1 Steam Cars : Phorum
General Steam Car topics
Control Technology
Posted by: Andy Patterson (IP Logged)
Date: August 24, 2004 06:42PM
<HTML>Hi Garry and Caleb
You both express tolorance for diferent levels of control complexity or types. Mechanical controls can get very complex. I think everone has a technology they are content with with. I am wondering if we can catagorize them. And maybe come up with some true advantages. I think there five differenct technological types of controls.
1. Manual
2. Mechanical.
3. Electric
4. Electronic
5. Computer</HTML>
You both express tolorance for diferent levels of control complexity or types. Mechanical controls can get very complex. I think everone has a technology they are content with with. I am wondering if we can catagorize them. And maybe come up with some true advantages. I think there five differenct technological types of controls.
1. Manual
2. Mechanical.
3. Electric
4. Electronic
5. Computer</HTML>
Re: Control Technology
Posted by: Andy Patterson (IP Logged)
Date: August 24, 2004 07:03PM
<HTML>Woops That posted when I was entering the heading info. Hit CR on a field.
What I am getting at is that a system can have some mix of the different types. The distinction between electric and electronic might need some explanation. Electric would be a Doble type system. Using relays and mechanical sensors that operated swiches.
Electronic controls would be like the 555 timmer circuit used on the feed pump control Peter Beratt's(Sorry not sure of the spelling) car.
Something like that could be used with an O2 sensor to match fan speed to fuel rate.
But as someone pointed out to me reciently. The air flow inetia would be a problem trying to match fan speed to the fuel. The problems of controling fuel rate gets a bit more complex in that case. Changing the fan rate to get a fuel rate becomes a two stage feed back loop. Using an O2 sensor to match fuel rate to the fan speed. and adjusting fan speed to get the fuel rate desired.
Andy</HTML>
What I am getting at is that a system can have some mix of the different types. The distinction between electric and electronic might need some explanation. Electric would be a Doble type system. Using relays and mechanical sensors that operated swiches.
Electronic controls would be like the 555 timmer circuit used on the feed pump control Peter Beratt's(Sorry not sure of the spelling) car.
Something like that could be used with an O2 sensor to match fan speed to fuel rate.
But as someone pointed out to me reciently. The air flow inetia would be a problem trying to match fan speed to the fuel. The problems of controling fuel rate gets a bit more complex in that case. Changing the fan rate to get a fuel rate becomes a two stage feed back loop. Using an O2 sensor to match fuel rate to the fan speed. and adjusting fan speed to get the fuel rate desired.
Andy</HTML>
Re: Control Technology
Posted by: Chuck Hays (IP Logged)
Date: August 24, 2004 07:56PM
<HTML>Andy writes:
> Hi Garry and Caleb
I'm neither Garry nor Caleb, nor do I play either of them on TV, but hello in any event. :)
> I think everone has a technology they are content with. I am wondering if >we can catagorize them.
> 1. Manual
>
> 2. Mechanical.
>
> 3. Electric
>
> 4. Electronic
>
> 5. Computer
Categorisation is one thing, prioritisation quite another. To take your categories in order, I would say that manual-level controls should be limited to things like turning on the ignition key, or checking various gauges or sight glasses before starting up -- as it has been pointed out, any manual operation takes a lot of attention away from driving, particularly so while one is still learning a new vehicle's operative quirks. Bad enough with a new internal explosive car, much worse with a completely different technology.
Mechanical controls can be grossly simple, to control large processes or critical links -- such as a positive shutoff for a fuel feed or water tank. In some cases where mechanical controls are able to be both robust and simple, they may very well be the most effective. Boiler pressure popoffs, flyweight governors, things like that which require only mechanical power input to work and do not depend on an electrical system. Mechanical controls can be manually operated or they can cross over the other category line and be electrically or vacuum or pressure operated. I would argue that you should have "Electromechanical" as a category, since many of the controls I can think of would be of that sort.
Electronic controls certainly have their place in a modern automobile. I'll discuss them more in a moment, but I would like to address computer controls first. I have ridden high-performance motorcycles which literally require a computer network to operate. One race bike I piloted had five computers -- four to control various parts of the machine and one to act as the network server. The bike could be monitored in its most intimate details while underway, and the tuner could even make changes and upload them to the server on the bike via a radio link as changing race conditions necessitated. As to electronics, I appreciate the reliablility of blackbox componentry, even on my hotrod bobber. I ran the same ignition with zero maintenance from 1989 to 2004, then upgraded to a newer ignition module with performance advance curves and a higher rev limiter. It was cheaper than the old module, mechanically more robust, and it just plugged right in. Zip-zap-shabam -- race-tune in a box.
Electronics are not de facto bad. However, I would say that for any application in a steam vehicle for which you have the choice from among the categories above, the priority tree might look something like this:
1. Can this process be controlled manually in a simple fashion that will not require much of the driver's attention while underway? If so, make it a manual control.
2. If not, can this process be controlled by a relatively simple electromechanical device, preferably one available off the shelf or simple to modify, make and maintain? If so, make the control electromechanical.
3. If not, can this be controlled by a simple electronic blackbox, available off the shelf or easily reconfigured to work in this application? If so, control electronically. Granted, electronic blackboxes do not allow user fiddling. However, a complicated electromechanical process can often be more accurately controlled by a black box. The main question then becomes having sufficient spares available to prevent downtime.
4. If the process cannot be controlled electronically, I would tend to argue that the process needs to be rethought rather than go to computer control from there. That said, having the ability to tune engine parameters at 5-revolution step intervals can be useful for setting up a vehicle for optimal performance. Just as I tend to believe that manual controls are far too crude and require too much of the operator's attention at present-day road speeds, I also tend to believe that very, very few people would care to bother with such an intensive level of micromanagement of their motor vehicle as would be represented by a fully-accessible computer control system. Even setting up a computer controlled fuel-injection program for a Harley takes a lot of time and presents the average tinkerer with an incredible number of ways to screw it up.</HTML>
> Hi Garry and Caleb
I'm neither Garry nor Caleb, nor do I play either of them on TV, but hello in any event. :)
> I think everone has a technology they are content with. I am wondering if >we can catagorize them.
> 1. Manual
>
> 2. Mechanical.
>
> 3. Electric
>
> 4. Electronic
>
> 5. Computer
Categorisation is one thing, prioritisation quite another. To take your categories in order, I would say that manual-level controls should be limited to things like turning on the ignition key, or checking various gauges or sight glasses before starting up -- as it has been pointed out, any manual operation takes a lot of attention away from driving, particularly so while one is still learning a new vehicle's operative quirks. Bad enough with a new internal explosive car, much worse with a completely different technology.
Mechanical controls can be grossly simple, to control large processes or critical links -- such as a positive shutoff for a fuel feed or water tank. In some cases where mechanical controls are able to be both robust and simple, they may very well be the most effective. Boiler pressure popoffs, flyweight governors, things like that which require only mechanical power input to work and do not depend on an electrical system. Mechanical controls can be manually operated or they can cross over the other category line and be electrically or vacuum or pressure operated. I would argue that you should have "Electromechanical" as a category, since many of the controls I can think of would be of that sort.
Electronic controls certainly have their place in a modern automobile. I'll discuss them more in a moment, but I would like to address computer controls first. I have ridden high-performance motorcycles which literally require a computer network to operate. One race bike I piloted had five computers -- four to control various parts of the machine and one to act as the network server. The bike could be monitored in its most intimate details while underway, and the tuner could even make changes and upload them to the server on the bike via a radio link as changing race conditions necessitated. As to electronics, I appreciate the reliablility of blackbox componentry, even on my hotrod bobber. I ran the same ignition with zero maintenance from 1989 to 2004, then upgraded to a newer ignition module with performance advance curves and a higher rev limiter. It was cheaper than the old module, mechanically more robust, and it just plugged right in. Zip-zap-shabam -- race-tune in a box.
Electronics are not de facto bad. However, I would say that for any application in a steam vehicle for which you have the choice from among the categories above, the priority tree might look something like this:
1. Can this process be controlled manually in a simple fashion that will not require much of the driver's attention while underway? If so, make it a manual control.
2. If not, can this process be controlled by a relatively simple electromechanical device, preferably one available off the shelf or simple to modify, make and maintain? If so, make the control electromechanical.
