1 Steam Cars : Phorum
General Steam Car topics
Steel Pistons?
Posted by: Ron Parola (IP Logged)
Date: March 24, 2002 02:00AM
<HTML>With the recent spate of Stanley piston failures (I found cracks in mine radiating out from the threads) my question is this; why not steel pistons? They could be thinner for the same strength, I realise that steel isn't as good as iron against iron for loads, but how much side loading actually occurs in one of these motors? Expansion rate is about the same, and the steel valve rods and nuts don't seem to suffer from corrosion any more than the iron ( at least with a well lubed engine) any ideas on this? Ron P</HTML>
Re: Steel Pistons?
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: March 24, 2002 05:48AM
<HTML>Hi Ron,
I saw an article on Stanley piston breakage in the latest Steam Automobile Bulletin, and it got me thinking. Shouldered piston rods, steel cores in iron pistons, and pinned rod ends rather than peened are good ideas for restoring valuable & historic antique cars which will likely be kept running for many decades, even centuries, to come. Those cars are national treasures, really, and some deluxe treatment is worthwhile & fitting. For new hobby vehicles, like the one I am designing, & perhaps future production machines (assuming emissions & a million other hurdles can be cleared), I wonder. After all, the pistons that are breaking are 80-90 years old. 80-90 years of service before failure does not indicate a "design flaw", at least not by automotive standards. IC engineers would probably consider this outstanding durability, even by modern standards.
Also, some piston failures, like the one cited in the Bulletin article, seem to be caused by improper service rather than some inherent design flaw.
I am currently looking into pistons machined from cast iron billet, top quality modern stuff whose metallurgy probably far exceeds that of the 1900-1930 era. These would have dead-ended weight-relief holes drilled into the insides of the 2 halves, not solid iron, plus pins instead of peening. With otherwise classic construction methods (plus a few modern tricks), this should exceed the 80-90 year piston service life of the classics.
However, before I found a good source for this stuff, steel pistons were my first plan, and I am still open to new info. Steel pistons can definitely be lighter, stronger, & more compact than cast iron, and can make higher rpms possible.
I recall reading an article in an old issue of The Steam Automobile, about a Doble driver who was in the practice of jacking up a wheel and turning it by hand after any extended layup of the car, to make sure that the steel pistons weren't stuck in their bores. I don't know if that is/was common practice, or if stuck steel pistons were common, or if this was merely a condition peculiar to this individual vehicle for some reason. I have read that cast iron is nearly rustproof in steam engines, as it absorbs oil.
When I was planning on steel pistons, I also planned on using graphited oil. The idea was to fill in & plate over any incipient pitting, especially around the rings, to prevent them from rusting stuck in their grooves. Might still be a good idea, even with cast iron pistons, as engine components are not the only place in a steam powerplant where some anti-corrosion treatment pays off. However, if graphite is used, some way should be found to prevent graphite clogging at various points.
Peter</HTML>
I saw an article on Stanley piston breakage in the latest Steam Automobile Bulletin, and it got me thinking. Shouldered piston rods, steel cores in iron pistons, and pinned rod ends rather than peened are good ideas for restoring valuable & historic antique cars which will likely be kept running for many decades, even centuries, to come. Those cars are national treasures, really, and some deluxe treatment is worthwhile & fitting. For new hobby vehicles, like the one I am designing, & perhaps future production machines (assuming emissions & a million other hurdles can be cleared), I wonder. After all, the pistons that are breaking are 80-90 years old. 80-90 years of service before failure does not indicate a "design flaw", at least not by automotive standards. IC engineers would probably consider this outstanding durability, even by modern standards.
Also, some piston failures, like the one cited in the Bulletin article, seem to be caused by improper service rather than some inherent design flaw.
I am currently looking into pistons machined from cast iron billet, top quality modern stuff whose metallurgy probably far exceeds that of the 1900-1930 era. These would have dead-ended weight-relief holes drilled into the insides of the 2 halves, not solid iron, plus pins instead of peening. With otherwise classic construction methods (plus a few modern tricks), this should exceed the 80-90 year piston service life of the classics.
However, before I found a good source for this stuff, steel pistons were my first plan, and I am still open to new info. Steel pistons can definitely be lighter, stronger, & more compact than cast iron, and can make higher rpms possible.
