1 Steam Cars : Phorum
General Steam Car topics
Blue Flame Burners
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: July 12, 2002 05:10AM
<HTML>Hi Jim,
I decided to start a new string on burners, instead of expanding on this under "Toroidal Rotary Engines".
Right, I know about pre-mix vs post-mix
vaporizing burners, and have studied the
pre-mix type quite a bit, including running & tinkering with a few. I certainly understand the reasons for avoiding pre-mix vaporizing
burners! I think I have a way to eliminate
the clogging problem in the vaporizer tube
and jets with pump gasoline, and to
compensate for the lag in fire shutoff.
Don't want to get into my analysis of the
problems and possible solutions, due to
aforementioned patent concerns (however, it
was already briefly touched on some time back in this forum). Coleman (pre-mix vaporizing) burners reportedly now handle any gas station gasoline without problems. These are new
premix burner designs made for today's
additive-laden automobile sludge.
Despite the improvements, I have designed the vaporizer/jets unit for quick/easy/cheap
replacement at intervals. I think the
improvements can extend change intervals to a reasonable length; design goal 3000 plus
miles minimum. Like changing oil or filters
on a gas car. The vaporizer/jets unit is
being designed for easy cleaning too.
A carburetor burner definitely eliminates the vaporizer clogging problem, and the SU style
carbs are a great way to go with this. Add a strategically located and properly sized
J-tube, and there should be no problem with
fuel droplets separating out of the mix
(adios carbon). One downside with carburetor
burners is that the fan power requirement is
higher. However, with proper design they can do the job just fine, and the carb approach
does simplify fuel/air ratio control.
Squirrel cage (scirocco) fans are the most
efficient, but you already know that, just a
note for newbies. GB sent me the figures on
that once.
Eliminating flame impingement on tubes is one thing I like about a flameholder type
up-firing premix vaporizing burner. Of
course flameholders can also be used in
forced-air burners (note SES), and I think
that is what you are planning. The
free-flame burner shown on my webpage is no
longer in my plans, and the tube layout has
been radically changed too; flame impingement would have been a problem (esp on grades),
and that is the main reason I changed it.
Improving radiant heat distribution to tube
stack was another factor.
I am planning to use the new metal-fiber
flameholder material, an EPA-pleaser that is
increasingly used in industry and eliminates
the drilling and slotting operations of
traditional flameholder fabrication. I have
a link to sources somewhere, or maybe GB (my
source for this info) can post it here.
These advanced flameholders are
backfire-proof, and are in fact designed to
burn _inside_ the matrix in low-fire radiant
mode, or can burn outside the matrix in blue
flame mode at higher firing rates. Should be useful with forced-air burners too. Flexible types of this flameholder material are available, in case you want to bend it into a cone, barrel, etc to fit optimized tube stack.
With a carburetor type burner, as I
understand it, fire can be varied by simply
varying blower speed, or perhaps with a
variable air wastegate or inlet air shutter.
Are you planning variable, multi-stage, or
on/off firing? The Lamont boiler seems to
offer more flexibility in choice of
fire-control regimes, among other advantages.
Peter
============================
(The "quote" function seems to have garbled your original a bit; sorry about the mess. Jim's original is under "Toroidal Rotary Engine".)
subject=Re: Toroidal Rotary Engine">Jim Crank</a> wrote:> > Peter,> Don't confuse the problems of pre mix vaporizing burners with> post mix.> There is a world of difference in the two types of burners.> The pre mix like the Stanley, White and Ottoway are a pain in> the derrier and I would never even consider one for a new> project car. Carbon deposits all the time, slow cutoff and> starting problems.> We HAVE to use the fuels we can get on the road, unleaded> gasoline, #2 Diesel and often kerosene. Around here in the> S.F. area, good clean kerosene is right out of the pump and> the Doble just loves it. Jet fuel is out, goes bad in about> three months in the tank, although when it is fresh, it burns> beautifully. Propane is out for loads of reasons.> This "blue flame" starts out as a low level atomizing, then> as it gets hot, about 45 seconds, automatically changes to a> vaporizing by recirculating the blazing hot combustion gasses> to serve as the vaporizer mechanism. The other good way to go> is the "J" tube as in the older gas turbines, they work the> same way when starting up. The alternate in my mind, although> it takes a longer firebox. There is a way to use them with a> cyclone that may be a good compromise. Also, the cyclone can> be used with the recirculating concept. That is probably> going to be my choice in the end. What one must avoid at all> costs, is direct flame impingement on the tubes in the boiler.> > For me, and using the criteria I have evolved for the new car> project, I have to burn up to 26 gallons per hour when the> draft booster is going full tilt.> Although I hate to revert to ancient practice; but working> for decades with burners, Doble was really on the right track> using a carburetor as the mixing device, constant air/fuel> ratio with varying draft, although his will not atomize> Diesel well at all. It needs a much</HTML>
I decided to start a new string on burners, instead of expanding on this under "Toroidal Rotary Engines".
Right, I know about pre-mix vs post-mix
vaporizing burners, and have studied the
pre-mix type quite a bit, including running & tinkering with a few. I certainly understand the reasons for avoiding pre-mix vaporizing
burners! I think I have a way to eliminate
the clogging problem in the vaporizer tube
and jets with pump gasoline, and to
compensate for the lag in fire shutoff.
Don't want to get into my analysis of the
problems and possible solutions, due to
aforementioned patent concerns (however, it
was already briefly touched on some time back in this forum). Coleman (pre-mix vaporizing) burners reportedly now handle any gas station gasoline without problems. These are new
premix burner designs made for today's
additive-laden automobile sludge.
Despite the improvements, I have designed the vaporizer/jets unit for quick/easy/cheap
replacement at intervals. I think the
improvements can extend change intervals to a reasonable length; design goal 3000 plus
miles minimum. Like changing oil or filters
on a gas car. The vaporizer/jets unit is
being designed for easy cleaning too.
A carburetor burner definitely eliminates the vaporizer clogging problem, and the SU style
carbs are a great way to go with this. Add a strategically located and properly sized
J-tube, and there should be no problem with
fuel droplets separating out of the mix
(adios carbon). One downside with carburetor
burners is that the fan power requirement is
higher. However, with proper design they can do the job just fine, and the carb approach
does simplify fuel/air ratio control.
Squirrel cage (scirocco) fans are the most
efficient, but you already know that, just a
note for newbies. GB sent me the figures on
that once.
Eliminating flame impingement on tubes is one thing I like about a flameholder type
up-firing premix vaporizing burner. Of
course flameholders can also be used in
forced-air burners (note SES), and I think
that is what you are planning. The
free-flame burner shown on my webpage is no
longer in my plans, and the tube layout has
been radically changed too; flame impingement would have been a problem (esp on grades),
and that is the main reason I changed it.
Improving radiant heat distribution to tube
stack was another factor.
I am planning to use the new metal-fiber
flameholder material, an EPA-pleaser that is
increasingly used in industry and eliminates
the drilling and slotting operations of
traditional flameholder fabrication. I have
a link to sources somewhere, or maybe GB (my
source for this info) can post it here.
These advanced flameholders are
backfire-proof, and are in fact designed to
burn _inside_ the matrix in low-fire radiant
mode, or can burn outside the matrix in blue
flame mode at higher firing rates. Should be useful with forced-air burners too. Flexible types of this flameholder material are available, in case you want to bend it into a cone, barrel, etc to fit optimized tube stack.
With a carburetor type burner, as I
understand it, fire can be varied by simply
varying blower speed, or perhaps with a
variable air wastegate or inlet air shutter.
Are you planning variable, multi-stage, or
on/off firing? The Lamont boiler seems to
offer more flexibility in choice of
fire-control regimes, among other advantages.
Peter
============================
(The "quote" function seems to have garbled your original a bit; sorry about the mess. Jim's original is under "Toroidal Rotary Engine".)
subject=Re: Toroidal Rotary Engine">Jim Crank</a> wrote:> > Peter,> Don't confuse the problems of pre mix vaporizing burners with> post mix.> There is a world of difference in the two types of burners.> The pre mix like the Stanley, White and Ottoway are a pain in> the derrier and I would never even consider one for a new> project car. Carbon deposits all the time, slow cutoff and> starting problems.> We HAVE to use the fuels we can get on the road, unleaded> gasoline, #2 Diesel and often kerosene. Around here in the> S.F. area, good clean kerosene is right out of the pump and> the Doble just loves it. Jet fuel is out, goes bad in about> three months in the tank, although when it is fresh, it burns> beautifully. Propane is out for loads of reasons.> This "blue flame" starts out as a low level atomizing, then> as it gets hot, about 45 seconds, automatically changes to a> vaporizing by recirculating the blazing hot combustion gasses> to serve as the vaporizer mechanism. The other good way to go> is the "J" tube as in the older gas turbines, they work the> same way when starting up. The alternate in my mind, although> it takes a longer firebox. There is a way to use them with a> cyclone that may be a good compromise. Also, the cyclone can> be used with the recirculating concept. That is probably> going to be my choice in the end. What one must avoid at all> costs, is direct flame impingement on the tubes in the boiler.> > For me, and using the criteria I have evolved for the new car> project, I have to burn up to 26 gallons per hour when the> draft booster is going full tilt.> Although I hate to revert to ancient practice; but working> for decades with burners, Doble was really on the right track> using a carburetor as the mixing device, constant air/fuel> ratio with varying draft, although his will not atomize> Diesel well at all. It needs a much</HTML>
Re: Blue Flame Burners
Posted by: Jim Crank (IP Logged)
Date: July 12, 2002 01:58PM
<HTML>Peter,
My you really went into this, well good! That is just the reason John's web site is such a great thing for all of us. Unlike other publications. We are seeing some good new thinking here and it is an open discussion, good for all of us for sure. Plus ongoing daily and steadily.
Ok, the porus foam or sintered stainless type of grate has a lot to offer in ease of construction; but my concern, not yet really looked into, is about air pressure loss across it and thus higher blower pumping losses. AND, slow clogging from carbon, unless it is run at a high enough temperature to burn it off.
Lears made a very interesting version of this when they were pursuing the blue flame burner idea, sintered stainless steel BBs. Good gas flow and very easy to make. Interesting concept; but they never went any further with it, typical.
My thinking is going along this route, subject to instant change, of course.
Definitely the Lamont steam generator, I now, with maybe thirty five years of Doble style versions experience, would never consider any other type. The circulating pump is doable and doesn't concern me, nor the drum.
I am very attracted to a separately driven auxiliary system, although it means another complex addition, the benefits are too numerous to ignore.
The Doble F steam pump really worked and worked very well, as long as one recoups the exhaust steam energy from the pump. Various means instantly suggest themselves on how to do this. One for sure is a two cylinder tandem compound pump. Nothing new, done 100 years ago.
Then there is the separate engine approach, with all parasitic items driven by some form of efficient expander. This needs further study for sure.
I am committed to the blue flame post mix vaporizing burner from a compact flame and pollution position. You are right, even with this one a flame holder of some sort is needed if it is just a down fired design. However, adapting the cyclone Doble/Besler style firebox, like my Doble has, with recirculating hot gas vaporizing is not hard to do and may be a good one as it could combine both blue flame combustion with the ability to catch and cleanly burn any fuel particles that may be swirling around on startup. There is a noise problem with this configuration, though, the porus types are virtually silent. This whole idea merits considerable study from me before deciding.
A barrel type of porus material flame tube down the center of the Lamont, is very interesting; but to date I don't know if I can have a max firing rate of 26 gph with one. Any info you can send would be appreciated on this one, like sources of the material and flow rates per sq. in. etc. especially the idea that low rates are surface combusion and high rates external flame. Is this an automatic function dependant on just the flow rate? Seems as if it is.
While a carbureter has some flow loss, it is more than acceptable to me.
The blower would be a radial out flow blower or the squirrel cage, over an axial fan type. Much quieter and slower speeds needed.
If one uses a separately driven auxiliary system, then the ability to use an anticipating control sytem comes up. Touch the throttle and it goes into high burn rate then backs down if the throttle is not pushed all the way down.
A butterfly valve in the blower intake would be the way, lower pumping loss than throttling the blower outlet. Or forget this and depend on the Lamont's thermal inertia and water content to take care of the high momentary demand. The whole concept needs detailed thinking before committing to doing it.
I do like variable firing rate systems, which the carburetor works with automatically and no manual control or servo fuel system needed, you are right, just vary the air flow rate. Remember I will use a draft booster in the system. But with a separately driven auxiliary, the butterfly in the blower will accomplish the same result as using an exhaust steam turbine as in the Doble. What needs to be done is analyze which is more efficient, the backpressure effect on the engine's expansion rate from the draft booster turbine, or the auxiliary engine's steam consumption.
Right now and for the next couple of months, I just must finish the Doble book and get the manuscript to my publisher. This will be done by the end of July. Then comes his editing and our picture selections and captions. He wants it out for the Christmas sales season.
The prime item of my present work on this new steamer is the selection of the main engine. Unless I am convinced otherwise, it will be a three rotor Wankel with new iron rotor housings. This I can buy right now.
