1 Steam Cars : Phorum
General Steam Car topics
Stanley Crankshaft Balance
Posted by: Graeme Vagg (IP Logged)
Date: June 04, 2004 01:07PM
<HTML>I understand the 1903 Stanley Racer was given the name "Wobblebug".
Was this just a fun name to use at the time or was there a balance problem with the engine that resulted in a matching name?
I have heard comments at steam club meetings that Stanleys can have a wobble at high engine speeds. The cars I rode in did not go fast enough to confirm this at the time.
Could any owners/operators of the larger Stanley engines (20 and 30 hp size) advise if there are any balance problems with early and late model crankshafts that could be addressed in any updated engine variants. I understand crank angles were changed around 1917.
Graeme</HTML>
Was this just a fun name to use at the time or was there a balance problem with the engine that resulted in a matching name?
I have heard comments at steam club meetings that Stanleys can have a wobble at high engine speeds. The cars I rode in did not go fast enough to confirm this at the time.
Could any owners/operators of the larger Stanley engines (20 and 30 hp size) advise if there are any balance problems with early and late model crankshafts that could be addressed in any updated engine variants. I understand crank angles were changed around 1917.
Graeme</HTML>
Re: Stanley Crankshaft Balance
Posted by: SSsssteamer (IP Logged)
Date: June 05, 2004 05:08AM
<HTML>In previous entries in this phorum, your question has been answered as to the wobble. The wobble occurred because the wobble bug had two 10 hp Stanley engines. Each engine drove it's own rear wheel. A wobble developed from that poor design. Hence the name "Wobble Bug". Ordinarily, the Stanley car does not wobble. I have driven and also rode in many Stanleys at 70 and 80 MPH with no wobble. Under normal driving conditions for which the Stanleys were designed to drive, the Stanleys do not have a balance problem with their engines. For today's modern speeds, they do. Also with the modern speeds that the Stanley cars can now go, eventually damage will occur. And it does. Broken crank pins, connecting rods, engine frame rods, and pistons often happen when the engine's common sense "red line" is exceeded. Sincerely, Pat Farrell</HTML>
Re: Stanley Crankshaft Balance
Posted by: Graeme Vagg (IP Logged)
Date: June 05, 2004 08:09AM
<HTML>Thanks Pat for the wobble bug background.
I saw posts about engine breakages but thought these were due to design weaknesses rather than vibration.
Is there a recommended Red Line rpm for any Stanley engines?
There is a post from 07/23/03 from Roger Ulsky about slide valve float speed limits but no replies.
Highway speed limits are 50 to 70 mph in a lot of countries so a modern car needs to be able to keep up with traffic unless it is touring on country roads at a more leasurely pace. I don't have a lot of Stanley vehicle specs, the most recent mentions a comfortable cruise speed of around 60 mph and no mention of a top speed capability. Poor roads and even poorer brakes probably kept most down to slower speeds at their time of production. Even today I would like to drive too many old cars to the limit of their power for safety reasons.
Any further news on safe driving limits for original spec steamers would be appreciated.
Regards,
Graeme Vagg</HTML>
I saw posts about engine breakages but thought these were due to design weaknesses rather than vibration.
Is there a recommended Red Line rpm for any Stanley engines?
There is a post from 07/23/03 from Roger Ulsky about slide valve float speed limits but no replies.
Highway speed limits are 50 to 70 mph in a lot of countries so a modern car needs to be able to keep up with traffic unless it is touring on country roads at a more leasurely pace. I don't have a lot of Stanley vehicle specs, the most recent mentions a comfortable cruise speed of around 60 mph and no mention of a top speed capability. Poor roads and even poorer brakes probably kept most down to slower speeds at their time of production. Even today I would like to drive too many old cars to the limit of their power for safety reasons.
Any further news on safe driving limits for original spec steamers would be appreciated.
Regards,
Graeme Vagg</HTML>
Re: Stanley Crankshaft Balance
Posted by: George (IP Logged)
Date: June 05, 2004 11:55AM
<HTML>Graeme ,
I had always thought the twin engine Ross car was called the "Wogglebug",
maybe my memory fails me. If one analyzes several of the high speed cars, including the gentlemans speedy roadster up to the 1907 racer the gearing always seems to lead up to a maximum rpm of around 850, more than likely due to the verly bad breathing of the engine. I once many years ago did a unbalance study of the 30HP engine for Ed Gallant, we weighed all the parts to enable this engineering study. The thing is horrifically underbalanced and there are a few things that can be done to improve upon this condition. I forget where that analysis is as it was 15-20 years ago.
Best, George</HTML>
I had always thought the twin engine Ross car was called the "Wogglebug",
maybe my memory fails me. If one analyzes several of the high speed cars, including the gentlemans speedy roadster up to the 1907 racer the gearing always seems to lead up to a maximum rpm of around 850, more than likely due to the verly bad breathing of the engine. I once many years ago did a unbalance study of the 30HP engine for Ed Gallant, we weighed all the parts to enable this engineering study. The thing is horrifically underbalanced and there are a few things that can be done to improve upon this condition. I forget where that analysis is as it was 15-20 years ago.
Best, George</HTML>
Re: Stanley Crankshaft Balance
Posted by: Jim Crank (IP Logged)
Date: June 05, 2004 01:37PM
<HTML>Grame,
The 1903 steam race car called the "Wogglebug" was not a Stanley car; but a special one, owned, constructed and raced by Louis Ross.
It used two Stanley engines, each powering it's own rear wheel, plus two throttles that Ross had to try to keep manually syncronized. He generally succeeded; but often did not, hence the name "Wogglebug."
The Stanley engine is horribly out of balance at anything over about 800 rpm, just as George has said. The two counterweights do not come close to balancing the reciprocating mass of the piston-crosshead-connecting rod assembly. This does not begin to even address the huge problem of balancing the couple generated by two pistons at 90° from each other.
It is my belief that the Stanleys knew this, and they geared the higher performance models so as to keep the rpm low at speed. Just why they didn't even try to cure the problem with better counterweighting is a good question. Probably they just did not know how.
The two cylinder compound Doble Series F engine also had this problem in the first engines. Bill Besler told me that the engine was so out of balance that it shook the windshield of the Buick 3/4" back and forth at 70 mph, and this was a sedan.
Besler and his crew added two pie shaped counterweights to the crankshaft to try to eliminate this and according to all information, this did help balance the later F engines.
The White also has this problem to a lesser degree, as they added a massive counterweight to their crankshafts in the 1909-10 engines.
This ridiculous idea of two separate engines, each driving it's own wheel later came up again when Abner started designing the quadruple expansion engine for Dr. Mudd, and later for the proposed Blakeborough steam car in England while he was working for Sentinel. Neither were actually constructed.
