to add more for bigger systems, they do not leak over a very long service life, and they shut the fuel off at the point closest to the fire.
Peter Heid</HTML>
Re: fuel atomization
Posted by: Andy Patterson (IP Logged)
Date: March 31, 2004 04:50PM
<HTML>Hi Peter
I think that the main reasions that the S.E.S. and Ken's burner work so well is that fuel-air mixture going through the fan does a lot to mix them up. Flame holders on both system are a necessity.
I am planing on using injectors on my burner. With electronic control and an O2 sensor I should be able to run at any firing rate with most any fuel and get a clean burn.
Andy</HTML>
I think that the main reasions that the S.E.S. and Ken's burner work so well is that fuel-air mixture going through the fan does a lot to mix them up. Flame holders on both system are a necessity.
I am planing on using injectors on my burner. With electronic control and an O2 sensor I should be able to run at any firing rate with most any fuel and get a clean burn.
Andy</HTML>
Re: fuel atomization
Posted by: Mark Stacey (IP Logged)
Date: March 31, 2004 06:32PM
<HTML>Sorry Andy I have to disagree with your anaylsis of performance requirements
Power vs flat land speed is misleading.
It is much more important to look at hill climbing ability. I can't do the numbers but here in New Zealand a less than 10 year old car can easily accelrate to 60mph on steep highway gradients. The 2L turbo Isuzu Piazza I used to run when towing a three quarter tonne race car and trailer would accelerate uphill to well over 80mph when passing slow pokes (Causing some suprized looks admitedly).
Jim is right for a sports or even modern car you must have a significant power reserve for hills otherwise you are just a moving road block.
It is fine for older vehicles to move along on the flat and conserve steam pressure etc but it isn't for a modern steam power plant
Cheers
Mark Stacey</HTML>
Power vs flat land speed is misleading.
It is much more important to look at hill climbing ability. I can't do the numbers but here in New Zealand a less than 10 year old car can easily accelrate to 60mph on steep highway gradients. The 2L turbo Isuzu Piazza I used to run when towing a three quarter tonne race car and trailer would accelerate uphill to well over 80mph when passing slow pokes (Causing some suprized looks admitedly).
Jim is right for a sports or even modern car you must have a significant power reserve for hills otherwise you are just a moving road block.
It is fine for older vehicles to move along on the flat and conserve steam pressure etc but it isn't for a modern steam power plant
Cheers
Mark Stacey</HTML>
Re: fuel atomization
Posted by: Andy Patterson (IP Logged)
Date: March 31, 2004 07:53PM
<HTML>Hi Mark
Sorry, I didn't mean that performance on a grade(incline) was unimportant. A grade puts an extra torque requirmant on the vehical. As does acceleration. All these things are important. Acceleration comes form additional torque that you can produce above what is required to overcome that required just to maintain speed. As your speed increasses at least part of your fuel requirmants increase with the cube of that speed.
Hill climbing fuel requirments are a liner function of speed. The torque required to overcome an incline do not change with speed. An incline can create a huge torque requirment. It is of course a function of vehical mass "m" and incline angle "a". m*sin(a).
Looking at fuel requirments for acceleration for a steam car will not yeald expected results. There is a campartive big time lag between firing rate change and steam rate change. You need lots of reserve steam for good acceleration performance.
I don't think Jim is out of line with his 25 gph figure. In order to use that fuel during acceleration we can not wait till our pressure drops to crank up the fire. We need a smart control system that can for-see the steam demand and crank up the fire when the accelerator is pressed.
Andy</HTML>
Sorry, I didn't mean that performance on a grade(incline) was unimportant. A grade puts an extra torque requirmant on the vehical. As does acceleration. All these things are important. Acceleration comes form additional torque that you can produce above what is required to overcome that required just to maintain speed. As your speed increasses at least part of your fuel requirmants increase with the cube of that speed.
Hill climbing fuel requirments are a liner function of speed. The torque required to overcome an incline do not change with speed. An incline can create a huge torque requirment. It is of course a function of vehical mass "m" and incline angle "a". m*sin(a).
Looking at fuel requirments for acceleration for a steam car will not yeald expected results. There is a campartive big time lag between firing rate change and steam rate change. You need lots of reserve steam for good acceleration performance.
I don't think Jim is out of line with his 25 gph figure. In order to use that fuel during acceleration we can not wait till our pressure drops to crank up the fire. We need a smart control system that can for-see the steam demand and crank up the fire when the accelerator is pressed.
Andy</HTML>
Re: fuel atomization
Posted by: Jim Crank (IP Logged)
Date: March 31, 2004 08:31PM
<HTML>Mark, Andy,
Accelerating hard on a long and steep hill takes a LOT of added torque. I sure don't know what else could be used. The horsepower is not increasing that much due to increased rpm, a little yes; but it is torque, and the more the merrier.
The car, if I decide to build it at all, will be taken to Bonneville. I was never satisfied what Bob Barber got out of my old car, since we hit 155 quite often in test runs.