3. If not, can this be controlled by a simple electronic blackbox, available off the shelf or easily reconfigured to work in this application? If so, control electronically. Granted, electronic blackboxes do not allow user fiddling. However, a complicated electromechanical process can often be more accurately controlled by a black box. The main question then becomes having sufficient spares available to prevent downtime.
4. If the process cannot be controlled electronically, I would tend to argue that the process needs to be rethought rather than go to computer control from there. That said, having the ability to tune engine parameters at 5-revolution step intervals can be useful for setting up a vehicle for optimal performance. Just as I tend to believe that manual controls are far too crude and require too much of the operator's attention at present-day road speeds, I also tend to believe that very, very few people would care to bother with such an intensive level of micromanagement of their motor vehicle as would be represented by a fully-accessible computer control system. Even setting up a computer controlled fuel-injection program for a Harley takes a lot of time and presents the average tinkerer with an incredible number of ways to screw it up.</HTML>
Re: Control Technology
Posted by: Rolly (IP Logged)
Date: August 24, 2004 08:15PM
<HTML>Andy
They make standard oil burners with three nozzles with damper controls for regulating the air. The nozzles are each controlled with solenoid valves that are tied to the damper position switch. I have contemplated using a similar burner on my Derr with a micro switch on the throttle. A small ½ to one gal nozzle for warm up, a 4 to 5 gal for normal operation, up to mid to three quarter throttle, and another 1 to 2 gal for full opened throttle. I’m still playing with just a 5 gal burner right now.
Water is controlled by a five probe electronic controlled level indicator operating normally closed solenoid bypass valves on the main feed water pump, and normally opened on the low water pumps.
Pressure is controlled by a Mercoid 1000 PSI pressure switch.</HTML>
They make standard oil burners with three nozzles with damper controls for regulating the air. The nozzles are each controlled with solenoid valves that are tied to the damper position switch. I have contemplated using a similar burner on my Derr with a micro switch on the throttle. A small ½ to one gal nozzle for warm up, a 4 to 5 gal for normal operation, up to mid to three quarter throttle, and another 1 to 2 gal for full opened throttle. I’m still playing with just a 5 gal burner right now.
Water is controlled by a five probe electronic controlled level indicator operating normally closed solenoid bypass valves on the main feed water pump, and normally opened on the low water pumps.
Pressure is controlled by a Mercoid 1000 PSI pressure switch.</HTML>
Re: Control Technology
Posted by: Peter Heid (IP Logged)
Date: August 24, 2004 10:35PM
<HTML>Chuck,
The computer is the black box of electronic controls. I can build most electronic circuits faster and simpler with a microcontroller. If a process can be controlled electronically, it can usually be done easier, faster, more accurately, cheaper, with lower power consumption and with less debugging with a computer.
For something like pulse width modulation, you can't beat a microcontroller since it inputs the analog signal and can output the result on a single device.
The interlocking of functions can become complex with mechanical and electronic circuits and the power robbing relays usually start to multiply.
The computer can monitor the manual controls, something like making the burner doesn't come on if the feed valve is closed.
A fuel injection system for a on/off burner is very simple and can be programmed from scratch in a short time. Even a varried firing rate is far simpler than a IC fuel injection map. You don't have ignition timming, knock sensors, coolant/air temperature sensors, Throttle position sensors, Crankshaft position sensors and a whole lot more to complicate a computer controlled burner for a boiler.
The micromanagement allows me to fine tune for the cleanest burn and the best cutoff in real time for the best efficiency, hard to do any other way.
Peter Heid</HTML>
The computer is the black box of electronic controls. I can build most electronic circuits faster and simpler with a microcontroller. If a process can be controlled electronically, it can usually be done easier, faster, more accurately, cheaper, with lower power consumption and with less debugging with a computer.
For something like pulse width modulation, you can't beat a microcontroller since it inputs the analog signal and can output the result on a single device.
The interlocking of functions can become complex with mechanical and electronic circuits and the power robbing relays usually start to multiply.
The computer can monitor the manual controls, something like making the burner doesn't come on if the feed valve is closed.
A fuel injection system for a on/off burner is very simple and can be programmed from scratch in a short time. Even a varried firing rate is far simpler than a IC fuel injection map. You don't have ignition timming, knock sensors, coolant/air temperature sensors, Throttle position sensors, Crankshaft position sensors and a whole lot more to complicate a computer controlled burner for a boiler.
The micromanagement allows me to fine tune for the cleanest burn and the best cutoff in real time for the best efficiency, hard to do any other way.
Peter Heid</HTML>
Re: Control Technology
Posted by: Andy Patterson (IP Logged)
Date: August 24, 2004 10:44PM
<HTML>Hi Chuck
I think you sumed it up about right.
But I didn't make the catagories all that clear.
Except for the first all are automated controls.
The later Stanley automatic controls and the White flow motor are examples of machanical controls.
The Electric catagory could be electro machinical. That is more along the lines I was thinking. I would put solid state relays into this catagory as well.
The electronic catagory could be seperated into analog and digital electronics. Though a doubt it maters much as far as preverances go.
Computer controls are my preferance. Programs can easly be changed. I would of course start with a more general rugidized computer to develop the programs on. Changing a black box computer control is basicly replacing one program with another. A second avantages of a computer is it's ability to control non liner multi dimension(large number of input variables) processes.
Fuel rate follows an aproxamate cubic relation to speed. But with diferant cutoff points you have diferent rates. And when you add in acceleration the fuel rate gets even more complex.
The problem can be solved by having enough boiler reserve that simple feed back controls can handle the rate change. But as you reduce the boiler size so is the reserve. The LaMount boiler may make this pritical.
But as an example of a complex computerized boiler control:
This will take a bit of digesting as there are 3 seperate interdependent control systems involved.
An accelerator algorithm takes accelerator position, engine RPM, etc as input and set the fuel rate anticipating the steam requirments. Boiler pressure, temperature and actual fuel rate feed back would be used to adjust tables driving the fuel rate accelerator algorithm. And in some casses over riding it. Pumping the accelerator would couse the fuel rate to go up and down increasing boiler pressure to increase as the engine would not be using the anticapated steam. Over pressure feed back would override the fuel rate increase.
A burner control algorithm would take the fuel rate from the accelerator algorithm and adjust the fan speed to get the requested fuel rate. Its basicly a feed back system using the input desired fuel rate, the actual fuel rate feedback, adjusting the fan speed or a damper to achieve a match.
A fuel ratio control system would adjust adjust the fuel rate to maintain a clean burn. An O2 sensor feed back would vary the fuel rate. So as the fan speed changed the fuel rate would track the air flow to maintain a clean burn.
The accelerator algorithm would be hard to do except with a computer. It will take a tremendious amount of tinkering to get it right. There are a lot a input variables: accelerator position, engine RPM, boiler pressure, steam temperature, cutoff etc. It would also be tuned to the vehical. Arodynamics come into play affecting the fuel rate at a given speed. The later two could be electronic systems.
This type of control is probably needed with something like the S.E.S. boiler were there is almost no reserve capacity. Steam draw and fuel rate quickly effect the output steam properties.
I don't mean to be blowing my own horn here. The reasion I started this thread is to get an idea of the level of technology people are comfy with. And their reasions.
Andy
++</HTML>
I think you sumed it up about right.
But I didn't make the catagories all that clear.
Except for the first all are automated controls.
The later Stanley automatic controls and the White flow motor are examples of machanical controls.
The Electric catagory could be electro machinical. That is more along the lines I was thinking. I would put solid state relays into this catagory as well.
The electronic catagory could be seperated into analog and digital electronics. Though a doubt it maters much as far as preverances go.
Computer controls are my preferance. Programs can easly be changed. I would of course start with a more general rugidized computer to develop the programs on. Changing a black box computer control is basicly replacing one program with another. A second avantages of a computer is it's ability to control non liner multi dimension(large number of input variables) processes.
Fuel rate follows an aproxamate cubic relation to speed. But with diferant cutoff points you have diferent rates. And when you add in acceleration the fuel rate gets even more complex.
The problem can be solved by having enough boiler reserve that simple feed back controls can handle the rate change. But as you reduce the boiler size so is the reserve. The LaMount boiler may make this pritical.
But as an example of a complex computerized boiler control:
This will take a bit of digesting as there are 3 seperate interdependent control systems involved.
