1 Steam Cars : Phorum
General Steam Car topics
Highway speeds
Posted by: Mike Clark (IP Logged)
Date: June 29, 2004 06:21PM
<HTML>Is this a silly question? Talking with a chum who was complaining his 20hp noncondenser would not maintain boiler pressure when cruising at anything over 50mph we concluded that this was not really surprising with a car which does about 10 miles per gallon and has a 4 gallon per hour burner. Logic says you would be lucky to be able to maintain 50.
How does this square with forum comments saying a Model R can cruise at 70 and a 10hp at 60?
10 or 12 miles per gallon average seems to be usual so are these fast runners burning 6 or 7 gallons per hour to hold highway speeds of 70mph? Or do they actually do more mpg than this at highway speeds?
Mike</HTML>
How does this square with forum comments saying a Model R can cruise at 70 and a 10hp at 60?
10 or 12 miles per gallon average seems to be usual so are these fast runners burning 6 or 7 gallons per hour to hold highway speeds of 70mph? Or do they actually do more mpg than this at highway speeds?
Mike</HTML>
Re: Highway speeds
Posted by: SSsssteamer (IP Logged)
Date: June 30, 2004 01:32AM
<HTML>Dear Mike, Your friend's 20 hp noncondensing Stanley's burner should easily cycle off at 50 mph. You did not say which model he has. If he has a model R, the burner should easily cycle off at 70 mph because the car only weights 1500 pounds and it has less wind resistance without a windshield or a top. With only a few passengers, the R is just loafing along at 60 mph. The model 70 on the other hand, has a windshield and top and will carry 5 passengers. With it's lower gearing, and wind resistance it is happier at the lower speeds of around 50 mph. It could be that your friend's Stanley needs some attention in the performance department. Things that affect performance are: proper super heater, good working feed water heater, clean burner plate, clean fire tubes, 140 psi fuel pressure, 500 psi steam pressure, proper sized main jets, main jets the proper distance from their mixing tubes, maximum number of fire tubes in the boiler for it's size, engine and stuffing boxes in good condition, carrying any extra dead weight in the car? Fuel mileage has always been about 10 mpg with our Stanleys. A hot day gives your boiler a boost. A cold day gives your boiler a chill factor. You loose a bit of fuel mileage in firing up the Stanley from cold. I have heard of higher mpg mileage than 12mpg, but I have yet to see it. Anything above 40 mph, your fuel/water mileage starts to suffer from wind resistance and the sloppy Stanley slide valves.</HTML>
Re: Highway speeds
Posted by: Mike Clark (IP Logged)
Date: June 30, 2004 08:51PM
<HTML>Dear SSsssteamer,
It's not the ability to do 70mph that I wonder about - just the mathematics of how to do 70 miles in an hour with a car that burns 4 gallons per hour but only goes 10 miles on each gallon. Must burn more than 4 gpa? What size venturis and jets are you using?
The particular car - not mine - has a full screen and top, four seats and a 4x5inch engine gear 1.1 to 1.
My H, geared 1.2 to 1 with 3 5/8 x 5 engine does 60 easily and feels as if it will do more but unfortunately I rarely come across a road which is empty enough to try it out for long enough to see if it holds pressure - the UK is basically full!
Mike</HTML>
It's not the ability to do 70mph that I wonder about - just the mathematics of how to do 70 miles in an hour with a car that burns 4 gallons per hour but only goes 10 miles on each gallon. Must burn more than 4 gpa? What size venturis and jets are you using?
The particular car - not mine - has a full screen and top, four seats and a 4x5inch engine gear 1.1 to 1.
My H, geared 1.2 to 1 with 3 5/8 x 5 engine does 60 easily and feels as if it will do more but unfortunately I rarely come across a road which is empty enough to try it out for long enough to see if it holds pressure - the UK is basically full!
Mike</HTML>
Re: Highway speeds
Posted by: Graeme Vagg (IP Logged)
Date: June 30, 2004 08:53PM
<HTML>Mike,
With any steam car, the maximum steady speed you can maintain will be determined by the steam generating rate of the boiler, which is limited by the burner size. The high storage capacity of a fire tube Stanely boiler will allow above average steam consumption, and additional power, for a brief period.
A rule of thumb used by Stanley owners in Australia many years ago was to size the burner to match steady road speed by using a burner capacity of 1 gal/hr for each 10 mph. Quick Stanleys here use bigger burners.
Graeme</HTML>
With any steam car, the maximum steady speed you can maintain will be determined by the steam generating rate of the boiler, which is limited by the burner size. The high storage capacity of a fire tube Stanely boiler will allow above average steam consumption, and additional power, for a brief period.
A rule of thumb used by Stanley owners in Australia many years ago was to size the burner to match steady road speed by using a burner capacity of 1 gal/hr for each 10 mph. Quick Stanleys here use bigger burners.
Graeme</HTML>
Re: Highway speeds
Posted by: Graeme Vagg (IP Logged)
Date: July 01, 2004 12:36AM
<HTML>Mike,
If the average fuel economy is 10 mpg, there would be some running conditions above and below this that result in the average figure. Slow runniung in long cut-off and warming up the engine may give running conditions of less than 5 mpg, whereas there will be optimum road conditions that might give 15 to 20mpg. Best running condition should be above the average for a trip that includes a warm up, off peak running and perhaps some steam still left in a warm boiler.
I have proposed some economy trials be run to find out what the best running conditions are. After 100 years of steaming, I thought it was time some reliable results were measured.
Graeme</HTML>
If the average fuel economy is 10 mpg, there would be some running conditions above and below this that result in the average figure. Slow runniung in long cut-off and warming up the engine may give running conditions of less than 5 mpg, whereas there will be optimum road conditions that might give 15 to 20mpg. Best running condition should be above the average for a trip that includes a warm up, off peak running and perhaps some steam still left in a warm boiler.
I have proposed some economy trials be run to find out what the best running conditions are. After 100 years of steaming, I thought it was time some reliable results were measured.