I recall reading an article in an old issue of The Steam Automobile, about a Doble driver who was in the practice of jacking up a wheel and turning it by hand after any extended layup of the car, to make sure that the steel pistons weren't stuck in their bores. I don't know if that is/was common practice, or if stuck steel pistons were common, or if this was merely a condition peculiar to this individual vehicle for some reason. I have read that cast iron is nearly rustproof in steam engines, as it absorbs oil.
When I was planning on steel pistons, I also planned on using graphited oil. The idea was to fill in & plate over any incipient pitting, especially around the rings, to prevent them from rusting stuck in their grooves. Might still be a good idea, even with cast iron pistons, as engine components are not the only place in a steam powerplant where some anti-corrosion treatment pays off. However, if graphite is used, some way should be found to prevent graphite clogging at various points.
Peter</HTML>
Re: Steel Pistons?
Posted by: Pat Farrell (IP Logged)
Date: March 25, 2002 02:45PM
<HTML>Dear Ron, At one time, most likely, the cracks in your pistons occured during the removal of the pistons from the piston rods. I have removed over thirty pistons from their piston rods and I have always mount them in a lathe to turn down the peaning from the end of the piston rods. I can never get all of the swell of the threads off and the swell of the threads usually takes a bite out of the threads before the first piston half, clears the end. To reassemble this same piston back onto the piston rod, thread failure is a high possibility. Check out my piston fix in SACA's The Steam Automobile, Volume 15, number 2. I installed a flaired steel bushing in the 20 H.P. piston and reduced the piston rod's thread diameter from 11/16 to 5/8 18 TPI. The reduced thread size gives the back piston a shoulder to rest against. I see no problem of using steel pistons instead of cast iron pistons.</HTML>
Re: Steel Pistons?
Posted by: Pat Farrell (IP Logged)
Date: March 25, 2002 02:54PM
<HTML>Dear Peter, I agree with you that cast iron pistons are more resistant to rusting than steel pistons. Cast iron seems to live better in a wet environment than steel. Steam cylinder oil surely aids this co-existance. For condensing cars, by adding graphite into the cylinder oil, it would just be one more thing that would be needed to be filtered out of the feedwater.</HTML>
Re: Steel Pistons? : graphite in the feedwater
Posted by: G. B. Gilbert (IP Logged)
Date: March 26, 2002 03:04AM
<HTML>I don't see the harm in having graphite in the feedwater. Several people have advocated its use, including Doble. I thought it would remain chemically inert and provide lubrication to moving parts as it traveled throughout the system. Does it accumulate in the superheater tubes or condensor? I thought it could be easily swept away.</HTML>
Re: Steel Pistons? : graphite in the feedwater
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: March 26, 2002 10:07AM
<HTML>Hi GB,
The main reported clog point for graphited oil is in the cylinder oil system. Graphite will settle out & build up there. Graphite oils for gas cars went off the market after being briefly marketed in the 1980s(?); later I heard reports of settling & buildup problems. That wouldn't be pretty in wee IC oil galleries! I havent't seen any reports of graphite clogging superheaters; this should (?) blow thru with the steam if it even gets that far (ie, monotubes). You might remember Richard on the Lightsteam List reporting successful use of "Aquadag", a commercial graphite emulsion formulated for feedwater purposes, and recommending it as a feedwater additive for occasional treatment, to fill in pits in boiler metal. Any excess would probably come out on blowdown.
Graphite in condensers is another issue. With heavy cylinder oils in classic steamers, condenser flushing is needed for oil removal purposes, and this would take out any graphite. With lighter oils in modern superheated (& reportedly Doble-Detroit) systems, reportedly 30-40W non-detergent oil lubes well and goes right thru the condenser. Would graphite go thru with it?
Complicating factors are: Stanleys for a while used a light distillate oil with graphite. Condenser flushing was still recommended in dealer bulletins. Cylinder oil lines & winkers were reported to plug up with graphite. Later they used hardened slide valves & valve platforms, and Bulletins recommended a non-graphite oil. Graphited oil seems to have been a brief early-condensing Stanley factory experiment in reducing slide valve wear. Efficient oil separators might change the picture too. Would graphite build up there? And not in condensers?