The Stanley engine certainly needs a whole new crankshaft design that is much better counterweighted, if one wants high performance out if it. However the awful porting restrictions and that slide valve, plus the rather weak frame, are still the final items that makes the Stanley engine much less desirable for any use that requires high performance.
One just has to keep the rpm down and gear the engine properly.
Jim</HTML>
The 1903 steam race car called the "Wogglebug" was not a Stanley car; but a special one, owned, constructed and raced by Louis Ross.
It used two Stanley engines, each powering it's own rear wheel, plus two throttles that Ross had to try to keep manually syncronized. He generally succeeded; but often did not, hence the name "Wogglebug."
The Stanley engine is horribly out of balance at anything over about 800 rpm, just as George has said. The two counterweights do not come close to balancing the reciprocating mass of the piston-crosshead-connecting rod assembly. This does not begin to even address the huge problem of balancing the couple generated by two pistons at 90° from each other.
It is my belief that the Stanleys knew this, and they geared the higher performance models so as to keep the rpm low at speed. Just why they didn't even try to cure the problem with better counterweighting is a good question. Probably they just did not know how.
The two cylinder compound Doble Series F engine also had this problem in the first engines. Bill Besler told me that the engine was so out of balance that it shook the windshield of the Buick 3/4" back and forth at 70 mph, and this was a sedan.
Besler and his crew added two pie shaped counterweights to the crankshaft to try to eliminate this and according to all information, this did help balance the later F engines.
The White also has this problem to a lesser degree, as they added a massive counterweight to their crankshafts in the 1909-10 engines.
This ridiculous idea of two separate engines, each driving it's own wheel later came up again when Abner started designing the quadruple expansion engine for Dr. Mudd, and later for the proposed Blakeborough steam car in England while he was working for Sentinel. Neither were actually constructed.
The Stanley engine certainly needs a whole new crankshaft design that is much better counterweighted, if one wants high performance out if it. However the awful porting restrictions and that slide valve, plus the rather weak frame, are still the final items that makes the Stanley engine much less desirable for any use that requires high performance.
One just has to keep the rpm down and gear the engine properly.
Jim</HTML>
Re: Stanley Crankshaft Balance
Posted by: David K. Nergaard (IP Logged)
Date: June 06, 2004 11:42AM
<HTML>There is no way to fully balance a two cylinder in line engine with cranks at 90 degrees. One can fully balance the rotating masses, but Stanley didn't even do that. Any attempt to balance the horizontal foces of the reciprocating masses will only make vertical forces as a result, unless one adds additional reciprocating masses simply for balance reasons.
The logical solutions for a well balanced engine involve either more cylinders or a VEE configuration.
The early Stanleys rode very well because they kept the engine speed low and they used full elliptic springs, which meant the engine could shake horizontally quite a bit without shaking the body of the car. The major source of vibration in the bodies of early Stanleys was the pump drive, which ran at full engine speed.</HTML>
The logical solutions for a well balanced engine involve either more cylinders or a VEE configuration.
The early Stanleys rode very well because they kept the engine speed low and they used full elliptic springs, which meant the engine could shake horizontally quite a bit without shaking the body of the car. The major source of vibration in the bodies of early Stanleys was the pump drive, which ran at full engine speed.</HTML>
Re: Stanley Crankshaft Balance
Posted by: Graeme Vagg (IP Logged)
Date: June 06, 2004 02:38PM
<HTML>George and Jim,
I found two references to the name "Wobblebug".
In the book "Oldtime Steam Cars" (page 33), John Bentley indicates the first Stanley "Wobblebug" won the mile event in 1 minute 2 4/5 sec on 30 May 1903. It is described as a red cigar shaped car for low resistance but the driver is not named.
Both Bentley and David Wise (Steam on the Road) mention Louis Ross achieving 94.75 mph over the mile at Ormond Beach in 1905 and use the name "Teakettle" for his car (number 4). Wise mentions the car had two 10 hp Stanley engines fitted and there are photographs of the car.
Wise indicates the three most famous steam race car names at that time were Teakettle, Beetle and Wobblebug, with Beetle used for the 1906 Stanley 30 hp engined car driven by Fred Marriot. With printing errors in books and photographs not matching some captions I'm a little confused so will leave it for the historians to match cars to names.
With regard to engine design changes over the Stanley production period, I have found little information apart from displacement changes. Bentley mentions a crank displacement change to 45 degrees in 1914 to obviate dead centre and the need of a flywheel. My engine balancing notes indicate that a two throw crankshaft with cranks at 90 degrees can only have primary forces and couples reduced by 50% with counterweights and there is a secondary couple remaining. You need more than crankshaft counterweights to fix the problem unless you run slowly as they do now.
I became interested in investigating improvements needed for Stanley type engines after hearing that piston valve changes had been successful but bottom ends were failing. For decades the Stanley type of twin DA simple expansion engine has been supported by enthusiasts and dominates the running steamers population despite its thirst for steam. There are a lot of engines that could benefit from upgrading.
In Australia, running steam cars are almost extinct. Most Stanley owners are not keeping them running but I do not know why. There is still a strong interest in steam power and locomotives, traction engines, steam boats, paddle steamers and live steam models attract a huge following.
Talk of steam cars still excites people but there is no hardware available to put a simple, reliable, steamer into the hands of the general public.
While looking for beneficial steam projects I was wondering if fixing Stanley type engines would be a good place to start. From what you guys are telling me, it will need some major changes. The basic design is now about 200 years old and a modern variant would be possible for an economical cost if users wanted to stay with this style of engine.
One option would be to build a stronger and stiffer frame and better balanced crankshaft around existing piston valved cylinders. I would also prefer better valve gear. There would not be much of an original engine retained, although a range of options would be possible.
If 800 rpm is the current practical limit for this design you would need to retain step up gearing with a large displacement engine. Modern car wheel sizes are smaller than the old style wheels of about 34" dia. Average size for my current cars (non steam) is 24" dia with the largest being 29" dia. A direct drive steam engine would need to be able to run for several hours at about 1,000 rpm for highway driving and about 3,000 rpm for a tailshaft input via a low ratio crown wheel and pinion. It would also need a sprint speed ability of up to 30% above these speeds to match average current road vehicle (non steam) performance.
Many reciprocating engines have an inherent balance problem and most steam engines have valve breathing problems. These problems can be big enough to kill a steam car project or prevent it from achieving acceptable performance for the owner or sponsor.
A get-well program for existing twin cylinder double acting engines is suggested as a first step in keeping existing steam systems alive and more suitable for current day highway driving. This should assist in building up the number of roadworthy steamers, improve the public image of steam cars and provide a stimulus for upgraded systems matched to future generations needs. Is the problem worth fixing?
I should mention that I don't have any Stanley type engines to fix and I have only raised the issues in this post because I think the problems in the field are big enough to threaten the survival of steam cars on the road.