If the car, like my Doble, and E-14, is equipped with a draft booster turbine, AND it is set up correctly, when you put your foot down there is absolutely no drop in pressure, nor is there any hesitation in the boiler's keeping up with everything the engine will take, right up to terminal speed. That was 126 mph and that is certainly as fast as I am going to push some old crate on a public highway.
Accelerating and hill climbing with the engine unhooked did the same, the pressure gauge just quivered at 1200 psi. With a good clean set of coils, there is simply no lag, NONE. The firing rate exceeds the thermal hysterisis rate of the generator and no lagging takes place.
Good steam generator design makes it so that no matter what conditions you subject the powerplant to, pressure and temperature are always right up to the mark, no matter what you do with the throttle. This is what the draft booster turbine buys you, and competent designing from experience.
I laid out a good anticipating control and burner system over twenty years ago. Probably would employ it in the new car too. However, the Lamont with it's drum removes the problem of having to exceed the hysterisis time of the generator, so perhaps such a system is not needed now.
Andy, that is why I said long ago, one just simply has to have experience with a good steam car. Theorizing is fun and fine; but so often leads one down yellow brick roads with nothing at the end, except the Wicked Witch of the West.
Jim</HTML>
Accelerating hard on a long and steep hill takes a LOT of added torque. I sure don't know what else could be used. The horsepower is not increasing that much due to increased rpm, a little yes; but it is torque, and the more the merrier.
The car, if I decide to build it at all, will be taken to Bonneville. I was never satisfied what Bob Barber got out of my old car, since we hit 155 quite often in test runs.
If the car, like my Doble, and E-14, is equipped with a draft booster turbine, AND it is set up correctly, when you put your foot down there is absolutely no drop in pressure, nor is there any hesitation in the boiler's keeping up with everything the engine will take, right up to terminal speed. That was 126 mph and that is certainly as fast as I am going to push some old crate on a public highway.
Accelerating and hill climbing with the engine unhooked did the same, the pressure gauge just quivered at 1200 psi. With a good clean set of coils, there is simply no lag, NONE. The firing rate exceeds the thermal hysterisis rate of the generator and no lagging takes place.
Good steam generator design makes it so that no matter what conditions you subject the powerplant to, pressure and temperature are always right up to the mark, no matter what you do with the throttle. This is what the draft booster turbine buys you, and competent designing from experience.
I laid out a good anticipating control and burner system over twenty years ago. Probably would employ it in the new car too. However, the Lamont with it's drum removes the problem of having to exceed the hysterisis time of the generator, so perhaps such a system is not needed now.
Andy, that is why I said long ago, one just simply has to have experience with a good steam car. Theorizing is fun and fine; but so often leads one down yellow brick roads with nothing at the end, except the Wicked Witch of the West.
Jim</HTML>
Re: fuel atomization
Posted by: Andy Patterson (IP Logged)
Date: March 31, 2004 09:50PM
<HTML>HI Jim
Thanks for your experianced insite.
But I am interested in what you said about your turbobost. That it overcome the boiler lag. Is there some connection to the automatic controls when it kicks in that overide their normal function. I am wondering why the fuel would be on. It seams that the pressure could be up when you start acceleration. Basicly can you explain how the turbo and automatics function together.
I think we need some experiance with the small LaMonts before we can be sure of just how much reserve steam they can provide. I am sure there is some room for tuning. It all depends on the amounts of saturated liquid and steam. The LaMont has a lot more reserve then a monotube like the Doble. But not as much as a Stanley fire tube. I think one can tune the LaMont a bit by varing the circulation coil's volume(length or diameter) and stand pipe volume. But on the other hand as we increase thoes we are going to need to bring more water to the saturation state befor getting under way. I don't know that to be a fact. Just my theorizing.
Andy</HTML>
Thanks for your experianced insite.
But I am interested in what you said about your turbobost. That it overcome the boiler lag. Is there some connection to the automatic controls when it kicks in that overide their normal function. I am wondering why the fuel would be on. It seams that the pressure could be up when you start acceleration. Basicly can you explain how the turbo and automatics function together.
I think we need some experiance with the small LaMonts before we can be sure of just how much reserve steam they can provide. I am sure there is some room for tuning. It all depends on the amounts of saturated liquid and steam. The LaMont has a lot more reserve then a monotube like the Doble. But not as much as a Stanley fire tube. I think one can tune the LaMont a bit by varing the circulation coil's volume(length or diameter) and stand pipe volume. But on the other hand as we increase thoes we are going to need to bring more water to the saturation state befor getting under way. I don't know that to be a fact. Just my theorizing.
Andy</HTML>
Re: fuel atomization
Posted by: Arnold Walker (IP Logged)
Date: April 01, 2004 12:05AM
<HTML>Not sure if I got enorgh steam experience to talk,but I do have
a lamonte.....
