1 Steam Cars : Phorum
General Steam Car topics
735 performance
Posted by: eric gleason (IP Logged)
Date: October 25, 2005 02:45AM
<HTML>I have a couple of questions about the performance expectations of a 735 Stanley (1918 7 passenger touring) and tests to see if your performance is up to snuff. I had my 735 out yesterday after finally getting the pilot sorted out. It has a new Bourden boiler, 24" x 18", a empire burner (21" inside diameter of the burner plate, drilled holes and a .053" jet) and a thick walled 3/4" diameter 15 foot long stainless superheater. It also has 14 ft of 5/8" copper tubing in the exhaust line as a feed water heater. After the car warms up it will only maintain a crusing speed of say 15 to 20 mph on the level without loosing pressure.
At a stop sign the boiler will raise from 400 to 425 in about 15 seconds.
I can circle the block a couple of times and loose only about 150 lbs of pressure with the burner off.
So the question is: is my steam consumption excessive or is my boiler/burner production low or, is it something else entirely. I don't think I have any leaks and the packing on the rods is new and does not appear to leak either.
I tried a bigger jet but that seemed to make it just burn too rich and sooty and the performance was actually worse. Any ideas? Thanks, Eric</HTML>
At a stop sign the boiler will raise from 400 to 425 in about 15 seconds.
I can circle the block a couple of times and loose only about 150 lbs of pressure with the burner off.
So the question is: is my steam consumption excessive or is my boiler/burner production low or, is it something else entirely. I don't think I have any leaks and the packing on the rods is new and does not appear to leak either.
I tried a bigger jet but that seemed to make it just burn too rich and sooty and the performance was actually worse. Any ideas? Thanks, Eric</HTML>
Re: 735 performance
Posted by: Ben in Maine (IP Logged)
Date: October 25, 2005 12:50PM
<HTML>What is your fuel pressure??,,,What pressure is the steam automatic set for?? You say the system is hot, how far have you driven at this [hot] point,? Ben</HTML>
Re: 735 performance
Posted by: George (IP Logged)
Date: October 25, 2005 09:16PM
<HTML>Eric,
Sounds like you have a good system but the very low average speed mokes one think that something is wrong. The 18" high boiler has the advantage of lots of reserve but no more steady state steaming capacity than a 14". I believe most 735's in good shape with a 4+ GPH firing rate should maintain 40-45mph on a level road or about 10-11 MPG. Are you sure that your hooking up in short 35% cutoff? If your packing glands are not making great whoosing sounds you may have excessive ring leakage or valve leakage.
Possibly the replacement Empire burner has a low firing rate, trying to force it with bigger jets would lead to the sooty fire.
Think it is great that you are on your way, very frustrating to set up and get running well when they were not that way to begin with.
My best, George</HTML>
Sounds like you have a good system but the very low average speed mokes one think that something is wrong. The 18" high boiler has the advantage of lots of reserve but no more steady state steaming capacity than a 14". I believe most 735's in good shape with a 4+ GPH firing rate should maintain 40-45mph on a level road or about 10-11 MPG. Are you sure that your hooking up in short 35% cutoff? If your packing glands are not making great whoosing sounds you may have excessive ring leakage or valve leakage.
Possibly the replacement Empire burner has a low firing rate, trying to force it with bigger jets would lead to the sooty fire.
Think it is great that you are on your way, very frustrating to set up and get running well when they were not that way to begin with.
My best, George</HTML>
Re: 735 performance
Posted by: Mike Clark (IP Logged)
Date: October 25, 2005 09:53PM
<HTML>Eric,
Try a smaller jet - my H with a 23x14" boiler and 21" burner plate makes plenty of steam with 0.0395" jets. The area of one of these is 0.00122 sq inches while your 0.053 jet has an area of 0.0022 - nearly twice as big so I think you must be running far too rich. My jets do feed about 4gpa and the fuel (50/50 diesel/unleaded) is fully vapourised not a spray using a 6 ft vaporiser. It does not smoke.
Mike</HTML>
Try a smaller jet - my H with a 23x14" boiler and 21" burner plate makes plenty of steam with 0.0395" jets. The area of one of these is 0.00122 sq inches while your 0.053 jet has an area of 0.0022 - nearly twice as big so I think you must be running far too rich. My jets do feed about 4gpa and the fuel (50/50 diesel/unleaded) is fully vapourised not a spray using a 6 ft vaporiser. It does not smoke.
Mike</HTML>
Re: 735 performance
Posted by: Andy Patterson (IP Logged)
Date: October 25, 2005 10:09PM
<HTML>Ok. There is a lot of info there. But there are two things that could serve to isolate the problem to steam generation or consumption.
At a stop (No steam consumption) pressure raises from 400 to 425 in 15 seconds. This should give some idea of it's generation rate.
Droping 150 PSI going around the block with fire off could help if we know the distance. This could give an idea of consumption rate. The cutoff would be important here also.
Ben's question on wether you are up to operating temperatures is another peice of important data.
Someone should be able to anser: Is 15 seconds slow for the 25 PSI increase from 400 PSI at a stop?</HTML>
At a stop (No steam consumption) pressure raises from 400 to 425 in 15 seconds. This should give some idea of it's generation rate.
Droping 150 PSI going around the block with fire off could help if we know the distance. This could give an idea of consumption rate. The cutoff would be important here also.
Ben's question on wether you are up to operating temperatures is another peice of important data.
