1 Steam Cars : Phorum
General Steam Car topics
Vaporizer Lengths - Reducing Carbon Formation
Posted by: Alan Woolf (IP Logged)
Date: May 22, 2002 12:28AM
<HTML>I would like to get a discussion started about methods to reduce carbon formation in the vaporizer on a Stanley and specifically with regard to my car which is a 1917 Model 730. The car has a Stanley drilled burner. The burner plate was purchased from John Goold several years ago. The car currently has a 5-1/2 foot stainless steel vaporizer. We have been running it without a cable.
Fuel is a 50/50 mix of diesel and no lead gasoline. The burner nozzles are removable and attach to the vaporizer heat sink with a nut and sealed with a pair of copper washers (Leakage is a constant headache). The arrangement appears to be very similar to the branch fork on the "new" burner described in the 1918 Stanley dealer bulletin.
The car will usually run 300-400 miles with no problem and then it needs to have the vaporizer blown clear with steam. The carbon formation appears to be a problem right at the branch fork nut. The rest of the vaporizer stays clear
The temperature must be too high at the end of the vaporizer. The question is what it the most effective way to lower the temperature of the fuel at that point?
Alan</HTML>
Fuel is a 50/50 mix of diesel and no lead gasoline. The burner nozzles are removable and attach to the vaporizer heat sink with a nut and sealed with a pair of copper washers (Leakage is a constant headache). The arrangement appears to be very similar to the branch fork on the "new" burner described in the 1918 Stanley dealer bulletin.
The car will usually run 300-400 miles with no problem and then it needs to have the vaporizer blown clear with steam. The carbon formation appears to be a problem right at the branch fork nut. The rest of the vaporizer stays clear
The temperature must be too high at the end of the vaporizer. The question is what it the most effective way to lower the temperature of the fuel at that point?
Alan</HTML>
Re: Vaporizer Lengths - Reducing Carbon Formation
Posted by: Rolly Evans (IP Logged)
Date: May 22, 2002 10:44AM
<HTML>Alan
How high is your vaporizer coil mounted off your grate.
I have the same problems with my 1920. When I rebuilt my burner box I set my vaporizer coil about 1-1/2” to 2 “ off the grate. I have just rewound my vaporizer and mounted it only ½” from the grate. Mine is about eight feet long and I have a six foot by ¼” SS cable in it. I added a check valve to the fuel line and steam line to the vaporizer so all I need to do is pull the bottom nuts on my branch forks and blow them out with steam. I run clear K-1 kerosene.
I rebuilt my branch forks and made the bolt from a Grade 5 bolt. The cross hole is 3/16” I have noticed that the hole is getting oblong, I use 1/8” copper washers and have no leaks, but I am over tightening the bolt.
Rolly</HTML>
How high is your vaporizer coil mounted off your grate.
I have the same problems with my 1920. When I rebuilt my burner box I set my vaporizer coil about 1-1/2” to 2 “ off the grate. I have just rewound my vaporizer and mounted it only ½” from the grate. Mine is about eight feet long and I have a six foot by ¼” SS cable in it. I added a check valve to the fuel line and steam line to the vaporizer so all I need to do is pull the bottom nuts on my branch forks and blow them out with steam. I run clear K-1 kerosene.
I rebuilt my branch forks and made the bolt from a Grade 5 bolt. The cross hole is 3/16” I have noticed that the hole is getting oblong, I use 1/8” copper washers and have no leaks, but I am over tightening the bolt.
Rolly</HTML>
Re: Vaporizer Lengths - Reducing Carbon Formation
Posted by: Howard Randall (IP Logged)
Date: May 24, 2002 04:06PM
<HTML>Our 10 HP has a 20 year old Mann or Ottoway all S.S. burner, the branch forks attach to the S.S. vaporizor via a S.S. welded flair fitting. I have had no leak issues. The vaporizor is S.S. and is a double pass, front to back, over and under design (4' total) with no wire. I burn only gasoline and have little problems with pluging that can't be resolved by pricking the nozzles or rarely having to remove them. The nozzles are carburator jets which makes it easy to go to the auto store for replacements.
I plan to experiment this year with various mixtures of diesel and gas, but doubt I will get to 50/50 before problems surface.