Does anybody still use graphite in any steam car system? We know at least one person who uses & recommends it in stationary boilers, as an occasional feedwater treatment, not for continuous addition. So maybe graphite is okay, but only as an occasional feedwater treatment, with proper blowdowns. Aquadag is a commercial graphite product designed and sold for this purpose. But it may only be needed in 100% oil-free boilers, esp with scale-free (rain- or distilled) water. Not sure what kind of water Richard uses, but he doesn't use condensers or oily water as far as I know. Maybe he likes turning rain barrels into chuffy clouds of steam, and who wouldn't. :)
Graphite is reportedly not needed for engine lube, either with modern oils & slide valves or for cast iron pistons or piston valves. (Might still have advantages, tho) Don't know about steel pistons/valves -- maybe plain oil is fine in regular use and proper amounts. Some Dobles got 600,000+ miles with steel pistons & plain oil (& occasional stickage in some cars?). Would Ken's graphite ribbon/yarn combo packing in stuffing boxes, do the job of filling/plating incipient pits in unchromed steel rods?
Perhaps regular oil in engine, and trace oil everywhere else (and trace scale in boiler? and graphite packing?), will do everything that graphited oil would do?
Peter</HTML>
The main reported clog point for graphited oil is in the cylinder oil system. Graphite will settle out & build up there. Graphite oils for gas cars went off the market after being briefly marketed in the 1980s(?); later I heard reports of settling & buildup problems. That wouldn't be pretty in wee IC oil galleries! I havent't seen any reports of graphite clogging superheaters; this should (?) blow thru with the steam if it even gets that far (ie, monotubes). You might remember Richard on the Lightsteam List reporting successful use of "Aquadag", a commercial graphite emulsion formulated for feedwater purposes, and recommending it as a feedwater additive for occasional treatment, to fill in pits in boiler metal. Any excess would probably come out on blowdown.
Graphite in condensers is another issue. With heavy cylinder oils in classic steamers, condenser flushing is needed for oil removal purposes, and this would take out any graphite. With lighter oils in modern superheated (& reportedly Doble-Detroit) systems, reportedly 30-40W non-detergent oil lubes well and goes right thru the condenser. Would graphite go thru with it?
Complicating factors are: Stanleys for a while used a light distillate oil with graphite. Condenser flushing was still recommended in dealer bulletins. Cylinder oil lines & winkers were reported to plug up with graphite. Later they used hardened slide valves & valve platforms, and Bulletins recommended a non-graphite oil. Graphited oil seems to have been a brief early-condensing Stanley factory experiment in reducing slide valve wear. Efficient oil separators might change the picture too. Would graphite build up there? And not in condensers?
Does anybody still use graphite in any steam car system? We know at least one person who uses & recommends it in stationary boilers, as an occasional feedwater treatment, not for continuous addition. So maybe graphite is okay, but only as an occasional feedwater treatment, with proper blowdowns. Aquadag is a commercial graphite product designed and sold for this purpose. But it may only be needed in 100% oil-free boilers, esp with scale-free (rain- or distilled) water. Not sure what kind of water Richard uses, but he doesn't use condensers or oily water as far as I know. Maybe he likes turning rain barrels into chuffy clouds of steam, and who wouldn't. :)
Graphite is reportedly not needed for engine lube, either with modern oils & slide valves or for cast iron pistons or piston valves. (Might still have advantages, tho) Don't know about steel pistons/valves -- maybe plain oil is fine in regular use and proper amounts. Some Dobles got 600,000+ miles with steel pistons & plain oil (& occasional stickage in some cars?). Would Ken's graphite ribbon/yarn combo packing in stuffing boxes, do the job of filling/plating incipient pits in unchromed steel rods?
Perhaps regular oil in engine, and trace oil everywhere else (and trace scale in boiler? and graphite packing?), will do everything that graphited oil would do?
Peter</HTML>
: graphite CO E. JOY co
Posted by: C Benson (IP Logged)
Date: March 26, 2002 11:45PM
<HTML>The oils made by Edward Joy & co ,,Leeds England,,,A colloidal compound I think they called it,,,Ran a Vincent Black shadow 1000cc motorcycle /100,000 mi With NO teardown ,,on test Tony Rose bought the bike at the Earls court show an drove 100,000 mi over next few years ,,,the famous[now]Tony Rose machine , min wear ,,no clogging etc this was around 1952--56,,Took a while to go the mi,, This was the co that had supplied oil for STEVENSON'S Rocket in 1827[+-] They also made the best chain greese I have known,,The greese was called LINKLIFE,,,,,The oil was called FILTERATE,,,,w/DAG,,,,,This stuff is NOT like DIXONS....Cheers Ben p/s last I heard it was still giving good servace w/good maintance,, 4 cheers CB</HTML>
Re: : graphite CO E. JOY co
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: March 27, 2002 08:25AM
<HTML>Hi Ben,
Interesting stuff. Vincent Black Shadow, wow. Any reader of H.S. Thompson will recognize the name. :) I did a search, couldn't find Edward Joy & Co, though I did find an English archive that has their records up to 1971. Maybe Joy went out of business around then?