Someone should be able to anser: Is 15 seconds slow for the 25 PSI increase from 400 PSI at a stop?</HTML>
Re: 735 performance
Posted by: Ben in Maine (IP Logged)
Date: October 25, 2005 10:27PM
<HTML>The temperature INTO the superheater is dependent on the boiler pressure,,,, ,,,, ,,,,, If the pressure is down ,more water will be used,,and performence suffers [ to a crawl],, Item 2,,be careful,,,dont use cutoff if engine is cold as the timing gets advanced,, and it can act as a toggle joint press and can kink a con rod or worse,,yes,,worse,,This is why I asked if the engine was thoroughly warm [read hot ] Good luck,,,I think youre close,,,Ben</HTML>
Re: 735 performance
Posted by: Rolly (IP Logged)
Date: October 25, 2005 11:43PM
<HTML>Eric
1. You need real numbers. Use a five gal bucket for a fuel tank and measure the fuel your burner is using.
2. Get a thermal coupling on the output of the superheater and run the car. If your not getting 650 F while running the car, take it out of linkup till you lower the water in the boiler and the temperature shoots up. Mark the height at the point the water temperature go up. This is where you want to set your water height. Your expansion bypass valve.
3. You should be able to go at least 30 to 35 MPH at a steady firing rate of four GPH.</HTML>
Rolly
1. You need real numbers. Use a five gal bucket for a fuel tank and measure the fuel your burner is using.
2. Get a thermal coupling on the output of the superheater and run the car. If your not getting 650 F while running the car, take it out of linkup till you lower the water in the boiler and the temperature shoots up. Mark the height at the point the water temperature go up. This is where you want to set your water height. Your expansion bypass valve.
3. You should be able to go at least 30 to 35 MPH at a steady firing rate of four GPH.</HTML>
Rolly
Re: 735 performance
Posted by: eric gleason (IP Logged)
Date: October 26, 2005 04:19AM
<HTML>Lots of things to think about.
I have the fuel pressure at 110 to 120 psi, and am burning a 60/40 mix of deisel/gas. The empire burner only has one jet as opposed to the two in the standard stanley burner. There is a steam jet in the exhaust stack to help with the draft but I havn't been using it.
I warmed the car up on a jack when I fired it up, the engine starts turning over, pretty smoothly if I don't have the boiler too full, at 25 to 50 psi. I drove the car about 16 miles or so to warm it up and used about 1/4 to 1/2 of the water in the water tank.
I get the feeling that I am burning more than 5 gallons an hour but will try and quantify that better, maybe will try and take it out again this weekend. Will try and get some distances/pressure drop numbers. I currently have the boiler water level set at the "normal" reading on the kidney gauge. Thanks to everyone for their help, Eric</HTML>
I have the fuel pressure at 110 to 120 psi, and am burning a 60/40 mix of deisel/gas. The empire burner only has one jet as opposed to the two in the standard stanley burner. There is a steam jet in the exhaust stack to help with the draft but I havn't been using it.
I warmed the car up on a jack when I fired it up, the engine starts turning over, pretty smoothly if I don't have the boiler too full, at 25 to 50 psi. I drove the car about 16 miles or so to warm it up and used about 1/4 to 1/2 of the water in the water tank.
I get the feeling that I am burning more than 5 gallons an hour but will try and quantify that better, maybe will try and take it out again this weekend. Will try and get some distances/pressure drop numbers. I currently have the boiler water level set at the "normal" reading on the kidney gauge. Thanks to everyone for their help, Eric</HTML>
Re: 735 performance
Posted by: Ben in Maine (IP Logged)
Date: October 26, 2005 02:10PM
<HTML> 1, On the road,,will it hold fuel pressure when firing hard ??? 2 what is your steam automatic set at,,,,we know its not keeping up,, whats it set at???? The system just wont balence at 400#,,,,,Get it up to 550--600 and start gently, Use only enough steem to keep pressure above 500,,,,,Let us know what happens,,,,Forgot where you are at,,,snow belt or hurricane zone,,haha,,,Note to George,,,road in Eustiss,,town above Kingfield had cars and pickups off the road,,,on TV last nite,,,Over weekend MtWashington was,,,21deg,,,100hph sustaned w/ghusts to 127,,and got 7' drifts,,,,its nice here in the valley,,an hour or 2 away,,,Hey George have you got power in N Fla?? no I wont say ,,wish you were here,,,maybee in May,,,,Cheers ,,Ben</HTML>
Re: 735 performance
Posted by: George (IP Logged)
Date: October 26, 2005 09:15PM
<HTML>Ben(OT),
Everything fine and dandy in Ocala, maybe had winds up to 10MPH and 1.5" rain. Out playing golf today as it is in the 60's, such a life. Poor harry Schoell over near Miami is still without power and the top of his backyard gazebo took off like a flying saucer and landed some distance away---it was rather strongly built as i remember. So if you get cold and damp and don't see the sun in a month thing about coming down Ben and find out what southern comfort is all about.
Best to all, George</HTML>
Everything fine and dandy in Ocala, maybe had winds up to 10MPH and 1.5" rain. Out playing golf today as it is in the 60's, such a life. Poor harry Schoell over near Miami is still without power and the top of his backyard gazebo took off like a flying saucer and landed some distance away---it was rather strongly built as i remember. So if you get cold and damp and don't see the sun in a month thing about coming down Ben and find out what southern comfort is all about.
Best to all, George</HTML>
Re: 735 performance
Posted by: eric gleason (IP Logged)
Date: October 27, 2005 05:35AM
<HTML>I am here in Oregon so still enjoying fairly mild weather, at least for the moment. The car seems to hold the fuel pressure well at all times, except when I run the tank dry!
I have the automatic set at 500 lbs, actually starts cutting out at about 475 so might adjust it up some and see what that does. Thanks, Eric</HTML>
I have the automatic set at 500 lbs, actually starts cutting out at about 475 so might adjust it up some and see what that does. Thanks, Eric</HTML>
Re: 735 performance
Posted by: Ben in Maine (IP Logged)
Date: October 27, 2005 11:32AM
<HTML>Set auto at 550# ,,,It may coast up to 600 on a sudden shutdown,,,safety at 750 ,,, and working not stuck I assume,,,,You will find it most difficult to turn the adjuster w/pressure up,,,on my car, 1 flat [ ok pin hole] equal to 10# Do others find this same adjustment = to 10# ?? Its a devilishly strong spring,,, Cheers Ben</HTML>
Re: 735 performance
Posted by: Mike Clark (IP Logged)
Date: October 27, 2005 06:38PM
<HTML>To check the power of a Stanley burner by timing the rise in boiler pressure you need to stick to a few conditions to get a consistent result which allows comparison with another car.