Now, if you need another interesting idea to chew on, think about pulsating combustion burners. A done deal and they already exist. When used properly the combustion rate per cubic foot of firebox is eight times what an ordinary blower fed burner can do, and no blower. Very noisy though.
Jim</HTML>
My you really went into this, well good! That is just the reason John's web site is such a great thing for all of us. Unlike other publications. We are seeing some good new thinking here and it is an open discussion, good for all of us for sure. Plus ongoing daily and steadily.
Ok, the porus foam or sintered stainless type of grate has a lot to offer in ease of construction; but my concern, not yet really looked into, is about air pressure loss across it and thus higher blower pumping losses. AND, slow clogging from carbon, unless it is run at a high enough temperature to burn it off.
Lears made a very interesting version of this when they were pursuing the blue flame burner idea, sintered stainless steel BBs. Good gas flow and very easy to make. Interesting concept; but they never went any further with it, typical.
My thinking is going along this route, subject to instant change, of course.
Definitely the Lamont steam generator, I now, with maybe thirty five years of Doble style versions experience, would never consider any other type. The circulating pump is doable and doesn't concern me, nor the drum.
I am very attracted to a separately driven auxiliary system, although it means another complex addition, the benefits are too numerous to ignore.
The Doble F steam pump really worked and worked very well, as long as one recoups the exhaust steam energy from the pump. Various means instantly suggest themselves on how to do this. One for sure is a two cylinder tandem compound pump. Nothing new, done 100 years ago.
Then there is the separate engine approach, with all parasitic items driven by some form of efficient expander. This needs further study for sure.
I am committed to the blue flame post mix vaporizing burner from a compact flame and pollution position. You are right, even with this one a flame holder of some sort is needed if it is just a down fired design. However, adapting the cyclone Doble/Besler style firebox, like my Doble has, with recirculating hot gas vaporizing is not hard to do and may be a good one as it could combine both blue flame combustion with the ability to catch and cleanly burn any fuel particles that may be swirling around on startup. There is a noise problem with this configuration, though, the porus types are virtually silent. This whole idea merits considerable study from me before deciding.
A barrel type of porus material flame tube down the center of the Lamont, is very interesting; but to date I don't know if I can have a max firing rate of 26 gph with one. Any info you can send would be appreciated on this one, like sources of the material and flow rates per sq. in. etc. especially the idea that low rates are surface combusion and high rates external flame. Is this an automatic function dependant on just the flow rate? Seems as if it is.
While a carbureter has some flow loss, it is more than acceptable to me.
The blower would be a radial out flow blower or the squirrel cage, over an axial fan type. Much quieter and slower speeds needed.
If one uses a separately driven auxiliary system, then the ability to use an anticipating control sytem comes up. Touch the throttle and it goes into high burn rate then backs down if the throttle is not pushed all the way down.
A butterfly valve in the blower intake would be the way, lower pumping loss than throttling the blower outlet. Or forget this and depend on the Lamont's thermal inertia and water content to take care of the high momentary demand. The whole concept needs detailed thinking before committing to doing it.
I do like variable firing rate systems, which the carburetor works with automatically and no manual control or servo fuel system needed, you are right, just vary the air flow rate. Remember I will use a draft booster in the system. But with a separately driven auxiliary, the butterfly in the blower will accomplish the same result as using an exhaust steam turbine as in the Doble. What needs to be done is analyze which is more efficient, the backpressure effect on the engine's expansion rate from the draft booster turbine, or the auxiliary engine's steam consumption.
Right now and for the next couple of months, I just must finish the Doble book and get the manuscript to my publisher. This will be done by the end of July. Then comes his editing and our picture selections and captions. He wants it out for the Christmas sales season.
The prime item of my present work on this new steamer is the selection of the main engine. Unless I am convinced otherwise, it will be a three rotor Wankel with new iron rotor housings. This I can buy right now.
Now, if you need another interesting idea to chew on, think about pulsating combustion burners. A done deal and they already exist. When used properly the combustion rate per cubic foot of firebox is eight times what an ordinary blower fed burner can do, and no blower. Very noisy though.
Jim</HTML>
Re: Blue Flame Burners
Posted by: Jim Crank (IP Logged)
Date: July 12, 2002 03:20PM
<HTML>Peter,
After posting one to you, I went into a computer search for surface combustion burners. It uses Goggle.
One absolutely fascinating site is "IPC7 English Version F23-F23D 23/00".
www.wipo.org/classifications/fultext/new_ipc/ipc/ef23d.htm
It seems to be a huge handbook from someone that has oceans of stuff on blue flame and surface combustion burners and related subjects that will keep us reading for decades.I never saw such a source before. I WANT IT.
EXCEPT, the idiots do not mention the title of the book or the publisher.
Will try my technical book store; but see if you can find out who this publisher is and an address and phone number.
Jim</HTML>
After posting one to you, I went into a computer search for surface combustion burners. It uses Goggle.
One absolutely fascinating site is "IPC7 English Version F23-F23D 23/00".
www.wipo.org/classifications/fultext/new_ipc/ipc/ef23d.htm
It seems to be a huge handbook from someone that has oceans of stuff on blue flame and surface combustion burners and related subjects that will keep us reading for decades.I never saw such a source before. I WANT IT.
EXCEPT, the idiots do not mention the title of the book or the publisher.
Will try my technical book store; but see if you can find out who this publisher is and an address and phone number.
Jim</HTML>
Re: Blue Flame Burners
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: July 13, 2002 06:35AM
<HTML>Hi Jim,
Wow, tons of stuff to comment on here, don't know where to start. I'll probably end up with more than one reply post. Top notch steam brainstorming, keep it coming. Yes, I love this forum! Thanks be to John Woodson!
Pulse combustion is definitely an intriguing possibility. A good thick shell of ceramic fiber could cut noise, and maybe some kind of porous lining in the exhaust flue (& baffles?) for more muffle magic. I have considered similar measures to muffle pulse combustion effects (howling) which seem to already occur, accidentally, with some flameholder burners (like Stanley). Tube stack structure must be carefully designed -- don't want tubes vibrating to & fro too much in that pulsing gas stream, yet still need to allow for tube expansion/contraction in thermal cycling.
I sketched up a couple of "buzz bomb burners" a couple years ago, one was a postmix type with a carburetor inlet and hot gas recirculation, with exhaust-to-inlet air preheater as another possibility. I have an old EAA article on pulsejets, which gave me several ideas (like reed inlet valves). Lots of trial-and-error goes into things like this, and results are often unpredictable even for a fluid dynamics whiz (which I ain't).
I think Lennox(sp?) makes a pulse-combustion space heater, reportedly so efficient (hi 90%'s) that stack condensation is an issue. Stainless flue isn't nec the solution to that, as either nitric or sulphuric acid (can't remember) eats it (they use carbon steel in some acid production plants). In some countries (incl. USA), there is both NOX and sulphury road fuel/exhaust to deal with. Maybe porcelained steel like in cooking pots?
Radial-flow tube stacks are a great way to squeeze a lot of gas flowpath into a small volume. I did all sorts of math on that one, and was planning something like that for a while. Radial-outflow looks best, as the fire is surrounded by tubes and external refractory is only exposed to exhaust, for less heat loss out the case. However, radial-inflow is also an option; Andy Patterson is planning to go that route.
Homebuilt gas blacksmith forges use like 1-2" of ceramic fiber blanket (the 2600°F rated stuff) painted with ITC100, Satanite or the like inside the firebox, and users report hand-touchable outer steel cases and little or no heat loss. Sounds like the deal for a Doble-style top firebox; the refractory paint fired surface reflects something like 98% of radiant heat, and seriously lightweight relative to firebrick type linings. Also way cheaper than Inconel lining (and what isn't?). Some of the gas forge guys sell small quantities of Fiberfrax, K-Lite (formerly Kaowool) etc online, so we don't have to order a factory size roll; ITC100 can be ordered direct online. Ceramics kiln suppliers also sell such stuff online in hobby/prototype quantities.
I'll check out the link you gave and see what I can find. Also need to dig up the metal fiber flameholder links I found (incl small-quantity suppliers). One source gave the % of opening per unit area, and it was higher than in drilled or slotted Stanley burners, prompting me to toy with ideas for putting blocking strips behind the flameholder to avoid excessive pressure drop or full-time combustion within the fiber matrix. In a steam car, there would be plenty of low-firing-rate time, which would mean lots of "radiant mode" burning and any carbon in the matrix would burn out if excess air were supplied. With the right fuel/air mix, there shouldn't be carbon problems anyway. In radiant mode, this flameholder glows dull to bright red -- must run 900°F and up. The alloys used are nichrome or something similar. Commercial apps use full-time radiant operation, with long life claimed for the flameholders, so it's a Duesy (or even more, a Doble) of an alloy!
I do plan to use a throttle-linked fire advance control, or as Ken Helmick (who suggested the idea to me) calls it, a "look-ahead" control. It is simply a pair of small double-acting low-pressure pneumatic cylinders with air bleeds. Open throttle, and the throttle-linked (master) cylinder pumps air to the other cylinder, which moves the fire control, ramping up the fire until the air bleeds out of the spring-loaded slave cylinder. The faster the throttle opening, the more and longer-lasting the fire increase. Works in reverse for throttle closing too.
I think that this can be calibrated to handle any thermal or burner-response lag. Calibration could be as simple as changing bleed plugs ported with number-size drills a la carbs and premix burner jets. Friction in air cylinders needs to be kept constant; possible adjustment & maintenance problem in harsh underhood environment. Installing system in a lighter or heavier car, plumbing changes, etc could require re-calibration due to different "steam impedance". Rollin White would have a field day.
There is some new type of blower which is claimed to be more efficient than the squirrel-cage type. Another link for me to look up. What kind of exhaust steam expander are you planning for the draft booster? I remember reading that the Doble booster turbine used a steam-exposed English NC bearing which was a bear to source at replacement time.
Looking forward to your Doble book; I will ask the San Diego Auto Museum to stock it. They stock the recent Baker book, and plenty of other specialty car books, so it should be of interest to them. There are a couple items that they wanted me to donate, so maybe I can pull some strings. :)
Peter</HTML>
Wow, tons of stuff to comment on here, don't know where to start. I'll probably end up with more than one reply post. Top notch steam brainstorming, keep it coming. Yes, I love this forum! Thanks be to John Woodson!
Pulse combustion is definitely an intriguing possibility. A good thick shell of ceramic fiber could cut noise, and maybe some kind of porous lining in the exhaust flue (& baffles?) for more muffle magic. I have considered similar measures to muffle pulse combustion effects (howling) which seem to already occur, accidentally, with some flameholder burners (like Stanley). Tube stack structure must be carefully designed -- don't want tubes vibrating to & fro too much in that pulsing gas stream, yet still need to allow for tube expansion/contraction in thermal cycling.
I sketched up a couple of "buzz bomb burners" a couple years ago, one was a postmix type with a carburetor inlet and hot gas recirculation, with exhaust-to-inlet air preheater as another possibility. I have an old EAA article on pulsejets, which gave me several ideas (like reed inlet valves). Lots of trial-and-error goes into things like this, and results are often unpredictable even for a fluid dynamics whiz (which I ain't).
I think Lennox(sp?) makes a pulse-combustion space heater, reportedly so efficient (hi 90%'s) that stack condensation is an issue. Stainless flue isn't nec the solution to that, as either nitric or sulphuric acid (can't remember) eats it (they use carbon steel in some acid production plants). In some countries (incl. USA), there is both NOX and sulphury road fuel/exhaust to deal with. Maybe porcelained steel like in cooking pots?
Radial-flow tube stacks are a great way to squeeze a lot of gas flowpath into a small volume. I did all sorts of math on that one, and was planning something like that for a while. Radial-outflow looks best, as the fire is surrounded by tubes and external refractory is only exposed to exhaust, for less heat loss out the case. However, radial-inflow is also an option; Andy Patterson is planning to go that route.
Homebuilt gas blacksmith forges use like 1-2" of ceramic fiber blanket (the 2600°F rated stuff) painted with ITC100, Satanite or the like inside the firebox, and users report hand-touchable outer steel cases and little or no heat loss. Sounds like the deal for a Doble-style top firebox; the refractory paint fired surface reflects something like 98% of radiant heat, and seriously lightweight relative to firebrick type linings. Also way cheaper than Inconel lining (and what isn't?). Some of the gas forge guys sell small quantities of Fiberfrax, K-Lite (formerly Kaowool) etc online, so we don't have to order a factory size roll; ITC100 can be ordered direct online. Ceramics kiln suppliers also sell such stuff online in hobby/prototype quantities.
I'll check out the link you gave and see what I can find. Also need to dig up the metal fiber flameholder links I found (incl small-quantity suppliers). One source gave the % of opening per unit area, and it was higher than in drilled or slotted Stanley burners, prompting me to toy with ideas for putting blocking strips behind the flameholder to avoid excessive pressure drop or full-time combustion within the fiber matrix. In a steam car, there would be plenty of low-firing-rate time, which would mean lots of "radiant mode" burning and any carbon in the matrix would burn out if excess air were supplied. With the right fuel/air mix, there shouldn't be carbon problems anyway. In radiant mode, this flameholder glows dull to bright red -- must run 900°F and up. The alloys used are nichrome or something similar. Commercial apps use full-time radiant operation, with long life claimed for the flameholders, so it's a Duesy (or even more, a Doble) of an alloy!
