1 Steam Cars : Phorum
General Steam Car topics
steam car acceleration
Posted by: Mark Dill (IP Logged)
Date: June 06, 2004 08:53PM
<HTML>I am doing an article on early auto racing. It is NOT a focus on steam cars, but I do want to provide a very quick explanation of why steam cars had an acceleration advantage. Some folks have told me that it was because power went directly to the wheels, there was no transmission, so the drivers didn't get bogged down shifting gears. This sounds inherently weird to me. I mean the whole idea of gears are to deliver power in a manner that overcomes inertia. Why would a steam engine car have any less of a reason to do that? Also, I have heard others say that with steam power, every piston stroke is a power stroke -- but how can that be?
Can someone give me a brief steam engine 101 explanation?
Thank you,
Mark Dill</HTML>
Can someone give me a brief steam engine 101 explanation?
Thank you,
Mark Dill</HTML>
Re: steam car acceleration
Posted by: Ben in Maine (IP Logged)
Date: June 06, 2004 10:10PM
<HTML>A 2 cyl double acting steam engine produces a power stroke every 90 degrees,,, [ the same as a 8 cyl gas engine] Item 2,,,,If you store the energy of burning 3 gallons of fuel in the boiler,,by rising the temp an' pressure,,,,and then release it in 1 or2 minutes,,,,,the performence will be ,,,,,suprising,,,,,What early period are you focussing on?? touring or unlimited,,,The 1000kg class was the greatest I think,,,If only the Locomobile [7 1/4 bore] and the Napier [6 1/2 bore ] had raced the 50HP Stanley,,,,,,Someday??? off into the nite Ben</HTML>
Re: steam car acceleration
Posted by: Mark Dill (IP Logged)
Date: June 06, 2004 10:24PM
<HTML>Ben,
thanks for your reply. Sounds like you don't agree with the "power stroke" info I have. I pulled it from Dick Punnett's book, "Racing on the Rim," about the early Ormond Beach races in first decade of the 20th Century.
I am interested in those early speed trials and why the Stanley Steamers had such a great acceleration advantage. Does that help you help me?
Again, I am looking for a "Steam Power 101" simple answer. Take me to school.
Regards, Mark</HTML>
thanks for your reply. Sounds like you don't agree with the "power stroke" info I have. I pulled it from Dick Punnett's book, "Racing on the Rim," about the early Ormond Beach races in first decade of the 20th Century.
I am interested in those early speed trials and why the Stanley Steamers had such a great acceleration advantage. Does that help you help me?
Again, I am looking for a "Steam Power 101" simple answer. Take me to school.
Regards, Mark</HTML>
Re: steam car acceleration
Posted by: Ben in Maine (IP Logged)
Date: June 07, 2004 09:30AM
<HTML>Hi,, George Woodbury's Story of a Stanley Steamer is a pretty good place to start,,,,general des' of how the 2cyl double acting engine works an does it w/ a sense of humor,,,,one chapter I recall is Father smells of kerosene,,,,having lined the forehead up w/a open fuel line,,,,This book is frequently found on e/bay,,,,The early racing was dominated by Panhard-Levassor,,,but dont forget Bollee who was the first to run the vintage class in 1895,,,w/ his '78 wagon ,,,,Heath's 70hp Panhard is STILL a leagend,,,Worth making a replica of, most of this before Daimler invented the model they call Mercedes,,,,,,We really should have competition to show where the steamers were in comparison,,,Worcester shure was fun,,,1mile in 1min1sec,,,and a 320' climb ,,,a day that will not be forgotten by annyone who was there Cheers Ben</HTML>
Re: steam car acceleration
Posted by: George Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: June 07, 2004 10:06AM
<HTML>Mark,
A major reason is that the 20HP could produce about 1800 foot pounds torque in long cutoff at 0 RPM, the 30HP Stanley could achieve about 3100 foot-pounds. The engine increases RPM's at a much slower rate and virtually no horseower is required to "wind" up the engine/overcome the inertia effects of a high speed gas engine. Also no time lost in grinding thru the gears several times.</HTML>
A major reason is that the 20HP could produce about 1800 foot pounds torque in long cutoff at 0 RPM, the 30HP Stanley could achieve about 3100 foot-pounds. The engine increases RPM's at a much slower rate and virtually no horseower is required to "wind" up the engine/overcome the inertia effects of a high speed gas engine. Also no time lost in grinding thru the gears several times.</HTML>
Re: steam car acceleration
Posted by: Andy Patterson (IP Logged)
Date: June 07, 2004 02:28PM
<HTML>
[www.greenhills.net]
Check out the anamation. The dot flying around the pressure volume chart shows the process as the piston moves. The Stanley and other steamers of that period were double acting. In the anamation there the piston is a double acting type. The cyc;e shown is for the left side. Both pistons sides are being utilized. Pistons moved in a cylander that was sealed on both ends. A piston rod conected the piston to a cross slid mechinism that conected to a crank and rod mechanism simular to the common IC engine. These engines produced power during both both strokes. No they are not like a two stroke engine. They produced twice as many power stroked per cylander as a two stroke.
[www.greenhills.net]
Andy Patterson</HTML>
[www.greenhills.net]
Check out the anamation. The dot flying around the pressure volume chart shows the process as the piston moves. The Stanley and other steamers of that period were double acting. In the anamation there the piston is a double acting type. The cyc;e shown is for the left side. Both pistons sides are being utilized. Pistons moved in a cylander that was sealed on both ends. A piston rod conected the piston to a cross slid mechinism that conected to a crank and rod mechanism simular to the common IC engine. These engines produced power during both both strokes. No they are not like a two stroke engine. They produced twice as many power stroked per cylander as a two stroke.