Regards,
Graeme</HTML>
I found two references to the name "Wobblebug".
In the book "Oldtime Steam Cars" (page 33), John Bentley indicates the first Stanley "Wobblebug" won the mile event in 1 minute 2 4/5 sec on 30 May 1903. It is described as a red cigar shaped car for low resistance but the driver is not named.
Both Bentley and David Wise (Steam on the Road) mention Louis Ross achieving 94.75 mph over the mile at Ormond Beach in 1905 and use the name "Teakettle" for his car (number 4). Wise mentions the car had two 10 hp Stanley engines fitted and there are photographs of the car.
Wise indicates the three most famous steam race car names at that time were Teakettle, Beetle and Wobblebug, with Beetle used for the 1906 Stanley 30 hp engined car driven by Fred Marriot. With printing errors in books and photographs not matching some captions I'm a little confused so will leave it for the historians to match cars to names.
With regard to engine design changes over the Stanley production period, I have found little information apart from displacement changes. Bentley mentions a crank displacement change to 45 degrees in 1914 to obviate dead centre and the need of a flywheel. My engine balancing notes indicate that a two throw crankshaft with cranks at 90 degrees can only have primary forces and couples reduced by 50% with counterweights and there is a secondary couple remaining. You need more than crankshaft counterweights to fix the problem unless you run slowly as they do now.
I became interested in investigating improvements needed for Stanley type engines after hearing that piston valve changes had been successful but bottom ends were failing. For decades the Stanley type of twin DA simple expansion engine has been supported by enthusiasts and dominates the running steamers population despite its thirst for steam. There are a lot of engines that could benefit from upgrading.
In Australia, running steam cars are almost extinct. Most Stanley owners are not keeping them running but I do not know why. There is still a strong interest in steam power and locomotives, traction engines, steam boats, paddle steamers and live steam models attract a huge following.
Talk of steam cars still excites people but there is no hardware available to put a simple, reliable, steamer into the hands of the general public.
While looking for beneficial steam projects I was wondering if fixing Stanley type engines would be a good place to start. From what you guys are telling me, it will need some major changes. The basic design is now about 200 years old and a modern variant would be possible for an economical cost if users wanted to stay with this style of engine.
One option would be to build a stronger and stiffer frame and better balanced crankshaft around existing piston valved cylinders. I would also prefer better valve gear. There would not be much of an original engine retained, although a range of options would be possible.
If 800 rpm is the current practical limit for this design you would need to retain step up gearing with a large displacement engine. Modern car wheel sizes are smaller than the old style wheels of about 34" dia. Average size for my current cars (non steam) is 24" dia with the largest being 29" dia. A direct drive steam engine would need to be able to run for several hours at about 1,000 rpm for highway driving and about 3,000 rpm for a tailshaft input via a low ratio crown wheel and pinion. It would also need a sprint speed ability of up to 30% above these speeds to match average current road vehicle (non steam) performance.
Many reciprocating engines have an inherent balance problem and most steam engines have valve breathing problems. These problems can be big enough to kill a steam car project or prevent it from achieving acceptable performance for the owner or sponsor.
A get-well program for existing twin cylinder double acting engines is suggested as a first step in keeping existing steam systems alive and more suitable for current day highway driving. This should assist in building up the number of roadworthy steamers, improve the public image of steam cars and provide a stimulus for upgraded systems matched to future generations needs. Is the problem worth fixing?
I should mention that I don't have any Stanley type engines to fix and I have only raised the issues in this post because I think the problems in the field are big enough to threaten the survival of steam cars on the road.
Regards,
Graeme</HTML>
Re: Stanley Crankshaft Balance
Posted by: Mark Stacey (IP Logged)
Date: June 06, 2004 07:12PM
<HTML>Hi Graeme
I actually think there are quite a few running steam cars in Australia (based on the size of the population) I attended the Healsville and Mudgee rallies and the turn out was great.
As far as fixing engines and keeping cars running, in Sydney Trevor Gault, Milton Shaw, Bill Lloyd, John Pryde have a lot of experience with Stanleys and of course Bill's White and Doble.
In Melbourne there is also a strong group of Stanley owners who have running cars.
My report on Heallesville on this site gives a bit of an overview.
Modern steam cars are few and far between but that is true round the world.
Cheers
Mark Stacey
www.cncprototyping.co.nz</HTML>
I actually think there are quite a few running steam cars in Australia (based on the size of the population) I attended the Healsville and Mudgee rallies and the turn out was great.
As far as fixing engines and keeping cars running, in Sydney Trevor Gault, Milton Shaw, Bill Lloyd, John Pryde have a lot of experience with Stanleys and of course Bill's White and Doble.
In Melbourne there is also a strong group of Stanley owners who have running cars.
My report on Heallesville on this site gives a bit of an overview.
Modern steam cars are few and far between but that is true round the world.
Cheers
Mark Stacey
www.cncprototyping.co.nz</HTML>
Re: Stanley Crankshaft Balance
Posted by: chuk williams (IP Logged)
Date: June 06, 2004 08:27PM
<HTML>Hi-All...
Perhaps a bit off subject--does anyone have any input
concerning the balance of a Bryan engine?? Since it's the
same basic configuration as the Stanley, I'm assuming
the same problems arise at higher rpm--eh?? Could it
be said that the max rpm for the Bryan is somewhere
around the 800-850 rev limit of the Stanley??
Cheers---Chuk</HTML>
Perhaps a bit off subject--does anyone have any input
concerning the balance of a Bryan engine?? Since it's the
same basic configuration as the Stanley, I'm assuming
the same problems arise at higher rpm--eh?? Could it
be said that the max rpm for the Bryan is somewhere
around the 800-850 rev limit of the Stanley??
Cheers---Chuk</HTML>
Re: Stanley Crankshaft Balance
Posted by: George Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: June 07, 2004 10:00AM
<HTML>Chuk,
I was told a few years ago by a past retired president of
Bryan that the engine was run on the dyno up to 1200psi and 1500rpm.
I believe it would have the same unbalance problems however but have not studied that in any detail.
George</HTML>
I was told a few years ago by a past retired president of
Bryan that the engine was run on the dyno up to 1200psi and 1500rpm.
I believe it would have the same unbalance problems however but have not studied that in any detail.
George</HTML>
Re: Stanley Crankshaft Balance
Posted by: Graeme Vagg (IP Logged)
Date: June 07, 2004 03:59PM
<HTML>George and Chuk,
I would be happy with 1500 rpm for any steam engine with a stroke in the 4 to 6 inch range. For steam car use I would be looking at an economical cruise rpm of about from 700 to about 1,000 rpm.
Some Doble engine test results show maximum power at 937 rpm for a Model E engine (four cylinder compound 2 1/4 x 4 1/2 x 5 inch stroke).