I do plan to use a throttle-linked fire advance control, or as Ken Helmick (who suggested the idea to me) calls it, a "look-ahead" control. It is simply a pair of small double-acting low-pressure pneumatic cylinders with air bleeds. Open throttle, and the throttle-linked (master) cylinder pumps air to the other cylinder, which moves the fire control, ramping up the fire until the air bleeds out of the spring-loaded slave cylinder. The faster the throttle opening, the more and longer-lasting the fire increase. Works in reverse for throttle closing too.
I think that this can be calibrated to handle any thermal or burner-response lag. Calibration could be as simple as changing bleed plugs ported with number-size drills a la carbs and premix burner jets. Friction in air cylinders needs to be kept constant; possible adjustment & maintenance problem in harsh underhood environment. Installing system in a lighter or heavier car, plumbing changes, etc could require re-calibration due to different "steam impedance". Rollin White would have a field day.
There is some new type of blower which is claimed to be more efficient than the squirrel-cage type. Another link for me to look up. What kind of exhaust steam expander are you planning for the draft booster? I remember reading that the Doble booster turbine used a steam-exposed English NC bearing which was a bear to source at replacement time.
Looking forward to your Doble book; I will ask the San Diego Auto Museum to stock it. They stock the recent Baker book, and plenty of other specialty car books, so it should be of interest to them. There are a couple items that they wanted me to donate, so maybe I can pull some strings. :)
Peter</HTML>
Re: Blue Flame Burners
Posted by: George Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: July 13, 2002 10:21AM
<HTML> In essence the Doble "F" is a post mix hot gas recirculating burner. Unlike the "E" heavy cast and insulated firebox(Abner burned his out in his first 900 miles!!) the "F" used a thin firebox that hung inside the end of the helical coil and top spiral, this tubing wall was a heat sink/a black hole to take the heat out of the white hot firebox and keep it from meltdown. When the firebox can is white hot any fuel impingment upon it is instantly vaporized and the cyclone swirl gives a very long flame length. Unfortunately there were times when this tubing section could elevate several hundreds of degrees and possibly lead to an overheated firebox. The Paxton used 310 stainless steel, as does our Lamont and its advantage is that it has twice the emissitivity(absorbtivity) of 304 stainless and when white hot passes radiant heat
thru it like a window pane on a sunny day--Abner once remarked that this firebox was transparent to heat flow. In the case of the Lamont this tubing section is always at saturated steam temperature so temporary overheating is very unlikely. How else could the "F" Doble burn 25 + gallons per hour in a 2.5 cubic foot firebox using a carburetor type system. This firebox must hang loose at white hot temperatures as any contact with the cool tubing wall would result in carbon deposits on those areas of touching. Am still working on the Williams Oilomatic air aspirated burner concept as the fuel particle size of an air aspirated nozzle is an order of magnitude smaller than a regular high pressure fuel nozzle(which is probably an order of magnitude smaller than the carberated system). So much to look in to for all of us, fortunately Jim has done and experimented with all of it already. General Electric had a very good ball bearing or "bb" burner 50-60 years ago that was like a coffee can filled with bb's with air and fuel going thru it, like all very good things it met its demise as field repairman didn't know how to set it up(or the Williams either) and would put a Carlin or Beckett in its place that didn't work as efficiently.
George</HTML>
thru it like a window pane on a sunny day--Abner once remarked that this firebox was transparent to heat flow. In the case of the Lamont this tubing section is always at saturated steam temperature so temporary overheating is very unlikely. How else could the "F" Doble burn 25 + gallons per hour in a 2.5 cubic foot firebox using a carburetor type system. This firebox must hang loose at white hot temperatures as any contact with the cool tubing wall would result in carbon deposits on those areas of touching. Am still working on the Williams Oilomatic air aspirated burner concept as the fuel particle size of an air aspirated nozzle is an order of magnitude smaller than a regular high pressure fuel nozzle(which is probably an order of magnitude smaller than the carberated system). So much to look in to for all of us, fortunately Jim has done and experimented with all of it already. General Electric had a very good ball bearing or "bb" burner 50-60 years ago that was like a coffee can filled with bb's with air and fuel going thru it, like all very good things it met its demise as field repairman didn't know how to set it up(or the Williams either) and would put a Carlin or Beckett in its place that didn't work as efficiently.
George</HTML>
Re: Blue Flame Burners
Posted by: Jim Crank (IP Logged)
Date: July 13, 2002 02:59PM
<HTML>Peter,
Upteen years ago, I told Jim Tangeman about the pulse combustion burner, and lo and behold, at the next steam car meet he had one going.
Used to fly a U-control model with a Dynajet engine, until we got thrown off of the field with it, neighbors complained about the noise.
Yes, I think Lennox is the one making pulse combustion water heaters, might be worth buying their burner assembly and playing with it.
One thing though, they don't really like a high turndown ratio, seem to be all on or nothing. I will stick with the Blue Flame post mix.
George is right, the cyclone Doble firebox, late Series E and the F is really a sort of post mix vaporizing, white flame and a damn good burner. Loads of flame path in a small package. Besler routinely got over 92% boiler efficiency with his package units and the experimental boilers and that is good enough for me. I know how he did this.
My Lamont for the XKE car is definitely going to be radial outflow. The Doble style is pure hell to make and any leak is the very devil to get to to weld up the pinhole. You have to pull the coil stack out, often just take the whole boiler out, and that is a real pain. The Lamont, if you design it with all the connections on top, would be SO much easier to get to while it is still in the car. Concentric helical coils for sure. Also now in Calif., at least to my knowledge, no one can wind pancake coils any more. Bought a 48" metal spinning lathe at an auction that we will make into a coil winder, we have to make five Doble boilers and as usual, when you want to get it right, do it yourself. I will want to know about using S.S. for the coils. I was always told it was very inferior to carbon steels from a heat transfer point; but George tells me this really isn't true if you use the right S.S. One thing though, the Doble coil stacks suffer from rust if you don't put the car away with kerosene in the boiler. Using a material that won't rust really appeals to me if the heat transfer rate is still just as good as the present 1018 and 4130 we are using. Anything to keep the corrosion maintainence down.
With radial inflow, you have a big burner all right; but now have to insulate the whole shebang and that takes a lot of space. With radial outflow, the whole combustion volume is surrounded by the Lamont coil and the heat losses to the surrounding hardware are the minimum, only the stack temperature to deal with and that is easy. Finned tubing except for the Lamont coils and the next one out, plus the superheater, all else is finned. That Lamont is really the best, small, light weight and half the tubing as an equal output Doble F for the same output. George's input again!
The burner itself is still a question. Again George is right, air atomizing is the smallest particle size and thus the easiest to vaporize, that is if I really need it with a surface combustion concept. Maybe good anyhow from a carbon buildup standpoint.
I will be most anxious to see what you turn up in the way of a commercial porus central tube affair, whatever material it is. I do like the high turndown aspect and the fact that it will burn low in radient mode for town driving and then automatically switch to external surface combustion when really going. Excess air is perfectly acceptable, in fact, at Beslers in the lab, they always went for the highest CO2, the most efficient, like 13%.
That anticipating thing was something I designed about 30 years ago, while
bored to death at times at the Rocket Works. Kept me from going crazy.
I think it is definitely the way to go; but how the actual control will be done is something I will deal with when I have to. Either the carburetor or some simple fuel bypass servo, there are center point fuel injection systems for race cars on the market that may be usable, Holly, Mallory, et al. What I refuse to use is some computer control, unreliable and not easy to fix on the road. No, some throttle pedal system, will deal with that later, it's an easy one.
What new efficient blower?? Let's hear about that one.
The draft booster will be either the butterfly in the blower's intake, or if I don't use a separately driven auxiliary unit, then a radial inflow turbine that I got from Garrett Air Research, sized for a Doble E engine exhaust steam flow rate. At least sometimes it paid off knowing such keen people from my Lockheed work on dynamic space power systems.
The first Doble E type draft booster used an exposed ball bearing on both ends and it was the inboard one that would go out in about two years on E-14. Some special type that Becker changed over to U.S. bearing. The F used a much better arrangement and you got an oil fitting on the end of the blower shaft to oil it once in a while, plus good seal rings; but the oil in the exhaust steam seems to take good care of it. E-23 has this booster.
E-24 when Harrah's restored it, was missing the draft booster, Abner took it off in New Zealand to use in the Price bus and it never was put back. Cal Tinkham used a Catepiller turbo turbine and simply ran a small line from the booster inlet pipe, through the ball bearing assembly, and out the other end to the exhaust line. Pressure diffential supplied the oily steam flow. So far it has been working just fine for 35 years!!
Do let me know your findings about the burner material and if you find that book source. Seems to be a symposium collection from some conference in 1999; but who and where.
I trust you are going to the Steam Tour in Seattle. Will probably ship E-23 up and then drive up, want to pick up the 3 rotor Wankel in Portland on the way up, so I will need my truck. We can forget the tour and just sit in the coffee shop and talk!!! Seat in E-23 for you if you want to come.
Jim</HTML>
Upteen years ago, I told Jim Tangeman about the pulse combustion burner, and lo and behold, at the next steam car meet he had one going.
Used to fly a U-control model with a Dynajet engine, until we got thrown off of the field with it, neighbors complained about the noise.
Yes, I think Lennox is the one making pulse combustion water heaters, might be worth buying their burner assembly and playing with it.
One thing though, they don't really like a high turndown ratio, seem to be all on or nothing. I will stick with the Blue Flame post mix.
George is right, the cyclone Doble firebox, late Series E and the F is really a sort of post mix vaporizing, white flame and a damn good burner. Loads of flame path in a small package. Besler routinely got over 92% boiler efficiency with his package units and the experimental boilers and that is good enough for me. I know how he did this.
My Lamont for the XKE car is definitely going to be radial outflow. The Doble style is pure hell to make and any leak is the very devil to get to to weld up the pinhole. You have to pull the coil stack out, often just take the whole boiler out, and that is a real pain. The Lamont, if you design it with all the connections on top, would be SO much easier to get to while it is still in the car. Concentric helical coils for sure. Also now in Calif., at least to my knowledge, no one can wind pancake coils any more. Bought a 48" metal spinning lathe at an auction that we will make into a coil winder, we have to make five Doble boilers and as usual, when you want to get it right, do it yourself. I will want to know about using S.S. for the coils. I was always told it was very inferior to carbon steels from a heat transfer point; but George tells me this really isn't true if you use the right S.S. One thing though, the Doble coil stacks suffer from rust if you don't put the car away with kerosene in the boiler. Using a material that won't rust really appeals to me if the heat transfer rate is still just as good as the present 1018 and 4130 we are using. Anything to keep the corrosion maintainence down.
With radial inflow, you have a big burner all right; but now have to insulate the whole shebang and that takes a lot of space. With radial outflow, the whole combustion volume is surrounded by the Lamont coil and the heat losses to the surrounding hardware are the minimum, only the stack temperature to deal with and that is easy. Finned tubing except for the Lamont coils and the next one out, plus the superheater, all else is finned. That Lamont is really the best, small, light weight and half the tubing as an equal output Doble F for the same output. George's input again!
The burner itself is still a question. Again George is right, air atomizing is the smallest particle size and thus the easiest to vaporize, that is if I really need it with a surface combustion concept. Maybe good anyhow from a carbon buildup standpoint.
I will be most anxious to see what you turn up in the way of a commercial porus central tube affair, whatever material it is. I do like the high turndown aspect and the fact that it will burn low in radient mode for town driving and then automatically switch to external surface combustion when really going. Excess air is perfectly acceptable, in fact, at Beslers in the lab, they always went for the highest CO2, the most efficient, like 13%.
That anticipating thing was something I designed about 30 years ago, while
bored to death at times at the Rocket Works. Kept me from going crazy.
I think it is definitely the way to go; but how the actual control will be done is something I will deal with when I have to. Either the carburetor or some simple fuel bypass servo, there are center point fuel injection systems for race cars on the market that may be usable, Holly, Mallory, et al. What I refuse to use is some computer control, unreliable and not easy to fix on the road. No, some throttle pedal system, will deal with that later, it's an easy one.
What new efficient blower?? Let's hear about that one.
The draft booster will be either the butterfly in the blower's intake, or if I don't use a separately driven auxiliary unit, then a radial inflow turbine that I got from Garrett Air Research, sized for a Doble E engine exhaust steam flow rate. At least sometimes it paid off knowing such keen people from my Lockheed work on dynamic space power systems.
The first Doble E type draft booster used an exposed ball bearing on both ends and it was the inboard one that would go out in about two years on E-14. Some special type that Becker changed over to U.S. bearing. The F used a much better arrangement and you got an oil fitting on the end of the blower shaft to oil it once in a while, plus good seal rings; but the oil in the exhaust steam seems to take good care of it. E-23 has this booster.