Graeme</HTML>
Re: Highway speeds
Posted by: Howard Randall (IP Logged)
Date: July 01, 2004 10:15AM
<HTML>"Quick Stanleys use bigger burners." sounds like a good bumper sticker!</HTML>
Re: Highway speeds
Posted by: Martin Werbeck (IP Logged)
Date: July 01, 2004 02:18PM
<HTML>Dear Mike,
I wonder what influence the cut-off when "hooked-up" has on steam consumption and cruising speed.
I think up to 1907 they used only one (foreward) cut off, but the 1906 H5 was timed at over 68 mph over 15 miles, average horsepower was probably at least 25-30 on that run. Has your car a single cut-off ?
Figures for cut- off on hook-up for later models are variously quoted as 25, 30 ,33; 38,5; 45 or 65 %. Shorter cut-off may give lower-steam consumption (Stanleys claimed 16-17 lb/hphr) and higher cruising speed, and longer cut-off probably more torque and perhaps a higher top speed because of larger port openings and easier steam flow.
Is the top speed of a Stanley higher with long cut-off ?
Best regards, Martin</HTML>
I wonder what influence the cut-off when "hooked-up" has on steam consumption and cruising speed.
I think up to 1907 they used only one (foreward) cut off, but the 1906 H5 was timed at over 68 mph over 15 miles, average horsepower was probably at least 25-30 on that run. Has your car a single cut-off ?
Figures for cut- off on hook-up for later models are variously quoted as 25, 30 ,33; 38,5; 45 or 65 %. Shorter cut-off may give lower-steam consumption (Stanleys claimed 16-17 lb/hphr) and higher cruising speed, and longer cut-off probably more torque and perhaps a higher top speed because of larger port openings and easier steam flow.
Is the top speed of a Stanley higher with long cut-off ?
Best regards, Martin</HTML>
Re: Highway speeds
Posted by: SSsssteamer (IP Logged)
Date: July 01, 2004 02:29PM
<HTML>Dear Mike, Our burners are slotted Baker burners with 2 3/8" i.d. mixing tubes. We are using Blazick type jets that are drilled with a number 54 drill bit. We have tried using jets drilled with a number 53 drill bit bit it is just too rich to run with straight kerosene and the kerosene will load up the burner. Using the present jets, with the thinner air at higher elevations ((7,000 ft.), we have to either cut our kerosene with gasoline or run a smaller sized jet for a proper air/fuel mixture. At sea level, our Stanleys perform very well. They make even the biggest of gas cars take notice. On the slower tours, we will turn our main fuel about off in order to keep a constant fire without the burner howling. For high speed running, we open up the main fuel valve and let the burner howl. On one hot summer day in Calgary, Canada, with our top down and the windshield folded back, we were cruising along at about 55 mph when a 1912 model T touring passed us by. Thinking that he couldn't be a threat, I followed him and we were finally rung out at 70 mph for five level miles. Our 1914 Stanley 10 hp roadster was flat out but keeping up. The T was used up too. Then on the next hill, I out pulled him. "Smile". We found out later that he had an overhead conversion with a '39 Ford transmission, and a Ruxtell rear axle. Along with his model "B" crankshaft, there wan's much on it that was the original Ford model "T". When we got home, I had to take up on all of my motor clearances. That run about used up our little 10 h.p. engine. On the interstate highways, I will still occasionally hit 70 mph, but I will no longer hold the speed there. Sincerely, Pat Farrell</HTML>
Re: Highway speeds
Posted by: Martin Werbeck (IP Logged)
Date: July 01, 2004 02:59PM
<HTML>PS: I saw your car on steam-car-club`s video tape. Very nice, really a sports model with that wire wheels and small fenders .Windshield and top would certainly ruin the appearance. Is that grey an original colour ?
I had a very enjoyable ride in Peter Stevenson`s "R" model in Melle a month ago. Hopefully I will able to visit next year`s tour in GB with our 1918 tourer,almost complete and in running condition but not yet sorted out.
Martin</HTML>
I had a very enjoyable ride in Peter Stevenson`s "R" model in Melle a month ago. Hopefully I will able to visit next year`s tour in GB with our 1918 tourer,almost complete and in running condition but not yet sorted out.
Martin</HTML>
Re: Highway speeds
Posted by: Kobus van Jaarsveld (IP Logged)
Date: July 01, 2004 04:56PM
<HTML>
I was going to say that here is no way in creation that a standard Model T can shift like that! Kobus</HTML>
I was going to say that here is no way in creation that a standard Model T can shift like that! Kobus</HTML>
Re: Highway speeds
Posted by: Mike Clark (IP Logged)
Date: July 01, 2004 08:58PM
<HTML>Pat,
Terrific information thanks - now I see how you do it. Mine has the standard 1 5/8th inch mixer tubes and no 59 jets. It does seem to burn about 4 gpa when firing full burner. I would guess you do shift 6 or 7 gpa with your set up. I would worry about getting that much burner exhaust out of the flue!
Graeme,
Probably right it may do far fewer mpg at low traffic speeds when the burner is on and off perhaps because fuel is wasted inefficiently when firing at lower vaporiser/jet pressures when the steam auto is only part open and cycling on and off (modulating conditions). I imagine the burner is at its most efficient when the jets get the full fuel line pressure - that's when it howls.
Martin,
I have two engines, one 1907, and one 1908. I have run mostly using the 07 but fitted it with the 08 pattern hook up as I felt it would run better. It certainly does go more smoothly in hookup and feels a bit strangled in full gear at speed.
Glad you like it. The colour is my choice (It is a British Standard colour - Admiralty dark blue grey I think). Decided to do it like that as if it were a UK delivered car painted in a more restrained fashion than the US version. Its actaully brush painted not sprayed, like it would have been in those days.
Sorry I couldn't get to Melle. I hope to next year. Now I'm still changing engine frame rods after breaking one. Another three weeks should do it.
Mike</HTML>
Terrific information thanks - now I see how you do it. Mine has the standard 1 5/8th inch mixer tubes and no 59 jets. It does seem to burn about 4 gpa when firing full burner. I would guess you do shift 6 or 7 gpa with your set up. I would worry about getting that much burner exhaust out of the flue!