[www.greenhills.net]
Andy Patterson</HTML>
Re: steam car acceleration
Posted by: Graeme Vagg (IP Logged)
Date: June 07, 2004 04:36PM
<HTML>Hi Mark,
A steam engine can generate maximum stall torque if it has a variable steam admission feature called "variable cut-off control". This allows steam to be admitted during the power stroke period of up to 80% of the stroke to give the high torque figures mentioned.
While this is a good starting feature, it also consumes a lot of steam and is uneconomical to use for long. Steam engines tend to be powerful and slow running but less economical on fuel.
Early steam cars that did not condense the exhaust steam had a very short range. They could compete in motoring competition events like short races, hill climbs, acceleration tests and flying miles with anything made up to about 1907. There seemed to be some pretty good results posted in 1905 and 1906 by Whites and Stanleys. Today, perhaps only a well tuned Doble could take on a modern car up a challenging highway hill.
I would like to see a modern hillclimb steamer as these events are short duration and have suitable classes that would allow a steam engine to compete on equal terms with other engines.
Cheers,
Graeme</HTML>
A steam engine can generate maximum stall torque if it has a variable steam admission feature called "variable cut-off control". This allows steam to be admitted during the power stroke period of up to 80% of the stroke to give the high torque figures mentioned.
While this is a good starting feature, it also consumes a lot of steam and is uneconomical to use for long. Steam engines tend to be powerful and slow running but less economical on fuel.
Early steam cars that did not condense the exhaust steam had a very short range. They could compete in motoring competition events like short races, hill climbs, acceleration tests and flying miles with anything made up to about 1907. There seemed to be some pretty good results posted in 1905 and 1906 by Whites and Stanleys. Today, perhaps only a well tuned Doble could take on a modern car up a challenging highway hill.
I would like to see a modern hillclimb steamer as these events are short duration and have suitable classes that would allow a steam engine to compete on equal terms with other engines.
Cheers,
Graeme</HTML>
Re: steam car acceleration
Posted by: Graeme Vagg (IP Logged)
Date: June 07, 2004 05:08PM
<HTML>Hi Mark,
I was web searching for some steam car rally events in Australia and came across a link that had hill climb results around the world from 1897 to 1949.
It includes the Mount Washington results that had wins for F.O. Stanley in a Stanley Steamer in1899 and 1905.
Perhaps you have seen this but others could be interested.
[www.kolumbus.fi]
Cheers,
Graeme</HTML>
I was web searching for some steam car rally events in Australia and came across a link that had hill climb results around the world from 1897 to 1949.
It includes the Mount Washington results that had wins for F.O. Stanley in a Stanley Steamer in1899 and 1905.
Perhaps you have seen this but others could be interested.
[www.kolumbus.fi]
Cheers,
Graeme</HTML>
Re: steam car acceleration
Posted by: Ben in Maine (IP Logged)
Date: June 07, 2004 07:49PM
<HTML>In 1904 Stanley was 4th at Mt Washington,,,,Behind a Napier,,the K=5 factory racer,,[796 cubic inches]] [4cyl] driven by Hildrith,,from Waltham ,,,2nd place a 60 or 90 hpMercedes,,I cant recall the model [4cyl] , the Napier had 5 valves per cylender!! I know this is true because I have seen the cylenders myself,,,,,And a fellow by name of Bacheldor,,,on a Marsh bike,,,The classes were by price,,,The big cars were enterd w/a value of 18,000 dollars,,,,Mr Stanley declared his as 600 dollars,,IN THE 650 d class,,,I think that day was the Stanley's finest hour,,,a HERO among his peers and in his own neighborhood,,, Let me know what time a modern car of your choice could do on that hilcllimb I mentioned earlier ,,,1 Mile,, in,,,1 min+1sec up a 320 ft grade standing start,,,fun Cheers Ben ////Who's gonnabring a Napier or a 4cyl Mercedes,,,Has annyone seen Ned Bishop's old 900 cid BENZ from Portland Me,,,since George Waterman sold it?? OH yes,,,IF THE throttle is OPEN believe me you wont need much time in long cutoff,,,,seconds only [[ unless towing a trailer]] CB</HTML>
Re: steam car acceleration
Posted by: Caleb Ramsby (IP Logged)
Date: June 08, 2004 04:44PM
<HTML>Mark,
Steam Power 101:
Well it all starts with a container that holds water. Heat is added to the water converting some of it to a vapor. This vapor(steam) expands a great deal and since it can't escape it creates a great pressure. The old cars of the early 1900's ran between 500 psi and 1,200 psi or greater.
Now we have some stored energy. It's time to use it.
Most steam engines are double acting(although not all of them) so both sides of the piston are pushed against.
Check out Robert E. Wilhelm's web site for some EXCELLENT photos of a Stanley engine. Two cylinder double acting.
[www.stanleymotorcarriage.com]
In an internal combustion engine there are either two or four cycles. In a four stroke there is the intake, compression, expansion and exhaust.
In an external combustion engine(steam) there are cycles intake/expansion and exhaust/compression. In the intake/expansion cycle there is a percentage of the stroke that the steam is being admited(remember the steam is already under pressure so it is pushing as it is being admited) then for the rest of the stroke the port that lets the steam in is closed and what is in the cylinder is left to expand. When the piston reaches the end of it's stroke the exhaust port is opened(which is often the same port with the valve directing the exhaust steam to a different cavity outside of the cylinder than the fresh steam from the boiler came from) and the steam is let out either to a condensor of the atmosphere.