E-24 when Harrah's restored it, was missing the draft booster, Abner took it off in New Zealand to use in the Price bus and it never was put back. Cal Tinkham used a Catepiller turbo turbine and simply ran a small line from the booster inlet pipe, through the ball bearing assembly, and out the other end to the exhaust line. Pressure diffential supplied the oily steam flow. So far it has been working just fine for 35 years!!
Do let me know your findings about the burner material and if you find that book source. Seems to be a symposium collection from some conference in 1999; but who and where.
I trust you are going to the Steam Tour in Seattle. Will probably ship E-23 up and then drive up, want to pick up the 3 rotor Wankel in Portland on the way up, so I will need my truck. We can forget the tour and just sit in the coffee shop and talk!!! Seat in E-23 for you if you want to come.
Jim</HTML>
Re: NO Flame Burners
Posted by: Peter Heid (IP Logged)
Date: July 14, 2002 12:44AM
<HTML>Quite a range of information under one topic !
Has anyone tried a modern version of the bonecourt boiler ? Surface combustion inside a fire tube. The fire tube doesn't have to be in a drum, it can be in a surrounding water tube through which the water can be circulated. The boiler could be modular in form and still work as a Lamont design, add tube assemblies to increase the output. The Bonecourt was a catlytic, fire tube burner/boiler of about 1910 that claimed in excess of 90% efficiency as reported by several authors.
I play with a ceramic material that is a matrix of holes & webs that comes from a surplus source. When I burn propane through it, it burns with a flame for a few seconds, then when the ceramic temperature reaches a certain point the flame disapears and glowing ceramic is all you see. Kool stuff, you can easily carve it.
Don't forget if you vary the burn rate very much without changing firebox size, loss of efficiency will follow. Also fuel sprayed, by flame impingment or directly, even on the hottest surface may undergo cracking and loose efficiency.
I am a firm beliver in fuel injection for reasons of maximum economy and minimum pollution. A fuel injection system can use less power than many other systems and they have been reliably used for decades on economy boxes and performance monsters. My motorcycle with 143,500 miles on it uses a bosch system and I have only replaced rubber parts. Never a failure, not even a back fire. The three bosch fuel injected motorcycles in the family total more than 400,000 cumulative miles with no worse than a temperature sensor or pressure regulator going bad. Computer failures on newer designs are easily handled when the system follows a mapped limp home mode. The bosch systems we work on have accumulated 10's of millions of miles with almost none ever being stranded. In fact there is no more reliable fuel system available than the bosch injection, not even carburetors. There is a good book on bosch fuel injection systems called: "How to Tune and Modify Bosch Fuel Injection Systems". There is no better way to completely cutoff & turn on the fuel than the posative action of an injector. A low pressure, air assisted, direct injected system that is the most efficient injection system available is the Orbital of Australia. The cleanest vehicles in the world use this system, 2 stroke and 4 stroke. Why not steam ?
Because pulse combustion burners opperate in a narrow, fixed frequency range, generation of opposing wave forms will effectively cancel the roar. This form of noise reduction is in use in some industries and is easy to implement
Peter Heid</HTML>
Has anyone tried a modern version of the bonecourt boiler ? Surface combustion inside a fire tube. The fire tube doesn't have to be in a drum, it can be in a surrounding water tube through which the water can be circulated. The boiler could be modular in form and still work as a Lamont design, add tube assemblies to increase the output. The Bonecourt was a catlytic, fire tube burner/boiler of about 1910 that claimed in excess of 90% efficiency as reported by several authors.
I play with a ceramic material that is a matrix of holes & webs that comes from a surplus source. When I burn propane through it, it burns with a flame for a few seconds, then when the ceramic temperature reaches a certain point the flame disapears and glowing ceramic is all you see. Kool stuff, you can easily carve it.
Don't forget if you vary the burn rate very much without changing firebox size, loss of efficiency will follow. Also fuel sprayed, by flame impingment or directly, even on the hottest surface may undergo cracking and loose efficiency.
I am a firm beliver in fuel injection for reasons of maximum economy and minimum pollution. A fuel injection system can use less power than many other systems and they have been reliably used for decades on economy boxes and performance monsters. My motorcycle with 143,500 miles on it uses a bosch system and I have only replaced rubber parts. Never a failure, not even a back fire. The three bosch fuel injected motorcycles in the family total more than 400,000 cumulative miles with no worse than a temperature sensor or pressure regulator going bad. Computer failures on newer designs are easily handled when the system follows a mapped limp home mode. The bosch systems we work on have accumulated 10's of millions of miles with almost none ever being stranded. In fact there is no more reliable fuel system available than the bosch injection, not even carburetors. There is a good book on bosch fuel injection systems called: "How to Tune and Modify Bosch Fuel Injection Systems". There is no better way to completely cutoff & turn on the fuel than the posative action of an injector. A low pressure, air assisted, direct injected system that is the most efficient injection system available is the Orbital of Australia. The cleanest vehicles in the world use this system, 2 stroke and 4 stroke. Why not steam ?
Because pulse combustion burners opperate in a narrow, fixed frequency range, generation of opposing wave forms will effectively cancel the roar. This form of noise reduction is in use in some industries and is easy to implement
Peter Heid</HTML>
Re: NO Flame Burners
Posted by: George Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: July 14, 2002 10:48AM
<HTML> First of all I was not the one that found the hot gas recirculating ceramic burner website that Jim Crank has investigated, the credit goes to Rolly Evans who sent it to me!! As far as catalyst cracking of fuels this occures when under higher than atmospheric pressures and controlled temperatures---such a thing can happen in a Stanley vaporizer with 100+psi and 500-700 degreesF but not in an atmospheric pressure firebox where the fuel is instantaniously vaporized. There are just so many carbon and hydrogen molecules available entering the firebox and the heat value of the fuel admitted I think would remain constant as well as the energy released.
Great subject and thread Peter!!
George</HTML>
Great subject and thread Peter!!
George</HTML>
Re: NO Flame Burners
Posted by: Jim Crank (IP Logged)
Date: July 14, 2002 02:01PM
<HTML>Peter,
You are absolutely right about surface combustion and the fact that they don't do large turndown ratios easily. I think in the car that the ratio would be more like 2-1 or 3-1 and it may handle this. I have one of those IR burners too and played with it.
Fuel injection is really now a nice way to do it, that is why I mentioned the Holly and Mallory systems, the throttle body versions. This obviously needs some real investigation before chosing the way to go.
If sized properly a carburetor burner does keep the A/F ratio constant with varying draft; but they don't always give you clean atomizing. In the Doble cars, it doesn't much matter anywhere near as much as it did in an I.C. engine. In a surface combustion burner like the Locomotor version used back in 1929-32, they really got themselves a powerful burner inside the Lamont coil. We need to think hard about this before committing to a design.
Yes, if you use two pulse jets with the ends cross connected and a single inlet and outlet, they automatically go into push-pull operation and cancel out almost all the noise. There were, or are, many papers on this.
Jim</HTML>
You are absolutely right about surface combustion and the fact that they don't do large turndown ratios easily. I think in the car that the ratio would be more like 2-1 or 3-1 and it may handle this. I have one of those IR burners too and played with it.
Fuel injection is really now a nice way to do it, that is why I mentioned the Holly and Mallory systems, the throttle body versions. This obviously needs some real investigation before chosing the way to go.
If sized properly a carburetor burner does keep the A/F ratio constant with varying draft; but they don't always give you clean atomizing. In the Doble cars, it doesn't much matter anywhere near as much as it did in an I.C. engine. In a surface combustion burner like the Locomotor version used back in 1929-32, they really got themselves a powerful burner inside the Lamont coil. We need to think hard about this before committing to a design.
Yes, if you use two pulse jets with the ends cross connected and a single inlet and outlet, they automatically go into push-pull operation and cancel out almost all the noise. There were, or are, many papers on this.
Jim</HTML>
Re: NO Flame Burners
Posted by: ronald parola (IP Logged)
Date: July 14, 2002 06:15PM
<HTML>On the issue of fuel injection, check out the older GM TBI systems, used mostly in trucks, and the cheaper car lines. The trucks used two injectors and the smaller cars used one, yes some larger cars used the TBI's but trucks had it longest,87 to 93 I believe. The reason I mention this is it is a cheap, reliable system that you can get parts for on the road (Napa, Kragen etc.) A good thing about this system is there are many different size injectors but only a few different sensors ( they go from 1.5 liters to 7.4) AND you can AT HOME reprogram the removeable Eproms, I've been doing this with my stuff with great success. Go to ... Tunercat.com. They sell the software and the prom burners are available elseware, I believe they had a suppliers list in there. That said I just bought a new Aprilia motorcycle.... fuel injected, Italian, lets see how long THAT lasts Ron Parola</HTML>
Re: NO Carburetor Burner
Posted by: Peter Heid (IP Logged)
Date: July 14, 2002 11:24PM
<HTML>Ron,
From Aprillia expect the best. The injection system will be flawless and invisible for many years to come.
The implementation of a Bosch multiport injection system would require the use of all or most of the injectors that it would use for the IC engine from wihch it was derived. multiple injectors have 2 advantages: when one goes bad, the rest will get you home and just like the burners in marine and stationary steam generators, multiple burners can be made more efficient. Bosch parts are world wide and available at most any retail parts location with injectors available in many sizes. Due to the genaric design, most any Bosch computer can be replaced with a $7.00 microcontroller that is very easy to program and can control the spark and flame with inputs from pressure, temperature and flame sense controls. For safety sake a second microcontroller can oversee the operation and results of the first. The system can easily provide an LCD dashboard display informing the operator of any trouble including the part number of the defective part. Why go for repairs to some place that doesn't have the part in stock. so much for paying for diagnostic time and unneeded parts from underhanded dealers. Hell, when the trouble is detected the system could, thru a communications system, locate the part for you and provide a map to the nearest location, inform the dealer/retailer you are coming, provide credit info and the part is ready to pickup and go.
For production vehicles it is almost imposable to make a carburetor meet emission standards expected fo a non running vehicle in the Sealed Housing Evaporative Emissions Determination test. Basically a closed box with the vehicle parked inside and only a certain level of hydrocarbon emissions are allowed to emanate from the vehicle. Carburetors are basically open to the atmosphere and constantly emit hydrocarbon vapors. Honda and other Asian manufacturers continued the use of carburetors against the ever steepening pollution requirements to the point where a single, often non-repairable (sealed unit) carburetor might contain upwards of 100 parts and have a replacement cost of over $1000.00.
Does any one know the origin of the word "carburetor" ? The first reference to the name that I have found is from 1858 but no reference is given to the origin of the name.
Peter Heid</HTML>
From Aprillia expect the best. The injection system will be flawless and invisible for many years to come.
The implementation of a Bosch multiport injection system would require the use of all or most of the injectors that it would use for the IC engine from wihch it was derived. multiple injectors have 2 advantages: when one goes bad, the rest will get you home and just like the burners in marine and stationary steam generators, multiple burners can be made more efficient. Bosch parts are world wide and available at most any retail parts location with injectors available in many sizes. Due to the genaric design, most any Bosch computer can be replaced with a $7.00 microcontroller that is very easy to program and can control the spark and flame with inputs from pressure, temperature and flame sense controls. For safety sake a second microcontroller can oversee the operation and results of the first. The system can easily provide an LCD dashboard display informing the operator of any trouble including the part number of the defective part. Why go for repairs to some place that doesn't have the part in stock. so much for paying for diagnostic time and unneeded parts from underhanded dealers. Hell, when the trouble is detected the system could, thru a communications system, locate the part for you and provide a map to the nearest location, inform the dealer/retailer you are coming, provide credit info and the part is ready to pickup and go.
For production vehicles it is almost imposable to make a carburetor meet emission standards expected fo a non running vehicle in the Sealed Housing Evaporative Emissions Determination test. Basically a closed box with the vehicle parked inside and only a certain level of hydrocarbon emissions are allowed to emanate from the vehicle. Carburetors are basically open to the atmosphere and constantly emit hydrocarbon vapors. Honda and other Asian manufacturers continued the use of carburetors against the ever steepening pollution requirements to the point where a single, often non-repairable (sealed unit) carburetor might contain upwards of 100 parts and have a replacement cost of over $1000.00.
Does any one know the origin of the word "carburetor" ? The first reference to the name that I have found is from 1858 but no reference is given to the origin of the name.
Peter Heid</HTML>
Re: NO Flame Burners
Posted by: Jim Crank (IP Logged)
Date: July 14, 2002 11:39PM
<HTML>Ron,
Precisely what I am thinking. The throttle body single point injectors, just like the G.M. units. Holley, Mallory and several others.
Several of them are commercially available for racing purposes and would be well worth looking at for a steamer. The electronics are absolutely minimal, vs one for a passenger gas car. And they will work with a blower on their inlet.
Jim</HTML>
Precisely what I am thinking. The throttle body single point injectors, just like the G.M. units. Holley, Mallory and several others.
Several of them are commercially available for racing purposes and would be well worth looking at for a steamer. The electronics are absolutely minimal, vs one for a passenger gas car. And they will work with a blower on their inlet.
Jim</HTML>
Clean Carburetor Burner?
