1 Steam Cars : Phorum
General Steam Car topics
The H. O. Baker boiler & then some...
Posted by: Garry Leon Hunsaker (IP Logged)
Date: March 16, 2002 04:06PM
<HTML> Like many books written by non steam tinkerer’s, Barbara P. Baker’s “Steamy Dreamer” contains just enough technical data to wet my apatite for more information. Which probably means, I should be asking what if any historical publications outside of the SACA and Light Steam Power are worth hunting down or up as the case may be?
I am curious if any one has had first hand experience with the Baker Boiler? From “Steamy Dreamer”, I get the impression Baker did offer ‘kits’ to install his system in the later Stanley’s. I am wondering just how good - bad, priming carbonizing monsters, or not, these units were. I am thinking with a bit of tinkering a generator similar to the Baker might be a bit easier to tame than a montube. And dream of dreams, It would some how get around the water in the oil problem. Ok... I did say that was a dream!
Personally, I am not looking at inventing or building the latest in NASA research. What I am hoping to come up with is an ‘all in one’ power plant that is as KISS as I can make it using nothing much beyond 1940’s technology and a bit of the new ‘wonder’ materials we now have available in the way of gasket and packing materials.
For those of you that already have steamers and dream of better, more power to you in your efforts. Myself, I just want to come up with something I can fabricate myself, and have some hope of being able to drive more than I have to work on... Then again, no matter what I do, anything I come up with is going to fit in the experimental prototype category. But short of building a replica of something ninety years gone, I am not sure what else I can do.
Garry Hunsaker
Mexico Missouri</HTML>
I am curious if any one has had first hand experience with the Baker Boiler? From “Steamy Dreamer”, I get the impression Baker did offer ‘kits’ to install his system in the later Stanley’s. I am wondering just how good - bad, priming carbonizing monsters, or not, these units were. I am thinking with a bit of tinkering a generator similar to the Baker might be a bit easier to tame than a montube. And dream of dreams, It would some how get around the water in the oil problem. Ok... I did say that was a dream!
Personally, I am not looking at inventing or building the latest in NASA research. What I am hoping to come up with is an ‘all in one’ power plant that is as KISS as I can make it using nothing much beyond 1940’s technology and a bit of the new ‘wonder’ materials we now have available in the way of gasket and packing materials.
For those of you that already have steamers and dream of better, more power to you in your efforts. Myself, I just want to come up with something I can fabricate myself, and have some hope of being able to drive more than I have to work on... Then again, no matter what I do, anything I come up with is going to fit in the experimental prototype category. But short of building a replica of something ninety years gone, I am not sure what else I can do.
Garry Hunsaker
Mexico Missouri</HTML>
Re: The H. O. Baker boiler & then some...
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: March 16, 2002 07:48PM
<HTML>Hi Garry,
I think you're on the right track. I can afford one of the classics, but would rather build a modern steamer myself. The classics should be preserved in original condition, IMO, (well, a few easily-removed add-ons have given good results w/o damage) and I'd be tempted to tinker one to oblivion.
The Baker boiler would be tough to build; I have partial factory blueprints, and there are at least 4 sizes of tubing and enough welding to keep a welding shop busy for weeks. Plus it is big and heavy. The Lamont looks like the best way to go, though I have an idea for a cheap, compact self-circulating boiler that I want to try.
I think the solutions to the oil problem are out there already. My approach is to minimize problems instead of holding out for eliminating them. In some areas, 90% solutions are more workable than 100%.
Peter</HTML>
I think you're on the right track. I can afford one of the classics, but would rather build a modern steamer myself. The classics should be preserved in original condition, IMO, (well, a few easily-removed add-ons have given good results w/o damage) and I'd be tempted to tinker one to oblivion.
The Baker boiler would be tough to build; I have partial factory blueprints, and there are at least 4 sizes of tubing and enough welding to keep a welding shop busy for weeks. Plus it is big and heavy. The Lamont looks like the best way to go, though I have an idea for a cheap, compact self-circulating boiler that I want to try.
I think the solutions to the oil problem are out there already. My approach is to minimize problems instead of holding out for eliminating them. In some areas, 90% solutions are more workable than 100%.
Peter</HTML>
Re: The H. O. Baker boiler & then some...