An accelerator algorithm takes accelerator position, engine RPM, etc as input and set the fuel rate anticipating the steam requirments. Boiler pressure, temperature and actual fuel rate feed back would be used to adjust tables driving the fuel rate accelerator algorithm. And in some casses over riding it. Pumping the accelerator would couse the fuel rate to go up and down increasing boiler pressure to increase as the engine would not be using the anticapated steam. Over pressure feed back would override the fuel rate increase.
A burner control algorithm would take the fuel rate from the accelerator algorithm and adjust the fan speed to get the requested fuel rate. Its basicly a feed back system using the input desired fuel rate, the actual fuel rate feedback, adjusting the fan speed or a damper to achieve a match.
A fuel ratio control system would adjust adjust the fuel rate to maintain a clean burn. An O2 sensor feed back would vary the fuel rate. So as the fan speed changed the fuel rate would track the air flow to maintain a clean burn.
The accelerator algorithm would be hard to do except with a computer. It will take a tremendious amount of tinkering to get it right. There are a lot a input variables: accelerator position, engine RPM, boiler pressure, steam temperature, cutoff etc. It would also be tuned to the vehical. Arodynamics come into play affecting the fuel rate at a given speed. The later two could be electronic systems.
This type of control is probably needed with something like the S.E.S. boiler were there is almost no reserve capacity. Steam draw and fuel rate quickly effect the output steam properties.
I don't mean to be blowing my own horn here. The reasion I started this thread is to get an idea of the level of technology people are comfy with. And their reasions.
Andy
++</HTML>
Re: Control Technology
Posted by: Andy Patterson (IP Logged)
Date: August 24, 2004 11:56PM
<HTML>Hi Peter
Few people have the comfert level with computer you and I have. I have been programming computer for over 40 years now. Mostly in assembly. Untill the last three years I had written a compiler for ever language I programed in. The majority of programmers would not be able to program the computers controling IC engines. It takes a level of hardware understanding, and most programmers just don't have the electronics background.
I am not sure about being cheaper with less power consumption. Most the power consumption would be involved in driving circuits. You are going to have that with both electronic and computer controlers. A fuel injector for example would reauire the same power no mater the controler type. A single computer can control multipal things and would generally be cheaper. But for a single control the productions costs of an electronic controler would most likely be cheaper. The development would be more costly so cost would depend on the number produced. But revisions on an electronic controler might mean another board design cycle were only a program change to a micro control would be neccessary. Cost benifit is a grey area.
Don't take my comments personal. It's my nature to take the counter side. To be a good programmer or engineer you have to use Murphy's Law. "If anything can go worng it will go wrong" That is an engineering concept. It doesn't mean that you can not prevent things from going wrong. It means that you must design for everything that can happen. It simply means that if you miss even the least probabl thing. That thing is going to come and bite your ???.
Andy</HTML>
Few people have the comfert level with computer you and I have. I have been programming computer for over 40 years now. Mostly in assembly. Untill the last three years I had written a compiler for ever language I programed in. The majority of programmers would not be able to program the computers controling IC engines. It takes a level of hardware understanding, and most programmers just don't have the electronics background.
I am not sure about being cheaper with less power consumption. Most the power consumption would be involved in driving circuits. You are going to have that with both electronic and computer controlers. A fuel injector for example would reauire the same power no mater the controler type. A single computer can control multipal things and would generally be cheaper. But for a single control the productions costs of an electronic controler would most likely be cheaper. The development would be more costly so cost would depend on the number produced. But revisions on an electronic controler might mean another board design cycle were only a program change to a micro control would be neccessary. Cost benifit is a grey area.
Don't take my comments personal. It's my nature to take the counter side. To be a good programmer or engineer you have to use Murphy's Law. "If anything can go worng it will go wrong" That is an engineering concept. It doesn't mean that you can not prevent things from going wrong. It means that you must design for everything that can happen. It simply means that if you miss even the least probabl thing. That thing is going to come and bite your ???.
Andy</HTML>
Re: Control Technology
Posted by: Chuck Hays (IP Logged)
Date: August 25, 2004 02:02PM
<HTML>Andy and Peter...
Good points. You're also right that it comes down to a comfort issue. Back in the '30s the American Steam Car Company could tell its customers that competent repairs could be had at any service station where mechanical ability existed. Nowdays we call them gas bars, not service stations, and the only kind of "service" one gets is similar to the service supplied by the herd bull.
At my level of involvement in the steam hobby, a steam car represents one of three things: a huge investment of time and/or money into a purely hobby vehicle; a relatively crude and inefficient construct that I can use for local transportation (albeit with a large degree of "Lookithat Factor"); or a tremendous investment into a refined and practical vehicle which may or may not also embody a considerable collector value. In any event, a steam vehicle *to me* implies that I'm going to be the one most responsible for maintenance.
I'm comfortable with blackbox controls that I can plug in as part of a developed system. I would be well pleased to have a motorcycle that could develop sufficient steam to manage a steady 60kph/40mph around Kamloops, BC which as some of you know is a rather hilly little town. That said, tremendous water or fuel economy would not be a major factor to me. Reasonable fuel economy -- I'd envision a pressurised kerosene burner -- would be sufficient as a two-cylinder expansion steam engine of possibly two horsepower would be adequately economical with a small feedwater tank. Long cutoff for slogging the 300 metre climb straight up to home, short cutoff for going downhill with my hair on fire...might not even need that much sophistication as long cutoffs in traffic seem to be advisable. Reversing gear for the sheer fun of it, and for living dangerously when going downhill to save the brakes (like the regen on my wife's Honda).
Elegance, speed and efficiency are certainly admirable goals. Simplicity and ease of maintenance take a small degree of precedence for me, mainly because at my current level of disposable income I will never be a member of the Duesenberg Club. More like the Rusty Ford Pickup With 270,000kms On It Club!
The other thing that strikes me is that at whatever level we participate in the hobby we are all ambassadors. A steam motorcycle chuffing down the boulevard will attract attention to alternative transportation technologies, and so will an elegantly presented steam car or truck or a conversion of a formerly gasoline or diesel powered vehicle, as would a classic White, Stanley or Doble.</HTML>
Good points. You're also right that it comes down to a comfort issue. Back in the '30s the American Steam Car Company could tell its customers that competent repairs could be had at any service station where mechanical ability existed. Nowdays we call them gas bars, not service stations, and the only kind of "service" one gets is similar to the service supplied by the herd bull.
At my level of involvement in the steam hobby, a steam car represents one of three things: a huge investment of time and/or money into a purely hobby vehicle; a relatively crude and inefficient construct that I can use for local transportation (albeit with a large degree of "Lookithat Factor"); or a tremendous investment into a refined and practical vehicle which may or may not also embody a considerable collector value. In any event, a steam vehicle *to me* implies that I'm going to be the one most responsible for maintenance.
I'm comfortable with blackbox controls that I can plug in as part of a developed system. I would be well pleased to have a motorcycle that could develop sufficient steam to manage a steady 60kph/40mph around Kamloops, BC which as some of you know is a rather hilly little town. That said, tremendous water or fuel economy would not be a major factor to me. Reasonable fuel economy -- I'd envision a pressurised kerosene burner -- would be sufficient as a two-cylinder expansion steam engine of possibly two horsepower would be adequately economical with a small feedwater tank. Long cutoff for slogging the 300 metre climb straight up to home, short cutoff for going downhill with my hair on fire...might not even need that much sophistication as long cutoffs in traffic seem to be advisable. Reversing gear for the sheer fun of it, and for living dangerously when going downhill to save the brakes (like the regen on my wife's Honda).
Elegance, speed and efficiency are certainly admirable goals. Simplicity and ease of maintenance take a small degree of precedence for me, mainly because at my current level of disposable income I will never be a member of the Duesenberg Club. More like the Rusty Ford Pickup With 270,000kms On It Club!
The other thing that strikes me is that at whatever level we participate in the hobby we are all ambassadors. A steam motorcycle chuffing down the boulevard will attract attention to alternative transportation technologies, and so will an elegantly presented steam car or truck or a conversion of a formerly gasoline or diesel powered vehicle, as would a classic White, Stanley or Doble.</HTML>
Re: Control Technology
Posted by: Caleb Ramsby (IP Logged)
Date: August 25, 2004 03:23PM
<HTML>Chuck brought up a significant big point.