If that instant drive ability were a problem....you might do the unthinkable
and have "starting circuit control " to slow the recirculating coil long enorgh to have two monotubes kicking....then operate nornally at a preset temp. or pressure
Might have to talk to lamonte guru on how long .....or end up with a waltzing lamonte.Like I had a while back when my pump failed.Not sure how, but would think the "starter control" would come on line at cold iron,then kick out at min. drive off pressure.
With the pump malfunctioning I was getting pressure build within seconds
of pressure drafting the wood fire.
Again I would talk to "lamonte guys" before trying that....done properly, I have little doubt a lamonte will walk on any steam generator out there.And that goes double for space critical systems like in a steamcar.</HTML>
a lamonte.....
If that instant drive ability were a problem....you might do the unthinkable
and have "starting circuit control " to slow the recirculating coil long enorgh to have two monotubes kicking....then operate nornally at a preset temp. or pressure
Might have to talk to lamonte guru on how long .....or end up with a waltzing lamonte.Like I had a while back when my pump failed.Not sure how, but would think the "starter control" would come on line at cold iron,then kick out at min. drive off pressure.
With the pump malfunctioning I was getting pressure build within seconds
of pressure drafting the wood fire.
Again I would talk to "lamonte guys" before trying that....done properly, I have little doubt a lamonte will walk on any steam generator out there.And that goes double for space critical systems like in a steamcar.</HTML>
Re: fuel atomization
Posted by: Andy Patterson (IP Logged)
Date: April 01, 2004 04:50AM
<HTML>HI Arnold.
Any idea of the amount of water normaly in the stand pipe and circulating coil? And when operatoring properly how long does it take to come up to pressure?
I plan to try an idea I found in light steam. It should solve the controle problem as well as a LaMont but it doesn't use recirculation. It's basicly a once through boiler. It has a stand pipe just like the LaMont. But instead of having a circulation pump the inlat is close to the bottom of the stand pipe. Steam is taken off the top and run through a supper heater circuit same as LaMont. The control is quite different. Water is pumped to maintain the water level in the stand pipe. The feed pump runs at two rates. The high rate supplies more water then can be evaporated and thus will bring the water level up. The low rate is less water then the avaporation rate and you get supperheated steam entering below the water level. The supper heated steam will evaporate the water and drop to saturation temp on it's way to the surface. Thus lowing the water level. It will not have as much reserve as the LaMont But would have some.
Andy</HTML>
Any idea of the amount of water normaly in the stand pipe and circulating coil? And when operatoring properly how long does it take to come up to pressure?
I plan to try an idea I found in light steam. It should solve the controle problem as well as a LaMont but it doesn't use recirculation. It's basicly a once through boiler. It has a stand pipe just like the LaMont. But instead of having a circulation pump the inlat is close to the bottom of the stand pipe. Steam is taken off the top and run through a supper heater circuit same as LaMont. The control is quite different. Water is pumped to maintain the water level in the stand pipe. The feed pump runs at two rates. The high rate supplies more water then can be evaporated and thus will bring the water level up. The low rate is less water then the avaporation rate and you get supperheated steam entering below the water level. The supper heated steam will evaporate the water and drop to saturation temp on it's way to the surface. Thus lowing the water level. It will not have as much reserve as the LaMont But would have some.
Andy</HTML>
Re: fuel atomization
Posted by: Jim Crank (IP Logged)
Date: April 01, 2004 02:41PM
<HTML>Andy,
The draft boosters can easily double the firing rate, maybe even three times, depending on just how you size it and how it is set up.
The fuel would be ON because you just stepped on the throttle and the pressure momentarily went below the upper cutoff point. This you see on the gauge. Off at 1200 psi and on at 1000 psi. A momentary dip starts the burner.
Then it settles down at a tiny bit below the upper cutoff point, as long as the throttle is wide open. Lift a bit and it cuts off the fire.
I did not mean to say in the previous post that the pressure is up to the cutoff point when accelerating hard, at 1200 psi; but is about 1100 psi, so the burner is ON.
There is no interlock between the burner-turbobooster and the controls, you don't need any.
They are set at: Fire OFF at 1200 psi, ON at or below 1000 psi on E-23.
Temperature is: both pumps on at or below 750°F, second set and the normalizer ON at 800°F. Second set of temperature contacts shuts off the fire at 850°F; but leaves all four pumps running.
The control box keeps things at the proscribed settings, the draft booster only changes the rate of heat input. No interconnect of any kind.
Jim</HTML>
The draft boosters can easily double the firing rate, maybe even three times, depending on just how you size it and how it is set up.
The fuel would be ON because you just stepped on the throttle and the pressure momentarily went below the upper cutoff point. This you see on the gauge. Off at 1200 psi and on at 1000 psi. A momentary dip starts the burner.
Then it settles down at a tiny bit below the upper cutoff point, as long as the throttle is wide open. Lift a bit and it cuts off the fire.
I did not mean to say in the previous post that the pressure is up to the cutoff point when accelerating hard, at 1200 psi; but is about 1100 psi, so the burner is ON.