Graeme,
Probably right it may do far fewer mpg at low traffic speeds when the burner is on and off perhaps because fuel is wasted inefficiently when firing at lower vaporiser/jet pressures when the steam auto is only part open and cycling on and off (modulating conditions). I imagine the burner is at its most efficient when the jets get the full fuel line pressure - that's when it howls.
Martin,
I have two engines, one 1907, and one 1908. I have run mostly using the 07 but fitted it with the 08 pattern hook up as I felt it would run better. It certainly does go more smoothly in hookup and feels a bit strangled in full gear at speed.
Glad you like it. The colour is my choice (It is a British Standard colour - Admiralty dark blue grey I think). Decided to do it like that as if it were a UK delivered car painted in a more restrained fashion than the US version. Its actaully brush painted not sprayed, like it would have been in those days.
Sorry I couldn't get to Melle. I hope to next year. Now I'm still changing engine frame rods after breaking one. Another three weeks should do it.
Mike</HTML>
Re: Highway speeds
Posted by: David K. Nergaard (IP Logged)
Date: July 03, 2004 04:53PM
<HTML>Driving a conensing Stanley on long tours, I find the limit is the condenser, not the boiler or burner. With my Stanley drilled burner, now 30+ years old, the car can go nearly 40 mph., but, at that speed, it uses more steam than it can condense. Reult, more water stops and a lower average speed than if I drive at 35. At 35, I get about 100 miles to a water tank and about 240 to a fuel tank, in not too hilly country.</HTML>
Re: Highway speeds
Posted by: George Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: July 03, 2004 06:31PM
<HTML>Good Phorum!
Dave Nergaards post is of importance as he is meticulous in the details of his car--remember his performance is with an added economiser that adds about 6% to the boiler output.
The factory specs on the 20HP Stanley were 15 HP and the 30HP engine 25 horsepower. Think keeping in mind what the steady state output of the powerplants being discussed are important ( with original firing rates of 4 and 6GPH respectively) and kept in mind when applied to this discussion.
The 20HP plant without modifications would maintain about 15-16HP with feedpumps on and 4GPH firing rate that produced about 320# steam per hour. The Stanley engine has been quoted as requiring 20-22#/HP-HR steam, less with more superheat. With feedpumps off it would produce abour 25 horsepower as long as the water level in the boiler didn't get too low. How fast can a car go with 15 or 25 horsepower? On boiler overdraw/dropping boiler pressure two times that can easily be approached. The huge reserve of the Stanley boiler may allow someone to "hit upon a speeda" of 70-80mph for a non-condensing car but the question is sustainable highway speeds. The boiler overdraw is even very significant for two miles. It is a great thrill to be in a very well running Stanley (like Brent Campbells 30HP engined Big Green with around a 8GPH firing rate) and approach 70mph for a mile on the interstate coming out of Worcester but this is not sustainable for a cruising speed. So those that travel a mile on boiler overdraw and wise in the operation of their steamer is not necessarily an indication of long distance speed, great thrill and fun but the minimal distance should be 5 miles with pumps on and then we get a more accurate picture. Even the great 1906 performance of the Racer with the 30" boiler and about a 11.5GPH firing rate could average about 107MPH for the 5 mile run done with pumps off--about a 77HP machine in that state. This done with ultra low weight, wind and rolling resistance and streamlined frontal area of 9 square feet. For one and two miles it could double that horsepower and put the finest of European machines to utter shame. A lot of people are running larger burners now and that helps but please consider your long distance cruising speed claims and not what the car will do for an exciting mile or two.
Hope this is food for thought, please excuse any errors as this is from memory and all the data is up in New Hampshire. Chuk, closed on a Florida house Friday and we can get together soon!
Best, George</HTML>
Dave Nergaards post is of importance as he is meticulous in the details of his car--remember his performance is with an added economiser that adds about 6% to the boiler output.
The factory specs on the 20HP Stanley were 15 HP and the 30HP engine 25 horsepower. Think keeping in mind what the steady state output of the powerplants being discussed are important ( with original firing rates of 4 and 6GPH respectively) and kept in mind when applied to this discussion.
The 20HP plant without modifications would maintain about 15-16HP with feedpumps on and 4GPH firing rate that produced about 320# steam per hour. The Stanley engine has been quoted as requiring 20-22#/HP-HR steam, less with more superheat. With feedpumps off it would produce abour 25 horsepower as long as the water level in the boiler didn't get too low. How fast can a car go with 15 or 25 horsepower? On boiler overdraw/dropping boiler pressure two times that can easily be approached. The huge reserve of the Stanley boiler may allow someone to "hit upon a speeda" of 70-80mph for a non-condensing car but the question is sustainable highway speeds. The boiler overdraw is even very significant for two miles. It is a great thrill to be in a very well running Stanley (like Brent Campbells 30HP engined Big Green with around a 8GPH firing rate) and approach 70mph for a mile on the interstate coming out of Worcester but this is not sustainable for a cruising speed. So those that travel a mile on boiler overdraw and wise in the operation of their steamer is not necessarily an indication of long distance speed, great thrill and fun but the minimal distance should be 5 miles with pumps on and then we get a more accurate picture. Even the great 1906 performance of the Racer with the 30" boiler and about a 11.5GPH firing rate could average about 107MPH for the 5 mile run done with pumps off--about a 77HP machine in that state. This done with ultra low weight, wind and rolling resistance and streamlined frontal area of 9 square feet. For one and two miles it could double that horsepower and put the finest of European machines to utter shame. A lot of people are running larger burners now and that helps but please consider your long distance cruising speed claims and not what the car will do for an exciting mile or two.
Hope this is food for thought, please excuse any errors as this is from memory and all the data is up in New Hampshire. Chuk, closed on a Florida house Friday and we can get together soon!
Best, George</HTML>
Re: Highway speeds
Posted by: Mike Clark (IP Logged)
Date: July 03, 2004 08:28PM
<HTML>George,
Great comment as usual.