That being that there are hardly any steam powered vehicles in the world and I don't believe it to be an exageration to say that 90% of them are over 50 years old, with 80% over 80 years old. This does not mean that they are impractical antiquated pieces of machinery, this is to say that they are OLD and a piece of history. Thusly they are not used to the extremes that a new vehicle would be, nor should they be.
Yes, this is starting off, off of subject, but it will weave back to control technology.
It has been 80 to 90 years since there has been a substantial amount of steam power plants produced for use in a vehicle. Back in that day there were seperate companies for almost all aspects of a vehicle. A power plant shop, frame shop(suspension and such), a body shop and an assembly shop(often the body and assembly were one). Most often the name of the car would be derived from the body shop or the assembly shop. Such as the Ford which used the Dodge brothers power plant and imported frame and suspension work. Ford just made the bodys(via old buggy shop I believe?) and slaped them on the cars.
Right now I don't know of ANYONE IN THE WORLD that is providing a complete steam system for a conveyance. There are a few people that make a few parts of the system but usually not matching what else is availiable. Especially not for a car or truck.
There are thousands of shops in America alone that make hot rods, off road beasts, dune buggys and the like. If they had the option of using a proven steam system that was simple to understand, easy to adapt to their application and capable of substantial power I think that many would at least try it out. The hot rod scene has been repeating it self for many years. If some one showed up with a steam powered car at a show, a steam powered dune buggy at a rally or a steam powered off road truck at an off road event that would get the creator of that vehicle a LOT of attention, (at least from their peers, most likely not the press) especially if it had a lot of power. The maker of the conveyance would only have had to install the system per instructions(thickness of brackets, piping, ect.) and know how it operates. With the engine bolted to a differential(horizontal) and an independent suspension(which most serious fabricators can make or know how to use) being used so that the engine doesn't have to move and leaves space under the hood. The system wouldn't be hard at all for the builder to use.
Now to the controls of the systems. If all fine tuning is done with manual controls, such as flame intensity, cutoff and speed of the small secondary engine(used for the fuel pump, electric generator, ect.) and with all other controls being done mechanically such as, on/off for flame(live steam diaphram), water feed via Waterman pump(automated with needle valve to fine tune manualy), bypass for fuel pump going to accumulator and air pump, ect. the operation of the system is very easily understood not only by the user of it in building a conveyance but the prospective customers.
All of these endless discussions in differences of opinion and tastes in design and also the lengthy and often absurd theoretical discussions of a "perfect" cycle, "perfect" control or impracticaly "perfectly" efficient fuel use ect. is driving me nuts. I am too young to spend my time typing on the computer when I should be making and testing my designs, system by system, starting with the flame.
I am taking an absence from the computer for a few months/years and am going to begin building instead of talking.
Caleb Ramsby</HTML>
That being that there are hardly any steam powered vehicles in the world and I don't believe it to be an exageration to say that 90% of them are over 50 years old, with 80% over 80 years old. This does not mean that they are impractical antiquated pieces of machinery, this is to say that they are OLD and a piece of history. Thusly they are not used to the extremes that a new vehicle would be, nor should they be.
Yes, this is starting off, off of subject, but it will weave back to control technology.
It has been 80 to 90 years since there has been a substantial amount of steam power plants produced for use in a vehicle. Back in that day there were seperate companies for almost all aspects of a vehicle. A power plant shop, frame shop(suspension and such), a body shop and an assembly shop(often the body and assembly were one). Most often the name of the car would be derived from the body shop or the assembly shop. Such as the Ford which used the Dodge brothers power plant and imported frame and suspension work. Ford just made the bodys(via old buggy shop I believe?) and slaped them on the cars.
Right now I don't know of ANYONE IN THE WORLD that is providing a complete steam system for a conveyance. There are a few people that make a few parts of the system but usually not matching what else is availiable. Especially not for a car or truck.
There are thousands of shops in America alone that make hot rods, off road beasts, dune buggys and the like. If they had the option of using a proven steam system that was simple to understand, easy to adapt to their application and capable of substantial power I think that many would at least try it out. The hot rod scene has been repeating it self for many years. If some one showed up with a steam powered car at a show, a steam powered dune buggy at a rally or a steam powered off road truck at an off road event that would get the creator of that vehicle a LOT of attention, (at least from their peers, most likely not the press) especially if it had a lot of power. The maker of the conveyance would only have had to install the system per instructions(thickness of brackets, piping, ect.) and know how it operates. With the engine bolted to a differential(horizontal) and an independent suspension(which most serious fabricators can make or know how to use) being used so that the engine doesn't have to move and leaves space under the hood. The system wouldn't be hard at all for the builder to use.
Now to the controls of the systems. If all fine tuning is done with manual controls, such as flame intensity, cutoff and speed of the small secondary engine(used for the fuel pump, electric generator, ect.) and with all other controls being done mechanically such as, on/off for flame(live steam diaphram), water feed via Waterman pump(automated with needle valve to fine tune manualy), bypass for fuel pump going to accumulator and air pump, ect. the operation of the system is very easily understood not only by the user of it in building a conveyance but the prospective customers.
All of these endless discussions in differences of opinion and tastes in design and also the lengthy and often absurd theoretical discussions of a "perfect" cycle, "perfect" control or impracticaly "perfectly" efficient fuel use ect. is driving me nuts. I am too young to spend my time typing on the computer when I should be making and testing my designs, system by system, starting with the flame.
I am taking an absence from the computer for a few months/years and am going to begin building instead of talking.
Caleb Ramsby</HTML>
Re: Control Technology
Posted by: Peter Heid (IP Logged)
Date: August 25, 2004 08:57PM
<HTML>The diagnosis of a computer system on an IC vehicle has gotten much easier since about 1996 when the OBD II (On Board Diagnostics) was implemented on all cars. This means standardization to a high degree. All brands and models of autos since then can be hooked to one computer that can handle all diagnostic and test functions as well as read fault codes and stored values. There a couple of adaptors depending on the brand, but the standardization has gone so far as to specify the type and location of connector used. This same standard would be much easier to implement on a steam car than it's IC counter part due to the lower number of sensors on the burner and engine. There are a couple good books on OBD II and the SAE is a good place to look.
I like the idea of a pressure transducer that outputs a DC voltage proportional to the pressure and it's physical size is only 3 inches long by .5 wide and .375 thick. Not only does it come in many ranges but it is accurate to 1 pound in 1000. A pressure gauge could be as simple as a transducer hooked to a volt meter that was scaled to the equivelent pressure. Better yet I can set my microcontroller to any desired on and off point with a simple programming change that can be accomplished via a key pad and LCD display. The pressure transducer I have outputs 0 to 5 volts in the 0 to 1000 psi range, stainless body, and only cost me 10 bux as NOS. The microcontroller and all associated parts are about 10 bux. I could not buy a pressure switch that even comes close for 50 bux but there is a one time cost of about 300 bux for hardware and software to be able to program PIC microcontrollers.
Today's IC autos have all the sensors and controls needed to outfit a steam auto with the most modern control system and most of it can come from a junk yard.
Andy,
We talked about Mass Airflow and the difficulties of it's measurement, well in 1988 ford adopted the Hitichi Mass Air Flow Sensor (MAFS) that only has 5V going in and outputs a signal proportional to to the air flow. The signal varries from about 0.25 to 4.75 volts wihch is equal to about 1 to 32 pounds of air per minute. The MAFS is screwed to a tube that has a small bypass port to feed it. The tube can be exchanged for a larger one or it can be put right inside a larger air tube as is. This device has a thermistor built right in and automatically compensates for temperature changes. I bet there are a lot of them in junk yards just ripe for the picking. Bosch and many others use the same MAFS design.
Also Andy and those of you that plan on using an O2 sensor for burner adjustments on an on/off system, the type that is electrically preheated might prove most favorable. The O2 sensor has to come up to about 600 degrees F. to start working and a cleaner burn will result if the sensor is ready to perform at startup.
Peter Heid</HTML>
I like the idea of a pressure transducer that outputs a DC voltage proportional to the pressure and it's physical size is only 3 inches long by .5 wide and .375 thick. Not only does it come in many ranges but it is accurate to 1 pound in 1000. A pressure gauge could be as simple as a transducer hooked to a volt meter that was scaled to the equivelent pressure. Better yet I can set my microcontroller to any desired on and off point with a simple programming change that can be accomplished via a key pad and LCD display. The pressure transducer I have outputs 0 to 5 volts in the 0 to 1000 psi range, stainless body, and only cost me 10 bux as NOS. The microcontroller and all associated parts are about 10 bux. I could not buy a pressure switch that even comes close for 50 bux but there is a one time cost of about 300 bux for hardware and software to be able to program PIC microcontrollers.