Most important is that the test is done with the steam automatic wide open which means when the boiler pressure is well below the shut off pressure. The last 25psi rise before shut down takes place as the steam automatic is beginning to close and the burner is getting weaker. It’s best to test at about 60-70% of working pressure to be sure.
In theory the amount of water in the boiler makes a difference in several ways - more water means more heat needed but less steam space means the pressure rises faster - these two effects are opposed. There is an optimum water level for heat absorption, below this level there isn’t enough length of fire tube in contact with water so the heat is lost out of the flue. Above this level there is no gain in heat input which is why an 18” or 16” tall boiler makes no more steam than a 14” (although it obviously has more reserve). So always start the test with the same water level. Because the bubbling effect causes a falsely high sight gauge level (see how it drops while the car is parked) the test should be done immediately after stopping.
The total heat in the boiler matters so don’t test it while firing up from cold, do it after it has run a few miles and is thoroughly hot. Make sure the level is where you want it, let the boiler pressure drop to 60% of the working pressure, stop the car, turn the burner on, hand pump to hold the fuel pressure, let the boiler pressure rise 50 psi and then time it over the next 50 psi (25psi is too small to read on the gauge). Always test over the same pressure range and you should get a meaningful result.
I’ve just been out with the H to try this, timing it from 450 to 500 psi - answer average 13 seconds for the 50 psi rise. If I time it over the same range when firing up from cold it takes over 20 seconds. Working pressure is 600psi.
I have a thermocouple on the steam pipe right by the cylinder block. The temperature here varies from 450 to 680 F depending on what the burner has been doing. Generally driving on the level the temperature is down at 500, the burner cycles on and off or modulates with the boiler pressure around 580-600psi and the steam line pressure to the engine 100-150 psi. Going faster or on a steep enough hill with a bit more throttle the steam line pressure goes up to 200 (maximum 350 psi on very steep bits), the boiler pressure drops to 550psi and the burner goes on full power which eventually gets the steam temperature up to 680. On my test today the steam temperature got up to 530 F so the ultimate steam raising was probably not tested.
This steam pipe thermocouple shows that it is not what the burner is doing now that determines the steam temperature but what it has been doing for the last few minutes - the burner is obviously a massive heat sink. This has the advantage that superheating goes on all the time, not just when the burner is firing
Going back to Eric’s original questions - with only one jet in the burner instead of two the size of jet doesn’t seem too far out. If you put a pressure gauge on the spare outlet from the steam automatic you get a reading of the pressure in the vaporiser which is very helpful - when the burner is on full fire (boiler pressure 50psi or so below the shutoff point) the pressure in the vaporiser should be very close to the fuel line pressure - if it is not then the steam automatic is not opening enough. Possibly sticking.
Mike</HTML>
Most important is that the test is done with the steam automatic wide open which means when the boiler pressure is well below the shut off pressure. The last 25psi rise before shut down takes place as the steam automatic is beginning to close and the burner is getting weaker. It’s best to test at about 60-70% of working pressure to be sure.
In theory the amount of water in the boiler makes a difference in several ways - more water means more heat needed but less steam space means the pressure rises faster - these two effects are opposed. There is an optimum water level for heat absorption, below this level there isn’t enough length of fire tube in contact with water so the heat is lost out of the flue. Above this level there is no gain in heat input which is why an 18” or 16” tall boiler makes no more steam than a 14” (although it obviously has more reserve). So always start the test with the same water level. Because the bubbling effect causes a falsely high sight gauge level (see how it drops while the car is parked) the test should be done immediately after stopping.
The total heat in the boiler matters so don’t test it while firing up from cold, do it after it has run a few miles and is thoroughly hot. Make sure the level is where you want it, let the boiler pressure drop to 60% of the working pressure, stop the car, turn the burner on, hand pump to hold the fuel pressure, let the boiler pressure rise 50 psi and then time it over the next 50 psi (25psi is too small to read on the gauge). Always test over the same pressure range and you should get a meaningful result.
I’ve just been out with the H to try this, timing it from 450 to 500 psi - answer average 13 seconds for the 50 psi rise. If I time it over the same range when firing up from cold it takes over 20 seconds. Working pressure is 600psi.
I have a thermocouple on the steam pipe right by the cylinder block. The temperature here varies from 450 to 680 F depending on what the burner has been doing. Generally driving on the level the temperature is down at 500, the burner cycles on and off or modulates with the boiler pressure around 580-600psi and the steam line pressure to the engine 100-150 psi. Going faster or on a steep enough hill with a bit more throttle the steam line pressure goes up to 200 (maximum 350 psi on very steep bits), the boiler pressure drops to 550psi and the burner goes on full power which eventually gets the steam temperature up to 680. On my test today the steam temperature got up to 530 F so the ultimate steam raising was probably not tested.
This steam pipe thermocouple shows that it is not what the burner is doing now that determines the steam temperature but what it has been doing for the last few minutes - the burner is obviously a massive heat sink. This has the advantage that superheating goes on all the time, not just when the burner is firing
Going back to Eric’s original questions - with only one jet in the burner instead of two the size of jet doesn’t seem too far out. If you put a pressure gauge on the spare outlet from the steam automatic you get a reading of the pressure in the vaporiser which is very helpful - when the burner is on full fire (boiler pressure 50psi or so below the shutoff point) the pressure in the vaporiser should be very close to the fuel line pressure - if it is not then the steam automatic is not opening enough. Possibly sticking.