Interesting how much horsepower the feed pumps use - no wonder the pump driving link joints wear out quickly - surprising that the end of the wrist pin (on a non condenser) can take the strain.
I can certainly feel the difference on my car when I open the pump by- pass and find I have to keep a regular check on all the pump crosshead parts and cure any clatters that start up.
Mike</HTML>
Great comment as usual.
Interesting how much horsepower the feed pumps use - no wonder the pump driving link joints wear out quickly - surprising that the end of the wrist pin (on a non condenser) can take the strain.
I can certainly feel the difference on my car when I open the pump by- pass and find I have to keep a regular check on all the pump crosshead parts and cure any clatters that start up.
Mike</HTML>
Re: Highway speeds
Posted by: George Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: July 03, 2004 11:09PM
<HTML>Mike,
Sorry, I didn't mean to infere that the feedpumps took that much horsepower, maybe one or two horsepower for that. The difference is that heating a pound of water to saturation temperature requires about 1160BTU/pound while the heat required to convert one pound of already hot saturated water to saturated steam would be about 730BTU/pound(for non-condensing cars pumping cold water into the boiler). With feedpumps off all the heat transfered by the burner is used for what is called Hfg--that 730 figure. That is where the added steam evaporaton and horsepower is gained per gallon of fuel burned. Certainly when one opens the pump bypass the boiler steam output increases very quickly.
Didn't mean to confuse, George</HTML>
Sorry, I didn't mean to infere that the feedpumps took that much horsepower, maybe one or two horsepower for that. The difference is that heating a pound of water to saturation temperature requires about 1160BTU/pound while the heat required to convert one pound of already hot saturated water to saturated steam would be about 730BTU/pound(for non-condensing cars pumping cold water into the boiler). With feedpumps off all the heat transfered by the burner is used for what is called Hfg--that 730 figure. That is where the added steam evaporaton and horsepower is gained per gallon of fuel burned. Certainly when one opens the pump bypass the boiler steam output increases very quickly.
Didn't mean to confuse, George</HTML>
Re: Highway speeds
Posted by: Arnold Walker (IP Logged)
Date: July 04, 2004 02:12PM
<HTML>George and David ...
Well spoken ,that steadystate or cruise capacity was one item that had me troubled.
My garden tractor seemed to be requiring as much power generating electricity(9kw) and almost as much mowing grass as the Stanley did running down the road.
Thought there might be something wrong with my system for a pint size steam tractor to need that much power.
Your car insight explained why...
I still don't have enorgh steam experiennce to know for sure,but 730 btu number seems to be happening with compressed steam as well.At least ,I am having some seat of the pant observation that appears that
way.......If that is the case ,wouldn't compression help the condensor capacity David mentioned.
Not sure if you would do that in the engine. Or with an outright compressor. Like I did with my homemade steam turbine (1 and a half Surburu turbochargers with whole turbo being the compressor section.) The plumber's nightmare may not be worth any gain you got from compressing.But wouldn't any saturated?? water dropping out in the steam trap at the higher pressure reduce the demand on the condenser and feedwater preheat.
Probably getting out of thread with the talk of turbo-ing a Stanley....</HTML>
Well spoken ,that steadystate or cruise capacity was one item that had me troubled.
My garden tractor seemed to be requiring as much power generating electricity(9kw) and almost as much mowing grass as the Stanley did running down the road.
Thought there might be something wrong with my system for a pint size steam tractor to need that much power.
Your car insight explained why...
I still don't have enorgh steam experiennce to know for sure,but 730 btu number seems to be happening with compressed steam as well.At least ,I am having some seat of the pant observation that appears that
way.......If that is the case ,wouldn't compression help the condensor capacity David mentioned.
Not sure if you would do that in the engine. Or with an outright compressor. Like I did with my homemade steam turbine (1 and a half Surburu turbochargers with whole turbo being the compressor section.) The plumber's nightmare may not be worth any gain you got from compressing.But wouldn't any saturated?? water dropping out in the steam trap at the higher pressure reduce the demand on the condenser and feedwater preheat.
Probably getting out of thread with the talk of turbo-ing a Stanley....</HTML>
Re: Highway speeds
Posted by: Mike Clark (IP Logged)
Date: July 04, 2004 05:16PM
<HTML>George,
I wasn't intending to tease about your comment on the horsepower needed for pumps - there is a quite noticeable load on the engine when the pumps are on - I would guesss your one or two hp is not far out.
I must fit a feedwater heater - I have spent most of the time making the thing go properly and mending it and so have not had time for such refinements yet.
Mike</HTML>
I wasn't intending to tease about your comment on the horsepower needed for pumps - there is a quite noticeable load on the engine when the pumps are on - I would guesss your one or two hp is not far out.
I must fit a feedwater heater - I have spent most of the time making the thing go properly and mending it and so have not had time for such refinements yet.
Mike</HTML>
Re: Highway speeds
Posted by: David K. Nergaard (IP Logged)
Date: July 06, 2004 03:57PM
<HTML>Mike, I can not believe anyone who drives a steam car more than a few miles a week does not have a feed water heater. It's even harder to understand why the Stanleys did not fit them 'til 1913, heaters were standard on Locomobiles from 1901! The difference they make to the car's steaming is substantial.</HTML>
Re: Highway speeds
Posted by: Mike Clark (IP Logged)
Date: July 06, 2004 08:01PM
<HTML>David - I am sure you are right - but as I said other things have been more urgent. Spent several days machining new frame rods last month - had to do a fair amount of tuning up of my 1953 lathe first and also last year ran out of sound period blocks so had to get patterns and cast new (F engine). I hope to get it going again in two or three weeks then if nothing else happens I'll worry about getting hot water into it!