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: July 15, 2002 05:52AM
<HTML>Hi Peter,
Thanks for the info on the HC emissions standard. A custom carburetor burner might be able to meet this standard if the jet, vents, etc were built to close up tight on standby with little valves. Or perhaps vent emissions (including from tank?) to a tiny pilot light via _good_ flame barriers. The pilot could also keep things warm, & light cleaner, for cleaner startups except after a cold-storage period. Bulletproof thermocouple (or bimetal) shutoff and flame barriers would be necessary for safety. More "high-button shoes" era engineering!
Surface combustion may yet turn into a workable automotive steam system. It would probably require some kind of staged burner/heat-exchange elements, plumbed in series and each running in a narrow output range (or perhaps on/off), to handle varying power outputs in a steam car. The higher the steam output, the more elements would be firing. If the elements could be reliably run at much higher temperature, and O2/oil kept out of them, then steam generator size/weight could be greatly reduced, perhaps making this worth a try if the costs aren't too high.
I think a great-running, clean & reliable burner/control system can be built around electronic fuel injection, and probably will be, but this approach is a bit too complex and costly for my skills/budget. I'm trying to keep my powerplant design as cheap and simple as possible, not always successfully so far. I do, however, follow the more sophisticated design concept discussions with great interest, and seem to be "learning something new every day" on this excellent forum.
Peter B</HTML>
Thanks for the info on the HC emissions standard. A custom carburetor burner might be able to meet this standard if the jet, vents, etc were built to close up tight on standby with little valves. Or perhaps vent emissions (including from tank?) to a tiny pilot light via _good_ flame barriers. The pilot could also keep things warm, & light cleaner, for cleaner startups except after a cold-storage period. Bulletproof thermocouple (or bimetal) shutoff and flame barriers would be necessary for safety. More "high-button shoes" era engineering!
Surface combustion may yet turn into a workable automotive steam system. It would probably require some kind of staged burner/heat-exchange elements, plumbed in series and each running in a narrow output range (or perhaps on/off), to handle varying power outputs in a steam car. The higher the steam output, the more elements would be firing. If the elements could be reliably run at much higher temperature, and O2/oil kept out of them, then steam generator size/weight could be greatly reduced, perhaps making this worth a try if the costs aren't too high.
I think a great-running, clean & reliable burner/control system can be built around electronic fuel injection, and probably will be, but this approach is a bit too complex and costly for my skills/budget. I'm trying to keep my powerplant design as cheap and simple as possible, not always successfully so far. I do, however, follow the more sophisticated design concept discussions with great interest, and seem to be "learning something new every day" on this excellent forum.
Peter B</HTML>
Re: Blue Flame Burners
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: July 15, 2002 06:40AM
<HTML>Hi George,
If the tube temp can be properly controlled, an "F" style burner/stack is better than the insulated box type. Surround the fire with tubes that do (radiant) work whenever possible! This is the advantage of the radial-outflow layout, as Jim notes. Still, today's ceramic-fiber/paint firebox lining looks bulletproof now, in case that approach is better in some application.
Best of luck with the "Williams-Nutz" burner. Maybe the anti-emissions valves/pilot idea I noted in another post can keep the EPA from sending a SWAT team. LOL. Well, commercial potential should never be ruled out for any excellent new design, and that requires squeaky-clean running.
Peter</HTML>
If the tube temp can be properly controlled, an "F" style burner/stack is better than the insulated box type. Surround the fire with tubes that do (radiant) work whenever possible! This is the advantage of the radial-outflow layout, as Jim notes. Still, today's ceramic-fiber/paint firebox lining looks bulletproof now, in case that approach is better in some application.
Best of luck with the "Williams-Nutz" burner. Maybe the anti-emissions valves/pilot idea I noted in another post can keep the EPA from sending a SWAT team. LOL. Well, commercial potential should never be ruled out for any excellent new design, and that requires squeaky-clean running.
Peter</HTML>
Re: Blue Flame Burners
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: July 15, 2002 08:24AM
<HTML>Hi Jim,
Radial outflow is best, IMO, and the finned tubing will save weight & space in the economizer. Good design. Peter Barrett wrote that ESCOA finned stainless is only about 20% more expensive than an equal area of unfinned stainless, which isn't bad considering the smaller tubestack weight/volume and premium vehicle.
Your Doble boiler kerosene storage comment inspired an interesting plumbing trick that I'll show you in Seattle. Cheap, but too involved to discuss here as the rest of the system would have to be explained.
Interesting on the diesel turbocharger for draft booster; steam aerodynamics are different from IC exhaust gas, so it is not optimized, but there's no arguing with 30 years of success. Bearings definitely easier to lube with oily steam than with IC exhaust, and then the oil separator goes downline. Thanks for the info on Doble boosters; definitely lots of workable ways to go. I may work a booster into a later model.
For variable-firing pulse combustor, how about something analogous to the ingenious pivoting variable-length intake runners that some gas car maker (?) is using now? Reminds me of the folded-up Bose Wave radio speaker tube, but variable. Put something like that on one or both ends of the gas flowpath to tune it, and the buzzbomb burner could run variable. Then as Peter suggested, twin balanced burners to cancel out the noise ... whew. Lotta work just to get rid of both fan and vaporizing tube!
That metal-fiber place can also make flameholders to spec; don't know if you saw the barrel, cone, hemisphere, etc flameholder samples on their highly surfable site. Argh, forgot the company name already. Too many irons in the fire tonite. You name it, they can make it, any shape. As GB told me, the possibilities for new tubestack/burner shapes are endless. My "B142" will just be a flat round flameholder, so I'll make it myself; hope the material (Fecralloy) isn't a bear to cut. Carbide coated saber saw blade & steady hand if nothing else.
I will look up the new blower. All I remember is that it was an odd radial-flow type, squirrel-cagey but with fins extending further into the center of the rotor, reminding me of a turbo rotor. The efficiency improvement wasn't huge, but worthwhile. Various savings add up in steam systems. This fan was another GB Research, Inc discovery, and he may find the link before I do. The most interesting thing about their website was that it gave efficiency & flow figures on squirrel and axial-flow fans for comparison; handy design info.
Also will try to find the book on flameholders. The research work keeps piling up.
Wouldn't miss Seattle and riding shotgun in the Doble! Arrangements are in progress; thanks! I'll bring drawings and notebooks to save on coffee shop napkins.
Peter</HTML>
Radial outflow is best, IMO, and the finned tubing will save weight & space in the economizer. Good design. Peter Barrett wrote that ESCOA finned stainless is only about 20% more expensive than an equal area of unfinned stainless, which isn't bad considering the smaller tubestack weight/volume and premium vehicle.
Your Doble boiler kerosene storage comment inspired an interesting plumbing trick that I'll show you in Seattle. Cheap, but too involved to discuss here as the rest of the system would have to be explained.
Interesting on the diesel turbocharger for draft booster; steam aerodynamics are different from IC exhaust gas, so it is not optimized, but there's no arguing with 30 years of success. Bearings definitely easier to lube with oily steam than with IC exhaust, and then the oil separator goes downline. Thanks for the info on Doble boosters; definitely lots of workable ways to go. I may work a booster into a later model.
For variable-firing pulse combustor, how about something analogous to the ingenious pivoting variable-length intake runners that some gas car maker (?) is using now? Reminds me of the folded-up Bose Wave radio speaker tube, but variable. Put something like that on one or both ends of the gas flowpath to tune it, and the buzzbomb burner could run variable. Then as Peter suggested, twin balanced burners to cancel out the noise ... whew. Lotta work just to get rid of both fan and vaporizing tube!
That metal-fiber place can also make flameholders to spec; don't know if you saw the barrel, cone, hemisphere, etc flameholder samples on their highly surfable site. Argh, forgot the company name already. Too many irons in the fire tonite. You name it, they can make it, any shape. As GB told me, the possibilities for new tubestack/burner shapes are endless. My "B142" will just be a flat round flameholder, so I'll make it myself; hope the material (Fecralloy) isn't a bear to cut. Carbide coated saber saw blade & steady hand if nothing else.
I will look up the new blower. All I remember is that it was an odd radial-flow type, squirrel-cagey but with fins extending further into the center of the rotor, reminding me of a turbo rotor. The efficiency improvement wasn't huge, but worthwhile. Various savings add up in steam systems. This fan was another GB Research, Inc discovery, and he may find the link before I do. The most interesting thing about their website was that it gave efficiency & flow figures on squirrel and axial-flow fans for comparison; handy design info.
Also will try to find the book on flameholders. The research work keeps piling up.
Wouldn't miss Seattle and riding shotgun in the Doble! Arrangements are in progress; thanks! I'll bring drawings and notebooks to save on coffee shop napkins.
Peter</HTML>
Re: Blue Flame Burners
Posted by: George Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: July 15, 2002 11:19AM
<HTML>Blue Flame Burners:Blowers-
No doubt that the radial gas outflow boiler is the easiest way to go, Jim and I have designed one for a Stanley that is a Lamont.
The blower dilemma is that for house oil burners and "boilers" that have very little back pressure(like .5" H2)) the forward curved centrifugal blowers are very efficient and about all that is available. They will not work with a Doble type boiler that can have 12-16 coil stacks to get thru and may require 18" of water column to get it thru, then a backward curved blower wheel is in order. Keep in mind that it takes about 25 cubic feet of air per minute for each gallon of kerosine burned so a Doble "F" test in Walton's book/run 16/ required 512 cfm for about 20 gallons per hour burn rate but the water column pressure about 18" of water!!. Pages 78 and 81 are both "F" tests, page 78 says "E" but is just a publishing mistake. also when they mention water column it is NOT in inches of water column but I believe in psi or feet of water column. One inch of water column is .036 psi. You will notice with this run 16 that the blower motor wattage is 1,247(100 amperes) watts and could only be done in the car with the draft booster supplying the mechanical power. In the Lamont 40-50% of all the total boiler heat transfer is done in the large firebox surrounded by the radiant Lamont coil so only 6 coil stacks are required(one of those the protected superheater) and the air pressure drop and electrical power required may be only 1/4 of that required by the "F" Doble type. A simple equation I came up with that is a shortcut in determining theoretical horsepower requirements for any fluid/gas when knowing the desired flow and pressure differential is:
P x V x 7.3x10 to the minus fifth x flow in pounds per hour=horsepower.
Remember a efficiency factor must be put in for the electric motor and for centrifugal fans a leakage factor of 2 or more but it gives a starting point.
An example would be a feedwater pump supplying 1000#/hr at 1000psi.
1000psi x .0166 x 7.3(to the minus fifth) x 1000=1.21 horsepower, it of course would be somewhat higher than this. Some of the three cylinder Hypro pumps come within 80% of the theoretical which is quite good. Just some food for thought that could be included on this burner and boiler discussion.
Best, George</HTML>
No doubt that the radial gas outflow boiler is the easiest way to go, Jim and I have designed one for a Stanley that is a Lamont.
The blower dilemma is that for house oil burners and "boilers" that have very little back pressure(like .5" H2)) the forward curved centrifugal blowers are very efficient and about all that is available. They will not work with a Doble type boiler that can have 12-16 coil stacks to get thru and may require 18" of water column to get it thru, then a backward curved blower wheel is in order. Keep in mind that it takes about 25 cubic feet of air per minute for each gallon of kerosine burned so a Doble "F" test in Walton's book/run 16/ required 512 cfm for about 20 gallons per hour burn rate but the water column pressure about 18" of water!!. Pages 78 and 81 are both "F" tests, page 78 says "E" but is just a publishing mistake. also when they mention water column it is NOT in inches of water column but I believe in psi or feet of water column. One inch of water column is .036 psi. You will notice with this run 16 that the blower motor wattage is 1,247(100 amperes) watts and could only be done in the car with the draft booster supplying the mechanical power. In the Lamont 40-50% of all the total boiler heat transfer is done in the large firebox surrounded by the radiant Lamont coil so only 6 coil stacks are required(one of those the protected superheater) and the air pressure drop and electrical power required may be only 1/4 of that required by the "F" Doble type. A simple equation I came up with that is a shortcut in determining theoretical horsepower requirements for any fluid/gas when knowing the desired flow and pressure differential is:
P x V x 7.3x10 to the minus fifth x flow in pounds per hour=horsepower.
Remember a efficiency factor must be put in for the electric motor and for centrifugal fans a leakage factor of 2 or more but it gives a starting point.
An example would be a feedwater pump supplying 1000#/hr at 1000psi.
1000psi x .0166 x 7.3(to the minus fifth) x 1000=1.21 horsepower, it of course would be somewhat higher than this. Some of the three cylinder Hypro pumps come within 80% of the theoretical which is quite good. Just some food for thought that could be included on this burner and boiler discussion.
Best, George</HTML>
Re: Blue Flame Burners
Posted by: Jim Crank (IP Logged)
Date: July 15, 2002 01:08PM
<HTML>Peter and George,
The Doble boilers take less than 3" of draft to get the fire through. From years of watching the gauge on the dash of E-14. Starting up is 2-1/2" or 3" and it isn't choking at all.
Draft booster turbine in the Doble is certainly not optimum, nor does it have to be. But; it takes the electric motor's 1800-2200 rpm and jams it up to 7,000 rpm, when you have your foot down hard and are going 85 mph, good enough to double the steam output. When they can go 100 mph and still cut on and off by pressure, that satisfys me.