Look at it this way, for an internal combustion engine to run it has to be spinning fast enough to pull air and fuel into the engine, compress it, ignite it and then exhaust it. The higher the output that one wants from an internal combustion engine the faster one wants to spin it so the engine is actually made to run much worse. As in it must spin even faster to keep running, upwards of 3,000 rpm idle. The max torque is achieved when the ports, passages and valve timing are operating to produce the most adventagous flow of air and fuel for the engine. Down low and up high the torque is very low.
Now an external combustion engine(steam), doesn't require the pistons to be moving at all for there to be energy on the tap. The boiler is what stores all of the energy that is at your disposal. The Stanleys used a storage type of boiler that is in effect a cylinder that has both ends closed and a bunch of tubes going from the bottem head to the top head providing a way for the heat from a fire to go into the water and make steam. The cylinder is filled with water over half way and the top of it is full of steam. What this means is that as you use the steam from the top the pressure decreases a little and the water bellow it evaporates making more steam. Thus you have a vast quantity of stored energy. There are many other types of boilers that were used then and now. Many of which made steam on demand and held very little stored energy thus if you were using steam it had to pump in more water and provide fire almost the instant you used it.
Now about the horsepower ratings. There is a very odd thing about horsepower ratings that I will touch on a little. The old steam cars rated their horsepower by what the boiler could provide continuously. Now remember the Stanley's boiler stored energy so it could provide a much greater volume of steam to the engine for a short time that it could produce at a continues rate. This volume of steam a steam engine uses is a matter of it's displacement, the amount of cutoff(what percentage of the stroke the inlet valve is admitting steam from the boiler into the cylinder) and the rpm. Thus at a short cutoff 25% and a high rpm the Stanley engine could produce well over 100 horsepower even though it was rated at 30 horsepower. Note that there are much better boiler designs now that can produce an astounding volume of steam at high pressure for one devil of a car.
So we are at the starting line of a race. On one side we have the internal combustion engine and the other a steam engine.
The IC engine is already spinning at about half of more of it's max rpm so that when the clutch is dumped the tires loose traction so that they don't grip until the engine is producing enough torque. Note that the ratio between the engine and the wheels in an IC(race) car is often 12:1 or greater in first. This is the main transmission gear ration multiplied by the axle gear ratio.
The steam engine is sitting there motionless waiting for some steam to be admited to it. When the flag drops the throttle is opened and steam jumps towards into the engine and begins to push against the pistons with all of it's might, which can be around 1,500 psi. With a long cutoff of 80% there is a force of 1,500 psi being aplied to the piston for 80% of the stroke and the it expands to a lesser pressure until it reaches the end of the stroke. Unlike the spike of pressure and then a rapid drop off of an IC engine. The over all gear ration of a steam engine to the wheels is often 1.5:1 this can mean only 500 rpm to 800 rpm of the engine PER MILE instead of 2,000 rpm to 9,000 rpm per mile of an IC car. Since the steam engine generates it's max torque at ZERO rpm it won't bog down like an IC engine from a standing start.
If there is something that you still have a question about please ask and we will try to answer it.
Caleb Ramsby</HTML>
Steam Power 101:
Well it all starts with a container that holds water. Heat is added to the water converting some of it to a vapor. This vapor(steam) expands a great deal and since it can't escape it creates a great pressure. The old cars of the early 1900's ran between 500 psi and 1,200 psi or greater.
Now we have some stored energy. It's time to use it.
Most steam engines are double acting(although not all of them) so both sides of the piston are pushed against.
Check out Robert E. Wilhelm's web site for some EXCELLENT photos of a Stanley engine. Two cylinder double acting.
[www.stanleymotorcarriage.com]
In an internal combustion engine there are either two or four cycles. In a four stroke there is the intake, compression, expansion and exhaust.
In an external combustion engine(steam) there are cycles intake/expansion and exhaust/compression. In the intake/expansion cycle there is a percentage of the stroke that the steam is being admited(remember the steam is already under pressure so it is pushing as it is being admited) then for the rest of the stroke the port that lets the steam in is closed and what is in the cylinder is left to expand. When the piston reaches the end of it's stroke the exhaust port is opened(which is often the same port with the valve directing the exhaust steam to a different cavity outside of the cylinder than the fresh steam from the boiler came from) and the steam is let out either to a condensor of the atmosphere.
Look at it this way, for an internal combustion engine to run it has to be spinning fast enough to pull air and fuel into the engine, compress it, ignite it and then exhaust it. The higher the output that one wants from an internal combustion engine the faster one wants to spin it so the engine is actually made to run much worse. As in it must spin even faster to keep running, upwards of 3,000 rpm idle. The max torque is achieved when the ports, passages and valve timing are operating to produce the most adventagous flow of air and fuel for the engine. Down low and up high the torque is very low.
Now an external combustion engine(steam), doesn't require the pistons to be moving at all for there to be energy on the tap. The boiler is what stores all of the energy that is at your disposal. The Stanleys used a storage type of boiler that is in effect a cylinder that has both ends closed and a bunch of tubes going from the bottem head to the top head providing a way for the heat from a fire to go into the water and make steam. The cylinder is filled with water over half way and the top of it is full of steam. What this means is that as you use the steam from the top the pressure decreases a little and the water bellow it evaporates making more steam. Thus you have a vast quantity of stored energy. There are many other types of boilers that were used then and now. Many of which made steam on demand and held very little stored energy thus if you were using steam it had to pump in more water and provide fire almost the instant you used it.
Now about the horsepower ratings. There is a very odd thing about horsepower ratings that I will touch on a little. The old steam cars rated their horsepower by what the boiler could provide continuously. Now remember the Stanley's boiler stored energy so it could provide a much greater volume of steam to the engine for a short time that it could produce at a continues rate. This volume of steam a steam engine uses is a matter of it's displacement, the amount of cutoff(what percentage of the stroke the inlet valve is admitting steam from the boiler into the cylinder) and the rpm. Thus at a short cutoff 25% and a high rpm the Stanley engine could produce well over 100 horsepower even though it was rated at 30 horsepower. Note that there are much better boiler designs now that can produce an astounding volume of steam at high pressure for one devil of a car.