Mike</HTML>
Mike</HTML>
Re: Highway speeds
Posted by: SSsssteamer (IP Logged)
Date: July 07, 2004 01:58AM
<HTML>Due to a broken feed water heater joint, once I had to run a 500 mile tour without my feed water heater. I would guess that I lost about 20% in performance without the feed water heater. I know that the figure sounds high, but that is about how much difference that it made in fuel mileage, and performance on the hills. Sincerely, Pat Farrell</HTML>
Re: Highway speeds
Posted by: George Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: July 07, 2004 12:29PM
<HTML>Pat,
Was it an exhaust heated feedwater heater or a flue gas economiser--think we all would be clearer if we specified as such. If your car was a non-condensor with a exhaust feedwater heater it would increase the boiler output quite noticably(as you mentioned) as the water tank was always filled with cold water.
In testing Brents transition car that was condensing and with a feedwater heater on the running board he questioned that it made a big difference when the tank was cold but little after the tank got hot/170F or so. We had thermocouples on the car and he had just installed a Nutzian economiser as well. Of course the feedwater added more than the economiser with cold water in the water tank but as soon as the water was hot the feedwater heater did virtually nothing(as the water entering it was not that much cooler than the exhaust steam heating it) but the economiser kept adding its 6-8% to the boiler output. Am sure the Stanleys knew this as well and that is propably why they dropped the feedwater heater on all the later condensing cars.
Best, George</HTML>
Was it an exhaust heated feedwater heater or a flue gas economiser--think we all would be clearer if we specified as such. If your car was a non-condensor with a exhaust feedwater heater it would increase the boiler output quite noticably(as you mentioned) as the water tank was always filled with cold water.
In testing Brents transition car that was condensing and with a feedwater heater on the running board he questioned that it made a big difference when the tank was cold but little after the tank got hot/170F or so. We had thermocouples on the car and he had just installed a Nutzian economiser as well. Of course the feedwater added more than the economiser with cold water in the water tank but as soon as the water was hot the feedwater heater did virtually nothing(as the water entering it was not that much cooler than the exhaust steam heating it) but the economiser kept adding its 6-8% to the boiler output. Am sure the Stanleys knew this as well and that is propably why they dropped the feedwater heater on all the later condensing cars.
Best, George</HTML>
Re: Highway speeds
Posted by: SSsssteamer (IP Logged)
Date: July 07, 2004 01:59PM
<HTML>Dear George, I never installed an economiser over the top of the boiler because the feed water heater does such a good job in preheating the feedwater. Our feedwater heater that we have on our 1914 noncondensing Stanley is only heated by the exhaust. While climbing the hills without our broken feedwater heater hooked up, adding cold feedwater had us slowed terriibly on the hills. Our tank water was filled from ice cold mountain streams in Idaho. Normally, with the exhaust feedwater heater hooked up and working properly, the hot incoming feed water will slow you a bit, but not very much. If you can do it, add your feedwater on the down hill and by pass your feedwater on the up hills. Sincerely, Pat</HTML>
Re: Highway speeds
Posted by: SSsssteamer (IP Logged)
Date: July 07, 2004 08:07PM
<HTML>"Engine's exhaust".....that is.</HTML>
Re: Highway speeds
Posted by: Martin werbeck (IP Logged)
Date: July 13, 2004 02:34PM
<HTML>Dear George, dear SSsssteamer,
Recently I had a discussion with Heiner Rössler, he wants to try an economiser in his 735 , but we were puzzling about the right size.
What size is the economiser coil usually ?
My guess was it should be quiet large , because the heat transfer will suffer from the low temperature difference between the "used up" flue gas and the preheated feedwater.
I thought it is probably wise to install it in a way that the free gas cross section between the coil tubes will match the cross section of the firetubes, so the gas velocity will be about the same.
A 250 feet long 1/2 " tube will probably increase boiler output the same way as a 18 " high boiler over a 14 " high boiler (with 750 1/2 " tubes), but without needing the higher and heavier shell.
Because the heattransfer on the gas side is far lower than on the water side, a copper finned tube economiser should give the best results, although it would be not an easy task to solder it together !
Has anybody tried a finned tube economiser ?
Best regards, Martin
PS: Heiner`s 735 was going very well on the winding roads in the hilly Osnabrück eara (40-50 mph easily on the flat) and gives not at all the impression of being underpowered, despite the 20 hp rating.
The German steam car tour helped very much to show the public that steam cars are not dangerous, unreliable and sluggish things that should better be kept in some corner in a museum
This exellent website was and is really helpful in all things, especially the "What is a Stanley Steamer ?" site !</HTML>
Recently I had a discussion with Heiner Rössler, he wants to try an economiser in his 735 , but we were puzzling about the right size.
What size is the economiser coil usually ?
My guess was it should be quiet large , because the heat transfer will suffer from the low temperature difference between the "used up" flue gas and the preheated feedwater.
I thought it is probably wise to install it in a way that the free gas cross section between the coil tubes will match the cross section of the firetubes, so the gas velocity will be about the same.
A 250 feet long 1/2 " tube will probably increase boiler output the same way as a 18 " high boiler over a 14 " high boiler (with 750 1/2 " tubes), but without needing the higher and heavier shell.
Because the heattransfer on the gas side is far lower than on the water side, a copper finned tube economiser should give the best results, although it would be not an easy task to solder it together !
Has anybody tried a finned tube economiser ?
Best regards, Martin
PS: Heiner`s 735 was going very well on the winding roads in the hilly Osnabrück eara (40-50 mph easily on the flat) and gives not at all the impression of being underpowered, despite the 20 hp rating.
The German steam car tour helped very much to show the public that steam cars are not dangerous, unreliable and sluggish things that should better be kept in some corner in a museum
This exellent website was and is really helpful in all things, especially the "What is a Stanley Steamer ?" site !</HTML>
Re: Highway speeds
Posted by: Mike Clark (IP Logged)
Date: July 13, 2004 07:05PM
<HTML>Martin,
I haven't fitted an economiser but have discussed it with several people who have.
First of all - the flue gas is still very hot - I measured 280 centigrade in the smoke hood with the burner firing. Needs silver solder.
Don't overdo the length - it is more work for the pumps. 100 ft maybe and use smaller tube to increase surface area to voluime ratio. I wondered if a series of say four quarter inch coils in parallel might work and be stronger.