There is no interlock between the burner-turbobooster and the controls, you don't need any.
They are set at: Fire OFF at 1200 psi, ON at or below 1000 psi on E-23.
Temperature is: both pumps on at or below 750°F, second set and the normalizer ON at 800°F. Second set of temperature contacts shuts off the fire at 850°F; but leaves all four pumps running.
The control box keeps things at the proscribed settings, the draft booster only changes the rate of heat input. No interconnect of any kind.
Jim</HTML>
Re: fuel atomization
Posted by: Arnold Walker (IP Logged)
Date: April 01, 2004 03:37PM
<HTML>Oil is so much hotter than wood ....I am drawing a blank on what to answer on the time.If you used Crank's idea on the fire.....other than it
would be Doble times at double nornal flue temp. during cold start(700-800F) inspite of the standing tube.But more easily controled by pumprate.....than a pure monotube.</HTML>
would be Doble times at double nornal flue temp. during cold start(700-800F) inspite of the standing tube.But more easily controled by pumprate.....than a pure monotube.</HTML>
Re: fuel atomization
Posted by: Caleb Ramsby (IP Logged)
Date: April 01, 2004 04:29PM
<HTML>Jim,
I have just one question about the draft booster. When the fire is off, such as at low speed and low power, there is still steam going through the booster, right? So then, wouldn't the draft booster be pushing air with out fire into the boiler? Is there a bypass system in place to direct the air away from the boiler when the draft booster is going and there is no fire?
On a LaMont with the reserve wouldn't there be a lot of times when the fire wasn't on and the draft booster would just be pushing cold air into the boiler?
This most likely should have it's own thread, but I have been thinking about the condensor system for a while.
What do you think about the idea of using the draft booster system or a seperate one to run a circulating pump for the condensor and an air fan to pass air through the condensor?
Have the condensor be a water system, with the steam inlet at the top of the condensor. The water inlet would be at the top also and be made so that the steam and water would strike each other(akin to a jet condensor system). The circulator pump that pushes the water into the condensor could pull the water from the water supply tank, then use another circulating pump to send the water back to the water tank and if these were run from the draft booster turbine or a seperate one the amount of water supplied to the condensor to help condense the steam would be in proportion to the steam being used by the engine. Also, use a fan conected to the same system that would supply air to condensor at a proportional rate to steam usage.
It seems to me that the power turbine, air pump(s)(for the fire and condensor, or use one for both and send the combustion air through the condensor first to gain heat and bleed some of the excess off), water pump and if at a low pressure the fuel pump could all be Tesla bladeless turbines. That would require development of the turbines, although they should all be able to run on a common shaft, require no speed change or gears to comunicate and once developed be inexpensive to produce. There are a number of people out there that have been developing and studying the Tesla turbine to great success. I think that a multi stage Tesla turbine would also make a great addition to the main piston engine as a secondary expansion system also. I know that you feel strongly about the use of a turbine as a secondary expansion system for a steam power plant, however turbines are very expensive. The Tesla turbine has the potential to be a very inexpensive option.
I am sure that you are sick of people sticking their noses into the design of your proverbial steam powered sports car. However, I was thinking about the spacial relationship of the engine and boiler systems for a rear wheel drive sports car and believe that a mid engine car with the boiler up front would give one the best use of space. With the engine, a V twin or an inline twin mounted vertically, directly conected to the rear differential using independent rear suspension so that the engine wouldn't need to be able to move. A suspension from a Viper would be perfect since it is made for giant tires and to take lots of torque. For the ability to disconect the the engine from the differential if a V type engine were to be used with the crankshaft running at 90 deg. to the axle, the crankshaft and differentail could be connected with a sliding spine shaft to would allow one to disengage the engine for diagnosis and testing.
Caleb Ramsby</HTML>
I have just one question about the draft booster. When the fire is off, such as at low speed and low power, there is still steam going through the booster, right? So then, wouldn't the draft booster be pushing air with out fire into the boiler? Is there a bypass system in place to direct the air away from the boiler when the draft booster is going and there is no fire?
On a LaMont with the reserve wouldn't there be a lot of times when the fire wasn't on and the draft booster would just be pushing cold air into the boiler?
This most likely should have it's own thread, but I have been thinking about the condensor system for a while.
What do you think about the idea of using the draft booster system or a seperate one to run a circulating pump for the condensor and an air fan to pass air through the condensor?
Have the condensor be a water system, with the steam inlet at the top of the condensor. The water inlet would be at the top also and be made so that the steam and water would strike each other(akin to a jet condensor system). The circulator pump that pushes the water into the condensor could pull the water from the water supply tank, then use another circulating pump to send the water back to the water tank and if these were run from the draft booster turbine or a seperate one the amount of water supplied to the condensor to help condense the steam would be in proportion to the steam being used by the engine. Also, use a fan conected to the same system that would supply air to condensor at a proportional rate to steam usage.