So we are at the starting line of a race. On one side we have the internal combustion engine and the other a steam engine.
The IC engine is already spinning at about half of more of it's max rpm so that when the clutch is dumped the tires loose traction so that they don't grip until the engine is producing enough torque. Note that the ratio between the engine and the wheels in an IC(race) car is often 12:1 or greater in first. This is the main transmission gear ration multiplied by the axle gear ratio.
The steam engine is sitting there motionless waiting for some steam to be admited to it. When the flag drops the throttle is opened and steam jumps towards into the engine and begins to push against the pistons with all of it's might, which can be around 1,500 psi. With a long cutoff of 80% there is a force of 1,500 psi being aplied to the piston for 80% of the stroke and the it expands to a lesser pressure until it reaches the end of the stroke. Unlike the spike of pressure and then a rapid drop off of an IC engine. The over all gear ration of a steam engine to the wheels is often 1.5:1 this can mean only 500 rpm to 800 rpm of the engine PER MILE instead of 2,000 rpm to 9,000 rpm per mile of an IC car. Since the steam engine generates it's max torque at ZERO rpm it won't bog down like an IC engine from a standing start.
If there is something that you still have a question about please ask and we will try to answer it.
Caleb Ramsby</HTML>
Re: steam car acceleration
Posted by: Caleb Ramsby (IP Logged)
Date: June 08, 2004 04:47PM
<HTML>Oops,
"Heat is added to the water converting some of it to a vapor."
That should say, "Energy is added to the water converting some of it to a vapor."
Proof, then post Caleb.</HTML>
"Heat is added to the water converting some of it to a vapor."
That should say, "Energy is added to the water converting some of it to a vapor."
Proof, then post Caleb.</HTML>
Re: steam car acceleration
Posted by: Caleb Ramsby (IP Logged)
Date: June 08, 2004 06:06PM
<HTML>Mark,
A little bit more about the double acting principle.
From the animation on Andy's website and the pictures and animation on Roberts site you can see how the cylinder, piston, crosshead, connecting rod and crank shaft are configured.
What is interesting is that there have been many IC engines made that are two cycle and double acting. Actually that is where the supercharger came from.
Some of the early diesels were double acting and two cycle. How it worked is that there was a cylinder with both ends closed off. On the bottem(towards the crankshaft) there was a hole in which the piston rod went through. In the middle of the cylinder there were two holes through the cylinder walls which oposed each other. These holes were the intake and exhaust ports which were uncovered by the piston at the top and bottem of the stroke. The piston was made long enough so that the holes were covered by it until the piston went all the way to the top or bottem of it's stroke.
The cycles composed of 1: the intake/exhaust/compression and 2: the expansion.
On the first cycle a supercharger pushed air into the intake port, on the there was a ramp machined that directed the air towards the head thus pushing the exhaust out of the the exhaust port at near the piston. Then the ports were covered and the air was compressed until the top of the stroke where the fuel was injected. The expansion cycle occurs until the piston has moved far enough to uncover the ports again.
Thus since both sides of the piston were used and there were only two cycles needed there are two power strokes per revolution per piston.
In a four cycle single acting engine. It takes four strokes of each piston to make a power stroke and each piston is only used on one side so there is only one power stroke per each two revolutions of the crankshaft.
In a ratio form here is what it looks like for one piston.
Engine type Revolutions : Power strokes
Four cycle, Single acting 2 : 1
Four cycle, Double acting 1 : 1
Two cycle, Single acting 1 : 1
Two cycle, Double acting 1 : 2
So you can see that one, one piston double acting, steam engine has the same amount of power strokes as four, four cycle, single acting IC pistons.
A three piston, double acting steam engine would equal the power strokes of a twelve piston, four cycle single acting IC engine.
Pretty neat huh,
Caleb Ramsby</HTML>
A little bit more about the double acting principle.
From the animation on Andy's website and the pictures and animation on Roberts site you can see how the cylinder, piston, crosshead, connecting rod and crank shaft are configured.
What is interesting is that there have been many IC engines made that are two cycle and double acting. Actually that is where the supercharger came from.
Some of the early diesels were double acting and two cycle. How it worked is that there was a cylinder with both ends closed off. On the bottem(towards the crankshaft) there was a hole in which the piston rod went through. In the middle of the cylinder there were two holes through the cylinder walls which oposed each other. These holes were the intake and exhaust ports which were uncovered by the piston at the top and bottem of the stroke. The piston was made long enough so that the holes were covered by it until the piston went all the way to the top or bottem of it's stroke.
The cycles composed of 1: the intake/exhaust/compression and 2: the expansion.
On the first cycle a supercharger pushed air into the intake port, on the there was a ramp machined that directed the air towards the head thus pushing the exhaust out of the the exhaust port at near the piston. Then the ports were covered and the air was compressed until the top of the stroke where the fuel was injected. The expansion cycle occurs until the piston has moved far enough to uncover the ports again.
Thus since both sides of the piston were used and there were only two cycles needed there are two power strokes per revolution per piston.
In a four cycle single acting engine. It takes four strokes of each piston to make a power stroke and each piston is only used on one side so there is only one power stroke per each two revolutions of the crankshaft.
In a ratio form here is what it looks like for one piston.
Engine type Revolutions : Power strokes
Four cycle, Single acting 2 : 1
Four cycle, Double acting 1 : 1
Two cycle, Single acting 1 : 1
Two cycle, Double acting 1 : 2
So you can see that one, one piston double acting, steam engine has the same amount of power strokes as four, four cycle, single acting IC pistons.