The usual place to put the cyclone oil separator in a Doble is between the fan turbine and the condenser, so the oil in the steam lubes both turbines bearings. Seems to be good for decades of service.
One Navy paper I have on pulsed combustion contraptions, used one way to make the valve that sure is interesting, a motor driven butterfly in the intake, running at half the resonant frequency of the tube. Organ pipe theory.
Probably one has to keep with an even ratio if you are trying to slow down the burn rate, like 3/4-1/2-1/4-1/8. This follows basic Hemholz resonator theory.
That surface combustion metal fiber burner is good to over 3 million BTU in stock sizes that are rediculously small, this is right now my choice. Now the problem of how to make the post mix vaporizer comes up. Always something!!
Coffee shop napkins are free, you would be surprised at how many I came home with after space power conferences for Lockheed. Bags of them.
Jim</HTML>
The Doble boilers take less than 3" of draft to get the fire through. From years of watching the gauge on the dash of E-14. Starting up is 2-1/2" or 3" and it isn't choking at all.
Draft booster turbine in the Doble is certainly not optimum, nor does it have to be. But; it takes the electric motor's 1800-2200 rpm and jams it up to 7,000 rpm, when you have your foot down hard and are going 85 mph, good enough to double the steam output. When they can go 100 mph and still cut on and off by pressure, that satisfys me.
The usual place to put the cyclone oil separator in a Doble is between the fan turbine and the condenser, so the oil in the steam lubes both turbines bearings. Seems to be good for decades of service.
One Navy paper I have on pulsed combustion contraptions, used one way to make the valve that sure is interesting, a motor driven butterfly in the intake, running at half the resonant frequency of the tube. Organ pipe theory.
Probably one has to keep with an even ratio if you are trying to slow down the burn rate, like 3/4-1/2-1/4-1/8. This follows basic Hemholz resonator theory.
That surface combustion metal fiber burner is good to over 3 million BTU in stock sizes that are rediculously small, this is right now my choice. Now the problem of how to make the post mix vaporizer comes up. Always something!!
Coffee shop napkins are free, you would be surprised at how many I came home with after space power conferences for Lockheed. Bags of them.
Jim</HTML>
Re: Blue Flame Burners
Posted by: George Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: July 15, 2002 01:48PM
<HTML>Jim,
Re: the draft required for the Doble blower, it is very true when running at lower output(as the "E" was originally designed for) of 750-800 pounds per hour the blower would have a draft of 3-4 inches of water, like run 9 in the tests. I had thought you had mentioned that full out with the turbo booster wailing you and Barney could get up around 18 inches, is my memory failing me?? This would be an evaporation rate of close to 2000#/hr and a 20+ gallon burn rate. Again my memory may be failing me, happy 65th birthday
and senility sets in!!
Best, George</HTML>
Re: the draft required for the Doble blower, it is very true when running at lower output(as the "E" was originally designed for) of 750-800 pounds per hour the blower would have a draft of 3-4 inches of water, like run 9 in the tests. I had thought you had mentioned that full out with the turbo booster wailing you and Barney could get up around 18 inches, is my memory failing me?? This would be an evaporation rate of close to 2000#/hr and a 20+ gallon burn rate. Again my memory may be failing me, happy 65th birthday
and senility sets in!!
Best, George</HTML>
Re: Blue Flame Burners
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: July 17, 2002 05:36AM
<HTML>Hi Jim,
I just got a quote on the metal fiber material, but it is in MSWord, which doesn't work with WebTV! I have asked a friend to translate it into email format, and will let you know when the info is available. Definitely hot stuff; hope the price isn't too high.
Thanks for the interesting info on the pulse combustor. The rotary butterfly valve is an intriging approach; I will input this into the brainstorm process. I don't think we have to bring Herr Doktor Helmholtz into it, because the variable-length runners would be continuously-variable in length. More of a trombone than an organ pipe. Wish I could remember the name of the car company that is using this in an IC intake, really a clever principle. A long, variable-length tube rolled up into a compact pivoting assembly. In a pulse burner, it could theoretically tune anywhere from subsonic bass (creeping away from a traffic light) to dog-whistle frequencies (steam land speed record runs).
Interesting info on the Doble plumbing; good common sense. What did Doble use for condenser fan turbines (off the shelf? custom?), and what are you planning?
GB & I are coming up empty on the company with the new efficient blower. I remember the info pretty well, but not the company name; should have saved the link. I did find one place with a turbo-like blower rotor that gives 70-80% efficiency instead of the usual 50%, but it is only for 70" h2o and up. I think the efficiency drops off at lower pressures. I also found both forward- and backward-curved-fin rotors, but only in really huge sizes & for higher pressures.
Next job: that metal-fiber book.
Napkins are handy in the coffee house, but a bear to file for reference purposes. I prefer spiral-bound 8.5x11 notebooks. However, I'll admit to having a few napkins in the files too. :)
On auxiliary drive, it would be hard to beat an updated Doble E style auxiliary unit for the system you are planning. Maybe with one or more modern cvt elements built in? With the expander mounted on vehicle frame and IRS final drive, you could eliminate the U-joints Doble used, but some flex couplings might be a good idea for the drive shaft. I think a steam car's feedwater pump(s) & alternator are best driven by the main engine as small auxiliary engines run much less efficiently, though everything else can use electric drive, assuming a big enough alternator.
An electric motor for the feedwater pump would have to be huge, one of the things I don't like about the 1920 Standard/Scott-Newcomb system (pp. 164-166 for the Clymer readers out there). Not sure where one would find a suitable multi-hp feedpump electric motor. I once considered an ac feedpump drive motor with dc-ac converter, but suitable converters are big, lossy, costly, and tend to be unreliable, not to mention the battery wear from cycling.
I once got some guff in another forum about planning rear engine/front boiler instead of a "standard up-to-date" unitized drop-in-front fwd system, but have recently learned that new front-engine, rwd (v8) platforms are all the rage now among luxury carmakers, and one of the advantages claimed for the coming 42v electric systems is that more components can be distributed around the vehicle for f/r balance/handling, structural load distribution, and other advantages. In properly balanced vehicles, rwd is better for accelerating traction anyway. Maybe the late-1900s under-hood fwd unit wasn't such a modern/better idea after all -- the idea may be headed the way of aircooled VW units.
Peter</HTML>
I just got a quote on the metal fiber material, but it is in MSWord, which doesn't work with WebTV! I have asked a friend to translate it into email format, and will let you know when the info is available. Definitely hot stuff; hope the price isn't too high.
Thanks for the interesting info on the pulse combustor. The rotary butterfly valve is an intriging approach; I will input this into the brainstorm process. I don't think we have to bring Herr Doktor Helmholtz into it, because the variable-length runners would be continuously-variable in length. More of a trombone than an organ pipe. Wish I could remember the name of the car company that is using this in an IC intake, really a clever principle. A long, variable-length tube rolled up into a compact pivoting assembly. In a pulse burner, it could theoretically tune anywhere from subsonic bass (creeping away from a traffic light) to dog-whistle frequencies (steam land speed record runs).
Interesting info on the Doble plumbing; good common sense. What did Doble use for condenser fan turbines (off the shelf? custom?), and what are you planning?
GB & I are coming up empty on the company with the new efficient blower. I remember the info pretty well, but not the company name; should have saved the link. I did find one place with a turbo-like blower rotor that gives 70-80% efficiency instead of the usual 50%, but it is only for 70" h2o and up. I think the efficiency drops off at lower pressures. I also found both forward- and backward-curved-fin rotors, but only in really huge sizes & for higher pressures.
Next job: that metal-fiber book.
Napkins are handy in the coffee house, but a bear to file for reference purposes. I prefer spiral-bound 8.5x11 notebooks. However, I'll admit to having a few napkins in the files too. :)
On auxiliary drive, it would be hard to beat an updated Doble E style auxiliary unit for the system you are planning. Maybe with one or more modern cvt elements built in? With the expander mounted on vehicle frame and IRS final drive, you could eliminate the U-joints Doble used, but some flex couplings might be a good idea for the drive shaft. I think a steam car's feedwater pump(s) & alternator are best driven by the main engine as small auxiliary engines run much less efficiently, though everything else can use electric drive, assuming a big enough alternator.
An electric motor for the feedwater pump would have to be huge, one of the things I don't like about the 1920 Standard/Scott-Newcomb system (pp. 164-166 for the Clymer readers out there). Not sure where one would find a suitable multi-hp feedpump electric motor. I once considered an ac feedpump drive motor with dc-ac converter, but suitable converters are big, lossy, costly, and tend to be unreliable, not to mention the battery wear from cycling.
I once got some guff in another forum about planning rear engine/front boiler instead of a "standard up-to-date" unitized drop-in-front fwd system, but have recently learned that new front-engine, rwd (v8) platforms are all the rage now among luxury carmakers, and one of the advantages claimed for the coming 42v electric systems is that more components can be distributed around the vehicle for f/r balance/handling, structural load distribution, and other advantages. In properly balanced vehicles, rwd is better for accelerating traction anyway. Maybe the late-1900s under-hood fwd unit wasn't such a modern/better idea after all -- the idea may be headed the way of aircooled VW units.
Peter</HTML>
Re: Blue Flame Burners
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: July 17, 2002 05:56AM
<HTML>Hi George,
Thanks for the info and the handy shortcut equation. That one's going the the notebook! One question though; what units are used for V?
Peter</HTML>
Thanks for the info and the handy shortcut equation. That one's going the the notebook! One question though; what units are used for V?
Peter</HTML>
Re: Blue Flame Burners
Posted by: George Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: July 17, 2002 10:19AM
<HTML>Peter,
V is specific volume in cubic Feet per pound, P is psi( one inch of water is .036psi).
Thus V for atmospheric air is 13.2 and V for cold to hot water .016 to .020 . I doubt if a Lamont, with 40+ % of all its heat transfer done by radiation) that requires no pressure drop) would ever use more than 4-6 inches of water pressure on the blower when running flat out. I believe the very small finned tubing SES boiler had a hydraulic motor to drive the blower and used 10 or more horsepower!!! It can cost a lot of horsepower to make the very smallest boiler have a very large output and the control systems have to be ultra fast as well as disastrous tube burnout is just a few seconds away!!
George</HTML>
V is specific volume in cubic Feet per pound, P is psi( one inch of water is .036psi).
Thus V for atmospheric air is 13.2 and V for cold to hot water .016 to .020 . I doubt if a Lamont, with 40+ % of all its heat transfer done by radiation) that requires no pressure drop) would ever use more than 4-6 inches of water pressure on the blower when running flat out. I believe the very small finned tubing SES boiler had a hydraulic motor to drive the blower and used 10 or more horsepower!!! It can cost a lot of horsepower to make the very smallest boiler have a very large output and the control systems have to be ultra fast as well as disastrous tube burnout is just a few seconds away!!
George</HTML>
Re: Blue Flame Burners
Posted by: Jim Crank (IP Logged)
Date: July 17, 2002 01:50PM
<HTML>Peter,
This is getting into a real design session isn't it. Well good!!
Too bad the other steam car sites are not as active and productive as this one is, thanks to John.
Pulse combustion is very potent; but in my mind the disadvantages are too numerous to even give it more than a passing glance. It does not really have to be a long tube, a cavity works too, Hemholz again, think of a police whistle, sans pea, and you see what I mean. The starting problems, noise and general packaging problems just make it very unatractive to me. I want the most silent burner I can get and the surface combustion type really gives that. Definitely post mix vaporizing.
OK, do stay on that metal fiber company. From their web site info, it looks as if their big 3.5 Mbtu drum is just what I want. Still chewing on how to make the hot gas recirculating vaporizer idea work with that arrangement. How to start it up is the big question in my mind right now. NO PROPANE!!
We just HAVE to get our hands on that book on that funny web site with all the burner data. Someone just has to find out who they are and where that book is published.
Dobles made their own fan turbines, in fact some five variations that I know of. They bought the wheels and reversing sectors from Carling. They only bought the electrical stuff outside, German Bosch, the rest of their hardware was completely made in the factory.
With the Lamont, the need for continuous water feed is eliminated. I would never use an auxiliary unit like the Doble, just too big and most complex. What I like is a magnetic clutch on the engine driving the pump. Electric drive for ANYTHING except the burner blower is just too inefficient and heavy.
If one uses a monotube and not the Lamont, then the whole situation changes for the worst. Then continuous water feed is vital with a low thermal inertia steam generator. Now you would have to deal with that.
Electric water pump drive is absolutely foolish.
Yes the generator runs off the engine, cyclic load remember.
The fans could be electric, since once you are cruising along at 60, the ram air will do the job, it is the hill climbing that really causes problems. I have not given this too much thought as yet; but I know several ways to do that.
If all the hotel and parasitic loads are run by a separate engine designed for the purpose, then the energy balance tips in that direction. Consider all the belt losses, countershafts and whatnot, it is easier to do if they are all in one lump. We can discuss this in Seattle. Many napkins!