It seems to me that the power turbine, air pump(s)(for the fire and condensor, or use one for both and send the combustion air through the condensor first to gain heat and bleed some of the excess off), water pump and if at a low pressure the fuel pump could all be Tesla bladeless turbines. That would require development of the turbines, although they should all be able to run on a common shaft, require no speed change or gears to comunicate and once developed be inexpensive to produce. There are a number of people out there that have been developing and studying the Tesla turbine to great success. I think that a multi stage Tesla turbine would also make a great addition to the main piston engine as a secondary expansion system also. I know that you feel strongly about the use of a turbine as a secondary expansion system for a steam power plant, however turbines are very expensive. The Tesla turbine has the potential to be a very inexpensive option.
I am sure that you are sick of people sticking their noses into the design of your proverbial steam powered sports car. However, I was thinking about the spacial relationship of the engine and boiler systems for a rear wheel drive sports car and believe that a mid engine car with the boiler up front would give one the best use of space. With the engine, a V twin or an inline twin mounted vertically, directly conected to the rear differential using independent rear suspension so that the engine wouldn't need to be able to move. A suspension from a Viper would be perfect since it is made for giant tires and to take lots of torque. For the ability to disconect the the engine from the differential if a V type engine were to be used with the crankshaft running at 90 deg. to the axle, the crankshaft and differentail could be connected with a sliding spine shaft to would allow one to disengage the engine for diagnosis and testing.
Caleb Ramsby</HTML>
Re: fuel atomization
Posted by: Jim Crank (IP Logged)
Date: April 02, 2004 03:02PM
<HTML>Caleb,
You caught me leaving out one very important part of the Doble draft booster.
There is a rather large solenoid operated bypass valve that shunts the exhaust steam around the turbine when the fire is off. They also used a solenoid operated damper in the air duct from the blower to the burner in some cars. Problem was when it got dirty it would stick and then no fire. E-24 has this Sentinel added damper and it has stuck a couple of times with me.
You can easily see with a carburetor burner how this bypass was definitely needed. With the Dobles converted to atomizing burners, a fuel shutoff solenoid valve prevented any firing when off by pressure; but those are later burners in the Besler era, Abner hated them, always wanted a carburetor.
The Lamont circulating pump has to be totally independent of anything, on all the time when the steam generator is operating.
When anyone can actually show me a Tesla turbine that really works, I would think about one. What always bothers me is that if it spins, they are happy. Now let's see some water rates on a dyno. I made one with 16 or so disks years ago and it was just plain lousy. And, I do not believe in any of the extrapolated efficiencies, just plain dreaming.
Secondary expansion via a turbine is not expensive today, what with all the Diesel turbos available on the market, some with variable nozzles too.
Jim</HTML>
You caught me leaving out one very important part of the Doble draft booster.
There is a rather large solenoid operated bypass valve that shunts the exhaust steam around the turbine when the fire is off. They also used a solenoid operated damper in the air duct from the blower to the burner in some cars. Problem was when it got dirty it would stick and then no fire. E-24 has this Sentinel added damper and it has stuck a couple of times with me.
You can easily see with a carburetor burner how this bypass was definitely needed. With the Dobles converted to atomizing burners, a fuel shutoff solenoid valve prevented any firing when off by pressure; but those are later burners in the Besler era, Abner hated them, always wanted a carburetor.
The Lamont circulating pump has to be totally independent of anything, on all the time when the steam generator is operating.
When anyone can actually show me a Tesla turbine that really works, I would think about one. What always bothers me is that if it spins, they are happy. Now let's see some water rates on a dyno. I made one with 16 or so disks years ago and it was just plain lousy. And, I do not believe in any of the extrapolated efficiencies, just plain dreaming.
Secondary expansion via a turbine is not expensive today, what with all the Diesel turbos available on the market, some with variable nozzles too.
Jim</HTML>
Re: fuel atomization
Posted by: Andy Patterson (IP Logged)
Date: April 02, 2004 06:39PM
<HTML>Hi Jim
The Tesla turbine works with water. Produces gobs more torque too.
I did the experiment suggested on some Tesla turbine sites using tap water and a pizza cutter. I used a pizza cutter with about a 3" blade. Held under the tap. It spins and produces enough torque that you can feel it placing your finger on the blade
I had an espresso machine. The pump type. This one has a pump switch independent of the valves. At any rate. I did the same experiment only using dry steam from the frother on the espresso machine. Guess what. Surprise! Surprise!! The blade doesn't even spin using dry steam. But with the pump on making very wet steam it works and seams to have a lot more torque then the water tap experiment produces.
So why not try using an enjector (ejector or what ever it would be called) to propel water into the blades. I am not sure what the device would be called in this application. It would work like an injector nozzle using steam to draw and propel water at high velocity in to the turbine blades. It may be the best exhaust turbine ever. The steam would be condensed in the process and create good water flow rate that would go to the radiator(no longer a condenser as the steam is condensed in the turbine).