A three piston, double acting steam engine would equal the power strokes of a twelve piston, four cycle single acting IC engine.
Pretty neat huh,
Caleb Ramsby</HTML>
Re The RACE,, start line,,
Posted by: Ben in Maine (IP Logged)
Date: June 08, 2004 06:57PM
<HTML>,,,,,,at the start line,,,,, {gearing,, 25 inches for every 90 crank degrees 1 power stroke/90 degrees ,,,,my racer,,the black one,,this is 1 rev to 100 inches,,wheelbase 108 ,,,,,THE gas car is started,,,comes to the line,,slip the clutch,,dont rev too much,,an fry the leather lining,,dont stall,,at the line blip the throttl to keep the plugs clear[from fowling] wait the flaggmann,,watch for body english,,rev to clear again try not to catch the flag on a low rev,,,,,there goes his elbow the fla Rev the hell oyt of it,,ya cant hear as its a mass start w/8 other cars,,all open exhaust,,,ooof what thunder my chest viberates like a drumm atire spin,,,the smell of melted tyre sss [the're dunlop hehe] castor oil and,,,,the first turn is comming dont look back ,,,all is well,,,,,to br continued,,maybb]]] sorry i made it a road race not a sprint but I think you get the drift,,,,,the photographer got the clew from the revs and tyre smoke,,,on the start line,,,,,NOW to shift to a hill climb,,,,Castile Hill near Glouscester Mass USA 3years ago,,,,The steamer pulls to the line,,w 2min to go,,,lo pressure an full fire,,,pressure climbing quickley,,,had a short road run to warm alll its innerds, just prevous but this full fire will just about turn the superheater red,,,but not for long w/ vast over draw on boiler,,..,,,put the electric giz under my tyre,,timer thingie,, Starter takes his position,,I give him a thumbs up [all--A--OK]] he pauses,,the elbow quivvers,,unlatch the throttll,,the RIPPLE of the FLAG,Catchn the throttle lever over the top of the quadrent,,,1,,2,,3,,4,,5,,,,,,6,, now short cutoff at 50,,60,,70,,whatever,,,hang on 'n steer,,,,,, XXXXX re/cap? ,,,,NOW,,open throttLL,,chuf,,chuf,chuf chuf ,,,,,,thats 4 X 25 inches,,,,,the photographer was expectin a lot,,,LOTS of noise,,,,chuff its out of focus,,,,chuf its moved 200 inches CAR S GONEE,,,an hes still focused on the start line,,,,Did it 3 times to the guy that day,,,:- ] Now this is a car that I drove to the meet on its own power,,,no trailer,,,chase car was a 1925 Packard,,,,,No i didnt winn but it was a real good day,,,,,,one Bentley up a bank,for about a hour,,,hairpin near end,,gives the 4 wheel brake boys a good advantage,,,StiLL FUN Cheers Ben</HTML>
Re: steam car acceleration
Posted by: Jerome Sailing (IP Logged)
Date: June 10, 2004 09:19PM
<HTML>Hello Mark,
I just wandered across you comments and since the date was very recent and I didn't see any mention of other replys, I thought I would reply.
First, I am no steam engine expert. But I can tell you this: they say that steam engines develop full torque at all r.p.m.'s, so that means they must have a great amount of "bottom end" when it comes to starting out.
Also, many old steam engines have a piston which is like a disc on a shaft. The disc, or piston is near the middle of the shaft with the shaft supported by bearings on each end of the cylinder.
So, essentially the cylinder is closed (and the shaft sealed) on each end. There is an intake valve on each end of the cylinder, and an exhaust valve on each end.
Let's say the cylinder is laying flat, in a horizontal position like on an old railroad steam engine. When the piston is at the full left end of the cylinder, the left end intake valve opens and steam pressure pushes the cylinder all the way to the right end of the cylinder. This is a power stroke. Of course, the exhaust valve at the right end of the cylinder is open so the piston is free to move to the right without compressing the air in the right side of the cylinder.
Then, once the piston is fully to the right, this happens: 1) the exhaust valve on the right end closes 2) the intake valve on the right end opens 3) the intake valve on the left end closes 4) the exhause valve on the left end opens. So now, the piston which is fully to the right, is pushed to the left end of the cylinder. This is also power stroke.
So, unlike an internal combustion engine, there is no compression stroke to reduce power, there is no individual exhaust stroke and no individual intake stroke to ingest vaporized fuel. Only power strokes happen. You might say that the exhaust stroke exists, but it happens simultaneously with the power stroke so technically there are only power strokes.
As you can see, there are also many fewer moving parts. Nothing internally is moving except the piston and shaft. Nothing rotating, except the flywheel (externally). Just a simple shaft going forward and backward.
It's like getting 2 power strokes for each piston cycle. Even a two-stroke engine like many motorcycle engines only get one power stroke per two piston cycles. The down cycle is power, the up-cycle is an exhaust stroke.
On a 4-stroke (or 4-cycle) engine like most car engines, only one power stroke is had for every 4 movements of the piston. First is a power stroke, a down movement. Second is an exhaust stroke, an up movement. Third is an intake stroke, a down movement. And last is a compression stroke, an up movement. And this compression stroke is power consuming since it is acting against compressed air and fuel. Then ignition, and the power stroke occurrs again, starting the cycle over.
Maybe this is overly simplified, but sometimes it helps to look at things in their simplest form.
There's a lot of great information on this website. My son and I plan to build a steam engine someday. I have a machine shop, and I've been in the machining business about 37 years. My son has a welding company and a boiler maker certification. But the reading about what others have done is so much fun that we haven't ever started a project of our own.