FWD was the darling of the auto makers because it was CHEAP and easy for them to package. I never saw any advantage in it and know of too many horror stories of bumping the front wheels and then finding expensive transmission repairs are needed. They are indeed going back to RWD. If you want an example of a really BAD FWD car, the first bunch of Olds Toronados. Horrible cars.
I have to get the Lamont and the drum and the rest of the auxiliary hardware under the hood of the V-12 XKE, OK, can do. The engine has to be in the transmission tunnel. No room anywhere else. That is one good thing about the three rotor Wankel, it fits and I cannot get a three cylinder 4X5 engine in there no matter what. I want a sports car with performance, not some wimpy sedan conversion. I would love to put the steam generator in the rear; but there is not one car that is suitable. I looked hard at a Ford GT-40 replica; but just not enough room for everything. Then there still is all that plumbing going back and forth. No, the XKE is it.
Jim</HTML>
This is getting into a real design session isn't it. Well good!!
Too bad the other steam car sites are not as active and productive as this one is, thanks to John.
Pulse combustion is very potent; but in my mind the disadvantages are too numerous to even give it more than a passing glance. It does not really have to be a long tube, a cavity works too, Hemholz again, think of a police whistle, sans pea, and you see what I mean. The starting problems, noise and general packaging problems just make it very unatractive to me. I want the most silent burner I can get and the surface combustion type really gives that. Definitely post mix vaporizing.
OK, do stay on that metal fiber company. From their web site info, it looks as if their big 3.5 Mbtu drum is just what I want. Still chewing on how to make the hot gas recirculating vaporizer idea work with that arrangement. How to start it up is the big question in my mind right now. NO PROPANE!!
We just HAVE to get our hands on that book on that funny web site with all the burner data. Someone just has to find out who they are and where that book is published.
Dobles made their own fan turbines, in fact some five variations that I know of. They bought the wheels and reversing sectors from Carling. They only bought the electrical stuff outside, German Bosch, the rest of their hardware was completely made in the factory.
With the Lamont, the need for continuous water feed is eliminated. I would never use an auxiliary unit like the Doble, just too big and most complex. What I like is a magnetic clutch on the engine driving the pump. Electric drive for ANYTHING except the burner blower is just too inefficient and heavy.
If one uses a monotube and not the Lamont, then the whole situation changes for the worst. Then continuous water feed is vital with a low thermal inertia steam generator. Now you would have to deal with that.
Electric water pump drive is absolutely foolish.
Yes the generator runs off the engine, cyclic load remember.
The fans could be electric, since once you are cruising along at 60, the ram air will do the job, it is the hill climbing that really causes problems. I have not given this too much thought as yet; but I know several ways to do that.
If all the hotel and parasitic loads are run by a separate engine designed for the purpose, then the energy balance tips in that direction. Consider all the belt losses, countershafts and whatnot, it is easier to do if they are all in one lump. We can discuss this in Seattle. Many napkins!
FWD was the darling of the auto makers because it was CHEAP and easy for them to package. I never saw any advantage in it and know of too many horror stories of bumping the front wheels and then finding expensive transmission repairs are needed. They are indeed going back to RWD. If you want an example of a really BAD FWD car, the first bunch of Olds Toronados. Horrible cars.
I have to get the Lamont and the drum and the rest of the auxiliary hardware under the hood of the V-12 XKE, OK, can do. The engine has to be in the transmission tunnel. No room anywhere else. That is one good thing about the three rotor Wankel, it fits and I cannot get a three cylinder 4X5 engine in there no matter what. I want a sports car with performance, not some wimpy sedan conversion. I would love to put the steam generator in the rear; but there is not one car that is suitable. I looked hard at a Ford GT-40 replica; but just not enough room for everything. Then there still is all that plumbing going back and forth. No, the XKE is it.
Jim</HTML>
Re: Blue Flame Burners
Posted by: Rolly Evans (IP Logged)
Date: July 17, 2002 03:38PM
<HTML>Pulse burner-? I can’t imagine thinking of a burner built this way. Where using Gas turbines, as burners in some power plants, but when I was in high school in 1954 I built a five-foot long Pulse jet engine. The noise was so devastating the entire Police and Fire department came from two miles away. I was told later that they stood in front of the house holding their ears and not moving. Then the thing ran out of fuel. My brother and I came out from hiding behind the garage as this group came running around the house to the back yard. My farther had showed us how to build a welder from four or five old toaster and Irons and my mother helped lay out the pattern for the cone at the combustion chamber. We were only banned from the shop for a month.</HTML>
Re: Blue Flame Burners
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: July 18, 2002 05:33AM
<HTML>Hi Jim,
The pulse burner is just a fun thought experiment. I dumped the idea pretty quick the last time I went through it too. No trombone foghorn/dog whistle on my steamer! Quiet is right.
The metal fiber flameholder material turned out to cost way too much. Waywayway too much. I have fallen back to some previous ideas, and just got a new one which needs an operational/fabrication analysis. Also check out The Steam Automobile, Vol. 6, #3, pp 6-7, for how D.A. Warriner built a cheap backfire-proof flameholder by stacking corrugated steel wood fasteners alternating with flat strips.
Magnetic clutch on water pump, good. I presume you mean the powder type clutches. Those seem to last forever in auto a/c compressors, cycling on and off for years. Less lossy than Doble's solenoid-disengaged inlet valves (fluid plus mechanical friction). Electric for burner fan and maybe condenser fan. Personally, I'm trying to avoid fans, but they can give advantages. Electric also a possibility for fuel pumps; some of the new in-tank & in-line pumps are pretty durable, and up to 80-100 psi available if desired. The feedwater pump is the biggie, and no way should it be electric drive.
The figures I have seen for smaller steam engines show much higher water rates than for bigger units. Internal surface area to volume ratios again, and a few other factors. An auxiliary engine could be designed for supershort cutoff, high compression, optimum rpm, etc, but I'm not sure how that would work out given wildly varying (& usu low) loads. Meanwhile, adding load to the main engine improves its efficiency. This gets into the theoretical vs actual results problem with engine efficiency, complex and controversial.
Existence of a small engine, the size needed to run auxiliaries, with lower water rate than the main drive engine, both under road conditions, would be the deciding factor, of course with transmission losses from main engine factored in. Belts, yech, many don't realize how much hp they eat. Even bevel gears are lossy. None in my designs. Since the road load/speed conditions for main & auxiliary engines vary all over the place, it gets sticky, esp with things clicking on & off. I'll bring a calculator and some reference books to go with the napkins.
How about a compact 1-cyl DA Williams auxiliary engine behind the radiator, with water pump, condenser fan, burner blower, 42v combined motor/alternator, Lamont pump, and maybe other goodies all in line on one shaft with magnetic clutches. LOL.
XKE, good. 180 mph with 4.2L and the right final drive. Hmm.
Peter</HTML>
The pulse burner is just a fun thought experiment. I dumped the idea pretty quick the last time I went through it too. No trombone foghorn/dog whistle on my steamer! Quiet is right.
The metal fiber flameholder material turned out to cost way too much. Waywayway too much. I have fallen back to some previous ideas, and just got a new one which needs an operational/fabrication analysis. Also check out The Steam Automobile, Vol. 6, #3, pp 6-7, for how D.A. Warriner built a cheap backfire-proof flameholder by stacking corrugated steel wood fasteners alternating with flat strips.
Magnetic clutch on water pump, good. I presume you mean the powder type clutches. Those seem to last forever in auto a/c compressors, cycling on and off for years. Less lossy than Doble's solenoid-disengaged inlet valves (fluid plus mechanical friction). Electric for burner fan and maybe condenser fan. Personally, I'm trying to avoid fans, but they can give advantages. Electric also a possibility for fuel pumps; some of the new in-tank & in-line pumps are pretty durable, and up to 80-100 psi available if desired. The feedwater pump is the biggie, and no way should it be electric drive.
The figures I have seen for smaller steam engines show much higher water rates than for bigger units. Internal surface area to volume ratios again, and a few other factors. An auxiliary engine could be designed for supershort cutoff, high compression, optimum rpm, etc, but I'm not sure how that would work out given wildly varying (& usu low) loads. Meanwhile, adding load to the main engine improves its efficiency. This gets into the theoretical vs actual results problem with engine efficiency, complex and controversial.
Existence of a small engine, the size needed to run auxiliaries, with lower water rate than the main drive engine, both under road conditions, would be the deciding factor, of course with transmission losses from main engine factored in. Belts, yech, many don't realize how much hp they eat. Even bevel gears are lossy. None in my designs. Since the road load/speed conditions for main & auxiliary engines vary all over the place, it gets sticky, esp with things clicking on & off. I'll bring a calculator and some reference books to go with the napkins.
How about a compact 1-cyl DA Williams auxiliary engine behind the radiator, with water pump, condenser fan, burner blower, 42v combined motor/alternator, Lamont pump, and maybe other goodies all in line on one shaft with magnetic clutches. LOL.
XKE, good. 180 mph with 4.2L and the right final drive. Hmm.
Peter</HTML>
Re: Blue Flame Burners
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: July 18, 2002 05:52AM
<HTML>Hi George,
Thanks; the handy formula is now complete and duly entered in the notebook. That one's going to get some use.
SES used a 1500 VW Type I (Old Beetle) cooling fan for the burner air. Oh, the 1932 efficiency of it all, oh the humanity and all the passengers. Hydraulic drive? Sheer insanity for a high-rpm app like that. The hp-gobbling belts, trannies, and junk they put on some of the Clean Air Era steam cars; just amazing. Next stop, "Energy Crisis", and it's all down the drain.
Low-restriction gas flowpaths are the way to go with any kind of burner. A few extra lbs & cubic inches is worth it; fuel is costlier than underhood space. On, Lamont, On!
Peter</HTML>
Thanks; the handy formula is now complete and duly entered in the notebook. That one's going to get some use.
SES used a 1500 VW Type I (Old Beetle) cooling fan for the burner air. Oh, the 1932 efficiency of it all, oh the humanity and all the passengers. Hydraulic drive? Sheer insanity for a high-rpm app like that. The hp-gobbling belts, trannies, and junk they put on some of the Clean Air Era steam cars; just amazing. Next stop, "Energy Crisis", and it's all down the drain.
Low-restriction gas flowpaths are the way to go with any kind of burner. A few extra lbs & cubic inches is worth it; fuel is costlier than underhood space. On, Lamont, On!
Peter</HTML>
Re: Blue Flame Burners
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: July 18, 2002 05:56AM
<HTML>Hi Rolly,
Thinking of a burner built this way is one thing; actually building it is quite another, as you discovered. Pulse combustion is legendary for noise. Great story, thanks!
Peter</HTML>
Thinking of a burner built this way is one thing; actually building it is quite another, as you discovered. Pulse combustion is legendary for noise. Great story, thanks!
Peter</HTML>
Re: Blue Flame Burners
Posted by: George Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: July 18, 2002 10:10AM
<HTML>Peter,
Yes that little equation sure saves time in estimation drive horsepower for pumps and blowers. Multiply the equation result by 1.3 for pumps and 2.0 for an efficient air blower to get close to actual with an efficient DC motor. On Rod's engine the Hypro water pump is driven via a air conditioner magnetic clutch, so when the Lamont does not require water the pump is stationary--the alternator is driven by the same belt. The water pump has a ring gear on its shaft so when starting the boiler from cold a small lawnmower starter with bendix drive can be used to drive the water pump to put water into the boiler via the economiser coils. This amount to .1 horsepower motor / 8 amperes to supply water @ 200#/hr up to 400 psi-this is the operating pressure for this boat Lamont boiler. The amperage draw is actually much less as the boiler is at zero pressure when we startup and we are just dribbling in 3#/minute to keep these coils cool. Actually a small auxiliary electric pump could be used in a Stanley when the main pumps are running a water deficit, would require a 1/6th horsepower PM motor and draw about 13 amperes, certainly not out of question when used for a few minutes at a time. This is with using a high efficiency PM DC motor that uses 1000 watts per horsepower(theoretically one horsepower =748 watts).
One could never run a monotube in a Stanley with safety with those low output Stanley pumps but a Lamont would be feasable with its drum water storage.
Have fun with Jim, someday I will get to sit in a Doble!!
George</HTML>
Yes that little equation sure saves time in estimation drive horsepower for pumps and blowers. Multiply the equation result by 1.3 for pumps and 2.0 for an efficient air blower to get close to actual with an efficient DC motor. On Rod's engine the Hypro water pump is driven via a air conditioner magnetic clutch, so when the Lamont does not require water the pump is stationary--the alternator is driven by the same belt. The water pump has a ring gear on its shaft so when starting the boiler from cold a small lawnmower starter with bendix drive can be used to drive the water pump to put water into the boiler via the economiser coils. This amount to .1 horsepower motor / 8 amperes to supply water @ 200#/hr up to 400 psi-this is the operating pressure for this boat Lamont boiler. The amperage draw is actually much less as the boiler is at zero pressure when we startup and we are just dribbling in 3#/minute to keep these coils cool. Actually a small auxiliary electric pump could be used in a Stanley when the main pumps are running a water deficit, would require a 1/6th horsepower PM motor and draw about 13 amperes, certainly not out of question when used for a few minutes at a time. This is with using a high efficiency PM DC motor that uses 1000 watts per horsepower(theoretically one horsepower =748 watts).