I would like to see some bench tests or road dyno tests of Stanley and similar engines to see what the power/rpm curves look like and maximum rpm they can take. We've had them for over 100 years now so somebody must have done this before - if not can someone with a working car take it to a dyno tune shop and ask for a test sheet. Am sure the dyno operator will freak out when he sees a steamer on his rig for the first time and would be pleased to run a sample test for free as a business promotion. The test results would be worth the price of a normal dyno test anyway.
Graeme</HTML>
I would be happy with 1500 rpm for any steam engine with a stroke in the 4 to 6 inch range. For steam car use I would be looking at an economical cruise rpm of about from 700 to about 1,000 rpm.
Some Doble engine test results show maximum power at 937 rpm for a Model E engine (four cylinder compound 2 1/4 x 4 1/2 x 5 inch stroke).
I would like to see some bench tests or road dyno tests of Stanley and similar engines to see what the power/rpm curves look like and maximum rpm they can take. We've had them for over 100 years now so somebody must have done this before - if not can someone with a working car take it to a dyno tune shop and ask for a test sheet. Am sure the dyno operator will freak out when he sees a steamer on his rig for the first time and would be pleased to run a sample test for free as a business promotion. The test results would be worth the price of a normal dyno test anyway.
Graeme</HTML>
Re: Stanley Crankshaft Balance
Posted by: Graeme Vagg (IP Logged)
Date: June 07, 2004 04:17PM
<HTML>Hi Mark,
Thanks for the Sydney area contacts. I know Milton Shaw and he phoned me recently and gave his current contact details. He thought the number of Stanleys in Australia was only about 11, with most not running.
Was the last Mudgee rally at Easter. I was in Melbourne that weekend and saw a small newspaper article about it. This date also clashes with the big steamboat rally on the Murray River. I live about mid way between the two locations so will have to work out a travel plan that covers both somehow.
Cheers,
Graeme</HTML>
Thanks for the Sydney area contacts. I know Milton Shaw and he phoned me recently and gave his current contact details. He thought the number of Stanleys in Australia was only about 11, with most not running.
Was the last Mudgee rally at Easter. I was in Melbourne that weekend and saw a small newspaper article about it. This date also clashes with the big steamboat rally on the Murray River. I live about mid way between the two locations so will have to work out a travel plan that covers both somehow.
Cheers,
Graeme</HTML>
Re: Stanley Crankshaft Balance
Posted by: Arnold Walker (IP Logged)
Date: June 07, 2004 07:05PM
<HTML>On the tail piece adapter You hit on what I was thinking for the 2ft. tires on a Benz 300D and building a engine "doghouse" like on a front engine van.
In other words, the rear bench seat bottom comes out and a one piece version of two bucket seat bottoms and an engine cover goes in.....maybe
using van console part parts for the drinkcups,ashtray,etc.</HTML>
In other words, the rear bench seat bottom comes out and a one piece version of two bucket seat bottoms and an engine cover goes in.....maybe
using van console part parts for the drinkcups,ashtray,etc.</HTML>
Re: Stanley Crankshaft Balance
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: June 08, 2004 09:51PM
<HTML>Hey Graeme,
Great to see another Lightsteam alumnus here! Now you're talking: get well program for the classics, dyno tests, and updated DA engines. Low rpm is one easy fix for the horrible inherent balance problems of a "straight-twin", and another possibility is lighter materials for moving parts in the cold crankcase (conrods, cranks, shaft, eccentrics, eccentric rods, links, etc). Carbon fiber/epoxy parts are 1/5 the weight of steel for the same load, and 1/2 weight reduction (or more) is possible with various metal alloys if one doesn't want to get that exotic or deal with bizarre fabrication procedures. For a given piston stroke, these could allow higher rpms with the same balance conditions and vibration results, though engine breathing would need improvement too.
An "updated classic" engine still has size & other penalties and won't touch the efficiency of your White Cliffs engine or other advanced expanders, but for performance/hobby/specialty vehicles, or with solid biofuels or other green/cheap-fuel options, that may be acceptable.
Just a quick thumbs-up. Not much else to add to the usual excellent posts here.
Peter</HTML>
Great to see another Lightsteam alumnus here! Now you're talking: get well program for the classics, dyno tests, and updated DA engines. Low rpm is one easy fix for the horrible inherent balance problems of a "straight-twin", and another possibility is lighter materials for moving parts in the cold crankcase (conrods, cranks, shaft, eccentrics, eccentric rods, links, etc). Carbon fiber/epoxy parts are 1/5 the weight of steel for the same load, and 1/2 weight reduction (or more) is possible with various metal alloys if one doesn't want to get that exotic or deal with bizarre fabrication procedures. For a given piston stroke, these could allow higher rpms with the same balance conditions and vibration results, though engine breathing would need improvement too.
An "updated classic" engine still has size & other penalties and won't touch the efficiency of your White Cliffs engine or other advanced expanders, but for performance/hobby/specialty vehicles, or with solid biofuels or other green/cheap-fuel options, that may be acceptable.
Just a quick thumbs-up. Not much else to add to the usual excellent posts here.
Peter</HTML>
Re: Stanley Crankshaft Balance
Posted by: David K. Nergaard (IP Logged)
Date: June 09, 2004 10:26AM
<HTML>When considering light weight materials for steam engine parts, remember that double acting engines have complete reversal of stresses every revolution. That will strongly effect the fatigue life of the parts. A high test strength is of no value if the fatigue strength is low.
The Stanley engine was a good design for the early non-condensing cars, it could be made cheaply with the machine tools of the day. They were always made as lightly as possible. There were failures from the begining, and heavier versions of the 10, 20 and 30 hp. engines were later made. Most of the modern problems arise because they continued using a 1908 design in condensing cars weighing three times as much as the first 20 hp. cars.
Many of the parts were steel forgings. While it is quite possible to make these using cheap cast iron dies, where will you find a shop willing today to make a run of a few hundred each of more than a dozen different parts?</HTML>
The Stanley engine was a good design for the early non-condensing cars, it could be made cheaply with the machine tools of the day. They were always made as lightly as possible. There were failures from the begining, and heavier versions of the 10, 20 and 30 hp. engines were later made. Most of the modern problems arise because they continued using a 1908 design in condensing cars weighing three times as much as the first 20 hp. cars.
Many of the parts were steel forgings. While it is quite possible to make these using cheap cast iron dies, where will you find a shop willing today to make a run of a few hundred each of more than a dozen different parts?</HTML>
Re: Stanley Crankshaft Balance
Posted by: Jim Crank (IP Logged)
Date: June 09, 2004 02:00PM
<HTML>Gentlemen,
Pay heed to what David is telling you.
These Stanley engines are way past their fatigue life, nor were they well designed in the first place, nor did they use anything like the metals we have available today. They broke then and they will break now.