We get a lot of ideas reading thru all the articles. A lot of smart and well educated people are fascinated by this reliable old technology. With fuel prices going up again, I'm sure there will be a resurgence of steam engine interest.
Maybe someone will do something innovative and get steam use back again.
Good talking to you.
Jerome</HTML>
I just wandered across you comments and since the date was very recent and I didn't see any mention of other replys, I thought I would reply.
First, I am no steam engine expert. But I can tell you this: they say that steam engines develop full torque at all r.p.m.'s, so that means they must have a great amount of "bottom end" when it comes to starting out.
Also, many old steam engines have a piston which is like a disc on a shaft. The disc, or piston is near the middle of the shaft with the shaft supported by bearings on each end of the cylinder.
So, essentially the cylinder is closed (and the shaft sealed) on each end. There is an intake valve on each end of the cylinder, and an exhaust valve on each end.
Let's say the cylinder is laying flat, in a horizontal position like on an old railroad steam engine. When the piston is at the full left end of the cylinder, the left end intake valve opens and steam pressure pushes the cylinder all the way to the right end of the cylinder. This is a power stroke. Of course, the exhaust valve at the right end of the cylinder is open so the piston is free to move to the right without compressing the air in the right side of the cylinder.
Then, once the piston is fully to the right, this happens: 1) the exhaust valve on the right end closes 2) the intake valve on the right end opens 3) the intake valve on the left end closes 4) the exhause valve on the left end opens. So now, the piston which is fully to the right, is pushed to the left end of the cylinder. This is also power stroke.
So, unlike an internal combustion engine, there is no compression stroke to reduce power, there is no individual exhaust stroke and no individual intake stroke to ingest vaporized fuel. Only power strokes happen. You might say that the exhaust stroke exists, but it happens simultaneously with the power stroke so technically there are only power strokes.
As you can see, there are also many fewer moving parts. Nothing internally is moving except the piston and shaft. Nothing rotating, except the flywheel (externally). Just a simple shaft going forward and backward.
It's like getting 2 power strokes for each piston cycle. Even a two-stroke engine like many motorcycle engines only get one power stroke per two piston cycles. The down cycle is power, the up-cycle is an exhaust stroke.
On a 4-stroke (or 4-cycle) engine like most car engines, only one power stroke is had for every 4 movements of the piston. First is a power stroke, a down movement. Second is an exhaust stroke, an up movement. Third is an intake stroke, a down movement. And last is a compression stroke, an up movement. And this compression stroke is power consuming since it is acting against compressed air and fuel. Then ignition, and the power stroke occurrs again, starting the cycle over.
Maybe this is overly simplified, but sometimes it helps to look at things in their simplest form.
There's a lot of great information on this website. My son and I plan to build a steam engine someday. I have a machine shop, and I've been in the machining business about 37 years. My son has a welding company and a boiler maker certification. But the reading about what others have done is so much fun that we haven't ever started a project of our own.
We get a lot of ideas reading thru all the articles. A lot of smart and well educated people are fascinated by this reliable old technology. With fuel prices going up again, I'm sure there will be a resurgence of steam engine interest.
Maybe someone will do something innovative and get steam use back again.
Good talking to you.
Jerome</HTML>
Re: steam car acceleration
Posted by: Dick Vennerbeck (IP Logged)
Date: June 16, 2004 02:36AM
<HTML>Easy Answer
Think about what a steam locomotive could do if it did not have to pull a mile long train of coal cars. Give it some traction, make it light and nimble, gear it for speed.
What would a steam locomotive do if it was pulling a 100 car train loaded with ballast rock........and the coupling behind the tender disconnected.
Can you imagine the stored energy that could be suddenly transferred to the wheels of the locomotive.
My 1910 Stanley 10 HP model 60 has more torque than my Ford Powerstroke!
Steam Rules!....right after pork fat and great sausages!
Dick Vennerbeck</HTML>
Think about what a steam locomotive could do if it did not have to pull a mile long train of coal cars. Give it some traction, make it light and nimble, gear it for speed.
What would a steam locomotive do if it was pulling a 100 car train loaded with ballast rock........and the coupling behind the tender disconnected.
Can you imagine the stored energy that could be suddenly transferred to the wheels of the locomotive.
My 1910 Stanley 10 HP model 60 has more torque than my Ford Powerstroke!
Steam Rules!....right after pork fat and great sausages!
Dick Vennerbeck</HTML>
Re: steam car acceleration
Posted by: Mike Clark (IP Logged)
Date: June 16, 2004 06:14PM
<HTML>Ben
What a great description of your run -- for those who don't read this forum - how about we get Jeff Theobald to put it in "The Steamcar" magazine - would be great to have a picture too -
Mike</HTML>
What a great description of your run -- for those who don't read this forum - how about we get Jeff Theobald to put it in "The Steamcar" magazine - would be great to have a picture too -
Mike</HTML>
Re: steam car acceleration
Posted by: Ben in Maine (IP Logged)
Date: June 18, 2004 12:11PM
<HTML>Hi Mike,,,Glad you enjoyed the post,,,George scolded me for punctereeshion an' stoff,,,However I wrote it to try to get the ''feeling''''' of there just aint enuff time to tell whats going on ,as its happening faster than I can tell it ,,,say nuthing of trying to type that fast,,,English Dunlops are TYRES,,,Dimond[US] are TIRES,,,little stuff i kick in for those that know that my great aunt on fathers side 21 times removed ,,,was Mrs Malaprop,,, { from the 3 Irish Tradgetys,,by Sir Oliver Goldigger]] ;-][ cheers Ben ps/ Im curious to know if the other readers enjoyed that style,,,,,it was the only way I could think of to ''''sort of'''' paint a picture of the happenings,,,,AS they happened,,,Racing is so much different than a car show!! A car show in REAL time,,, NOT static,,,, to HEAR the flag,,,to HEAR it,,,,,,Then the FIRST explosion [singular] THEN ROAR ,,,thunder ,,,,an into the first turn,,,guess you can tell I like road raci'n ///cb</HTML>
Re: steam car acceleration
Posted by: Caleb Ramsby (IP Logged)
Date: June 18, 2004 03:48PM
<HTML>Ben,
I for one enjoy your rather eccentric style of writing.