I would be glad to provide digital photo of branch forks.</HTML>
I plan to experiment this year with various mixtures of diesel and gas, but doubt I will get to 50/50 before problems surface.
I would be glad to provide digital photo of branch forks.</HTML>
Re: Vaporizer Lengths - Reducing Carbon Formation
Posted by: Jim Crank (IP Logged)
Date: May 28, 2002 01:30PM
<HTML>Alan,
Allow me to put forward a couple of things that I learned the hard way when I was running my 1918 Stanley. I wrote the whole thing up in detail in the SACA journal, read it.
1) As to the branch fork leaking and you using two copper washers to try to seal it, first of all take it off and resurface the mating joint in a milling machine.
From the sound of it the two surfaces are not either smooth enough nor parallel. One thin washer should certainly be all that is needed.
2) I received an hours long data input from the district manager of Mobile Oil Co. back then regarding fuels for pre mix vaporizing burners.
A) The heavier the fuel, the easier it is to break it down with heat. The order of ease in this, as far as fuels we commonly use, are concerned: The worst is Diesel, then furnace oil, then kerosene, then jet fuel, then gasoline.
B) Do not let the fuel go over 400-425°F or it will come apart, forming free hydrogen and carbon, the two main items making up all hydrocarbon fuel.
Put a CALIBRATED thermocouple inside the end of the vaporizer and measure the vapor temperature as you drive along, and also see what it goes to after you stop at a signal and then go on. I made up a new nut that holds the branch fork on and drilled it to take a commercial shielded TC that went back in about 3" into the vaporizer tube.
If it is much higher than this, start reducing the vaporizer length in short increments until it stops forming carbon.
C) Stop using Diesel. Use pure kerosene and if you must, a mix of kerosene and unleaded gasoline. Diesel has no advantage over kerosene and breaks down way to easily in the vaporizer.
Do not use jet fuel, it goes bad in about three months and has to be replaced. Try pure water white pure kerosene.
Good Luck
Jim</HTML>
Allow me to put forward a couple of things that I learned the hard way when I was running my 1918 Stanley. I wrote the whole thing up in detail in the SACA journal, read it.
1) As to the branch fork leaking and you using two copper washers to try to seal it, first of all take it off and resurface the mating joint in a milling machine.
From the sound of it the two surfaces are not either smooth enough nor parallel. One thin washer should certainly be all that is needed.
2) I received an hours long data input from the district manager of Mobile Oil Co. back then regarding fuels for pre mix vaporizing burners.
A) The heavier the fuel, the easier it is to break it down with heat. The order of ease in this, as far as fuels we commonly use, are concerned: The worst is Diesel, then furnace oil, then kerosene, then jet fuel, then gasoline.
B) Do not let the fuel go over 400-425°F or it will come apart, forming free hydrogen and carbon, the two main items making up all hydrocarbon fuel.
Put a CALIBRATED thermocouple inside the end of the vaporizer and measure the vapor temperature as you drive along, and also see what it goes to after you stop at a signal and then go on. I made up a new nut that holds the branch fork on and drilled it to take a commercial shielded TC that went back in about 3" into the vaporizer tube.
If it is much higher than this, start reducing the vaporizer length in short increments until it stops forming carbon.
C) Stop using Diesel. Use pure kerosene and if you must, a mix of kerosene and unleaded gasoline. Diesel has no advantage over kerosene and breaks down way to easily in the vaporizer.
Do not use jet fuel, it goes bad in about three months and has to be replaced. Try pure water white pure kerosene.
Good Luck
Jim</HTML>
Re: Vaporizer Lengths - Reducing Carbon Formation
Posted by: Alan Woolf (IP Logged)
Date: May 28, 2002 07:57PM
<HTML>Jim,
Thanks for the comments.
We are getting ready to make a new vaporizer for the car so we will address the flatness and parallelism issues at the burner fork at that time. I am intrigued by Howard Randlall's description of a removable branch fork with a flare attachment. That would be an improvement over the original design.