Mike</HTML>
Re: 735 performance
Posted by: Alan Woolf (IP Logged)
Date: October 28, 2005 01:23AM
<HTML>One piece of the puzzle is the fuel pressure. 110 to 120 psi is too low. We have a 1917 730 touring running a drilled Stanley type burner with #58 jets. The boiler is a 24 x 18. It won't run well if the fuel pressure is much below 160 psi. Smaller jets don't work well either. Bigger jets just make a lot of smoke. Performance varies a good bit depending on a lot of factors including terrain but 35-40 mph and holding 400-450 psi is pretty typical on a level road. If the car is firing well 45 -50 mph is attainable.
ASW</HTML>
ASW</HTML>
Re: 735 performance
Posted by: Mike Clark (IP Logged)
Date: October 28, 2005 11:50AM
<HTML>Eric,
Another thought - does the vaporiser have a wire through it? It is possible for the wire to appear clean when you take it out but have a build up of carbon inside the turns of the wire so that the diameter is swollen to the point of blocking the pipe. If it is an old wire look for a bulge.
Alan,
Not so sure about needing 160psi! Is your fuel being fully vaporised or is it still a bit wet?
My H runs very happily with 120psi, this is with no. 61 jets and a six foot vaporiser. It has a drilled burner plate. Once it is warmed up the fuel is always a clear gas not a spray. It only howls if for any reason (like pulling away after being parked) the boiler pressure is low enough that the fire has to light with the steam automatic wide open. I guess this is because the sudden surge of fuel momentarily overwhelms a cool vaporiser and unvaporised fuel goes through.
The vaporiser, the fuel pressure and the jet size all interact. In normal firing at boiler pressures 25 psi below the shut off pressure the steam automatic is wide open. The automatic can pass much more fuel than the jets can take and the expansion of the gas raises the pressure in the vaporiser to the pressure of the fuel line so the combination of jet size and fuel pressure controls how fast the gas goes through.
Raising the fuel pressure probably improves the break up of unvaporised fuel into smaller droplets and up to a certain point does push more fuel through. There is a limit to this as once the gas flow through the jet goes supersonic no increase in fuel pressure will shove more through. I’ve no idea at what pressure this would happen in the Stanley jets but possibly above the pressures we use.
We need think about how the jets pull air into the burner. This is just molecules or droplets of fuel kicking molecules of air into the mixing tubes. If the fuel is not fully vaporised much of it is wrapped up a droplets and is therefore not so good at kicking air in simply because there are not so many collisions. Poor vaporisation does let more fuel go in because the smaller volume of liquid as opposed to gas can more easily get through the jet but this may lead to an over rich mixture. Of course all the fuel turns to vapour when it gets into the burner and in any case vaporising burners are pretty tolerant of wrong mixture strength so it probably doesn’t matter. However the superior breakup into more, smaller droplets might explain why you find a higher fuel pressure gives better results and less smoke than bigger jets. You are pushing in more air with your extra fuel.
You will gather from this that I prefer to get the vaporiser length and height above the flame, and the proportion of diesel to unleaded balanced so that the fuel is always a gas!
Mike</HTML>
Another thought - does the vaporiser have a wire through it? It is possible for the wire to appear clean when you take it out but have a build up of carbon inside the turns of the wire so that the diameter is swollen to the point of blocking the pipe. If it is an old wire look for a bulge.
Alan,
Not so sure about needing 160psi! Is your fuel being fully vaporised or is it still a bit wet?
My H runs very happily with 120psi, this is with no. 61 jets and a six foot vaporiser. It has a drilled burner plate. Once it is warmed up the fuel is always a clear gas not a spray. It only howls if for any reason (like pulling away after being parked) the boiler pressure is low enough that the fire has to light with the steam automatic wide open. I guess this is because the sudden surge of fuel momentarily overwhelms a cool vaporiser and unvaporised fuel goes through.
The vaporiser, the fuel pressure and the jet size all interact. In normal firing at boiler pressures 25 psi below the shut off pressure the steam automatic is wide open. The automatic can pass much more fuel than the jets can take and the expansion of the gas raises the pressure in the vaporiser to the pressure of the fuel line so the combination of jet size and fuel pressure controls how fast the gas goes through.
Raising the fuel pressure probably improves the break up of unvaporised fuel into smaller droplets and up to a certain point does push more fuel through. There is a limit to this as once the gas flow through the jet goes supersonic no increase in fuel pressure will shove more through. I’ve no idea at what pressure this would happen in the Stanley jets but possibly above the pressures we use.
We need think about how the jets pull air into the burner. This is just molecules or droplets of fuel kicking molecules of air into the mixing tubes. If the fuel is not fully vaporised much of it is wrapped up a droplets and is therefore not so good at kicking air in simply because there are not so many collisions. Poor vaporisation does let more fuel go in because the smaller volume of liquid as opposed to gas can more easily get through the jet but this may lead to an over rich mixture. Of course all the fuel turns to vapour when it gets into the burner and in any case vaporising burners are pretty tolerant of wrong mixture strength so it probably doesn’t matter. However the superior breakup into more, smaller droplets might explain why you find a higher fuel pressure gives better results and less smoke than bigger jets. You are pushing in more air with your extra fuel.
You will gather from this that I prefer to get the vaporiser length and height above the flame, and the proportion of diesel to unleaded balanced so that the fuel is always a gas!
Mike</HTML>
Re: 735 performance
Posted by: Alan Woolf (IP Logged)
Date: October 29, 2005 12:09AM
<HTML>Mike,
Your suggestion about checking the vaporizer to see if it is plugged is a good one. It doesn't take a lot of carbon to cause a significant drop in a car's performance.
With regard to fuel pressures 140-160 psi is normal for a condensing Stanley. I went back and checked a couple of Stanley manuals to see if my memory was correct. In the 1917 manual they suggest pumping the fuel pressure up to 160 psi prior to lighting the main burner. In a later 740 series manual the recommended maximum fuel pressure set at the factory is 140 psi. And those figures pretty well coincide with my experience. I have driven and ridden in several different condenser cars and most of the owners using drilled burners were running 140-160 psi fuel pressure. That's what it takes to make the car run. With non-condensing cars lower fuel pressures work OK. The weight difference between condensing and non-condensing cars makes a huge difference in performance and you need every advantage you can get!