It begats the sense of immediacy which comes with such an arresting activity.
I am with you, cars that GO, GO, GO, and can actually be worked on with mechanical minds and not computers. Manual steering also, it's the only way to actually feel the road through the tires or tyres without all of that other junk getting in the way. That is what my old RX-7 had and I liked it. My 67 Scout has manual steering too, I just don't have that on the road yet.grin
Caleb Ramsby</HTML>
I for one enjoy your rather eccentric style of writing.
It begats the sense of immediacy which comes with such an arresting activity.
I am with you, cars that GO, GO, GO, and can actually be worked on with mechanical minds and not computers. Manual steering also, it's the only way to actually feel the road through the tires or tyres without all of that other junk getting in the way. That is what my old RX-7 had and I liked it. My 67 Scout has manual steering too, I just don't have that on the road yet.grin
Caleb Ramsby</HTML>
Re: Re The RACE,, start line,,
Posted by: chuk williams (IP Logged)
Date: June 18, 2004 10:37PM
<HTML>Ben-
I felt somewhat the same last year at the Trials when I
drove the dragster...we'd had such a hard push to get the car
ready, then when the time came to do the run, we kept losing
feedwater just when I was gonna go to high power......but then
finally we figured out the problem and pulled up to the line....keepin
the revs above 800 so we'd have enough feedwater-but the twin-
cam engine wants to rev so quick without load that it's a real job
to keep from overrevving it..the real trick is to get the clutch out
and the throttle to the floor at exactly the same moment for the
start!!! Finally, as the seconds-that-seem-like-minutes pass,Karl
Peterson raised his flag and I'm holding the revs at 1800 (keeping a bit of margin for error-in case I miss my clutch/throttle timing)...the flag
starts to fall.....the autopilot/brain does its thing....drop the clutch/
floor the throttle....the tires chirp..watch the tach..gotta switch
cutoff from 85% to 30% as soon as we get a carlength into it...
bang in the 30%, the tires chirp again....we're feeling good...the
rpms wind...back in the seat...the cap Harry Schoel loaned me is
blowing off..I'm steering with one hand..captured the cap with the other
..rpm at 2400......all too soon the flag waves..the thrill ride is over....
Chuk</HTML>
I felt somewhat the same last year at the Trials when I
drove the dragster...we'd had such a hard push to get the car
ready, then when the time came to do the run, we kept losing
feedwater just when I was gonna go to high power......but then
finally we figured out the problem and pulled up to the line....keepin
the revs above 800 so we'd have enough feedwater-but the twin-
cam engine wants to rev so quick without load that it's a real job
to keep from overrevving it..the real trick is to get the clutch out
and the throttle to the floor at exactly the same moment for the
start!!! Finally, as the seconds-that-seem-like-minutes pass,Karl
Peterson raised his flag and I'm holding the revs at 1800 (keeping a bit of margin for error-in case I miss my clutch/throttle timing)...the flag
starts to fall.....the autopilot/brain does its thing....drop the clutch/
floor the throttle....the tires chirp..watch the tach..gotta switch
cutoff from 85% to 30% as soon as we get a carlength into it...
bang in the 30%, the tires chirp again....we're feeling good...the
rpms wind...back in the seat...the cap Harry Schoel loaned me is
blowing off..I'm steering with one hand..captured the cap with the other
..rpm at 2400......all too soon the flag waves..the thrill ride is over....
Chuk</HTML>
Re: Re The RACE,, start line,,
Posted by: Dick Vennerbeck (IP Logged)
Date: June 20, 2004 02:39AM
<HTML>Ben,
You'll be famous one day for your unique style of writing! You'll be "discovered" about the same time it will do you the least good. I for one really enjoy your postings, and now that I've learned to read them, I form a picture in my mind that takes me to your experience! WoW, as they are always great! Remember, "when Bethoven was your age" he'd been dead for over 50 years! Don't stop now!
Dick (in California)</HTML>
You'll be famous one day for your unique style of writing! You'll be "discovered" about the same time it will do you the least good. I for one really enjoy your postings, and now that I've learned to read them, I form a picture in my mind that takes me to your experience! WoW, as they are always great! Remember, "when Bethoven was your age" he'd been dead for over 50 years! Don't stop now!
Dick (in California)</HTML>
Re: steam car acceleration
Posted by: George Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: June 20, 2004 09:45AM
<HTML>Dear Ben,
My wonderful friend, I didn't "scold" you, just hoped that others could appreciate yoour wonderful humor that I enjoy immensly. Like you use biler following George Whitneys love of abbreviating overlettered english word abominations, so much hidden gems of history hiding in your words. If anyone was perplexed about Coburn locking the big Vanderbilt throttle open it was because this car has a many notch hookup lever between the small bucket seats and one good right arm can't hold the throttle open and change cutoff at the same time. Now you should write one about the astounding and unforgetable Dead Horse Hillclimb where you caught the fat cops on there fatter harleys at the top of the first hill going 85plus uphill from a start and you refused to slow done---the brown spots in there undies must still be there!! NEVER had anyone that day ever seen such an apparition pass buy and disappear, a thousand people milling around in wandering circles in total disbelief looking up and down the steep hill wondering if a car had really gone by afterall!!?!