Also did some searching on graphite oil. Seems like the one I remember was "ARCO Graphite", late 1970s. Various references to it not being available, buildup, clogging, etc.. Snipped this from a diesel engine discussion board:
==================
<snip>
A side note on the Arco Graphite saga.... Graphite oil was originally produced in the 30s.. but the graphite was poorly suspended and would settle out between runs. Arco perfected the suspension problem, but used a very poor carrier oil. So it gunked up and detoriorated rapidly.
<snip>
===================
Well, Stanleys were using graphite oil in the late teens. But maybe the suspension problem wasn't solved yet?
So maybe Edward Joy perfected graphite suspension (perhaps ARCO got the method from them), but unlike ARCO, Joy used a high-quality base oil?
Another guy, elsewhere, said that no major oil co uses solid additives in motor oil anymore because anything (graphite, PTFE, moly) which plates the moving parts will plate oil passages too, gradually restricting flow. Joy & Co might have disagreed.
Same guy said that the US Army and Briggs & Stratton prohibit use of PTFE (Teflon) oil additives in their engines because thermal breakdown of PTFE (above ~500°F) produces highly corrosive hydrofluoric acid. Might still be OK in relatively cool steam engine crankcases -- maybe ONLY there. Makes you wonder about ptfe in hot stuffing boxes etc ...?
A related search turned up a source saying that average service life of today's IC engines is only ~120,000 miles due to abrasive oil crud & related wear. Drivers who get more, do 3-6000 mile oil changes.
A search on "ARCO Graphite" (w/same caps & quotes) in Yahoo! will turn up the list of pages I checked, only about 19. Including a really funny story about the world's dirtiest crankcase -- in a neglected 1963 Porsche. Carbon in steamers, heck -- sounds like gas cars never solved the carbon problem either.
Peter</HTML>
Interesting stuff. Vincent Black Shadow, wow. Any reader of H.S. Thompson will recognize the name. :) I did a search, couldn't find Edward Joy & Co, though I did find an English archive that has their records up to 1971. Maybe Joy went out of business around then?
Also did some searching on graphite oil. Seems like the one I remember was "ARCO Graphite", late 1970s. Various references to it not being available, buildup, clogging, etc.. Snipped this from a diesel engine discussion board:
==================
<snip>
A side note on the Arco Graphite saga.... Graphite oil was originally produced in the 30s.. but the graphite was poorly suspended and would settle out between runs. Arco perfected the suspension problem, but used a very poor carrier oil. So it gunked up and detoriorated rapidly.
<snip>
===================
Well, Stanleys were using graphite oil in the late teens. But maybe the suspension problem wasn't solved yet?
So maybe Edward Joy perfected graphite suspension (perhaps ARCO got the method from them), but unlike ARCO, Joy used a high-quality base oil?
Another guy, elsewhere, said that no major oil co uses solid additives in motor oil anymore because anything (graphite, PTFE, moly) which plates the moving parts will plate oil passages too, gradually restricting flow. Joy & Co might have disagreed.
Same guy said that the US Army and Briggs & Stratton prohibit use of PTFE (Teflon) oil additives in their engines because thermal breakdown of PTFE (above ~500°F) produces highly corrosive hydrofluoric acid. Might still be OK in relatively cool steam engine crankcases -- maybe ONLY there. Makes you wonder about ptfe in hot stuffing boxes etc ...?
A related search turned up a source saying that average service life of today's IC engines is only ~120,000 miles due to abrasive oil crud & related wear. Drivers who get more, do 3-6000 mile oil changes.
A search on "ARCO Graphite" (w/same caps & quotes) in Yahoo! will turn up the list of pages I checked, only about 19. Including a really funny story about the world's dirtiest crankcase -- in a neglected 1963 Porsche. Carbon in steamers, heck -- sounds like gas cars never solved the carbon problem either.
Peter</HTML>
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.