Stanley engines were fine in Stanley cars eighty years ago, not in modern cars trying to go twice as fast. The only reason people persist in using Stanley engines is because so many have survived and are still available.
There is a series of dyno tests on a 740 Stanley engine run by Prof. Wendel Mason, and they were reprinted in some old SACA journal years ago. Too bad we still do not have a complete index.
I also ran a dyno test on my 735 engine and both Mason and I had to stop for the same reason when the chest pressure and rpm got rather high, 350-450 psi and around 900 rpm, I think. The engine was doing everything it could to break off of the stand. Absolutely horrifying. Totally out of balance.
The 1908 White engine and system were also given a very complete test run by Prof. Carpenter, and the report is, or was, available from SACA stores.
Lots of Doble Series E and F engine tests were made and are in the Doble binders now available from SACA.
Just use Stanley engines gently in Stanley cars and forget about any idea of those engines being anything like suitable for modern car experiments.
JC</HTML>
Pay heed to what David is telling you.
These Stanley engines are way past their fatigue life, nor were they well designed in the first place, nor did they use anything like the metals we have available today. They broke then and they will break now.
Stanley engines were fine in Stanley cars eighty years ago, not in modern cars trying to go twice as fast. The only reason people persist in using Stanley engines is because so many have survived and are still available.
There is a series of dyno tests on a 740 Stanley engine run by Prof. Wendel Mason, and they were reprinted in some old SACA journal years ago. Too bad we still do not have a complete index.
I also ran a dyno test on my 735 engine and both Mason and I had to stop for the same reason when the chest pressure and rpm got rather high, 350-450 psi and around 900 rpm, I think. The engine was doing everything it could to break off of the stand. Absolutely horrifying. Totally out of balance.
The 1908 White engine and system were also given a very complete test run by Prof. Carpenter, and the report is, or was, available from SACA stores.
Lots of Doble Series E and F engine tests were made and are in the Doble binders now available from SACA.
Just use Stanley engines gently in Stanley cars and forget about any idea of those engines being anything like suitable for modern car experiments.
JC</HTML>
Re: Stanley Crankshaft Balance
Posted by: Graeme Vagg (IP Logged)
Date: June 09, 2004 02:23PM
<HTML>David,
The large number of size variations in the Stanley range would make after-market support parts supply difficult. There appears to be a few machine shops making stronger parts for existing Stanley designs.
International demand for steam engines and parts shown at the Michigan auction last weekend (4/5 June 2004) indicates that slow bidders with shallow pockets may not be able to buy existing engines offered on the open market. If there is genuine demand for new or better engines, perhaps it is time to start building some samples to assess demand. Any new engine would need to be less expensive than a refurbished antique engine, be stronger and perform better. I would think a lot of people have learned much about engine design and construction since 1908 to make a worthwhile improvement on anything in the Stanley range.
Although there are many sizes in the Stanley range, the model list at the parent web site shows the 20 hp size as most common. As a starting point, I would be looking at an upgrade or replacement for the 4" bore x 5 inch stroke engines. Several different engines are available up to 3" bore and 4 inch stroke so I think this range is already catered for.
Anything is possible if time and money is spent. If demand for new hardware is low, only a small amount of effort may be justified. The Stanley design might be more of a basket case than first thought.
How far do you try and go with improvements for the two cylinder DA simple expansion engines?
If I had a money tree to cover basic expenses I would be happy to make test engines or parts for anything anyone needed on a one off or limited batch basis. I spend very little on tooling and use fabrications rather than castings for prototypes. Castings can come later if needed.
Is the 20 hp size too small for a full size car or is the boiler capacity the real problem?
Graeme</HTML>
The large number of size variations in the Stanley range would make after-market support parts supply difficult. There appears to be a few machine shops making stronger parts for existing Stanley designs.
International demand for steam engines and parts shown at the Michigan auction last weekend (4/5 June 2004) indicates that slow bidders with shallow pockets may not be able to buy existing engines offered on the open market. If there is genuine demand for new or better engines, perhaps it is time to start building some samples to assess demand. Any new engine would need to be less expensive than a refurbished antique engine, be stronger and perform better. I would think a lot of people have learned much about engine design and construction since 1908 to make a worthwhile improvement on anything in the Stanley range.
Although there are many sizes in the Stanley range, the model list at the parent web site shows the 20 hp size as most common. As a starting point, I would be looking at an upgrade or replacement for the 4" bore x 5 inch stroke engines. Several different engines are available up to 3" bore and 4 inch stroke so I think this range is already catered for.
Anything is possible if time and money is spent. If demand for new hardware is low, only a small amount of effort may be justified. The Stanley design might be more of a basket case than first thought.
How far do you try and go with improvements for the two cylinder DA simple expansion engines?
If I had a money tree to cover basic expenses I would be happy to make test engines or parts for anything anyone needed on a one off or limited batch basis. I spend very little on tooling and use fabrications rather than castings for prototypes. Castings can come later if needed.
Is the 20 hp size too small for a full size car or is the boiler capacity the real problem?
Graeme</HTML>
Re: Stanley Crankshaft Balance
Posted by: Graeme Vagg (IP Logged)
Date: June 09, 2004 02:34PM
<HTML>David,
The large number of size variations in the Stanley range would make after-market support parts supply difficult. There appears to be a few machine shops making stronger parts for existing Stanley designs.
International demand for steam engines and parts shown at the Michigan auction last weekend (4/5 June 2004) indicates that slow bidders with shallow pockets may not be able to buy existing engines offered on the open market. If there is genuine demand for new or better engines, perhaps it is time to start building some samples to assess demand. Any new engine would need to be less expensive than a refurbished antique engine, be stronger and perform better. I would think a lot of people have learned much about engine design and construction since 1908 to make a worthwhile improvement on anything in the Stanley range.
Although there are many sizes in the Stanley range, the model list at the parent web site shows the 20 hp size as most common. As a starting point, I would be looking at an upgrade or replacement for the 4" bore x 5 inch stroke engines. Several different engines are available up to 3" bore and 4 inch stroke so I think this range is already catered for.
Anything is possible if time and money is spent. If demand for new hardware is low, only a small amount of effort may be justified. The Stanley design might be more of a basket case than first thought.
How far do you try and go with improvements for the two cylinder DA simple expansion engines?
If I had a money tree to cover basic expenses I would be happy to make test engines or parts for anything anyone needed on a one off or limited batch basis. I spend very little on tooling and use fabrications rather than castings for prototypes. Castings can come later if needed.
Is the 20 hp size too small for a full size car or is the boiler capacity the real problem?
Graeme</HTML>
The large number of size variations in the Stanley range would make after-market support parts supply difficult. There appears to be a few machine shops making stronger parts for existing Stanley designs.