George</HTML>
My wonderful friend, I didn't "scold" you, just hoped that others could appreciate yoour wonderful humor that I enjoy immensly. Like you use biler following George Whitneys love of abbreviating overlettered english word abominations, so much hidden gems of history hiding in your words. If anyone was perplexed about Coburn locking the big Vanderbilt throttle open it was because this car has a many notch hookup lever between the small bucket seats and one good right arm can't hold the throttle open and change cutoff at the same time. Now you should write one about the astounding and unforgetable Dead Horse Hillclimb where you caught the fat cops on there fatter harleys at the top of the first hill going 85plus uphill from a start and you refused to slow done---the brown spots in there undies must still be there!! NEVER had anyone that day ever seen such an apparition pass buy and disappear, a thousand people milling around in wandering circles in total disbelief looking up and down the steep hill wondering if a car had really gone by afterall!!?!
George</HTML>
MsMalaprops student punch in
Posted by: Ben in Maine (IP Logged)
Date: June 20, 2004 11:37AM
<HTML>Hi George ,, Dick,,and all ,,,,So verry happy you enjoyed my ''rant'''[new word,,new/ def;ntion?] Somehow I think now that i'e had fun and stirred the pot,,I should explan a bit,,,,High school in Concord Massachusetts,,home of Hank Thoreau,,Ralph Waldo Emerson /his beautiful house is kept by the family ,,,,unchanged,, Hwathorne and Bronson Alcott,,,Louisa too//AND all their houses,,,and countless others more recent,,well school was sorta formal,,,required reading,,,amongst,,,,,was THE Three English Comidies by Sir Oliver Goldsmith,,,, main? charicter was boarding house marm,,,,Mrs Malaprop who aalllways anvented vverrrry impressiv words to impress people//annyone at all,,,so amongst us older kids I enjoy falling back on the reference to my misplaced family heritage and distant aunt ,,,Mrs Malaprop,,, So when you pinch your finger [nearly off] remember Mrs Malaprop wouldda'' had a MOST impressiv llllengthy word for the ocasion,,{and it would also be acceptable to Emily Post,,,,,and Mary Baker Eddy[who had a fleet of White steamers between Boston and the summer place in NH,,,I realld did have a aunt who knew Miss Tomlinson,,Miss Eddy's last living student,, ,, ,,,I forgot,,Miss Eddy was founder of Christian Science,,,,See New England has a small gene pool and almost everyone knows someone who knows the other guy,,,and of course anything west of Newton is wey out west,,,Haha,,,,,I know its a ramble,,,Maybee I'lL get forgiven in some time twist,,,my life seems a time twist,,, Oh yes,,SOME of the writing style may come from reading technical books of the civil war period,,,,they are verry descriptiv w/ words BECAUSE the drawings were few an photos were not common in teck books till around 1905 so the WORDS needed to tell the WHOLE story,,I think books sufferd after ww-1 more poor quality photos and poorer explations,,,Modern Machine Shop Practice by Joshua Rose is still the verry best,,,,1887 // suppliment 1897 3rd add'n about 1918 Not only a good teck book but a good excercise in understanding communicating with words,,,,and NO Josh ROSE DID NOT Know Mrs Malaprop ///Theres the recess bell,,,,Later,, Cheers ,,Ben</HTML>
Re: steam car acceleration
Posted by: Terry Williams (IP Logged)
Date: June 26, 2004 02:20PM
<HTML>
<a href="http://steamgazette.com/phorum-3.3/profile.php4?f=1&id=57">Mark Dill</a> wrote:
>
> I am doing an article on early auto racing. It is NOT a
> focus on steam cars, but I do want to provide a very quick
> explanation of why steam cars had an acceleration advantage.
> Some folks have told me that it was because power went
> directly to the wheels, there was no transmission, so the
> drivers didn't get bogged down shifting gears. This sounds
> inherently weird to me. I mean the whole idea of gears are to
> deliver power in a manner that overcomes inertia. Why would a
> steam engine car have any less of a reason to do that? Also,
> I have heard others say that with steam power, every piston
> stroke is a power stroke -- but how can that be?
>
> Can someone give me a brief steam engine 101 explanation?
>
> Thank you,
>
> Mark Dill
As was described above, the steam engines of the time developed maximum torque at near zero RPM. The gas engined cars used transmissions to multiply their torque, because the peak torque in a gas engine is only reached at higher RPM.
A double acting steam engine (one where steam is applied on both sides of the piston) has a power stroke on each stroke. So does a double acting 2 stroke gas engine (very rare).</HTML>
<a href="http://steamgazette.com/phorum-3.3/profile.php4?f=1&id=57">Mark Dill</a> wrote:
>
> I am doing an article on early auto racing. It is NOT a
> focus on steam cars, but I do want to provide a very quick
> explanation of why steam cars had an acceleration advantage.
> Some folks have told me that it was because power went
> directly to the wheels, there was no transmission, so the
> drivers didn't get bogged down shifting gears. This sounds
> inherently weird to me. I mean the whole idea of gears are to
> deliver power in a manner that overcomes inertia. Why would a
> steam engine car have any less of a reason to do that? Also,
> I have heard others say that with steam power, every piston
> stroke is a power stroke -- but how can that be?
>
> Can someone give me a brief steam engine 101 explanation?
>
> Thank you,
>
> Mark Dill
As was described above, the steam engines of the time developed maximum torque at near zero RPM. The gas engined cars used transmissions to multiply their torque, because the peak torque in a gas engine is only reached at higher RPM.
A double acting steam engine (one where steam is applied on both sides of the piston) has a power stroke on each stroke. So does a double acting 2 stroke gas engine (very rare).</HTML>
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.