Using kerosene is preferred but availability is a problem in the Southeast where we live and do most of our driving. We do a good bit of touring especially day (100-400 miles) and weekend trips and finding kerosene is not easy. We used to use try and use kerosene but we also had a problem with finding good water white kerosene. We have also campaigned our car on several of the East Coast and Midwest steam car tours. Most of the guys running cars on these touring use a diesel/gasoline mix. And yes some problems are to be expected. We have had reasonable success but lately it seems like we have been less successful.
Do you have any thoughts on the size of the heat sink over the pilot light? Also what about cables? Are they needed or just something to give problems. I have heard several stories about cables getting stuck in vaporizers due to carbon buildup.
Alan</HTML>
Thanks for the comments.
We are getting ready to make a new vaporizer for the car so we will address the flatness and parallelism issues at the burner fork at that time. I am intrigued by Howard Randlall's description of a removable branch fork with a flare attachment. That would be an improvement over the original design.
Using kerosene is preferred but availability is a problem in the Southeast where we live and do most of our driving. We do a good bit of touring especially day (100-400 miles) and weekend trips and finding kerosene is not easy. We used to use try and use kerosene but we also had a problem with finding good water white kerosene. We have also campaigned our car on several of the East Coast and Midwest steam car tours. Most of the guys running cars on these touring use a diesel/gasoline mix. And yes some problems are to be expected. We have had reasonable success but lately it seems like we have been less successful.
Do you have any thoughts on the size of the heat sink over the pilot light? Also what about cables? Are they needed or just something to give problems. I have heard several stories about cables getting stuck in vaporizers due to carbon buildup.
Alan</HTML>
Re: Vaporizer Lengths - Reducing Carbon Formation
Posted by: Jim Crank (IP Logged)
Date: May 29, 2002 02:25PM
<HTML>Alan,
Look for the CFN (Commercial Fuel Network) heavy truck stations. They claim to be nation wide. Best part is that they have water white pure kerosene in a pump. Seems the big rig drivers put about 10% kerosene into their Diesel, it is supposed to be a good way to keep carbon deposits down in their engines.
CFN is a credit card, 24 hour, operation. The Doble just loves it.
As to heat sinks, all I can say is that it seems about right to have it completely covered by the pilot light flame and maybe a little beyond that. Mine was about 6" long and 3/4" in diameter. The vaporizer was about 5' of thin wall S.S. 3/8" tubing. No cable and I never had to clean it out in the two years I had the Stanley. Blew it out once in a while with steam; but that didn't seem to do anything to its operation.
Everyone has their own ideas about cables; but all I can say is that I sure have seen many Stanley owners trying to get the cable out on tours with vice grips and breaking off the cable. If you do use one, pull it often.
One trick I used with another Stanley burner was to attach an electric drill to the cable and use it as a sort of RotorRooter first, then pull it out and all sorts of rubbish came out. BUT; if you do this, you really have to clean it often, or the cable does indeed get stuck and then you can break it off inside. The cable was a lot smaller than the ID of the vaporizer.
I think the trick with Stanley burners is to run the shortest possible vaporizer that will not howl. Mine was fine; but if I stopped for two signal lights, it would yelp when starting up after the light changed and the vapor had a bit of white in it. You just have to experiment with your own burner, none of them seem to work the same as another, all seem to have their own little habits.
Just for your information, my White would run about a year between cleanings with pure unleaded gasoline, and that was with a lot of driving. Probably longer; but cleaning the vaporizer was a winter maintenance chore and done religiously, along with greasing the car.
Jim</HTML>
Look for the CFN (Commercial Fuel Network) heavy truck stations. They claim to be nation wide. Best part is that they have water white pure kerosene in a pump. Seems the big rig drivers put about 10% kerosene into their Diesel, it is supposed to be a good way to keep carbon deposits down in their engines.
CFN is a credit card, 24 hour, operation. The Doble just loves it.
As to heat sinks, all I can say is that it seems about right to have it completely covered by the pilot light flame and maybe a little beyond that. Mine was about 6" long and 3/4" in diameter. The vaporizer was about 5' of thin wall S.S. 3/8" tubing. No cable and I never had to clean it out in the two years I had the Stanley. Blew it out once in a while with steam; but that didn't seem to do anything to its operation.
Everyone has their own ideas about cables; but all I can say is that I sure have seen many Stanley owners trying to get the cable out on tours with vice grips and breaking off the cable. If you do use one, pull it often.