I have no idea of what the efficiency of such turbine might be. But hay it not only might spin a boost blower or run an alternator, it pumps water through the radiator and condenses steam.
Andy</HTML>
The Tesla turbine works with water. Produces gobs more torque too.
I did the experiment suggested on some Tesla turbine sites using tap water and a pizza cutter. I used a pizza cutter with about a 3" blade. Held under the tap. It spins and produces enough torque that you can feel it placing your finger on the blade
I had an espresso machine. The pump type. This one has a pump switch independent of the valves. At any rate. I did the same experiment only using dry steam from the frother on the espresso machine. Guess what. Surprise! Surprise!! The blade doesn't even spin using dry steam. But with the pump on making very wet steam it works and seams to have a lot more torque then the water tap experiment produces.
So why not try using an enjector (ejector or what ever it would be called) to propel water into the blades. I am not sure what the device would be called in this application. It would work like an injector nozzle using steam to draw and propel water at high velocity in to the turbine blades. It may be the best exhaust turbine ever. The steam would be condensed in the process and create good water flow rate that would go to the radiator(no longer a condenser as the steam is condensed in the turbine).
I have no idea of what the efficiency of such turbine might be. But hay it not only might spin a boost blower or run an alternator, it pumps water through the radiator and condenses steam.
Andy</HTML>
Re: fuel atomization
Posted by: Mark Stacey (IP Logged)
Date: April 03, 2004 04:57AM
<HTML>Andy you need to repeat your pizza cutter experiment with a control sample such as a 3" pelton wheel or a centrifugal impellor. What I've seen is yep Tesla's will pump water or be driven by a stream of water, but if you put some nice fins on making the Tesla disk into a centrifugal impellor, it works better.
It seems apart from specialised applications like pumping concrete mix Tesla's don't work as well as conventional units.
I'd welcome info proving me wrong but the units I've seen and the ones I've read about that have actually been built and tested don't cut it.
I know Tesla fans will say it's because I didn't follow the subtleties in the plans. Fine explain the subtleties and pay me to build another one as per the "plan". No takers so far.
Cheers
Mark Stacey</HTML>
It seems apart from specialised applications like pumping concrete mix Tesla's don't work as well as conventional units.
I'd welcome info proving me wrong but the units I've seen and the ones I've read about that have actually been built and tested don't cut it.
I know Tesla fans will say it's because I didn't follow the subtleties in the plans. Fine explain the subtleties and pay me to build another one as per the "plan". No takers so far.
Cheers
Mark Stacey</HTML>
Re: fuel atomization
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: April 03, 2004 10:10AM
<HTML>Hi Mark,
From what I've read, Tesla turbines are no good, but Tesla disk pumps are only slightly less efficient than bladed impeller pumps, while much cheaper and easier to design and build. Also, in water service bladed pump rotors have been noted to scale up, while Tesla rotors under the same conditions don't. This could be very important over time in an automotive Lamont boiler; considering the slight initial efficiency difference, a clean Tesla rotor might even be more efficient than a dirty conventional rotor, after some tens of thousands of miles of real-world driving. In small fractional-horsepower pumps, the difference seems negligible in any case. Tesla pumps are also non-cavitating, another plus for a Lamont circulator pump.
When the difference is something like 1/50 hp or less, a small saving in time or money can justify the less efficient alternative.
I keep an open mind on Tesla turbine efficiency, and do not reject out of hand the argument that most are very poorly made and cannot be taken as representative of the type's potential. Also, the inlet nozzles are said to be crucial and virtually always neglected, maybe so. These arguments might be evasions of hard facts, a common feature of "unconventional technology" claims, but then again, maybe they aren't. However, I haven't seen good independently-verified test results yet. Until I do, I am not a believer.
Tesla turbines may be worth some experiments, though such experiments seem to carry a high risk of failure.
Peter</HTML>
From what I've read, Tesla turbines are no good, but Tesla disk pumps are only slightly less efficient than bladed impeller pumps, while much cheaper and easier to design and build. Also, in water service bladed pump rotors have been noted to scale up, while Tesla rotors under the same conditions don't. This could be very important over time in an automotive Lamont boiler; considering the slight initial efficiency difference, a clean Tesla rotor might even be more efficient than a dirty conventional rotor, after some tens of thousands of miles of real-world driving. In small fractional-horsepower pumps, the difference seems negligible in any case. Tesla pumps are also non-cavitating, another plus for a Lamont circulator pump.
When the difference is something like 1/50 hp or less, a small saving in time or money can justify the less efficient alternative.
I keep an open mind on Tesla turbine efficiency, and do not reject out of hand the argument that most are very poorly made and cannot be taken as representative of the type's potential. Also, the inlet nozzles are said to be crucial and virtually always neglected, maybe so. These arguments might be evasions of hard facts, a common feature of "unconventional technology" claims, but then again, maybe they aren't. However, I haven't seen good independently-verified test results yet. Until I do, I am not a believer.