Today's IC autos have all the sensors and controls needed to outfit a steam auto with the most modern control system and most of it can come from a junk yard.
Andy,
We talked about Mass Airflow and the difficulties of it's measurement, well in 1988 ford adopted the Hitichi Mass Air Flow Sensor (MAFS) that only has 5V going in and outputs a signal proportional to to the air flow. The signal varries from about 0.25 to 4.75 volts wihch is equal to about 1 to 32 pounds of air per minute. The MAFS is screwed to a tube that has a small bypass port to feed it. The tube can be exchanged for a larger one or it can be put right inside a larger air tube as is. This device has a thermistor built right in and automatically compensates for temperature changes. I bet there are a lot of them in junk yards just ripe for the picking. Bosch and many others use the same MAFS design.
Also Andy and those of you that plan on using an O2 sensor for burner adjustments on an on/off system, the type that is electrically preheated might prove most favorable. The O2 sensor has to come up to about 600 degrees F. to start working and a cleaner burn will result if the sensor is ready to perform at startup.
Peter Heid</HTML>
Re: Control Technology
Posted by: Chuck Hays (IP Logged)
Date: August 25, 2004 10:09PM
<HTML>Peter Heid wrote:
> Today's IC autos have all the sensors and controls needed to
> outfit a steam auto with the most modern control system and
> most of it can come from a junk yard.
Well, alrighty then! Didn't realise it had gone so far in becoming simple and effective instead of merely more cumbersome and complex. One of the drawbacks of driving a kerosene-powered vehicle with electromechanical and vacuum controls for so long, I guess.
So what would it look like?
Chuck</HTML>
> Today's IC autos have all the sensors and controls needed to
> outfit a steam auto with the most modern control system and
> most of it can come from a junk yard.
Well, alrighty then! Didn't realise it had gone so far in becoming simple and effective instead of merely more cumbersome and complex. One of the drawbacks of driving a kerosene-powered vehicle with electromechanical and vacuum controls for so long, I guess.
So what would it look like?
Chuck</HTML>
Re: Control Technology
Posted by: Graeme Vagg (IP Logged)
Date: August 26, 2004 04:05PM
<HTML>Caleb,
I'm sure you are on the right track. We only need a complete steam power pack that is easy to fit to existing rolling chassis platforms. The off road people are probably the most creative and use open frame chassis that have plenty of space and can take just about any power plant and drive system you can dream up. They do like a lot of power and low weight, but the high torque features of a steam engine might have advantages also.
There are also engine size and power class levels for ATVs.
At the bottom end there is an international competition for a thing called a Mini Baja that uses a stock standard 8 or 10 hp Briggs and Stratton engine (donated by B&S to registered club members). A steam conversion for this would be an easy starting point and would get the attention you need.
The Mini Baja competition does not permit engine development, just chassis improvements. A steam class would change that and allow steam engines to be developed within certain guidelines. I would see a new class that allowed any former Mini Baja chassis to be used with teams allowed to develop a standard size engine as much as they liked. B&S will be p****, but thats life.
If we can make inroads here, the next target is Formula Student and Formula SAE which is a much bigger competition where engineering students build small race cars around a 600cc motor cycle engine and a fixed budget. This is widely sponsored by auto industry suppliers. Teams with 12 to 16 members have to operate as a motor building company and build a prototype vehicle suitable for limited production for a set price. Each team has a budget of about $40k and the vehicles are tested under strict guidelines in national, then international competitions each year. Again the focus is not on engine developement, but on chassis design, management and margeting skills. If you could get alternate energy power systems added to a new class, you would have the brightest students coming out of technical colleges and universities involved in steam development. It would blow steam R&D wide open.
Meanwhile, it is necessary to get a small number of practical steam systems built and out in the dirt where others can use them. We need the wider auto sports enthusiast to help push this along, steam enthusiasts have so far not been able to create interest in this area probably because the products were not satisfactory or inspiring. This has to change.
Graeme</HTML>
I'm sure you are on the right track. We only need a complete steam power pack that is easy to fit to existing rolling chassis platforms. The off road people are probably the most creative and use open frame chassis that have plenty of space and can take just about any power plant and drive system you can dream up. They do like a lot of power and low weight, but the high torque features of a steam engine might have advantages also.
There are also engine size and power class levels for ATVs.
At the bottom end there is an international competition for a thing called a Mini Baja that uses a stock standard 8 or 10 hp Briggs and Stratton engine (donated by B&S to registered club members). A steam conversion for this would be an easy starting point and would get the attention you need.
The Mini Baja competition does not permit engine development, just chassis improvements. A steam class would change that and allow steam engines to be developed within certain guidelines. I would see a new class that allowed any former Mini Baja chassis to be used with teams allowed to develop a standard size engine as much as they liked. B&S will be p****, but thats life.
If we can make inroads here, the next target is Formula Student and Formula SAE which is a much bigger competition where engineering students build small race cars around a 600cc motor cycle engine and a fixed budget. This is widely sponsored by auto industry suppliers. Teams with 12 to 16 members have to operate as a motor building company and build a prototype vehicle suitable for limited production for a set price. Each team has a budget of about $40k and the vehicles are tested under strict guidelines in national, then international competitions each year. Again the focus is not on engine developement, but on chassis design, management and margeting skills. If you could get alternate energy power systems added to a new class, you would have the brightest students coming out of technical colleges and universities involved in steam development. It would blow steam R&D wide open.
Meanwhile, it is necessary to get a small number of practical steam systems built and out in the dirt where others can use them. We need the wider auto sports enthusiast to help push this along, steam enthusiasts have so far not been able to create interest in this area probably because the products were not satisfactory or inspiring. This has to change.
Graeme</HTML>
Re: Control Technology
Posted by: Graeme Vagg (IP Logged)
Date: August 26, 2004 04:05PM
<HTML>Caleb,
I'm sure you are on the right track. We only need a complete steam power pack that is easy to fit to existing rolling chassis platforms. The off road people are probably the most creative and use open frame chassis that have plenty of space and can take just about any power plant and drive system you can dream up. They do like a lot of power and low weight, but the high torque features of a steam engine might have advantages also.
There are also engine size and power class levels for ATVs.
At the bottom end there is an international competition for a thing called a Mini Baja that uses a stock standard 8 or 10 hp Briggs and Stratton engine (donated by B&S to registered club members). A steam conversion for this would be an easy starting point and would get the attention you need.
The Mini Baja competition does not permit engine development, just chassis improvements. A steam class would change that and allow steam engines to be developed within certain guidelines. I would see a new class that allowed any former Mini Baja chassis to be used with teams allowed to develop a standard size engine as much as they liked. B&S will be p****, but thats life.
If we can make inroads here, the next target is Formula Student and Formula SAE which is a much bigger competition where engineering students build small race cars around a 600cc motor cycle engine and a fixed budget. This is widely sponsored by auto industry suppliers. Teams with 12 to 16 members have to operate as a motor building company and build a prototype vehicle suitable for limited production for a set price. Each team has a budget of about $40k and the vehicles are tested under strict guidelines in national, then international competitions each year. Again the focus is not on engine developement, but on chassis design, management and margeting skills. If you could get alternate energy power systems added to a new class, you would have the brightest students coming out of technical colleges and universities involved in steam development. It would blow steam R&D wide open.
Meanwhile, it is necessary to get a small number of practical steam systems built and out in the dirt where others can use them. We need the wider auto sports enthusiast to help push this along, steam enthusiasts have so far not been able to create interest in this area probably because the products were not satisfactory or inspiring. This has to change.
Graeme</HTML>
I'm sure you are on the right track. We only need a complete steam power pack that is easy to fit to existing rolling chassis platforms. The off road people are probably the most creative and use open frame chassis that have plenty of space and can take just about any power plant and drive system you can dream up. They do like a lot of power and low weight, but the high torque features of a steam engine might have advantages also.
There are also engine size and power class levels for ATVs.
At the bottom end there is an international competition for a thing called a Mini Baja that uses a stock standard 8 or 10 hp Briggs and Stratton engine (donated by B&S to registered club members). A steam conversion for this would be an easy starting point and would get the attention you need.