International demand for steam engines and parts shown at the Michigan auction last weekend (4/5 June 2004) indicates that slow bidders with shallow pockets may not be able to buy existing engines offered on the open market. If there is genuine demand for new or better engines, perhaps it is time to start building some samples to assess demand. Any new engine would need to be less expensive than a refurbished antique engine, be stronger and perform better. I would think a lot of people have learned much about engine design and construction since 1908 to make a worthwhile improvement on anything in the Stanley range.
Although there are many sizes in the Stanley range, the model list at the parent web site shows the 20 hp size as most common. As a starting point, I would be looking at an upgrade or replacement for the 4" bore x 5 inch stroke engines. Several different engines are available up to 3" bore and 4 inch stroke so I think this range is already catered for.
Anything is possible if time and money is spent. If demand for new hardware is low, only a small amount of effort may be justified. The Stanley design might be more of a basket case than first thought.
How far do you try and go with improvements for the two cylinder DA simple expansion engines?
If I had a money tree to cover basic expenses I would be happy to make test engines or parts for anything anyone needed on a one off or limited batch basis. I spend very little on tooling and use fabrications rather than castings for prototypes. Castings can come later if needed.
Is the 20 hp size too small for a full size car or is the boiler capacity the real problem?
Graeme</HTML>
Re: Stanley Crankshaft Balance
Posted by: Andy Patterson (IP Logged)
Date: June 09, 2004 02:38PM
<HTML>Hi Jim
I am not sure how to take what you said there. Are you with Peter on developing a Stanley like engine using new modern meterals. You clearly said it't not a good idea to use an old Stanley engine in a new car. And I agree. But I didn't see were Peter's or David's view conflict.
As for dyno testing old cars. Yes there has been some testing done. But most of it is next to useless for engineering. We need a lot more then just torque or hourse power information from a dyno run. Steam rate, valve timming(cutoff), steam chest pressure and temperature, boiler pressure and temperature etc etc. The more parameters we have the better.
Andy</HTML>
I am not sure how to take what you said there. Are you with Peter on developing a Stanley like engine using new modern meterals. You clearly said it't not a good idea to use an old Stanley engine in a new car. And I agree. But I didn't see were Peter's or David's view conflict.
As for dyno testing old cars. Yes there has been some testing done. But most of it is next to useless for engineering. We need a lot more then just torque or hourse power information from a dyno run. Steam rate, valve timming(cutoff), steam chest pressure and temperature, boiler pressure and temperature etc etc. The more parameters we have the better.
Andy</HTML>
Re: Stanley Crankshaft Balance
Posted by: Graeme Vagg (IP Logged)
Date: June 09, 2004 11:53PM
<HTML>Andy,
I agree fully with your requirements for as much data as possible from engine tests. The Doble results for boilers and engines are excellent in this regard.
Graeme</HTML>
I agree fully with your requirements for as much data as possible from engine tests. The Doble results for boilers and engines are excellent in this regard.
Graeme</HTML>
Re: Stanley Crankshaft Balance
Posted by: Graeme Vagg (IP Logged)
Date: June 10, 2004 01:35AM
<HTML>Jim,
The test run at 900 rpm looks well above the speed of Stanley engines in road service. Was this engine crankshaft speed or road wheel speed?
If 34 inch dia wheels are fitted, wheel speed at 60 mph should be around 593 rpm. Engine speed with step up gearing ratio of 2:3 would give an engine speed of about 395 rpm.
Stanley brochures after 1918 indicate 50 or 60 mph was a comfortable road speed. Other reports indicate some models could do 85 to 87 mph on the open road. This would require an engine speed of about 560 rpm.
If this speed limit is correct, you would only need to have the engine balanced to an acceptable level for up to 600 rpm. If the test at 900 rpm was in fact wheel speed, it would indicate the balance level of the engine was below a satisfactory level. For direct drive gearing you would need good balance at 900 rpm. For smaller wheels you need higher crankshaft speeds are mentioned earlier.
In view of the large number of runing steamers available, and a larger number sitting around doing nothing, I would think a stronger engine with acceptable balance to 600 rpm woulkd be a welcome addition for Stanley owners and allow them to drive on highways within posted speed limits.
I also agree that for a modern steam project, we should look at something much better.
Graeme</HTML>
The test run at 900 rpm looks well above the speed of Stanley engines in road service. Was this engine crankshaft speed or road wheel speed?
If 34 inch dia wheels are fitted, wheel speed at 60 mph should be around 593 rpm. Engine speed with step up gearing ratio of 2:3 would give an engine speed of about 395 rpm.
Stanley brochures after 1918 indicate 50 or 60 mph was a comfortable road speed. Other reports indicate some models could do 85 to 87 mph on the open road. This would require an engine speed of about 560 rpm.
If this speed limit is correct, you would only need to have the engine balanced to an acceptable level for up to 600 rpm. If the test at 900 rpm was in fact wheel speed, it would indicate the balance level of the engine was below a satisfactory level. For direct drive gearing you would need good balance at 900 rpm. For smaller wheels you need higher crankshaft speeds are mentioned earlier.
In view of the large number of runing steamers available, and a larger number sitting around doing nothing, I would think a stronger engine with acceptable balance to 600 rpm woulkd be a welcome addition for Stanley owners and allow them to drive on highways within posted speed limits.
I also agree that for a modern steam project, we should look at something much better.
Graeme</HTML>
Re: Stanley Crankshaft Balance
Posted by: Mark Stacey (IP Logged)
Date: June 10, 2004 02:25AM
<HTML>Hi Graeme
Mudgee was 6th to the 13th of March this year. Melbourne was 2 years ago and the next rally is at Echuca March 2007 as the 2006 date would clash with the centenary celebration of the 126mph record in Florida.
I'll send a copy of my Mudgee report I've written to John so he can decide if he wants to add it to the site.
Cheers
Mark
www.cncprototyping.co.nz</HTML>
Mudgee was 6th to the 13th of March this year. Melbourne was 2 years ago and the next rally is at Echuca March 2007 as the 2006 date would clash with the centenary celebration of the 126mph record in Florida.
I'll send a copy of my Mudgee report I've written to John so he can decide if he wants to add it to the site.