Posted by: Pat Farrell (IP Logged)
Date: March 17, 2002 04:15AM
<HTML>I presently had two Baker boilers in two of our five Stanleys. I am now down to only one Baker Boiler and that one is soon coming out. The Baker boilers have a big advantage over the Stanley boilers in that they have a bottom blow off for the accumulated oil and sludge from the condensing car's use. No bottom tube sheet to get a mud burn on. On the condensing Stanley's fire tube boiler, this is a continuing battle from the steam cylinder oil. You have a surface blow off for the oil but it doesn't get it all. On the non condensing Stanley, the Baker boiler is not an advantage because of a total loss water system, there is no accumulation of oil on the lower tube sheet. You still have to use clean water and blow down frequently on the non condenser to get rid of mud. The reason why I am going back to the Stanley fire tube boilers is stored energy. When you open the throttle from a Baker Boiler, the steam pressure gauge drops like the speed of a second hand of a clock. When you stop, it comes back up as fast too. The fire tube boiler takes a while to drop and it also takes a while to come back up too, whick is OK if you are driving on rolling hills. If a Baker boiler fails you, it probably will be because of a leaking tube in the middle of the stack which will require cutting and welding to get to repair and to get back out. A Stanley boiler is much more accessible. They both fire up about as quickly. The bigger the boiler, the slower they are to fire up. My 23" Stanley and my 23" Baker both fire up from cold in about 8 minutes. My 30 H.P. Stanley boiler fires up from cold in about 15 minutes. 30 H.P. Baker would be about the same time. The Baker boiler because of it's design, stands about 6 or 8 inches taller than a Stanley's fire tube boiler. This puts the burner pan almost down on the front axle. Both are about the same weight at about 575 pounds for a 23" diameter 20 H.P. boiler.</HTML>
Re: The H. O. Baker boiler & then some...
Posted by: Jim Crank (IP Logged)
Date: March 17, 2002 03:43PM
<HTML>Pat,
You are absolutely correct. I had a Baker in my 1918 Stanley and it was horrible. Didn't make steam all that fast, had a lousy reserve, was way too big and heavy and mine and another one around here had a strange problem of internal errosion in the bend right over the fire in that central drum.
Had to weld it up too often.
Also the very devil to make and really not worth the trouble as it just isn't that good.
If the Baker doesn't have that rotary blowdown system, then one evaporating coil after another plugs up with sludge and carbon and slowly and surely fails. You can't clean it out either.
Although I sure am no fan of fire tube boilers, there is nothing wrong with a Stanley boiler in a Stanley car IF TAKEN CARE OF. Except, use at least four blowdown points on the bottom. I once cut an old 23" Stanley boiler apart and saw immediately that the radius of cleaner crown sheet was only about a 6" radius from the blowdown point. Too many tubes and too close together to get one blowdown to really do the job, you need at least four and even six if you can get them in. Alan Brasel fills his with kerosene when he parks it and for many many years now, that car runs better than any condensing Stanley I ever saw. Messy; but effective.
Maybe there is a water tube design that would be really satisfactory; but a Stanley should be as it was made, fire tube boiler and all.
Why butcher a nice car?
Still, with a condensing Stanley, nothing works as well as a really good separator on the exhaust steam line going into the condenser. That is a real fix and as yet, I have not seen a good one for Stanleys. Always too small and the oily mess just blows into the condenser.
Like a filter, slow down the velocity and give it time to separate out the oil.
The Doble also needs one there too and E-14 has had one in it since the 1940's and it really works well. Becker only cleaned the coil stack out once in every three or four years, that I recall. That isn't bad.
As the White owner's manual tells you, blow down the coil after each long run from both ends and HARD. Well, I put the same blowdown valves in E-23 and blow it often. Maybe I will get many years out of the new coil stack in the Doble. My White had the original coil stack in it, 90 years before it started leaking. So they really knew what they were talking about, didn't they.
Jim</HTML>
You are absolutely correct. I had a Baker in my 1918 Stanley and it was horrible. Didn't make steam all that fast, had a lousy reserve, was way too big and heavy and mine and another one around here had a strange problem of internal errosion in the bend right over the fire in that central drum.
Had to weld it up too often.
Also the very devil to make and really not worth the trouble as it just isn't that good.
If the Baker doesn't have that rotary blowdown system, then one evaporating coil after another plugs up with sludge and carbon and slowly and surely fails. You can't clean it out either.
Although I sure am no fan of fire tube boilers, there is nothing wrong with a Stanley boiler in a Stanley car IF TAKEN CARE OF. Except, use at least four blowdown points on the bottom. I once cut an old 23" Stanley boiler apart and saw immediately that the radius of cleaner crown sheet was only about a 6" radius from the blowdown point. Too many tubes and too close together to get one blowdown to really do the job, you need at least four and even six if you can get them in. Alan Brasel fills his with kerosene when he parks it and for many many years now, that car runs better than any condensing Stanley I ever saw. Messy; but effective.
Maybe there is a water tube design that would be really satisfactory; but a Stanley should be as it was made, fire tube boiler and all.
Why butcher a nice car?