The Mini Baja competition does not permit engine development, just chassis improvements. A steam class would change that and allow steam engines to be developed within certain guidelines. I would see a new class that allowed any former Mini Baja chassis to be used with teams allowed to develop a standard size engine as much as they liked. B&S will be p****, but thats life.
If we can make inroads here, the next target is Formula Student and Formula SAE which is a much bigger competition where engineering students build small race cars around a 600cc motor cycle engine and a fixed budget. This is widely sponsored by auto industry suppliers. Teams with 12 to 16 members have to operate as a motor building company and build a prototype vehicle suitable for limited production for a set price. Each team has a budget of about $40k and the vehicles are tested under strict guidelines in national, then international competitions each year. Again the focus is not on engine developement, but on chassis design, management and margeting skills. If you could get alternate energy power systems added to a new class, you would have the brightest students coming out of technical colleges and universities involved in steam development. It would blow steam R&D wide open.
Meanwhile, it is necessary to get a small number of practical steam systems built and out in the dirt where others can use them. We need the wider auto sports enthusiast to help push this along, steam enthusiasts have so far not been able to create interest in this area probably because the products were not satisfactory or inspiring. This has to change.
Graeme</HTML>
Re: Control Technology
Posted by: Andy Patterson (IP Logged)
Date: August 26, 2004 08:09PM
<HTML>Hi Petter
I am thinking that for a given fuel rate there is an corosponding fan setting. Of course the fan setting will change with air pressure ...etc. I figure that a table can be used to set the fan speed or damping and injector palse width and the O2 sensor feed back would update the table.
An air flow of fan shaft speed sensor might be needed. I figure the fan-airflow response delay/ramp can be handled by programming. If I have to use an air flow sensor then I will probably drive the injector from that input with the O2 sensor as feed back.
[www.newmicros.com]
The 68HC12 NMIN-12A256B board looks like it could handle most any boiler control neccessary. They also have power interface boards, The highest amprage is 5 amps though. One might need to do their own if more amprage is needed.
Were did you find the presure transducer so cheap. I havn't found any for less then $125.00 for that price they don't have 1 PSI resoloution. How many $ to a bux? I was thinking 1:1.
Andy</HTML>
I am thinking that for a given fuel rate there is an corosponding fan setting. Of course the fan setting will change with air pressure ...etc. I figure that a table can be used to set the fan speed or damping and injector palse width and the O2 sensor feed back would update the table.
An air flow of fan shaft speed sensor might be needed. I figure the fan-airflow response delay/ramp can be handled by programming. If I have to use an air flow sensor then I will probably drive the injector from that input with the O2 sensor as feed back.
[www.newmicros.com]
The 68HC12 NMIN-12A256B board looks like it could handle most any boiler control neccessary. They also have power interface boards, The highest amprage is 5 amps though. One might need to do their own if more amprage is needed.
Were did you find the presure transducer so cheap. I havn't found any for less then $125.00 for that price they don't have 1 PSI resoloution. How many $ to a bux? I was thinking 1:1.
Andy</HTML>
Re: Control Technology
Posted by: Damijan Ruzic (IP Logged)
Date: August 27, 2004 03:52PM
<HTML>I think in general therms every contorl system apliable today is combined, if you wish to achieve some remarkable results. It is only a qvestion how far do you wish to go with sofisticated technology, so sensors, computers...Sometimes you can turn high tech in high cost troble maker.
Greetings,
Damijan</HTML>
Greetings,
Damijan</HTML>
Re: Control Technology
Posted by: Andy Patterson (IP Logged)
Date: August 27, 2004 04:37PM
<HTML>Hi Damijan
The thing is that an automotive steam system control is not simple when you take all modes of operation into acount.
One of the drawbacks with old mechanical automated controls is they only operate once up to normal conditions. Needing manual overides to while getting to conditions handled by the automated controls. They did not handle starting up from cold. Startup is a complete manual operation. Part of what caused their demise.
Their is nothing preventing there startup with a dry boiler except an experianced operator. These simple systems required an experianced operator.
A moden steamer targeting the average Joe would need to be a get in, turn the key, and drive away type of vehical. The control system would have to handle every thing that could go wrong and every state the system might be in. Be able to detect sufficient water in the boiler. An empty water tank. etc... The lack of such checks and completeness would be the real trouble maker.
Andy</HTML>
The thing is that an automotive steam system control is not simple when you take all modes of operation into acount.
One of the drawbacks with old mechanical automated controls is they only operate once up to normal conditions. Needing manual overides to while getting to conditions handled by the automated controls. They did not handle starting up from cold. Startup is a complete manual operation. Part of what caused their demise.
Their is nothing preventing there startup with a dry boiler except an experianced operator. These simple systems required an experianced operator.
A moden steamer targeting the average Joe would need to be a get in, turn the key, and drive away type of vehical. The control system would have to handle every thing that could go wrong and every state the system might be in. Be able to detect sufficient water in the boiler. An empty water tank. etc... The lack of such checks and completeness would be the real trouble maker.
Andy</HTML>
Re: Control Technology
Posted by: Andy Patterson (IP Logged)
Date: August 27, 2004 04:44PM
<HTML>Hi Peter
There are low temp O2 sensors. Found some that are used in diving equipment. Thoes don't look usable but the technology might be adaptable. I have the 4 wire heated type with the temperature sensor out of a Honda. Looking for a spec. No info on the wiring for it. Any idea where one can find the functions of the wires. Which wire is for what?
Andy</HTML>
There are low temp O2 sensors. Found some that are used in diving equipment. Thoes don't look usable but the technology might be adaptable. I have the 4 wire heated type with the temperature sensor out of a Honda. Looking for a spec. No info on the wiring for it. Any idea where one can find the functions of the wires. Which wire is for what?
Andy</HTML>
Re: Control Technology
Posted by: Chuck Hays (IP Logged)
Date: August 27, 2004 09:18PM
<HTML>> detect sufficient water in the boiler. An empty water tank.
> etc...
Which doesn't sound so hard. With a relatively unsophisticated brainbox you would just need a series of sensors. Is there water in the tank? How much? How much fuel? Fuel pressure? Water in boiler? Is burner lit? Is steam pressure up? Present cars have such things, as has been pointed out. Some high-end cars have safety interlocks which disable the vehicle if certain conditions are present -- but in the main and even with sophisticated control systems a modern driver is still held responsible to insure that there's fuel and oil and coolant and the tires are pumped up.
The cost of not checking the oil or keeping the coolant full can be an engine rebuild. It's common enough as an occurrence that it shows up as a plot device in movies all the time. Happens in real life, too, as my little brother will tell you. His wife's burned up two engines in her car that way and still hasn't learned to check the oil or watch the temperature gauge. I'll agree that a lot can be done to make a steam car more "turn-key" than it is -- and stipulate further that in order to capture the market beyond the novelty value of the thing it would need to be more idiot proof. Bear in mind that if you design something you think is idiot-proof, Mother Nature will design an improved idiot.
The other part of what you're addressing is of course the control of the burner and feed water in some transparent manner to free the operator from having to monitor too many things, and to enhance the economy, performance, and fuel usage of the vehicle. That I believe is an entirely different question, and one requiring a significant investment of time and money to address. On the other hand if a car with a reverse/hookup pedal, a brake pedal and a hand throttle could be driven in Los Angeles traffic in the '30s, I can't believe we're all that far away 70 years later if we just pick up where they left off.
That's the extent of my input on it. What I want is one thing. What I'm likely to build and the use to which it will be put is entirely something else.
Chuck</HTML>
> etc...
Which doesn't sound so hard. With a relatively unsophisticated brainbox you would just need a series of sensors. Is there water in the tank? How much? How much fuel? Fuel pressure? Water in boiler? Is burner lit? Is steam pressure up? Present cars have such things, as has been pointed out. Some high-end cars have safety interlocks which disable the vehicle if certain conditions are present -- but in the main and even with sophisticated control systems a modern driver is still held responsible to insure that there's fuel and oil and coolant and the tires are pumped up.
The cost of not checking the oil or keeping the coolant full can be an engine rebuild. It's common enough as an occurrence that it shows up as a plot device in movies all the time. Happens in real life, too, as my little brother will tell you. His wife's burned up two engines in her car that way and still hasn't learned to check the oil or watch the temperature gauge. I'll agree that a lot can be done to make a steam car more "turn-key" than it is -- and stipulate further that in order to capture the market beyond the novelty value of the thing it would need to be more idiot proof. Bear in mind that if you design something you think is idiot-proof, Mother Nature will design an improved idiot.