BTW I have driven one of the existing Model H's. The car is an authentic restoration from mostly original chassis components and still runs a single fuel system with high pressure pilot on pump gas. As I recall the single fuel system runs about 130 psi. That car is a real hot rod and fun to drive. The handling is amazing for a nearly 100 year old car. The owner also took me for a ride and made an extremely sharp turn that I would have expected to pull the clincher tires right off of the rims!
Alan</HTML>
Your suggestion about checking the vaporizer to see if it is plugged is a good one. It doesn't take a lot of carbon to cause a significant drop in a car's performance.
With regard to fuel pressures 140-160 psi is normal for a condensing Stanley. I went back and checked a couple of Stanley manuals to see if my memory was correct. In the 1917 manual they suggest pumping the fuel pressure up to 160 psi prior to lighting the main burner. In a later 740 series manual the recommended maximum fuel pressure set at the factory is 140 psi. And those figures pretty well coincide with my experience. I have driven and ridden in several different condenser cars and most of the owners using drilled burners were running 140-160 psi fuel pressure. That's what it takes to make the car run. With non-condensing cars lower fuel pressures work OK. The weight difference between condensing and non-condensing cars makes a huge difference in performance and you need every advantage you can get!
BTW I have driven one of the existing Model H's. The car is an authentic restoration from mostly original chassis components and still runs a single fuel system with high pressure pilot on pump gas. As I recall the single fuel system runs about 130 psi. That car is a real hot rod and fun to drive. The handling is amazing for a nearly 100 year old car. The owner also took me for a ride and made an extremely sharp turn that I would have expected to pull the clincher tires right off of the rims!
Alan</HTML>
Re: 735 performance
Posted by: Mike Clark (IP Logged)
Date: October 29, 2005 09:19PM
<HTML>Alan
Perhaps I should pump up my fuel! I am pretty happy with my burner output - I had a thermocouple in the burner just under the superheater and found it got up to about 1900 F when the burner was at its hottest. Eventually cooked the thermocouple probe.
Yes they do handle well - a month back I ran it in some vintage car driving tests which were run on a loose gravel surface. Compared with ordinary cars the lack of sideways weight transfer due to torque lets the Stanley spins both wheels equally and it is possible to hang the tail out going round a sharp turn which caused some amusement to spectators.
The ride is also very surprising - getting back in my tow car (1992 Range Rover) I find the ride very bumpy compared with the Model H and no other old car compares.
The lack of weight is huge advantage although they are not so light as Stanley claimed. I normally turn my burner off about 3/4 mile before the house. If it has 600psi at that point it gets home up an average 4% grade with three short sections of 20% and still has 300psi at the house. With tools, fuel, water and two people I think it weighs about 2700 pounds.
Mike</HTML>
Perhaps I should pump up my fuel! I am pretty happy with my burner output - I had a thermocouple in the burner just under the superheater and found it got up to about 1900 F when the burner was at its hottest. Eventually cooked the thermocouple probe.
Yes they do handle well - a month back I ran it in some vintage car driving tests which were run on a loose gravel surface. Compared with ordinary cars the lack of sideways weight transfer due to torque lets the Stanley spins both wheels equally and it is possible to hang the tail out going round a sharp turn which caused some amusement to spectators.
The ride is also very surprising - getting back in my tow car (1992 Range Rover) I find the ride very bumpy compared with the Model H and no other old car compares.
The lack of weight is huge advantage although they are not so light as Stanley claimed. I normally turn my burner off about 3/4 mile before the house. If it has 600psi at that point it gets home up an average 4% grade with three short sections of 20% and still has 300psi at the house. With tools, fuel, water and two people I think it weighs about 2700 pounds.
Mike</HTML>
Re: 735 performance
Posted by: Eric Gleason (IP Logged)
Date: October 30, 2005 04:12AM
<HTML>Well, if the weather is 1/2 way decent tomorrow I will try to fire it up and see what happens, first I will reset the fuel pressure to 160 and the boiler cut off to 550 (also test the safety first). I did pull the cable a couple of weeks ago to see if that would help, cleaned things out some, the vaporizer did have a bunch of carbon buildup in the block over the pilot but I think the flow is pretty good now. Anyway I want to thank you all in advance for your advice. I will try and get more consistent and accurate performance figures. Eric</HTML>
Re: 735 performance
Posted by: SSsssteamer (IP Logged)
Date: October 30, 2005 01:47PM
<HTML>Dear Eric, Nick Dante of Sequim, WA owned a 1919 735A with an Empire burner. It would only do about 35 to 40 mph on the level and the hills just slowed it down to a crawl. Maybe his 735A could have performed better, but after two years of tweaking, that is the best that he could get out of it. Does an Empire burner perfom better or worse than a Stanley burner? Running with you in July, I was impressed about how well your 735B climbed the hills. It looked to be running much better than Nick ever got his Stanley running. Please do not up-size the boiler to 30 hp. The 30 hp boiler makes the car's front end too heavy and the condensor cannot keep up under a full throttle. The result is too hot of water in the storage tank and resulting resistance to being pumped. Is your hook up advanced enough to conserve steam while on the fly? I wish you the best of luck. It was fun steaming with you this summer. :-)</HTML>
update
Posted by: Eric Gleason (IP Logged)
Date: October 31, 2005 05:30AM
<HTML>Well I reset the fuel pressure, ran out of adjustment at 145 lbs so left it there, then reset the fuel cut off to 575 lbs.
Ran it for some time before trying to get any kind of figures (about 20 miles)
1) It now cruises along maintaining pressure at 15 to 20 MPH (vs. 10 -15 before).
2) The boiler water level is set at between "normal" and 1" high on the kidney gauge.