Still, with a condensing Stanley, nothing works as well as a really good separator on the exhaust steam line going into the condenser. That is a real fix and as yet, I have not seen a good one for Stanleys. Always too small and the oily mess just blows into the condenser.
Like a filter, slow down the velocity and give it time to separate out the oil.
The Doble also needs one there too and E-14 has had one in it since the 1940's and it really works well. Becker only cleaned the coil stack out once in every three or four years, that I recall. That isn't bad.
As the White owner's manual tells you, blow down the coil after each long run from both ends and HARD. Well, I put the same blowdown valves in E-23 and blow it often. Maybe I will get many years out of the new coil stack in the Doble. My White had the original coil stack in it, 90 years before it started leaking. So they really knew what they were talking about, didn't they.
Jim</HTML>
Re: The H. O. Baker boiler & then some...
Posted by: Garry Hunsaker (IP Logged)
Date: March 17, 2002 05:50PM
<HTML>Thanks to all of you for the info on the Baker’s. I have been carousing through the B&W Bible on fluid dynamics, and Jim’s experience with the Baker is not surprising. If I am grasping 3% of what I am reading, the steam generation coils directly over the fire in that boiler don’t have a third enough upward slope to begin to generate proper circulation. Which might explain why they carbon up so badly. It would also probably preclude using a gun type burner with the Baker either. More than likely, the extra heat would drive the water out of the lower spirals and burn them out.
There are probably several ‘fixes’ that could be applied to the Baker boiler. Which in the end would probably mean starting from scratch. Putting in plugs opposite of the inlets to the lower tubes so you would have some hope of cleaning them out is one. Possibly placing a partial heat shield over that offending erosion area might negate the ‘strange erosion’ pattern as well.
I think I now know why Baker never got his car into production. I imagine like so many of us that spend years working on one design, it’s hard to drop that errant child and move on to other things.
If what I grasp of the most great and holy B&W book is half right, to get anything like high output out of a self circulating boiler, you need height for gravity and the difference in working fluid’s weight to do their work. It might make an interesting site coming down the road, but I am not sure I would want to live with a six foot tall boiler mounted in my car.
Well it looks like back to the monotube, and a search for the perfect oil separator. That is unless someone knows of some super miracle coating that could be applied to the inside of the tubes. A coating that not only could take the heat, but behave like super teflon while increasing the heat transfer rate... :) Well, one can always dream...
Again thank you all
Garry
PS: Yes, I know the Lamont has some real advantages. Myself, I just can’t stomach spending the extra power to drive the pump. Though if it continues to look as good as it is beginning to, I may have to drop my own ‘errant child’.</HTML>
There are probably several ‘fixes’ that could be applied to the Baker boiler. Which in the end would probably mean starting from scratch. Putting in plugs opposite of the inlets to the lower tubes so you would have some hope of cleaning them out is one. Possibly placing a partial heat shield over that offending erosion area might negate the ‘strange erosion’ pattern as well.
I think I now know why Baker never got his car into production. I imagine like so many of us that spend years working on one design, it’s hard to drop that errant child and move on to other things.
If what I grasp of the most great and holy B&W book is half right, to get anything like high output out of a self circulating boiler, you need height for gravity and the difference in working fluid’s weight to do their work. It might make an interesting site coming down the road, but I am not sure I would want to live with a six foot tall boiler mounted in my car.
Well it looks like back to the monotube, and a search for the perfect oil separator. That is unless someone knows of some super miracle coating that could be applied to the inside of the tubes. A coating that not only could take the heat, but behave like super teflon while increasing the heat transfer rate... :) Well, one can always dream...
Again thank you all
Garry
PS: Yes, I know the Lamont has some real advantages. Myself, I just can’t stomach spending the extra power to drive the pump. Though if it continues to look as good as it is beginning to, I may have to drop my own ‘errant child’.</HTML>
Re: The H. O. Baker boiler & then some...
Posted by: Jim Crank (IP Logged)
Date: March 18, 2002 02:40PM
<HTML>Garry,
It isn't enough power to worry about. Today we have canned pumps that work at 750°F and magnetic drives that eliminate the packing gland. The Lamont is so much better in all respects than a monotube, it isn't funny.
I spent over 45 years working with monotubes, and now after George educated me on the Lamont, I wouldn't touch a new Doble type steam generator with a 50' pole.
Jim</HTML>
It isn't enough power to worry about. Today we have canned pumps that work at 750°F and magnetic drives that eliminate the packing gland. The Lamont is so much better in all respects than a monotube, it isn't funny.
I spent over 45 years working with monotubes, and now after George educated me on the Lamont, I wouldn't touch a new Doble type steam generator with a 50' pole.
Jim</HTML>
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.