The other part of what you're addressing is of course the control of the burner and feed water in some transparent manner to free the operator from having to monitor too many things, and to enhance the economy, performance, and fuel usage of the vehicle. That I believe is an entirely different question, and one requiring a significant investment of time and money to address. On the other hand if a car with a reverse/hookup pedal, a brake pedal and a hand throttle could be driven in Los Angeles traffic in the '30s, I can't believe we're all that far away 70 years later if we just pick up where they left off.
That's the extent of my input on it. What I want is one thing. What I'm likely to build and the use to which it will be put is entirely something else.
Chuck</HTML>
Re: Control Technology
Posted by: Arnold Walker (IP Logged)
Date: August 28, 2004 06:31AM
<HTML>Reliable Steam has a electronic water level control and alarm .....$89.00
for the 12volt version.One of the resources listed on this site for steam equipment supplies.</HTML>
for the 12volt version.One of the resources listed on this site for steam equipment supplies.</HTML>
Re: Control Technology
Posted by: Rolly (IP Logged)
Date: August 28, 2004 11:01AM
<HTML>Arnold
Its no longer $89.00 The site has not been up dated in a long time. It’s over $200 now and you still need five probes at forty $ each, Three relays min, an LED readout panel, and then you need to build a pressure vessel for the probes and valves. You’re looking at $1000 to $1500 for a system material only. This system will work on a Stanley type boiler but not on a mono tube or a fast response boiler with minimum water.
Rolly</HTML>
Its no longer $89.00 The site has not been up dated in a long time. It’s over $200 now and you still need five probes at forty $ each, Three relays min, an LED readout panel, and then you need to build a pressure vessel for the probes and valves. You’re looking at $1000 to $1500 for a system material only. This system will work on a Stanley type boiler but not on a mono tube or a fast response boiler with minimum water.
Rolly</HTML>
Re: Control Technology
Posted by: Arnold Walker (IP Logged)
Date: August 28, 2004 02:22PM
<HTML>Holy cats.....lots of hidden surprises on the sticker price.</HTML>
Re: Control Technology
Posted by: Graeme Vagg (IP Logged)
Date: August 29, 2004 12:46AM
<HTML>Arnold,
I agree we need very cheap and effective measurement and control devices.
With respect to water and fuel tanks your can use a standard electrical float operated sensor from an auto wrecker or buy new units for larger custom tanks from boat shops. A dip stick or side site glass or remote site glass is an option for those who do not like electrical stuff.
Some work has been done on water level indicators for various types of boilers that use a simple spark plug as a sensor. If water is covering the electrodes an electrical circuit is completed and make a light glow or activate a switch.
A monotube boiler may start up best if only partially full of water and may run with very little water in it at any time. A good design should not overheat if there is a minimum amount of water in the tubes so some form of water content sensor is needed for monotubes. A temperature or pressure sensor is not effective because in the generator section there is no change to measure. If you end up with probes all over the place, the cost of sensors blows the budget.
With any measurement and control system you need to list everything needed to make it work and identify the sources and costs of all parts before thinking about using it or not.
Graeme</HTML>
I agree we need very cheap and effective measurement and control devices.
With respect to water and fuel tanks your can use a standard electrical float operated sensor from an auto wrecker or buy new units for larger custom tanks from boat shops. A dip stick or side site glass or remote site glass is an option for those who do not like electrical stuff.
Some work has been done on water level indicators for various types of boilers that use a simple spark plug as a sensor. If water is covering the electrodes an electrical circuit is completed and make a light glow or activate a switch.
A monotube boiler may start up best if only partially full of water and may run with very little water in it at any time. A good design should not overheat if there is a minimum amount of water in the tubes so some form of water content sensor is needed for monotubes. A temperature or pressure sensor is not effective because in the generator section there is no change to measure. If you end up with probes all over the place, the cost of sensors blows the budget.
With any measurement and control system you need to list everything needed to make it work and identify the sources and costs of all parts before thinking about using it or not.
Graeme</HTML>
Re: Control Technology
Posted by: Andy Patterson (IP Logged)
Date: August 30, 2004 11:17AM
<HTML>Hi Rolly
You are right. Thoes controls are designed for a large water level boiler. They have time lag designed into the control to avoid miss readings.
But the sensors could be used with diffferent electronics. The main thing about thoes controls is their use of AC to avoid the plating problems caused by DC.
Andy</HTML>
You are right. Thoes controls are designed for a large water level boiler. They have time lag designed into the control to avoid miss readings.
But the sensors could be used with diffferent electronics. The main thing about thoes controls is their use of AC to avoid the plating problems caused by DC.
Andy</HTML>
Re: Control Technology
Posted by: Damijan Ruzic (IP Logged)
Date: October 28, 2004 04:00PM
<HTML>Halo Andy,
Something just crossed my mind.
Introduction of measuring devices in steam expanders in therms of measuring condensation point and adopting suitable valves in steam engines could bring important benifications. Today we could feasibly finish the cycle in any expander and eliminate condenser if we reach total condensation point in expander (presuming it have proper design).. so many things can change due to new electronics.
Polites,
Damijan
<a href="mailto:apatter@greenhills.net?subject=Control Technology">Andy Patterson</a> wrote:
>
> Hi Garry and Caleb
>
> You both express tolorance for diferent levels of control
> complexity or types. Mechanical controls can get very
> complex. I think everone has a technology they are content
> with with. I am wondering if we can catagorize them. And
> maybe come up with some true advantages. I think there five
> differenct technological types of controls.
>
> 1. Manual
>
> 2. Mechanical.
>
> 3. Electric
>
> 4. Electronic
>
> 5. Computer</HTML>
Something just crossed my mind.
Introduction of measuring devices in steam expanders in therms of measuring condensation point and adopting suitable valves in steam engines could bring important benifications. Today we could feasibly finish the cycle in any expander and eliminate condenser if we reach total condensation point in expander (presuming it have proper design).. so many things can change due to new electronics.
Polites,
Damijan
<a href="mailto:apatter@greenhills.net?subject=Control Technology">Andy Patterson</a> wrote:
>
> Hi Garry and Caleb
>
> You both express tolorance for diferent levels of control
> complexity or types. Mechanical controls can get very
> complex. I think everone has a technology they are content
> with with. I am wondering if we can catagorize them. And
> maybe come up with some true advantages. I think there five
> differenct technological types of controls.
>
> 1. Manual
>
> 2. Mechanical.
>
> 3. Electric
>
> 4. Electronic
>
> 5. Computer</HTML>
Re: Control Technology
Posted by: Damijan Ruzic (IP Logged)
Date: October 28, 2004 04:00PM
<HTML>Halo Andy,
Something just crossed my mind.
Introduction of measuring devices in steam expanders in therms of measuring condensation point and adopting suitable valves in steam engines could bring important benifications. Today we could feasibly finish the cycle in any expander and eliminate condenser if we reach total condensation point in expander (presuming it have proper design).. so many things can change due to new electronics.
Polites,
Damijan
<a href="mailto:apatter@greenhills.net?subject=Control Technology">Andy Patterson</a> wrote:
>
> Hi Garry and Caleb
>
> You both express tolorance for diferent levels of control
> complexity or types. Mechanical controls can get very
> complex. I think everone has a technology they are content
> with with. I am wondering if we can catagorize them. And
> maybe come up with some true advantages. I think there five
> differenct technological types of controls.
>
> 1. Manual
>
> 2. Mechanical.
>
> 3. Electric
>
> 4. Electronic
>
> 5. Computer</HTML>
Something just crossed my mind.
Introduction of measuring devices in steam expanders in therms of measuring condensation point and adopting suitable valves in steam engines could bring important benifications. Today we could feasibly finish the cycle in any expander and eliminate condenser if we reach total condensation point in expander (presuming it have proper design).. so many things can change due to new electronics.
Polites,
Damijan
<a href="mailto:apatter@greenhills.net?subject=Control Technology">Andy Patterson</a> wrote:
>
> Hi Garry and Caleb
>
> You both express tolorance for diferent levels of control
> complexity or types. Mechanical controls can get very
> complex. I think everone has a technology they are content
> with with. I am wondering if we can catagorize them. And
> maybe come up with some true advantages. I think there five
> differenct technological types of controls.