One trick I used with another Stanley burner was to attach an electric drill to the cable and use it as a sort of RotorRooter first, then pull it out and all sorts of rubbish came out. BUT; if you do this, you really have to clean it often, or the cable does indeed get stuck and then you can break it off inside. The cable was a lot smaller than the ID of the vaporizer.
I think the trick with Stanley burners is to run the shortest possible vaporizer that will not howl. Mine was fine; but if I stopped for two signal lights, it would yelp when starting up after the light changed and the vapor had a bit of white in it. You just have to experiment with your own burner, none of them seem to work the same as another, all seem to have their own little habits.
Just for your information, my White would run about a year between cleanings with pure unleaded gasoline, and that was with a lot of driving. Probably longer; but cleaning the vaporizer was a winter maintenance chore and done religiously, along with greasing the car.
Jim</HTML>
Re: Vaporizer Lengths - Reducing Carbon Formation
Posted by: Alan Woolf (IP Logged)
Date: May 30, 2002 04:28AM
<HTML>Jim,
Thanks I will check out the fuel suggestion.
We pulled the burner on our car today and the vaporizer is a bit longer than I remembered...about 6 feet which I am sure is too long. We'll fix that probably starting in the morning.
BTW just a couple of footnotes about me you might be interested in. I work for Lockheed as test engineer working in the structural test laboratory in Marietta.
And speaking of Dobles I got to drive E-18 last summer. They are fantastic cars. It is a shame they didn't build more of them.
Alan</HTML>
Thanks I will check out the fuel suggestion.
We pulled the burner on our car today and the vaporizer is a bit longer than I remembered...about 6 feet which I am sure is too long. We'll fix that probably starting in the morning.
BTW just a couple of footnotes about me you might be interested in. I work for Lockheed as test engineer working in the structural test laboratory in Marietta.
And speaking of Dobles I got to drive E-18 last summer. They are fantastic cars. It is a shame they didn't build more of them.
Alan</HTML>
Re: Vaporizer Lengths - Reducing Carbon Formation
Posted by: Jim Crank (IP Logged)
Date: May 30, 2002 02:28PM
<HTML>Alan,
That fuel source should solve your problems, as long as they are in Georgia.
Also worked for the Rocket Works for 26 years. Research lab, space dynamic power, the flywheel bus and lots of other things. Then got sent over to NASA AMES to do the mechanical stuff for space life sciences, Not so nice, bunch of idiots.
E-18, what was that knocking sound I heard in the video that Jay Leno showed me? Sounded like the engine.
Jim</HTML>
That fuel source should solve your problems, as long as they are in Georgia.
Also worked for the Rocket Works for 26 years. Research lab, space dynamic power, the flywheel bus and lots of other things. Then got sent over to NASA AMES to do the mechanical stuff for space life sciences, Not so nice, bunch of idiots.
E-18, what was that knocking sound I heard in the video that Jay Leno showed me? Sounded like the engine.
Jim</HTML>
Re: Vaporizer Lengths - Reducing Carbon Formation
Posted by: Rolly Evans (IP Logged)
Date: May 30, 2002 03:01PM
<HTML>When I disassembled my vaporizer coil to rewind it, I found that the cable had gone in about ten inches. I remembered cutting it shorter just about the last time I used the car last year. Prior to that it would bottom out at a tight bend and go no further. I TIG welded a stop on the end of the cable with a ¼ -20 thread as David had suggested. Now I can screw on an eyebolt and pull it out. Not quit the same but see David’s paper at
[www.steamautomobile.com]
I will see if I have less carbon on the tour at our SACA-NE open meeting now that I lowered it down next to the burner. I drove it around last week and used about 15 gallons of clear kerosene with no major plugging of the jets. But after following this discussion I wish I had shortened it, while it was out.
Rolly</HTML>
[www.steamautomobile.com]
I will see if I have less carbon on the tour at our SACA-NE open meeting now that I lowered it down next to the burner. I drove it around last week and used about 15 gallons of clear kerosene with no major plugging of the jets. But after following this discussion I wish I had shortened it, while it was out.