Cheers
Mark
www.cncprototyping.co.nz</HTML>
Re: Stanley Crankshaft Balance
Posted by: George Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: June 10, 2004 10:28AM
<HTML>Graeme,
The 20HP condensing Stanleys are usually 1.5:1, so if a car had 36" wheels(like Nergaards) the engine rpm@60mph would be 840, if you remember I previously mentioned the majic number of 850rpm. It would be a pretty sure bet that the engine tests were in engine rpm's. The Gentleman's Speedy Roadster coult hit upon 87 mph and they had several ratios all the way to slightly backgeared depending what speed the course would allow sacrificing acceleration for a burst of speed. The Vanderbilts and "K"s were backgeared around .83:1 to allow hitting 110mph but had the bigger 30HP engine, it has been written somewhere that a "K"or Vanderbilt hit 112MPH at Ormond Beach. The limitation of 850 rpm is more caused by the engine breathing strangleing itself and the horsepower reducing after 850. The Doble tests show its simple 4x5 engine achieving over 1500 rpm and the "F" engine as well--much better breathing. The "E" Doble, in order to hit 120 mph had to be turning close to 1800rpm. I think Hughes, Barney Becker and Jim Crank have all achieved this one time or another.
George</HTML>
The 20HP condensing Stanleys are usually 1.5:1, so if a car had 36" wheels(like Nergaards) the engine rpm@60mph would be 840, if you remember I previously mentioned the majic number of 850rpm. It would be a pretty sure bet that the engine tests were in engine rpm's. The Gentleman's Speedy Roadster coult hit upon 87 mph and they had several ratios all the way to slightly backgeared depending what speed the course would allow sacrificing acceleration for a burst of speed. The Vanderbilts and "K"s were backgeared around .83:1 to allow hitting 110mph but had the bigger 30HP engine, it has been written somewhere that a "K"or Vanderbilt hit 112MPH at Ormond Beach. The limitation of 850 rpm is more caused by the engine breathing strangleing itself and the horsepower reducing after 850. The Doble tests show its simple 4x5 engine achieving over 1500 rpm and the "F" engine as well--much better breathing. The "E" Doble, in order to hit 120 mph had to be turning close to 1800rpm. I think Hughes, Barney Becker and Jim Crank have all achieved this one time or another.
George</HTML>
Re: Stanley Crankshaft Balance
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: June 10, 2004 11:32AM
<HTML>David: Good point; I have been investigating fatigue resistance of these materials. Already planning 4140 frame rods for stress reasons. Note the hard treatment that the Ford Polimotor (polymer-intensive) engines took, very successfully, in racing use. Much higher temperatures and component velocities/loads than the type of steam engine being considered here. Much worse reversal loads and stresses, too; Otto engines have little compression on the exhaust stroke, unlike a properly-timed steam engine. Keep in mind that lighter moving parts also reduce the reversal loads and material stress, at the same component velocities & cylinder pressures.
Early fiberglass boat hulls were built much stronger than theoretically needed, due to uncertainties with these materials in the new application; the same careful approach seems adviseable with new materials in engines.
Jim: Also good points. Antique engines for antique cars, modern engines for modern cars. Personally, I would not even consider using a Stanley engine, or a duplicate thereof, in a modern car.
My current engine design is different in many important ways from that of the Stanley. Basic layout (inline-2 DA, 90° cranks, Stephenson gear, horizontal transverse mounting, mid-engine, direct drive), and some basic parameters (pressure/temperature, moving part velocities, and cutoff/compression) are similar; but many details and materials are very different, to address reported and projected problems with engines of this general type. It is similar to a Stanley engine in the same way that a typical current-production inline-4 is similar to a Model T engine.
Peter</HTML>
Early fiberglass boat hulls were built much stronger than theoretically needed, due to uncertainties with these materials in the new application; the same careful approach seems adviseable with new materials in engines.
Jim: Also good points. Antique engines for antique cars, modern engines for modern cars. Personally, I would not even consider using a Stanley engine, or a duplicate thereof, in a modern car.
My current engine design is different in many important ways from that of the Stanley. Basic layout (inline-2 DA, 90° cranks, Stephenson gear, horizontal transverse mounting, mid-engine, direct drive), and some basic parameters (pressure/temperature, moving part velocities, and cutoff/compression) are similar; but many details and materials are very different, to address reported and projected problems with engines of this general type. It is similar to a Stanley engine in the same way that a typical current-production inline-4 is similar to a Model T engine.
Peter</HTML>
Re: Stanley Crankshaft Balance
Posted by: Jim Crank (IP Logged)
Date: June 10, 2004 03:23PM
<HTML>Gentlemen,
Graeme, the engine speeds measured were all crankshaft speeds.
I am oppose to the waste of money making new Stanley engines for modern cars. They are not a good design, the Bryant is so much better it isn't even funny, if you must stick with that engine layout for some reason.
Because they are a two cylinder in line engine, with the cranks at 90°, they would be unbalanced unless one put in a separate opposite rotation balance shaft, as is done now in a lot of four cylinder gas car engines. So you are restricted to a slow speed high torque design, not at all unreasonable. One of the nice things about steam cars.
If you take any modern medium sized automobile, a new one off the showroom floor, I would like to see anyone install a Stanley engine. It is just not a reasonable engine for a new passenger car. In a small pickup, yes, in a nice convertable or sedan, no. Let alone the lousy porting and that slide valve, which alone condemns it. Not to forget the very poor water rate and the massive need for cylinder oil.
John Gould makes parts for Stanley engines. He can supply the parts to restore the Stanleys and I think I would leave it at that. Replacement parts only with much better material selection.
Stanley engines belong in Stanley cars, not modern ones. What is still needed is a brand new and reasonable engine. One that can be packaged in a new car, and will give about 50-75 hp and be reliable and as efficient as possible, without going to any silly lengths to add gadgets to hopefully improve the engine. A basic no nonsense engine that works.
It has to be affordable, although that is a relative term, say $15-$20K for a finished and proven engine, with a water rate of about 10-12 lbs.
I think that if I had to design a reciprocating engine for a new car, it would be a three cylinder simple, permitting very short cutoff at high speeds, and it would be a 60° radial sitting against the firewall. This allows both direct connection to the rear wheels, or an easy use of a two speed-neutral transmission, or an overdrive unit. Whatever, it certainly would have a neutral point and three cylinders. Probably poppet inlet valves, and unaflow. Piston valves are usable; but then there is a temperature limit with them and a need for more lubrication, as Abner found out the hard way. Even he finally chose poppet valves.
JC</HTML>
Graeme, the engine speeds measured were all crankshaft speeds.
I am oppose to the waste of money making new Stanley engines for modern cars. They are not a good design, the Bryant is so much better it isn't even funny, if you must stick with that engine layout for some reason.
Because they are a two cylinder in line engine, with the cranks at 90°, they would be unbalanced unless one put in a separate opposite rotation balance shaft, as is done now in a lot of four cylinder gas car engines. So you are restricted to a slow speed high torque design, not at all unreasonable. One of the nice things about steam cars.
If you take any modern medium sized automobile, a new one off the showroom floor, I would like to see anyone install a Stanley engine. It is just not a reasonable engine for a new passenger car. In a small pickup, yes, in a nice convertable or sedan, no. Let alone the lousy porting and that slide valve, which alone condemns it. Not to forget the very poor water rate and the massive need for cylinder oil.