It needs to be well supported with packing to avoid wear and if possible no tube joints inside the smoke hood. The pulsating action of the pump is very hard on the tube which eventually work hardens.
Leakage is hard to avoid so make sure you have an easy way of bypassing it.
If you have a really good smoke hood explosion this may also damage it.
Mike</HTML>
I haven't fitted an economiser but have discussed it with several people who have.
First of all - the flue gas is still very hot - I measured 280 centigrade in the smoke hood with the burner firing. Needs silver solder.
Don't overdo the length - it is more work for the pumps. 100 ft maybe and use smaller tube to increase surface area to voluime ratio. I wondered if a series of say four quarter inch coils in parallel might work and be stronger.
It needs to be well supported with packing to avoid wear and if possible no tube joints inside the smoke hood. The pulsating action of the pump is very hard on the tube which eventually work hardens.
Leakage is hard to avoid so make sure you have an easy way of bypassing it.
If you have a really good smoke hood explosion this may also damage it.
Mike</HTML>
Re: Highway speeds
Posted by: SSsssteamer (IP Logged)
Date: July 13, 2004 07:05PM
<HTML>Dear Martin, Your report of performance for the 735 is about the same as the performance we experience with our 1922 735B. We use an exhaust feed water heater and that is plenty enough heat for our feed water. A finned economizer has been used very successfully by many. In the US, finned tubing is easily available, but pricy. Some air conditioners have a heat exchanget that is the correct size for your needs. David Nergaard has had plenty of experience on the size requirements for an economizer for the 735. As soon as he gets back from his Mt Washington Steam Car Tour, maybe he can shed some light on this subject for you. To make the steam horse power rating sound more believable to the non steam people, I tell the to multiply the steam horse power by 3 and that usually would equal the performance of a gas internal combustion automobile. Our 10 hp Stanley 606 compares exactly to the performance of our 30 hp 1929 Ford Model A tudor sedan. Hill climbing and crusing speeds are very comparable, and both vehicles weigh about the same.</HTML>
Re: Highway speeds
Posted by: Rolly (IP Logged)
Date: July 15, 2004 06:50PM
<HTML>I built an economizer for a friends condensing Stanley. Depending on how the bonnet is insulated I can get a 100 foot coil of ½” OD copper .049 wall wrapped with a one eighth inch spacing between the tubes. This is a two-layer wrap. This gives 13 Sq feet of heating surface and there is still more gas pass space in the economizer then the boiler tubes have. The one I made was limited to only 92 feet or 12 Sq feet of heating surface because of a pipe fittings he did not want to re-do.
Rolly</HTML>
Rolly</HTML>
Re: Highway speeds
Posted by: Mike Clark (IP Logged)
Date: July 15, 2004 07:12PM
<HTML>Rolly,
How did you mount the coils, do they sit on the top of the boiler or fix to the smoke hood?
Does anyone know the temperature of steam coming out of the engine? I suppose 212 F since it is more or less at atmospheric pressure. I was thinking of using a flexible pipe to connect it in so as to eliminate fracture due to pulsing, just wondered what temperature it would need to tolerate.
Model H engine is back together with help from John Goold. It now has 4340 steel frame rods which are 7/8 instead of 3/4 inch diameter from the crankbearing to the block, also a new block with stronger lugs and a modified crosshead bracket which incorporates up and down struts as well. It looks a lot stronger. Just need to fit it.
Mike</HTML>
How did you mount the coils, do they sit on the top of the boiler or fix to the smoke hood?
Does anyone know the temperature of steam coming out of the engine? I suppose 212 F since it is more or less at atmospheric pressure. I was thinking of using a flexible pipe to connect it in so as to eliminate fracture due to pulsing, just wondered what temperature it would need to tolerate.
Model H engine is back together with help from John Goold. It now has 4340 steel frame rods which are 7/8 instead of 3/4 inch diameter from the crankbearing to the block, also a new block with stronger lugs and a modified crosshead bracket which incorporates up and down struts as well. It looks a lot stronger. Just need to fit it.
Mike</HTML>
Re: Highway speeds
Posted by: Andy Patterson (IP Logged)
Date: July 15, 2004 07:56PM
<HTML>Hi Mike
Don't expect exhaust to be at 212 F. I could still have some supper heat left. When the pressure drop to exhaust pressure occures after partial expansion the steam can become supper heated in some casses.
I would figure some safety factor. If it fails you will be running non-condensing. No harm done.
Andy</HTML>
Don't expect exhaust to be at 212 F. I could still have some supper heat left. When the pressure drop to exhaust pressure occures after partial expansion the steam can become supper heated in some casses.
I would figure some safety factor. If it fails you will be running non-condensing. No harm done.
Andy</HTML>
Re: Highway speeds
Posted by: Rolly (IP Logged)
Date: July 15, 2004 07:58PM
<HTML>Mike
As far as I know it is not installed as yet. It will fit on top of the plumbing on top of the boiler and may need some feet to support it.
Rolly</HTML>
As far as I know it is not installed as yet. It will fit on top of the plumbing on top of the boiler and may need some feet to support it.
Rolly</HTML>
Re: Highway speeds
Posted by: George Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: July 15, 2004 09:54PM
<HTML>Mike,
The economiser Rolly made for Jerrys car is the same as three previous ones I designed that have been installed in three operating cars. The choice of 1/2" tubing and a 1/8" gas space allows enough gap so any temporary belching of soot will not gap the bridge between the tubes and enough gas velocity and gas mass flow to work effectively in a two layer economiser. One has been in use for about 15 years. Finned tubing was avoided as it can clog up readily and put back pressure on the Stanley burner, a considerable disadvantage of using an air conditioner tightly finned heat exchanger with a forced and possible dirty fire. The test data is up in New Hampshire with test thermocouple data as well. There are a few other advantages as well. The test results yielded were very close to the theoretical heat transfer theory used to design them. Be sure and have an anti-siphon loop in the bottom coil so all the water in them doesn't run out quickly into the boiler--the amount of water contained is about 3/4 of a gallon.