Rolly</HTML>
Re: Vaporizer Lengths - Reducing Carbon Formation
Posted by: Alan Woolf (IP Logged)
Date: May 30, 2002 07:21PM
<HTML>Jim,
E-18 was smooth when I drove it. Are you sure it wasn't an infernal combustion car rattling nearby? :>
Alan</HTML>
E-18 was smooth when I drove it. Are you sure it wasn't an infernal combustion car rattling nearby? :>
Alan</HTML>
Re: Vaporizer Lengths - Reducing Carbon Formation
Posted by: Jim Crank (IP Logged)
Date: June 01, 2002 02:33PM
<HTML>Alan,
No it was a definite thumping from the engine. What I don't know is if it was when first taking off, or after the car was thoroughly up to temperature.
1) A bad connecting rod, since Orr was too cheap to buy an new crankcase kit.
2) Water in the cylinders.
3) A bad roller in a connecting rod bearing.
Did Howard regrind the crankshaft and connecting rods and put in new oversized rollers? If so, did they measure the amount of hardening left?
They vary all over the place and often crack clear through the hardening when you try to regrind them. Not good practice with a Doble at all!!!
Hard chrome won't last over about 200 miles, it cracks and flakes off.
Dobles had bad crankshafts and very weak crankcases. BEWARE.
You won't get a firm handle on this vaporizer carbon mess until you really know the temperature of the fuel vapor coming out of the tube. A TC in the branch fork nut, and into the large section about 3", really gives the right information and I urge you to do that. Try to stay about 400-425°F when the car is running down the road.
Jim</HTML>
No it was a definite thumping from the engine. What I don't know is if it was when first taking off, or after the car was thoroughly up to temperature.
1) A bad connecting rod, since Orr was too cheap to buy an new crankcase kit.
2) Water in the cylinders.
3) A bad roller in a connecting rod bearing.
Did Howard regrind the crankshaft and connecting rods and put in new oversized rollers? If so, did they measure the amount of hardening left?
They vary all over the place and often crack clear through the hardening when you try to regrind them. Not good practice with a Doble at all!!!
Hard chrome won't last over about 200 miles, it cracks and flakes off.
Dobles had bad crankshafts and very weak crankcases. BEWARE.
You won't get a firm handle on this vaporizer carbon mess until you really know the temperature of the fuel vapor coming out of the tube. A TC in the branch fork nut, and into the large section about 3", really gives the right information and I urge you to do that. Try to stay about 400-425°F when the car is running down the road.
Jim</HTML>
Re: Vaporizer Lengths - Reducing Carbon Formation
Posted by: Alan Woolf (IP Logged)
Date: June 03, 2002 01:11AM
<HTML>Jim,
I was digging in my archives and came across an article that you wrote on fuels several years ago that I believe was published in the HCCA magazine. In this article you listed a series of fuels and their application for gas and steam cars. For kerosene the article states "Good for washing parts but not to burn." Another quote out of the article was interesting also: "When asked what would be the closest to the old-time more volatile kerosene, I was told that a mixture of 30 percent No. 2 diesel and 70 percent unleaded pump gasoline would come the closest to the fuel of 1910. This brew has been very successfully used by our steam car colleagues on the East Coast for years." Both quotes are attributed to someone else who I believe you interviewed about fuels.
The above information appears to be at odds with your recommendation to use kerosene and not diesel. Have there been changes in currently available fuels that would lead you to make a recommendation to burn kerosene?
Alan
<a href="mailto:festanley@hotmail.com?subject=Vaporizer Lengths - Reducing Carbon Formation">Alan Woolf</a> wrote:
>
> I would like to get a discussion started about methods
> to reduce carbon formation in the vaporizer on a Stanley and
> specifically with regard to my car which is a 1917 Model 730.
> The car has a Stanley drilled burner. The burner plate was
> purchased from John Goold several years ago. The car
> currently has a 5-1/2 foot stainless steel vaporizer. We have
> been running it without a cable.
> Fuel is a 50/50 mix of diesel and no lead gasoline. The
> burner nozzles are removable and attach to the vaporizer heat
> sink with a nut and sealed with a pair of copper washers
> (Leakage is a constant headache). The arrangement appears to
> be very similar to the branch fork on the "new" burner
> described in the 1918 Stanley dealer bulletin.