John Gould makes parts for Stanley engines. He can supply the parts to restore the Stanleys and I think I would leave it at that. Replacement parts only with much better material selection.
Stanley engines belong in Stanley cars, not modern ones. What is still needed is a brand new and reasonable engine. One that can be packaged in a new car, and will give about 50-75 hp and be reliable and as efficient as possible, without going to any silly lengths to add gadgets to hopefully improve the engine. A basic no nonsense engine that works.
It has to be affordable, although that is a relative term, say $15-$20K for a finished and proven engine, with a water rate of about 10-12 lbs.
I think that if I had to design a reciprocating engine for a new car, it would be a three cylinder simple, permitting very short cutoff at high speeds, and it would be a 60° radial sitting against the firewall. This allows both direct connection to the rear wheels, or an easy use of a two speed-neutral transmission, or an overdrive unit. Whatever, it certainly would have a neutral point and three cylinders. Probably poppet inlet valves, and unaflow. Piston valves are usable; but then there is a temperature limit with them and a need for more lubrication, as Abner found out the hard way. Even he finally chose poppet valves.
JC</HTML>
Re: Stanley Crankshaft Balance
Posted by: Graeme Vagg (IP Logged)
Date: June 10, 2004 04:59PM
<HTML>Jim,
Thanks for your comments on new engine requirements and ideas. I will keep working on something new and affordable to see what can be done. The performance targets are reasonable and within a range bracket that can be achieved with some component and circuit simplification.
I would like to see costs below those to buy/restore an antique steamer or replica.
To be affordable, a drop in replacement power pack is needed for a range of vehicles preferred for easy steam conversion.
I have no personal preference for 2 cylinder DA engines but developed an interest in them due to a steady market demand for such engines for restoration and replica projects.
Thanks again,
Graeme</HTML>
Thanks for your comments on new engine requirements and ideas. I will keep working on something new and affordable to see what can be done. The performance targets are reasonable and within a range bracket that can be achieved with some component and circuit simplification.
I would like to see costs below those to buy/restore an antique steamer or replica.
To be affordable, a drop in replacement power pack is needed for a range of vehicles preferred for easy steam conversion.
I have no personal preference for 2 cylinder DA engines but developed an interest in them due to a steady market demand for such engines for restoration and replica projects.
Thanks again,
Graeme</HTML>
Re: Stanley Crankshaft Balance
Posted by: Arnold Walker (IP Logged)
Date: June 18, 2004 09:38AM
<HTML>Peter looks like you are doing good on your design ....
Hit a problem area on the Brown modular engine setup....George you were right about the 500ft lbs limit on the crank ....answer came back to me slower than molasses in a blizzard.Major redesign on crank if someone used that in a medium to heavy steam car.Mike Brown's up to 9 CNC machine centers now with more on order for his shop.
I think for the sake of steamcars, the engine should be more than one source of engine builders just like IC engines.That way, if one person drops the ball ,someone else is carrying on with steamcar engine development.</HTML>
Hit a problem area on the Brown modular engine setup....George you were right about the 500ft lbs limit on the crank ....answer came back to me slower than molasses in a blizzard.Major redesign on crank if someone used that in a medium to heavy steam car.Mike Brown's up to 9 CNC machine centers now with more on order for his shop.
I think for the sake of steamcars, the engine should be more than one source of engine builders just like IC engines.That way, if one person drops the ball ,someone else is carrying on with steamcar engine development.</HTML>
Re: Stanley Crankshaft Balance
Posted by: Mark Stacey (IP Logged)
Date: June 18, 2004 07:20PM
<HTML>Hi Arnold
Nine machining centers and there are more being installed! Great balls of fire how many of these engines are being made.
I only have one cnc mill with no fourth axis but I know I could make an absolute mountain of engines with just one Hass VMC plus a CNC lathe with live tooling and pallet changers.
If there is this much demand for 20hp stationary engines at US $6500 price, I'm staggered.
Cheers
Mark</HTML>
Nine machining centers and there are more being installed! Great balls of fire how many of these engines are being made.
I only have one cnc mill with no fourth axis but I know I could make an absolute mountain of engines with just one Hass VMC plus a CNC lathe with live tooling and pallet changers.
If there is this much demand for 20hp stationary engines at US $6500 price, I'm staggered.
Cheers
Mark</HTML>
Re: Stanley Crankshaft Balance
Posted by: Arnold Walker (IP Logged)
Date: June 19, 2004 06:10AM
<HTML>Not all of them are for 20hp engine production ...He started out manual in simpler times with 1.5 and 3 hp engines and upgraded equipment as the 20hp version started developing.The shop that in his training videos on steam operation and boiler design was virtually empty...isn't anymore.
As you can see on his website photo album.Some of that capacity is reserve to insure that if a machine breaks you can crank production on a spare machine.He also carrys a warrenty of a free part on anything that breaks ,if operated at 250psi or less ,proper lube,etc. for 10000 engine hours.</HTML>
As you can see on his website photo album.Some of that capacity is reserve to insure that if a machine breaks you can crank production on a spare machine.He also carrys a warrenty of a free part on anything that breaks ,if operated at 250psi or less ,proper lube,etc. for 10000 engine hours.</HTML>
Re: Stanley Crankshaft Balance
Posted by: George Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: June 19, 2004 09:56AM
<HTML>Arnold, Graeme,
The shop and equipment is owned and run by Mike Brown Jr. and he does a lot of very high quality contract machining and is very busy with that work. Now and then the son has time to produce a few steam engine parts and I do not believe there has been one completed engine to date. I am looking forward to that day when one is run and tested on steam under the 20HP conditions.
George</HTML>
The shop and equipment is owned and run by Mike Brown Jr. and he does a lot of very high quality contract machining and is very busy with that work. Now and then the son has time to produce a few steam engine parts and I do not believe there has been one completed engine to date. I am looking forward to that day when one is run and tested on steam under the 20HP conditions.
George</HTML>
Re: Stanley Crankshaft Balance
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: June 19, 2004 10:04AM
<HTML>Arnold,
Thanks; multiple sources for parts is a worthy goal. David's 20 hp blocks are a step in the right direction. Only time will tell if I'm on the right track or just another "modern" flop. KISS is a lot tougher than it sounds, always the temptation to "complicate and add heaviness", to reverse a famous quote. 9 CNC centers, good grief, if I had just one and knew how to program it ... :)
Peter</HTML>
Thanks; multiple sources for parts is a worthy goal. David's 20 hp blocks are a step in the right direction. Only time will tell if I'm on the right track or just another "modern" flop. KISS is a lot tougher than it sounds, always the temptation to "complicate and add heaviness", to reverse a famous quote. 9 CNC centers, good grief, if I had just one and knew how to program it ... :)
Peter</HTML>
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.