3) At a standing postion, with the fuel valve way open and 140 lbs of pressure, it takes 25 seconds to raise the boiler pressure from 400 to 450 lbs..
4) With 500 lbs. of pressure in the boiler the car will travel 0.3 to 0.4 miles (on a fairly straight, level and smooth road) with a drop in pressure of 100 lbs with the burner off. It seems to be about the same with or with out the cut off engaged. The car does seem to run a bit smoother with the cut off on though.
I don't have a thermocouple yet so can't read temperatures. I did not try and gauge the fuel consumption however did note that at 10-15 MPH the fuel pressure drops to 120-130 lbs., guess that is all the fuel the pump can provide at that speed.
So, it seems like my steam generation is still a bit on the slow side, about 1/2 as fast as what Mike reported. I guess I can play some more with jet sizes. The burner no longer howls like it would at times with a larger sized jet but there did still seem to be some soot produced.
Is there a good way to test burner performance with the burner out of the car? When I have tried this in the past it seems hard to get a good consistent flame, seems to really rise above the burner plate and travel around it in waves.
Is the steam consumption excessive? If so how can that be corrected? I had the valve cover off while I was working on things earlier, adjusted the valves and checked their seats which were smooth, no grooving or scoring was noted. Is the amount of cut off adjustable on this car? Is it possible that that could be off and if so how is it corrected?
Anyway, thanks for the feedback, it really was quite a pleasent drive although somewhat slow, Eric</HTML>
Ran it for some time before trying to get any kind of figures (about 20 miles)
1) It now cruises along maintaining pressure at 15 to 20 MPH (vs. 10 -15 before).
2) The boiler water level is set at between "normal" and 1" high on the kidney gauge.
3) At a standing postion, with the fuel valve way open and 140 lbs of pressure, it takes 25 seconds to raise the boiler pressure from 400 to 450 lbs..
4) With 500 lbs. of pressure in the boiler the car will travel 0.3 to 0.4 miles (on a fairly straight, level and smooth road) with a drop in pressure of 100 lbs with the burner off. It seems to be about the same with or with out the cut off engaged. The car does seem to run a bit smoother with the cut off on though.
I don't have a thermocouple yet so can't read temperatures. I did not try and gauge the fuel consumption however did note that at 10-15 MPH the fuel pressure drops to 120-130 lbs., guess that is all the fuel the pump can provide at that speed.
So, it seems like my steam generation is still a bit on the slow side, about 1/2 as fast as what Mike reported. I guess I can play some more with jet sizes. The burner no longer howls like it would at times with a larger sized jet but there did still seem to be some soot produced.
Is there a good way to test burner performance with the burner out of the car? When I have tried this in the past it seems hard to get a good consistent flame, seems to really rise above the burner plate and travel around it in waves.
Is the steam consumption excessive? If so how can that be corrected? I had the valve cover off while I was working on things earlier, adjusted the valves and checked their seats which were smooth, no grooving or scoring was noted. Is the amount of cut off adjustable on this car? Is it possible that that could be off and if so how is it corrected?
Anyway, thanks for the feedback, it really was quite a pleasent drive although somewhat slow, Eric</HTML>
Cut off
Posted by: SSsssteamer (IP Logged)
Date: October 31, 2005 04:08PM
<HTML>Cut off is not easily adjusted. Worn hook up valve linkage will change the hook up position a little. The best fix on this is to rebuild the worn valve linkage as needed. To check the hook up position while traveling, disengage the hook up from its notch while traveling. Press the hook up pedal down a little more until valve rattle just occurs and then back off until it is now running smoothly. The smooth running position should be your hook up position. As a guess from experience, running in hook up position at road speed will save you about 25% of your steam and water used as compaired to running in full valve position. A small adjustment can be made on the link hanger rods (part #130) for timing. Moving the hook up notch can also be done. I would not change any of these unless it is absolutely necessary for the proper cut off position. Dan Haynes had a 1918 Stanley 735B and it ran as good as most non condensing 20 hp cars. 40-45 mph. He had the drilled Stanley burner plate. Keep after your Stanley and you will get it sorted out. I have found that most of the home improvements that have been made to the Stanleys through the years, worked just the opposite as intended. A bone stock Stanley needs very little tweaking to make it perform excellently.</HTML>
Re: Cut off
Posted by: Ben (IP Logged)
Date: October 31, 2005 04:42PM
<HTML>Something is wrong here and we've missed it somehow,,,,check the size of the burner grate holes,,,get rusted smaller sometimes ,,,cant recall drill size,,,HELP,,, if George is around,,,comment on superheater inside D and OD,,,15' sounds long but if oversize,,heat transfer will suffer,,,,Thermocouple to rescue,,,re braze or silver s the ends,,,Comments needed here,,,Will work well on steampipe, not so good IN fire ,,,,One member made 3 different LATCHES for hookup experiment,,,easy outside fix,,, Havent heard from David lately,,,think he's racing around MIDDLESEX county w/his new EMPIRE burner ,,,fresh info due in soon,,,Early report its real good,,,Keep at it,,,something funney here,,,Oh,,,you mentioned soot,,,,the insulation qualities of SOOT rival any known insulation material hohoho,,,Grrr,,,Keep at it,,,while the weather lasts,,,,Cheers Ben</HTML>
Re: Cut off
Posted by: Howard Randall (IP Logged)
Date: October 31, 2005 04:51PM
<HTML>Was the car fitted with an 18” boiler before the new one was installed?
More specifically, are the water bottle and feed water automatic set up for an 18” high boiler or some other height? If so, what is the steam head (in inches) you are carrying with the current setting of the feed water automatic?</HTML>
More specifically, are the water bottle and feed water automatic set up for an 18” high boiler or some other height? If so, what is the steam head (in inches) you are carrying with the current setting of the feed water automatic?</HTML>
Re: Cut off
Posted by: Mike Clark (IP Logged)
Date: October 31, 2005 11:51PM
<HTML>My superheater is 12 ft long and made of 0.5" bore by 0.675" od stainless.