>
> The car will usually run 300-400 miles with no problem and
> then it needs to have the vaporizer blown clear with steam.
> The carbon formation appears to be a problem right at the
> branch fork nut. The rest of the vaporizer stays clear
> The temperature must be too high at the end of the vaporizer.
> The question is what it the most effective way to lower the
> temperature of the fuel at that point?
>
> Alan</HTML>
I was digging in my archives and came across an article that you wrote on fuels several years ago that I believe was published in the HCCA magazine. In this article you listed a series of fuels and their application for gas and steam cars. For kerosene the article states "Good for washing parts but not to burn." Another quote out of the article was interesting also: "When asked what would be the closest to the old-time more volatile kerosene, I was told that a mixture of 30 percent No. 2 diesel and 70 percent unleaded pump gasoline would come the closest to the fuel of 1910. This brew has been very successfully used by our steam car colleagues on the East Coast for years." Both quotes are attributed to someone else who I believe you interviewed about fuels.
The above information appears to be at odds with your recommendation to use kerosene and not diesel. Have there been changes in currently available fuels that would lead you to make a recommendation to burn kerosene?
Alan
<a href="mailto:festanley@hotmail.com?subject=Vaporizer Lengths - Reducing Carbon Formation">Alan Woolf</a> wrote:
>
> I would like to get a discussion started about methods
> to reduce carbon formation in the vaporizer on a Stanley and
> specifically with regard to my car which is a 1917 Model 730.
> The car has a Stanley drilled burner. The burner plate was
> purchased from John Goold several years ago. The car
> currently has a 5-1/2 foot stainless steel vaporizer. We have
> been running it without a cable.
> Fuel is a 50/50 mix of diesel and no lead gasoline. The
> burner nozzles are removable and attach to the vaporizer heat
> sink with a nut and sealed with a pair of copper washers
> (Leakage is a constant headache). The arrangement appears to
> be very similar to the branch fork on the "new" burner
> described in the 1918 Stanley dealer bulletin.
>
> The car will usually run 300-400 miles with no problem and
> then it needs to have the vaporizer blown clear with steam.
> The carbon formation appears to be a problem right at the
> branch fork nut. The rest of the vaporizer stays clear
> The temperature must be too high at the end of the vaporizer.
> The question is what it the most effective way to lower the
> temperature of the fuel at that point?
>
> Alan</HTML>
Re: Vaporizer Lengths - Reducing Carbon Formation
Posted by: Jim Crank (IP Logged)
Date: June 03, 2002 01:45PM
<HTML>Alan,
Yes indeed the fuels have changed.
The kerosene then available when I wrote the article was loaded with garbage, water and additives.
The stuff in the pumps from CFN is pure water white kerosene, with very minor additives. Stop and think, these guys with 18 wheel trucks are not going to put bad fuel into their engines, they cost too much to overhaul.
Diesel is still too easy to break down; but now gasoline is so full of bad additives for us that I really question the sanity of it in a steam car. Unless one goes to one of those really cut-rate stations and buys the cheapest stuff they have, modern gasoline is too full of bad additives. Alcohol is one nasty thing, as are many others.
My White ran well on the cheapest unleaded, the garbage from Standard and Shell that I had to run on a couple of tours, oozed some kind of goo out the nozzle that was sticky and smelled really bad. My White was supposed to be using the old time "white gasoline", which had no additives.
At that time, and as you noticed that was some years ago, the question to the district manager was "What would equate today with the old time kerosene of 1910." As he said: Remember in those days fuels were distilled, catalytic cracking didn't come along until 1912-14 and that was a TOTALLY different fuel, completely different molecule chain. The old heavy fuel kerosene then could be made today with a mix of diesel and gasoline. Recall then, they had "fuel kerosene" and "lamp oil" and they were different.
Today Diesel is loaded with extra rubbish and so is gasoline.
Today, I would run the good kerosene from CFN, not the garbage that Shell, Mobile and Standard sell as kerosene, that is the bad stuff.
In that day, Diesel and gas mix was acceptable. Today with all the new additives in both fuels, I seriously question the use of it. That is TODAY, tomorrow this whole scene can change again.