Tesla turbines may be worth some experiments, though such experiments seem to carry a high risk of failure.
Peter</HTML>
Re: fuel atomization
Posted by: Arnold Walker (IP Logged)
Date: April 03, 2004 01:14PM
<HTML>Frankly,I would have more faith in Andy's Expresso machine driving the vacuum ejectors.At one point,of frustation with my pump .....actually consisted adding a "percolator" coil near the superheat for a checkvalved
ejector for the lamont circuit.Too many trips to coffee machine that morning ....I guess.</HTML>
ejector for the lamont circuit.Too many trips to coffee machine that morning ....I guess.</HTML>
Re: fuel atomization
Posted by: Jim Crank (IP Logged)
Date: April 03, 2004 02:05PM
<HTML>BRAVO MARK,
Same thoughts here about the Tesla turbine.
The one I made years ago was hooked up to a big Clayton steam generator, 150 psi saturated steam. Sure it spun like crazy; but if you held the shaft, even that big Clayton couldn't turn it. Tried both the Tesla slit nozzle and a DeLaval expanding type. Nothing.
Also, watch out for these Tesla Turbine Builders sites, the ones that want money. All reprints of wild claims, old newspaper stories and no hard data at all, and nothing real to back it up, just claims.
As to not following the "Subtleties of the design", what subtleties? There arn't any. Easy to calculate the needed spacing between the disks, so what, it still doesn't put out any power. A Diesel turbo wheel does infinitely better.
Jim</HTML>
Same thoughts here about the Tesla turbine.
The one I made years ago was hooked up to a big Clayton steam generator, 150 psi saturated steam. Sure it spun like crazy; but if you held the shaft, even that big Clayton couldn't turn it. Tried both the Tesla slit nozzle and a DeLaval expanding type. Nothing.
Also, watch out for these Tesla Turbine Builders sites, the ones that want money. All reprints of wild claims, old newspaper stories and no hard data at all, and nothing real to back it up, just claims.
As to not following the "Subtleties of the design", what subtleties? There arn't any. Easy to calculate the needed spacing between the disks, so what, it still doesn't put out any power. A Diesel turbo wheel does infinitely better.
Jim</HTML>
Re: fuel atomization
Posted by: Arnold Walker (IP Logged)
Date: April 03, 2004 03:34PM
<HTML>That diesel turbo(18wheeler) should be kicking about 35 to 45 hp ........staging with a farm tractor or motorcycle turbo and the horsepower should climb with the added expansion.
But then barring a PTO shaft for a bushhog to mow the back 40.....what would you need that much power for.</HTML>
But then barring a PTO shaft for a bushhog to mow the back 40.....what would you need that much power for.</HTML>
Re: fuel atomization
Posted by: Caleb Ramsby (IP Logged)
Date: April 04, 2004 05:49PM
<HTML>Jim,
Thanks for the elaboration on the actuation of the draft booster system. I can't wait for your book to be out! I am sure that it will greatly decrease the questions that I have for you.
I ordered a few books on the Tesla turbine a few days ago and am anxious about studing the design. What I know so far is that it operates on the principle of molecular/adhesion cohesion and the boundry layer(s) of the disks. Since water has a great amount of molecular cohesion/adhesion than steam it makes sense that water works better than steam. Another thing that I have read of is that there is a bit of vibration in the disks when spining good, this in effect reduces the ability of the fluid to "grab" the disks. I have seen pictures of Tesla tubrines where they riveted the disks toghether and they say that it "helped". Still as was stated, I have seen no independant thorough testing of this design, so I try to hold no opinion of it's operation.
What really urks me is that at [my.execpc.com] ,which appears to be the home base for the Tesla fanatics. They have pictures of many turbines that have been made. Yet, they produce no NUMBERS to show what they discovered of its claimed "98% effeciency".
The only thing that I have heard of the turbines actually being made for and used for is the movement of water. Discflo.com is a maker of liquid pumps using a derivitive of the Tesla design.
Andy,
That is a brilliant idea you have about using an injector to propell condensed steam and water into a water turbine. No matter what type of turbine that type of system would use it should have some great advantages. The injector could be made to feed into a series of venturi tubes of inceasing size which could convert the high velocity flow into a low velocity flow and use a slower spinning turbine with greater effect.
I am going to order a book on injectors so that I can get a better idea of how well this would work.
Caleb Ramsby</HTML>
Thanks for the elaboration on the actuation of the draft booster system. I can't wait for your book to be out! I am sure that it will greatly decrease the questions that I have for you.
I ordered a few books on the Tesla turbine a few days ago and am anxious about studing the design. What I know so far is that it operates on the principle of molecular/adhesion cohesion and the boundry layer(s) of the disks. Since water has a great amount of molecular cohesion/adhesion than steam it makes sense that water works better than steam. Another thing that I have read of is that there is a bit of vibration in the disks when spining good, this in effect reduces the ability of the fluid to "grab" the disks. I have seen pictures of Tesla tubrines where they riveted the disks toghether and they say that it "helped". Still as was stated, I have seen no independant thorough testing of this design, so I try to hold no opinion of it's operation.