Burner, from memory, has 6800 holes which are 0.060" (1.5mm)
If the holes start to clog with carbon and a bit of rust I find a high speed miniature drill (Dremel) is very good for cleaning them out although I hear that if they get very rusty drilling can be hard going. Hasn't happened to me yet.
Re thermocouple in fire - yes a bit doubtful about what is actually being measured but its the same as for a pilot light tell tale. The one I use has the tip and wire within a 3mm stainless outer - if I put it back I might make a tube to protect it from direct heat. K thermocouple should take 2100 F which I don't think I am getting.
Mike</HTML>
Burner, from memory, has 6800 holes which are 0.060" (1.5mm)
If the holes start to clog with carbon and a bit of rust I find a high speed miniature drill (Dremel) is very good for cleaning them out although I hear that if they get very rusty drilling can be hard going. Hasn't happened to me yet.
Re thermocouple in fire - yes a bit doubtful about what is actually being measured but its the same as for a pilot light tell tale. The one I use has the tip and wire within a 3mm stainless outer - if I put it back I might make a tube to protect it from direct heat. K thermocouple should take 2100 F which I don't think I am getting.
Mike</HTML>
Re: Cut off
Posted by: Rolly (IP Logged)
Date: October 31, 2005 11:59PM
<HTML>Eric
Your water rate will improve if your running superheat. With 15 feet of superheat coil you should get some good hot steam providing your water is low enough in the boiler. The right water height is critical to get superheat. Two high and you get a lot of carry over into the coil.
Drive the car and take it out of linkup till the water level drops well below where you normal run the car. Then see how the performance is.
When you keep the super heat 200 degrees above-saturated temperature you get an extra cubic foot of steam volume for every pound of water you use.</HTML>
Rolly
Your water rate will improve if your running superheat. With 15 feet of superheat coil you should get some good hot steam providing your water is low enough in the boiler. The right water height is critical to get superheat. Two high and you get a lot of carry over into the coil.
Drive the car and take it out of linkup till the water level drops well below where you normal run the car. Then see how the performance is.
When you keep the super heat 200 degrees above-saturated temperature you get an extra cubic foot of steam volume for every pound of water you use.</HTML>
Rolly
Re: update
Posted by: Alan Woolf (IP Logged)
Date: November 01, 2005 12:12AM
<HTML>Eric,
If you can only get 145 psi out of the fuel regulator there is a problem somewhere most likely with the fuel regulator or the three way check valve.
Are you able to maintain fuel pressure running down the road with the burner hard on? If not there is definitely something wrong with the fuel system. The car should maintain fuel pressure when running down the road even with the burner full on. A drop in fuel pressure should only occur when climbing a hill very slowly or when stopped with the burner on.
My guess is that you need to check the condition of the fuel regulator, power pump check valves, and the three way check valve. Also check the suction strainer between the main fuel tank and the pump to make sure it is not clogged.
The car will not steam properly until you are pumping plenty of fuel consistently.
Alan</HTML>
If you can only get 145 psi out of the fuel regulator there is a problem somewhere most likely with the fuel regulator or the three way check valve.
Are you able to maintain fuel pressure running down the road with the burner hard on? If not there is definitely something wrong with the fuel system. The car should maintain fuel pressure when running down the road even with the burner full on. A drop in fuel pressure should only occur when climbing a hill very slowly or when stopped with the burner on.
My guess is that you need to check the condition of the fuel regulator, power pump check valves, and the three way check valve. Also check the suction strainer between the main fuel tank and the pump to make sure it is not clogged.
The car will not steam properly until you are pumping plenty of fuel consistently.
Alan</HTML>
Re: Cut off
Posted by: George (IP Logged)
Date: November 01, 2005 08:51PM
<HTML>Great advice Rolly,
Several years ago Ted Prichard wrote about the performance of their family 735?740? nearly doubling with the steam temperature raised about 100 degrees F. The level of boiler water is crucial as under full steam consumption water can pass over into the superheater and really dull the performance of the car. Brent years ago, after we affixed a pressure gauge to the steqam chest on a non-condensor, would rock the valve gear into neutral(where the valves dont move) and put 600psi on the steamchest---there was absolutely no hissing or steam loss heard from worn valves into the free exhaust or the valve packing glands. I would recommend disconnecting the exhaust to make a non-condensor test and see if there is a great deal of leakage due to worn valves or valve packing glands. Good performance appears to start when steam chest temperatures get up to 700F and really lower the specific steam consumption of the poor stanley engine. I believe Harbor Freight occasionally sells a cheap digital thermocouple meter for $40 or so, a worthwhile investment to find out the state of things steam.
It does sound like the firing rate could be quite low---remember a 4GPH firing rate on a stock Stanley dirilled burner is only about 4GPH/320# steam per hour and on the road only good for a steady state of 15-16HP. Many of the faster cars have gone to different burners that are capable of 6GPH and that would increase the road horsepower to 25. Dear Coburn i cannot answere the superheater question as most of all my notes and testing info are still buried away in boxes. It does seem that the very low average speed of this car points to a low burn rate , a low superheat temperature, or very leaky valves that are also not properly timed. Enought musing sfrom this sunny but frustrating golfing experienced today!
Best to all, George</HTML>
Several years ago Ted Prichard wrote about the performance of their family 735?740? nearly doubling with the steam temperature raised about 100 degrees F. The level of boiler water is crucial as under full steam consumption water can pass over into the superheater and really dull the performance of the car. Brent years ago, after we affixed a pressure gauge to the steqam chest on a non-condensor, would rock the valve gear into neutral(where the valves dont move) and put 600psi on the steamchest---there was absolutely no hissing or steam loss heard from worn valves into the free exhaust or the valve packing glands. I would recommend disconnecting the exhaust to make a non-condensor test and see if there is a great deal of leakage due to worn valves or valve packing glands. Good performance appears to start when steam chest temperatures get up to 700F and really lower the specific steam consumption of the poor stanley engine. I believe Harbor Freight occasionally sells a cheap digital thermocouple meter for $40 or so, a worthwhile investment to find out the state of things steam.