George</HTML>
The economiser Rolly made for Jerrys car is the same as three previous ones I designed that have been installed in three operating cars. The choice of 1/2" tubing and a 1/8" gas space allows enough gap so any temporary belching of soot will not gap the bridge between the tubes and enough gas velocity and gas mass flow to work effectively in a two layer economiser. One has been in use for about 15 years. Finned tubing was avoided as it can clog up readily and put back pressure on the Stanley burner, a considerable disadvantage of using an air conditioner tightly finned heat exchanger with a forced and possible dirty fire. The test data is up in New Hampshire with test thermocouple data as well. There are a few other advantages as well. The test results yielded were very close to the theoretical heat transfer theory used to design them. Be sure and have an anti-siphon loop in the bottom coil so all the water in them doesn't run out quickly into the boiler--the amount of water contained is about 3/4 of a gallon.
George</HTML>
Re: Highway speeds/economiser
Posted by: Ben in Maine (IP Logged)
Date: July 16, 2004 10:59AM
<HTML>Hi George,,Hope all is ok in Fl and warmer than here,,,Portland is yet to see 80f this year,,,,,Re boiler soot,,,,the burner condition and the expertese of the opperator make a big difference,,,,in the 1950's it is said George Munroe,,[ a former Stanley employee] would lift the hood,,and then the boiler flap,,,and w/ a clean white hankerchief wipe the inside of the smoke bonnit to show that the fire was a clean one,,,IF this is a repeatable performence ,,the finned tubing would be a usable option,,,,I think,,practice first,,,,Cheers Ben</HTML>
Re: Highway speeds/economiser
Posted by: George Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: July 16, 2004 11:53AM
<HTML>Ben,
Much easier to do with an unforced non-howling stock 4GPH firing rate on a 23" boiler and an operator with great patience and of course George Monroe was a superb expert at it as well. However many cars at Mt. Washington and our own club meetings force there fires to much higher rates with much howling and more often than not occassional puffs of soot can be seen. It would not take but a few times to soot up finned tubing spaced 1/32" on centers. Then we have observed the oft problem of the fire not lighting and clouds of kerosene mist coming out of the boiler exhaust---just think how nice and sticky all that finned surface gets and how readily they would accept future soot. I don't think I can ever remember anyones car in our SACA club performing flawlessly all the time, especially on cold startup, there have always been exceptions to that perfectly ultra clean burn condition and it is those exceptions that I am addressing. In the 12GPH Lamont I designed for a condensing Stanley of radial gas outflow the economiser (outside helical coil) was finned but with 6 fins per linear inch allowing sufficient distance between fins. There have been many laboratory studies of finned tubing and there relative effectiveness comparing many number of fins per inch and 6 fins are approximately 80% as effective as 12- 20 fins per inch.
We should get Jim to relate the hilarious story of the first time they fired up the miniature Doble boiler in the Paxton car, probably the most lightweight high performance boiler of its time. All the high power blue suit guys were in the test lab for this big occassion and the burn started and suddenly little balls of molton aluminum were bouncing around on the test lab floor melting quickly off the economiser finned tubing!! The story goes on that all one could see were the rear ends of the blue suiters trying to cram themselves thru the exit door at the same time like an old fashioned comedy film. @!#$ can always happen in an instant for all of us.
Best, George</HTML>
Much easier to do with an unforced non-howling stock 4GPH firing rate on a 23" boiler and an operator with great patience and of course George Monroe was a superb expert at it as well. However many cars at Mt. Washington and our own club meetings force there fires to much higher rates with much howling and more often than not occassional puffs of soot can be seen. It would not take but a few times to soot up finned tubing spaced 1/32" on centers. Then we have observed the oft problem of the fire not lighting and clouds of kerosene mist coming out of the boiler exhaust---just think how nice and sticky all that finned surface gets and how readily they would accept future soot. I don't think I can ever remember anyones car in our SACA club performing flawlessly all the time, especially on cold startup, there have always been exceptions to that perfectly ultra clean burn condition and it is those exceptions that I am addressing. In the 12GPH Lamont I designed for a condensing Stanley of radial gas outflow the economiser (outside helical coil) was finned but with 6 fins per linear inch allowing sufficient distance between fins. There have been many laboratory studies of finned tubing and there relative effectiveness comparing many number of fins per inch and 6 fins are approximately 80% as effective as 12- 20 fins per inch.
We should get Jim to relate the hilarious story of the first time they fired up the miniature Doble boiler in the Paxton car, probably the most lightweight high performance boiler of its time. All the high power blue suit guys were in the test lab for this big occassion and the burn started and suddenly little balls of molton aluminum were bouncing around on the test lab floor melting quickly off the economiser finned tubing!! The story goes on that all one could see were the rear ends of the blue suiters trying to cram themselves thru the exit door at the same time like an old fashioned comedy film. @!#$ can always happen in an instant for all of us.
Best, George</HTML>
Re: Highway speeds/economiser
Posted by: David K. Nergaard (IP Logged)
Date: July 17, 2004 07:14PM
<HTML>I have been using a condenser from an air conditioner for an economizer for more than 30 years. It recovers about 7% of the fuel's heat from the flue gases, just as theory predicted. I usually blow any soot etc. out during the spring when the the boiler gets its annual check up. It has not needed any other care. The draft loss through the economizer is less than that of the boiler, my burner doesn't seem to care about it. It cost me $2 in '72, and saves more than that in every tank full today!</HTML>
Re: Highway speeds/economiser
Posted by: George Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: July 17, 2004 09:46PM
<HTML> David,
You are one of the rare people that warms up very carefully and uses the factory burn rate of 4GPH. There would be good chance if you pushed your burner like so many do it would need cleaning more than once in the spring.
Plus you have done full and partial boiler tube jobs many many times in that period and thus given the chance to really clean out the air conditioner condensor as many times. I would love to look at it closely some time and see how much flue gas bypasses it/how tight the unit is installed in the flue. I do know it is very effective for you.
George</HTML>
You are one of the rare people that warms up very carefully and uses the factory burn rate of 4GPH. There would be good chance if you pushed your burner like so many do it would need cleaning more than once in the spring.