>
> 1. Manual
>
> 2. Mechanical.
>
> 3. Electric
>
> 4. Electronic
>
> 5. Computer</HTML>
Re: Control Technology
Posted by: Damijan Ruzic (IP Logged)
Date: October 28, 2004 04:00PM
<HTML>Halo Andy,
Something just crossed my mind.
Introduction of measuring devices in steam expanders in therms of measuring condensation point and adopting suitable valves in steam engines could bring important benifications. Today we could feasibly finish the cycle in any expander and eliminate condenser if we reach total condensation point in expander (presuming it have proper design).. so many things can change due to new electronics.
Polites,
Damijan
<a href="mailto:apatter@greenhills.net?subject=Control Technology">Andy Patterson</a> wrote:
>
> Hi Garry and Caleb
>
> You both express tolorance for diferent levels of control
> complexity or types. Mechanical controls can get very
> complex. I think everone has a technology they are content
> with with. I am wondering if we can catagorize them. And
> maybe come up with some true advantages. I think there five
> differenct technological types of controls.
>
> 1. Manual
>
> 2. Mechanical.
>
> 3. Electric
>
> 4. Electronic
>
> 5. Computer</HTML>
Something just crossed my mind.
Introduction of measuring devices in steam expanders in therms of measuring condensation point and adopting suitable valves in steam engines could bring important benifications. Today we could feasibly finish the cycle in any expander and eliminate condenser if we reach total condensation point in expander (presuming it have proper design).. so many things can change due to new electronics.
Polites,
Damijan
<a href="mailto:apatter@greenhills.net?subject=Control Technology">Andy Patterson</a> wrote:
>
> Hi Garry and Caleb
>
> You both express tolorance for diferent levels of control
> complexity or types. Mechanical controls can get very
> complex. I think everone has a technology they are content
> with with. I am wondering if we can catagorize them. And
> maybe come up with some true advantages. I think there five
> differenct technological types of controls.
>
> 1. Manual
>
> 2. Mechanical.
>
> 3. Electric
>
> 4. Electronic
>
> 5. Computer</HTML>
Re: Control Technology
Posted by: Andy Patterson (IP Logged)
Date: October 29, 2004 04:31PM
<HTML>Hi Damijan
I don't think it would be possable to fully condense the steam in the expander with out some way to extract the heat. With wet steam at some point expansion reduces the wetness. When I was looking at Halls Paper posted on the SACA fourme I found that starting with very high initial wetness and expanding isentropicly the steam quality increasses. I think I started with 0.30 quality and after expansion it's quality went to 0.34.
Andy</HTML>
I don't think it would be possable to fully condense the steam in the expander with out some way to extract the heat. With wet steam at some point expansion reduces the wetness. When I was looking at Halls Paper posted on the SACA fourme I found that starting with very high initial wetness and expanding isentropicly the steam quality increasses. I think I started with 0.30 quality and after expansion it's quality went to 0.34.
Andy</HTML>
Re: Control Technology
Posted by: Damijan Ruzic (IP Logged)
Date: November 01, 2004 05:45AM
<HTML>It is interesting information, thank you. However, we must always observe nature of the phenomen. I would like to get into it deeper, but in this moment I simply do not have time or suitable complete information.
In any case also some heat take out could be realised by means of cold walls or some reduced size condensing space. These things must be observed from many pionts becouse in general expansion cools steam as effectively as heat transfer and in some steam locomotives you could observe light warm droplets of watter runing out of expander.. so there must be some better way.</HTML>
In any case also some heat take out could be realised by means of cold walls or some reduced size condensing space. These things must be observed from many pionts becouse in general expansion cools steam as effectively as heat transfer and in some steam locomotives you could observe light warm droplets of watter runing out of expander.. so there must be some better way.</HTML>
Re: Control Technology
Posted by: Andy Patterson (IP Logged)
Date: November 01, 2004 03:15PM
<HTML>Hi Damijan
Expandion doing work with no external heat transfer is along a line of constant extropy.
If you plot the entropy of the saturated liquid you see that the entropy of the saturated liquid increasses along the saturation line at higher pressure and temperature. At some low pressure the saturated liquid entropy is such that at any higher pressure that entropy value is in the liquid state below the saturation line.
At 14.696 PSIA the saturation temperature is 212 degrees. the sturated vapor entropy is 1.757 and the liquid entropy is 0.312 At 3200 PSIA the saturated vapor's entropy is 1.083 and the liquid's entropy is 1.035 with a saturation temperature of 705.081. Note both entropies at the higher pressure are within the range of the lower pressure:
1.757 vapor at 14.696 PSIA 212 F
1.083 vapor at 3200 PSIA 705.081
...........properties are equal at the critical point.
1.035 liquid at 3200 PSIA 705.081
0.312 liquid at at 14.696 PSIA 212 F
While the saturated vapor's entropy is decreassing as you go up the saturation line. An isentropic expansion will result in some condensation. But will never fully condense. The reverse is true of the liquid. The entropy increassing going up the saturation. Lowering the pressuire on the saturated liquid results in some vaporazation.
Take the saturated liquid at 3200 PSIA having an entropy of 1.035. It will expand down to 14.696 PSIA and 50% would be a vapor.
At 3200 PSIA the liquid's specific volume is 0.0447 and after expansion it is 50% liquid and 50% water having a specific volume of 13.4188 a 300.1969:1 expansion.
Starting with the saturated vapor at 3200 PSIA. It's entropy is 1.0832 expandind it down to 14.696 PSIA it is 46.6% liquid at the end of expansion. The expansion ratio is 253.
It's interesting that along the saturation line the isentropic expansion from the vapor or liquid state will remain with in the saturated mixture region.
Hope this helps.</HTML>
Expandion doing work with no external heat transfer is along a line of constant extropy.
If you plot the entropy of the saturated liquid you see that the entropy of the saturated liquid increasses along the saturation line at higher pressure and temperature. At some low pressure the saturated liquid entropy is such that at any higher pressure that entropy value is in the liquid state below the saturation line.
At 14.696 PSIA the saturation temperature is 212 degrees. the sturated vapor entropy is 1.757 and the liquid entropy is 0.312 At 3200 PSIA the saturated vapor's entropy is 1.083 and the liquid's entropy is 1.035 with a saturation temperature of 705.081. Note both entropies at the higher pressure are within the range of the lower pressure:
1.757 vapor at 14.696 PSIA 212 F
1.083 vapor at 3200 PSIA 705.081
...........properties are equal at the critical point.
1.035 liquid at 3200 PSIA 705.081
0.312 liquid at at 14.696 PSIA 212 F
While the saturated vapor's entropy is decreassing as you go up the saturation line. An isentropic expansion will result in some condensation. But will never fully condense. The reverse is true of the liquid. The entropy increassing going up the saturation. Lowering the pressuire on the saturated liquid results in some vaporazation.
Take the saturated liquid at 3200 PSIA having an entropy of 1.035. It will expand down to 14.696 PSIA and 50% would be a vapor.
At 3200 PSIA the liquid's specific volume is 0.0447 and after expansion it is 50% liquid and 50% water having a specific volume of 13.4188 a 300.1969:1 expansion.
Starting with the saturated vapor at 3200 PSIA. It's entropy is 1.0832 expandind it down to 14.696 PSIA it is 46.6% liquid at the end of expansion. The expansion ratio is 253.
It's interesting that along the saturation line the isentropic expansion from the vapor or liquid state will remain with in the saturated mixture region.
Hope this helps.</HTML>
Re: Control Technology
Posted by: Damijan Ruzic (IP Logged)
Date: November 02, 2004 12:32PM
<HTML>Thanks a lot Andy,
It was refreshing and educative.
However, I understand that some heat transfer must be done, it is just a qvestion of the most economic viable way.
It is also interesting to know what will happen with other vapors (Naphta, Amonia - watter, alcohol...) if we expand them long enough.
I feel taht here is a lot of work to be done in future.
Best regards,
Damijan Ruzic</HTML>
It was refreshing and educative.
However, I understand that some heat transfer must be done, it is just a qvestion of the most economic viable way.
It is also interesting to know what will happen with other vapors (Naphta, Amonia - watter, alcohol...) if we expand them long enough.
I feel taht here is a lot of work to be done in future.
Best regards,
Damijan Ruzic</HTML>
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.