It does sound like the firing rate could be quite low---remember a 4GPH firing rate on a stock Stanley dirilled burner is only about 4GPH/320# steam per hour and on the road only good for a steady state of 15-16HP. Many of the faster cars have gone to different burners that are capable of 6GPH and that would increase the road horsepower to 25. Dear Coburn i cannot answere the superheater question as most of all my notes and testing info are still buried away in boxes. It does seem that the very low average speed of this car points to a low burn rate , a low superheat temperature, or very leaky valves that are also not properly timed. Enought musing sfrom this sunny but frustrating golfing experienced today!
Best to all, George</HTML>
Re:735 performence
Posted by: Ben in Maine (IP Logged)
Date: November 01, 2005 09:36PM
<HTML>Hohoho,,,short cutoff,,almost reverse,,,,a fine line fellows,,,use caution,,either jack up or block well or leave space for a ''hole shot'' in either direction,,,the spinning wheel deal,,, Hi George ,,so glad to hear you again,,Today was in mid 60s wow,,, and we poured new footings for cornerposts in the warehouse,,crew of 4,,all went well,, Temp are too high,,10percent of leaves have fallen,,so if we have overdue snow,,the leaf/snow load will pull the power wires down,,,all OK so far,,,,Cheers Ben</HTML>
Re: Cut off
Posted by: Andy Patterson (IP Logged)
Date: November 02, 2005 11:22PM
<HTML>Hi.
There plenter of temperature prob/meter s on eBay.
[cgi.ebay.com]
This has a lot of features:
[cgi.ebay.com]
A different set of features:
[cgi.ebay.com]
[cgi.ebay.com]
[cgi.ebay.com]
Poor mans deal:
[cgi.ebay.com]
[cgi.ebay.com]
Lots of temperature meters out there. Check out the other features. They may be differance in selection. Wont a probe or an IR senser. One meter has both. Some with data collection & PC interface.</HTML>
There plenter of temperature prob/meter s on eBay.
[cgi.ebay.com]
This has a lot of features:
[cgi.ebay.com]
A different set of features:
[cgi.ebay.com]
[cgi.ebay.com]
[cgi.ebay.com]
Poor mans deal:
[cgi.ebay.com]
[cgi.ebay.com]
Lots of temperature meters out there. Check out the other features. They may be differance in selection. Wont a probe or an IR senser. One meter has both. Some with data collection & PC interface.</HTML>
Re:735 performence
Posted by: Eric Gleason (IP Logged)
Date: December 19, 2005 05:16PM
<HTML>Well,
Sorry it took me so long to write back. I dropped the burner to take a look at things and things were pretty well sooted up. So, got a brush and cleaned the flues, will do it from the top next time! Kind of a miserable job but that is behind me now.
Took the burner all apart, something I hadn't ever done before. That Empire is an interesting beast, a cast iron burner plate and a cast iron pan held together with a bunch of quite rusty screws. No wonder it weighs so much! Ended up having to drill and re tap most of the screws but got it all done successfully. Also cleaned out all the drilled holes in the burner plate, a zillion of them, all individually drilled at the factory, must have been quite a job drilling all those out the first time. Now I am thinking about if I should make a new baffle plate, the old one is kind of warped. Also, pulled the cable again, is it supposed to go the entire length of the vaporizer coil?
Also have to fabricate a new ring around the base of the boiler to hold the superheater, will make it large enough in diameter so that none of the boiler flues are obstructed. Is there an optimal distance between the top of the burner plate and the bottom of the boiler, I had about 5" before?
Anyway, will be a bit of time until I get it all back together again to do some more testing. Have about a foot of snow on the ground today and more coming down. Happy holidays, Eric</HTML>
Sorry it took me so long to write back. I dropped the burner to take a look at things and things were pretty well sooted up. So, got a brush and cleaned the flues, will do it from the top next time! Kind of a miserable job but that is behind me now.
Took the burner all apart, something I hadn't ever done before. That Empire is an interesting beast, a cast iron burner plate and a cast iron pan held together with a bunch of quite rusty screws. No wonder it weighs so much! Ended up having to drill and re tap most of the screws but got it all done successfully. Also cleaned out all the drilled holes in the burner plate, a zillion of them, all individually drilled at the factory, must have been quite a job drilling all those out the first time. Now I am thinking about if I should make a new baffle plate, the old one is kind of warped. Also, pulled the cable again, is it supposed to go the entire length of the vaporizer coil?
Also have to fabricate a new ring around the base of the boiler to hold the superheater, will make it large enough in diameter so that none of the boiler flues are obstructed. Is there an optimal distance between the top of the burner plate and the bottom of the boiler, I had about 5" before?
Anyway, will be a bit of time until I get it all back together again to do some more testing. Have about a foot of snow on the ground today and more coming down. Happy holidays, Eric</HTML>
Re:735 performence
Posted by: SSsssteamer (IP Logged)
Date: December 31, 2005 01:39PM
<HTML>Eric, The cable in the main fuel vaporizer is supposed to be longer than the vaporizer so that you can grap it's end and pull it out for cleaning. To accomodate the extra length, the input end has a extended pipe cap to house the extra length. Likewise, at the branch forks, the end cap is also deep enough to hold some of the cable length. Usually the flow of the main fuel will push the cable towards the branch forks. The distance between the burner plate and the bottom tube sheet depends on the burner but your 5 " is as far as I would want them apart. 4" is about as close as I would want them. Limiting factors besides what heats best is having room for the super heater and main fuel vaporizer, yet still not have the burner hit the front axle and still be able to close the hood. On the condensing cars another factor is if the burner is too low, it isn't very handy to light your burner through the running board's splash apron, let alone to peek into the burner to see how it is burning. Happy New Year!</HTML>
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.