Plus you have done full and partial boiler tube jobs many many times in that period and thus given the chance to really clean out the air conditioner condensor as many times. I would love to look at it closely some time and see how much flue gas bypasses it/how tight the unit is installed in the flue. I do know it is very effective for you.
George</HTML>
Re: Highway speeds/economiser
Posted by: David K. Nergaard (IP Logged)
Date: July 21, 2004 10:53AM
<HTML>I have just finished 12 days of touring at the "Climb to the Clouds" centennial celibration. My normal speed was 35 mph., coming down somewhat on long grades. On the steepest part of Jefferson Notch, I was going 5 mph., on a narrow dirt road.
My average fuel mileage for the 987 miles driven was 11.9, using Diesel oil. On the two longest days, driving to (207 miles) and from (160 miles) the meet, the mileage was 13.2.
The water mileage was also good, once getting 117 miles to a tank full, and never less than 90.
The car is my 1922 Stanley 735M, fitted with an economiser and a Stanley type 7 engine with a piston valved cylinder block. The burner is a very tired Stanley, with so many cracks in the grate that it is a moot point whether it should be called drilled or slotted. I keep the firing rate low for two reasons: I hate howling burners and I don't want to pay $10/hour to drive the car!</HTML>
My average fuel mileage for the 987 miles driven was 11.9, using Diesel oil. On the two longest days, driving to (207 miles) and from (160 miles) the meet, the mileage was 13.2.
The water mileage was also good, once getting 117 miles to a tank full, and never less than 90.
The car is my 1922 Stanley 735M, fitted with an economiser and a Stanley type 7 engine with a piston valved cylinder block. The burner is a very tired Stanley, with so many cracks in the grate that it is a moot point whether it should be called drilled or slotted. I keep the firing rate low for two reasons: I hate howling burners and I don't want to pay $10/hour to drive the car!</HTML>
Re: Highway speeds/economiser
Posted by: George Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: July 21, 2004 01:05PM
<HTML> Congratulations Dave on your long and economical fun. No doubt your desire to have a steam car run quietly without the burner howling at any time really helps maintain a very clean fire and prevent soot output. As your economiser adds 7-8% to the overall boiler output/efficiency how much do you think your new piston valve block adds in efficiency and milage compared to your previous experience useing slide valve blocks? Also are you running higher steam temperatures with a bigger superheater as well, if so how much do think that decreases the engine steam rate and increase fuel milage Know you are diligent on recording such data. Certainly your doing all three have each increased the efficiency of your venerable Stanley.
Best, George</HTML>
Best, George</HTML>
Re: Highway speeds/economiser
Posted by: George Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: July 21, 2004 04:57PM
<HTML>Dave,
Please excuse my misstype of "fun", it was sincerely meant to be "long and economical run" . You, thru a lot of diligent effort and engineering mind may well have made your heavier condensing car into one of the most economical cars on the steam road. There is nothing more annoying, on a long run, for a car to be filled with the incessant howl of the burner and talking to each other is done by shouting. Your car is like conversing in ones living room-- a blistering momentary performance run is one thing to endure the screaming burner but not for a few hours on a tour, on that yours is a great pleasure.
Are you going to enter the 1/8 mile time trials at our next SACA/NE meet this year. I was most impressed that two years ago you had the fastest time and also the highest speed of 42mph on this somewhat uphill runway(thanks to Peter Heids gift of the radar gun). And that was against some lighter and fairly fast non-condensors!
Please excuse my previous typo, George</HTML>
Please excuse my misstype of "fun", it was sincerely meant to be "long and economical run" . You, thru a lot of diligent effort and engineering mind may well have made your heavier condensing car into one of the most economical cars on the steam road. There is nothing more annoying, on a long run, for a car to be filled with the incessant howl of the burner and talking to each other is done by shouting. Your car is like conversing in ones living room-- a blistering momentary performance run is one thing to endure the screaming burner but not for a few hours on a tour, on that yours is a great pleasure.
Are you going to enter the 1/8 mile time trials at our next SACA/NE meet this year. I was most impressed that two years ago you had the fastest time and also the highest speed of 42mph on this somewhat uphill runway(thanks to Peter Heids gift of the radar gun). And that was against some lighter and fairly fast non-condensors!
Please excuse my previous typo, George</HTML>
Re: Highway speeds/economiser
Posted by: SSsssteamer (IP Logged)
Date: July 22, 2004 03:02AM
<HTML>Dear George, I agree that the howling can get tiresome. When I want to silence the howling on our Stanleys (condensing and non condensing), I turn the main valve down just far enough to maintain the steam pressure that I need at the time, but open only enough too, to prevent the howling. I often use this procedure while touring with other cars that don't drive over 40 mph. What is also handy to do is to turn on only enough fuel that the Steam automatic never cycles off. That way your super heater is always in the fire and there is never any question if your fire has gone out. This trick doesn't work on the long down hills though, as your steam automatic will eventually cycle your fuel off. Sincerely, Pat Farrell</HTML>
Re: Highway speeds/economiser
Posted by: David K. Nergaard (IP Logged)
Date: July 23, 2004 02:39PM
<HTML>The superheat is 650 deg. F. at the engine, the minimum i have calculated to keep the steam dry throughout its expansion. This results in the exhaust being somewhat superheated. Raising the temperature to 750-800 deg has very little effect on the performance of the engine, as the steam is already dry enough at 650. Letting the temp. drop to 600, however, makes a quite noticeable drop in performance!
The piston valve engine has simultaneously increased the cruising speed from about 30 to a bit more than 35, fuel mileage from 10-12 to 11-13 and range on a tank of water from 60-80 to about 100 miles. Water range is still a strong function of hills on the route and the weather.</HTML>
The piston valve engine has simultaneously increased the cruising speed from about 30 to a bit more than 35, fuel mileage from 10-12 to 11-13 and range on a tank of water from 60-80 to about 100 miles. Water range is still a strong function of hills on the route and the weather.</HTML>
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.