Today I would certainly try CFN kerosene and see what happens, what have you got to loose? Other kerosene I don't trust.
Jim.</HTML>
Yes indeed the fuels have changed.
The kerosene then available when I wrote the article was loaded with garbage, water and additives.
The stuff in the pumps from CFN is pure water white kerosene, with very minor additives. Stop and think, these guys with 18 wheel trucks are not going to put bad fuel into their engines, they cost too much to overhaul.
Diesel is still too easy to break down; but now gasoline is so full of bad additives for us that I really question the sanity of it in a steam car. Unless one goes to one of those really cut-rate stations and buys the cheapest stuff they have, modern gasoline is too full of bad additives. Alcohol is one nasty thing, as are many others.
My White ran well on the cheapest unleaded, the garbage from Standard and Shell that I had to run on a couple of tours, oozed some kind of goo out the nozzle that was sticky and smelled really bad. My White was supposed to be using the old time "white gasoline", which had no additives.
At that time, and as you noticed that was some years ago, the question to the district manager was "What would equate today with the old time kerosene of 1910." As he said: Remember in those days fuels were distilled, catalytic cracking didn't come along until 1912-14 and that was a TOTALLY different fuel, completely different molecule chain. The old heavy fuel kerosene then could be made today with a mix of diesel and gasoline. Recall then, they had "fuel kerosene" and "lamp oil" and they were different.
Today Diesel is loaded with extra rubbish and so is gasoline.
Today, I would run the good kerosene from CFN, not the garbage that Shell, Mobile and Standard sell as kerosene, that is the bad stuff.
In that day, Diesel and gas mix was acceptable. Today with all the new additives in both fuels, I seriously question the use of it. That is TODAY, tomorrow this whole scene can change again.
Today I would certainly try CFN kerosene and see what happens, what have you got to loose? Other kerosene I don't trust.
Jim.</HTML>
Re: Vaporizer,,,lamp oil
Posted by: C Benson (IP Logged)
Date: June 04, 2002 03:03PM
<HTML>Lamp oil should NOT have ANY volitles in it,,,IF<<IF ,,the VAPOUR reaches the flame ,,,the oil house have been known to explode,,,,Don Jones shew me a piece of glass oil house imbedded in a wall,,,monument to this occasion,in his grandmothers time...Problem can occur when a tank[er] has a load of GAS ,,,then gets used for #1 oil an GGG GGALLONS ? of ? remain in the tank/so its not clean when the new fuel goes in,,,,Who cares on the percent So it goes ,,,Cheers Ben</HTML>
Re: Vaporizer Lengths - Reducing Carbon Formation
Posted by: les nelson (IP Logged)
Date: June 30, 2002 04:34PM
<HTML>Hi I suspect your mixture is a bit rich on gasoline I used to run on 2 to 1 petrol.mix and had no (ok then not much ) trouble with carbon, but then I take the wire out and enema the vapouriser after every long run</HTML>
Re: Vaporizer Lengths - Reducing Carbon Formation
Posted by: Donald Eckel (IP Logged)
Date: July 11, 2002 11:48PM
<HTML>For what its worth- my experience. I have a model 740 from Bob Lyons (SACA) and it came with a Kerosene length vaporizer- so I thought I needed to use that stuff- got water white- and it caused the wire to stick- got to 50-50 mix unleaded gas and diesel- and the same thing happened after just a short run. So even though the vaporizing tube is long and set up for KO I tried coleman white gas with the cheapest fuel from unleaded mixed 50-50. It burns clean enough- without carbon foramtion- and the wire hasn't got stuck since! (Knock on wood) so my experience- gas is best- regardless- and because it doesn't create carbon as much when heated- as long as you don't use 100% gas from the gas station- which won't work because you get that gue dropping from the nozzles after just 5-6 hours of running. As far as a displacement wire- use the right gas- and you won't have a problem. It seems to me that the most important reason to use the displacenment wire is not to facilate vaporization of the fuel but to displace the fuel that would otherwise be in the tube. The more fuel you "stuff" into the tube the more carbon you will get when the fuel sits vaporized waiting to get through the nozzles. Art Hart can supply you with the proper lentgth vaporizing tube and displacement wire to go with it.</HTML>
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.