What really urks me is that at [my.execpc.com] ,which appears to be the home base for the Tesla fanatics. They have pictures of many turbines that have been made. Yet, they produce no NUMBERS to show what they discovered of its claimed "98% effeciency".
The only thing that I have heard of the turbines actually being made for and used for is the movement of water. Discflo.com is a maker of liquid pumps using a derivitive of the Tesla design.
Andy,
That is a brilliant idea you have about using an injector to propell condensed steam and water into a water turbine. No matter what type of turbine that type of system would use it should have some great advantages. The injector could be made to feed into a series of venturi tubes of inceasing size which could convert the high velocity flow into a low velocity flow and use a slower spinning turbine with greater effect.
I am going to order a book on injectors so that I can get a better idea of how well this would work.
Caleb Ramsby</HTML>
Re: fuel atomization
Posted by: Andy Patterson (IP Logged)
Date: April 05, 2004 02:36PM
<HTML>Hi Jim
From what I can find on the Tesla turbine it was demoed by Tesla running on steam but the machine and any plans for that turbine have never been found. Nobody knows how it worked on steam. For all we know Tesla might have been injecting water into the blades with steam.
All I know is that with water the little experment that I did you could detect the torque using water but with steam the torque was zero. The blade wouldn't even spin on steam. Of course the piza cutter doesn't have a frictionless bearing. My expresso maker put out darn close to saturated steam with the pump off. With the pump on it would eventually just be puting out hot water. A nice feature, intended feature, to make hot tea or coco. I was well under 50% steal quality turning the pump on/off while running the expermant. I mean you need water to get the torque.
I don't think the efficiency of the injector idea would be all that great though. The thermal mixing I think would be a big loss. Anybody have any injector efficiency data?
I havn't got around to trying this. I just think it might work for an exhaust turbine.
Andy</HTML>
From what I can find on the Tesla turbine it was demoed by Tesla running on steam but the machine and any plans for that turbine have never been found. Nobody knows how it worked on steam. For all we know Tesla might have been injecting water into the blades with steam.
All I know is that with water the little experment that I did you could detect the torque using water but with steam the torque was zero. The blade wouldn't even spin on steam. Of course the piza cutter doesn't have a frictionless bearing. My expresso maker put out darn close to saturated steam with the pump off. With the pump on it would eventually just be puting out hot water. A nice feature, intended feature, to make hot tea or coco. I was well under 50% steal quality turning the pump on/off while running the expermant. I mean you need water to get the torque.
I don't think the efficiency of the injector idea would be all that great though. The thermal mixing I think would be a big loss. Anybody have any injector efficiency data?
I havn't got around to trying this. I just think it might work for an exhaust turbine.
Andy</HTML>
Re: fuel atomization
Posted by: Steve Redmond (IP Logged)
Date: December 14, 2004 01:55AM
<HTML>I've noticed several references to Tesla style disk turbines here. I'm no apologist for them, but I did build one, and am interested in powering it with steam. I did try a rudimentary monotube boiler, but got very wet and poorly controlled steam. To answer one question posed in this thread, no, I doubt Tesla was powering with water propelled by steam! I got about 10,000 RPM on 70 pounds of compressed air. But zilch on condensing steam (naturally).
Like I said, my flash boiler was a pretty poor attempt, but I believe now I could do a lot better. My turbine's casing is also pretty heavy aluminum, and therefore basically a big heat sink, the opposite of a lagged steam cylinder, so maybe some of the condensation could be attributed to that. I definitely need hotter stuff.
I'd like to hear from someone with experience ( like Terry frinstance) about building a workable small monotube steam generator.
I do have the book "Experimental Flash Steam" (1973, British) and the Westbury's book on the Gemini flash plant.
I'm not a turbine fanatic -- I own two model custom built flash steam twin cylinder inline racing engines, and have made patterns for another one, which I'm hoping to cast soon.
Just found this list, so also, hello!
--Steve Redmond
www.sredmond.com</HTML>
Like I said, my flash boiler was a pretty poor attempt, but I believe now I could do a lot better. My turbine's casing is also pretty heavy aluminum, and therefore basically a big heat sink, the opposite of a lagged steam cylinder, so maybe some of the condensation could be attributed to that. I definitely need hotter stuff.
I'd like to hear from someone with experience ( like Terry frinstance) about building a workable small monotube steam generator.
I do have the book "Experimental Flash Steam" (1973, British) and the Westbury's book on the Gemini flash plant.
I'm not a turbine fanatic -- I own two model custom built flash steam twin cylinder inline racing engines, and have made patterns for another one, which I'm hoping to cast soon.
Just found this list, so also, hello!
--Steve Redmond
www.sredmond.com</HTML>
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.