One could never run a monotube in a Stanley with safety with those low output Stanley pumps but a Lamont would be feasable with its drum water storage.
Have fun with Jim, someday I will get to sit in a Doble!!
George</HTML>
Re: Blue Flame Burners
Posted by: Rolly Evans (IP Logged)
Date: July 18, 2002 10:15AM
<HTML>I like things simple. On my 35 foot boat I just turn a key and wait fifteen minuets. All electric controls. Off course this is a big platform to play with. The main feed is engine driven with a solenoid by pass, and electric backup. It seems to me the blue flame burner, electrically operated will let you have a smaller combustion chamber higher heat transfer rate, quick response & dependability for a Lamont type boiler. I’m not sure an auxiliary engine is needed. You still have to wait for the steam to come up and warm things up. A good set of deep cycle batteries and engine design with an alternator and separated from the power train with a clutch should work just fine. I would stick with separate electric motors on the Lamont pump and burner, as well as the feed pump. Much easer to control power requirements and events.
See Tryall my web site.
[ourworld.cs.com];
See Tryall my web site.
[ourworld.cs.com];
Re: Blue Flame Burners
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: July 19, 2002 09:11AM
<HTML>Hi George,
I really like the idea of magnetic clutches, though I think I went over the top with the multi-clutch one-shaft auxiliary Williams engine idea. :) However, that might work out if it would actually fit between the radiator & boiler.
I've got a couple of those electric clutches on old auto a/c compressors; how the heck did you and Rod disconnect yours from the compressor? At least on the ones I have, it looks like quite a job.
Clutching/declutching a relatively small feedwater pump is yet another potential advantage of the Lamont over a once-through. A big direct-drive pump and bypass can waste a lot of power during light-load running. Yep, been there, done the math. My plans currently include such a system, but at one point I was looking at variable-displacement pumps (one had a Stephenson link motion driving the plungers) to cut this loss, which in the current design approaches estimated 5% of developed hp under some conditions.
Unfortunately I have to deal with some serious limitations on what I can actually design/build, and some of the better ideas exceed my current limits. Then again, even production cars are full of things which could have been designed/built better. There are a lot of design tradeoffs involved in any machine, and everything ends up with different advantages and disadvantages. And there is rarely agreement on those. :)
Agree on an auxiliary electric pump for Stanleys. Somebody, I think it was on the SACA list, was discussing this for use in parades, where the car is creeping along for long distances and not pumping enough water (leaky pumps?). Might come in handy for those Pike's Peak or Mount Washington runs too. An auxiliary electric feed pump is good for some cars under some conditions. Running the main pump with electric is where the problems come in, esp with a hi-output system. Yet the Scott-Newcomb's developers claimed good results with their all-electric auxiliary system.
Good job on the Lamont system. Looking forward to seeing something like that on the road. Lots of these ideas are going on the back burner for possible future use, so I am very interested in how they work out. Always good to have backup designs, glad I had some non-metal-fiber (IE, affordable) flameholder ideas waiting in the wings. The best design solutions are often surprises, and there is always lots of backtracking and redesign involved. Steam car design is strictly for those who love a challenge.
Peter</HTML>
I really like the idea of magnetic clutches, though I think I went over the top with the multi-clutch one-shaft auxiliary Williams engine idea. :) However, that might work out if it would actually fit between the radiator & boiler.
I've got a couple of those electric clutches on old auto a/c compressors; how the heck did you and Rod disconnect yours from the compressor? At least on the ones I have, it looks like quite a job.
Clutching/declutching a relatively small feedwater pump is yet another potential advantage of the Lamont over a once-through. A big direct-drive pump and bypass can waste a lot of power during light-load running. Yep, been there, done the math. My plans currently include such a system, but at one point I was looking at variable-displacement pumps (one had a Stephenson link motion driving the plungers) to cut this loss, which in the current design approaches estimated 5% of developed hp under some conditions.
Unfortunately I have to deal with some serious limitations on what I can actually design/build, and some of the better ideas exceed my current limits. Then again, even production cars are full of things which could have been designed/built better. There are a lot of design tradeoffs involved in any machine, and everything ends up with different advantages and disadvantages. And there is rarely agreement on those. :)
Agree on an auxiliary electric pump for Stanleys. Somebody, I think it was on the SACA list, was discussing this for use in parades, where the car is creeping along for long distances and not pumping enough water (leaky pumps?). Might come in handy for those Pike's Peak or Mount Washington runs too. An auxiliary electric feed pump is good for some cars under some conditions. Running the main pump with electric is where the problems come in, esp with a hi-output system. Yet the Scott-Newcomb's developers claimed good results with their all-electric auxiliary system.
Good job on the Lamont system. Looking forward to seeing something like that on the road. Lots of these ideas are going on the back burner for possible future use, so I am very interested in how they work out. Always good to have backup designs, glad I had some non-metal-fiber (IE, affordable) flameholder ideas waiting in the wings. The best design solutions are often surprises, and there is always lots of backtracking and redesign involved. Steam car design is strictly for those who love a challenge.
Peter</HTML>
Re: Blue Flame Burners
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: July 19, 2002 09:40AM
<HTML>Hi Rolly,
Fully automatic is the way to go! Turn-key operation is quite an accomplishment for any steam powerplant. [ourworld.cs.com] A fine craft! The deep cycle batteries could work on a car, too; the only downsides would be extra weight and extra cost at purchase and battery replacement time. But for a luxury car, that would not be a problem. Many IC luxury cars are loaded with much bigger extra maintenance costs and their owners are quite satisfied. Those who object can go with stickshifts or pump levers; to each his own.
Peter</HTML>
Fully automatic is the way to go! Turn-key operation is quite an accomplishment for any steam powerplant. [ourworld.cs.com] A fine craft! The deep cycle batteries could work on a car, too; the only downsides would be extra weight and extra cost at purchase and battery replacement time. But for a luxury car, that would not be a problem. Many IC luxury cars are loaded with much bigger extra maintenance costs and their owners are quite satisfied. Those who object can go with stickshifts or pump levers; to each his own.
Peter</HTML>
Re: Blue Flame Burners
Posted by: peter heid (IP Logged)
Date: July 19, 2002 09:46PM
<HTML>Peter, et al,
All modern stationary plants improved their efficiency by switching to DC motors for auxaliries such as pumping, blowers, shot hoppers and most other powered operations. The use of pulse width modulation will provide only the current necessarry to do the job, no more, no less. The power is completely off when unneeded and can be left running at any level with no wasted power for clutches. This technique also allows soft starting to reduce the overall consumption of the system and increase component life. Sorry, but a computer of sorts is the EASIEST, MOST RELIABLE & MOST EFFICIENT way to control electric motors. A power savings of over 20% can be had with proper motor control with out mentioning the clutch. A centrifical clutch is less of a power consumer but you still increase the rotating mass for no apparent reason and many clutches will weigh more than the motor itself.
The other Peter</HTML>
All modern stationary plants improved their efficiency by switching to DC motors for auxaliries such as pumping, blowers, shot hoppers and most other powered operations. The use of pulse width modulation will provide only the current necessarry to do the job, no more, no less. The power is completely off when unneeded and can be left running at any level with no wasted power for clutches. This technique also allows soft starting to reduce the overall consumption of the system and increase component life. Sorry, but a computer of sorts is the EASIEST, MOST RELIABLE & MOST EFFICIENT way to control electric motors. A power savings of over 20% can be had with proper motor control with out mentioning the clutch. A centrifical clutch is less of a power consumer but you still increase the rotating mass for no apparent reason and many clutches will weigh more than the motor itself.
The other Peter</HTML>
Re: Blue Flame Burners
Posted by: peter heid (IP Logged)
Date: July 19, 2002 09:56PM
<HTML>A bit more.
The use of clutches should be reserved for uncoupling loads only, not for power control, or losses & costs will increase in the system. The automotive clutch is a perfect example, it uncouples the engine from the drive so the engine can remain operating. Why don't steam autos generally use clutches ? Because there is no need to uncouple the drive from the engine. Put one in and it will cost dollars and HP but provide no real benefit.
Still the other Peter</HTML>
The use of clutches should be reserved for uncoupling loads only, not for power control, or losses & costs will increase in the system. The automotive clutch is a perfect example, it uncouples the engine from the drive so the engine can remain operating. Why don't steam autos generally use clutches ? Because there is no need to uncouple the drive from the engine. Put one in and it will cost dollars and HP but provide no real benefit.
Still the other Peter</HTML>
Re: Blue Flame Burners
Posted by: Rolly (IP Logged)
Date: July 19, 2002 11:20PM
<HTML>Peter
As I said earlier I like the use of motors, on the boat I used continues duty permanent magnet type. I still like the idea of a clutch to disconnect the engine from the drive train. With electric motors it’s nice to keep the engine running so the alternator can keep the battery voltage up and constant. I’m thinking beyond a Stanley type drive train.</HTML>
As I said earlier I like the use of motors, on the boat I used continues duty permanent magnet type. I still like the idea of a clutch to disconnect the engine from the drive train. With electric motors it’s nice to keep the engine running so the alternator can keep the battery voltage up and constant. I’m thinking beyond a Stanley type drive train.</HTML>
Re: Blue Flame Burners
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: July 20, 2002 09:46AM
<HTML>Hi Peter,
Typical electric motors are about 90% efficient, as are alternators. So about 20% of the power being sent from main engine to alternator and electric-driven auxiliary is lost. Mechanical auxiliary drives can be built less lossy, and cheaper too. A feedwater pump for a steam car needs at least 2 hp capability (~2 kw or ~166 amps @ 12vdc), which means large wires, fuses, and motors for a durable 12V electric pump drive. A 2+hp electric motor is heavy & expensive, esp in 12vdc, and the larger alternator needed to run it adds cost too. Not to mention problems & losses related to motor starting loads.
If an electric main feedwater pump runs frequently without the engine running, the extra battery cycling will wear down the batteries faster, shortening their life and increasing per-mile battery cost. All the extra costs easily outweigh any savings from on/off or variable-output motor operation. Either electrical or mechanical auxiliary drive can be made highly reliable.
Smaller steam car auxiliaries (fans, fuel/circulator pumps) are fine for electric drive, because the losses are a much smaller percentage of powerplant output, and the small motors are cheap.
Electronic computer controls are excellent for many applications, especially where control decisions are complex, as in IC car engines. In steam car powerplants, I think that reliable mechanical controls can be built much more cheaply. Either mechanical or electronic controls can be highly reliable with proper design.
I have deficient knowledge of electrical/electronic design, and also like the idea of a steam powerplant which will run just fine if the battery or alternator dies or other electrical problems develop (eg, one of those hard-to-trace electrical shorts, esp that perennial cause of temporary insanity, intermittent shorts). This gives fewer "failure points"; the fewer the better, IMO. K.I.S.S. and Murphy's Law are central to my design philosophy.
This is not intended to discourage others from building electric/electronic steam systems, just stating my own current design decisions and reasons. These decisions are always subject to change. Anything that runs well gains my sincere admiration and occasional imitation.
Peter</HTML>
Typical electric motors are about 90% efficient, as are alternators. So about 20% of the power being sent from main engine to alternator and electric-driven auxiliary is lost. Mechanical auxiliary drives can be built less lossy, and cheaper too. A feedwater pump for a steam car needs at least 2 hp capability (~2 kw or ~166 amps @ 12vdc), which means large wires, fuses, and motors for a durable 12V electric pump drive. A 2+hp electric motor is heavy & expensive, esp in 12vdc, and the larger alternator needed to run it adds cost too. Not to mention problems & losses related to motor starting loads.
If an electric main feedwater pump runs frequently without the engine running, the extra battery cycling will wear down the batteries faster, shortening their life and increasing per-mile battery cost. All the extra costs easily outweigh any savings from on/off or variable-output motor operation. Either electrical or mechanical auxiliary drive can be made highly reliable.
Smaller steam car auxiliaries (fans, fuel/circulator pumps) are fine for electric drive, because the losses are a much smaller percentage of powerplant output, and the small motors are cheap.
Electronic computer controls are excellent for many applications, especially where control decisions are complex, as in IC car engines. In steam car powerplants, I think that reliable mechanical controls can be built much more cheaply. Either mechanical or electronic controls can be highly reliable with proper design.
I have deficient knowledge of electrical/electronic design, and also like the idea of a steam powerplant which will run just fine if the battery or alternator dies or other electrical problems develop (eg, one of those hard-to-trace electrical shorts, esp that perennial cause of temporary insanity, intermittent shorts). This gives fewer "failure points"; the fewer the better, IMO. K.I.S.S. and Murphy's Law are central to my design philosophy.
This is not intended to discourage others from building electric/electronic steam systems, just stating my own current design decisions and reasons. These decisions are always subject to change. Anything that runs well gains my sincere admiration and occasional imitation.
Peter</HTML>
Re: Blue Flame Burners
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: July 20, 2002 10:08AM
<HTML>Hi Rolly,
Several steam cars have been built with idling/declutchable engines, even change-speed transmissions, most notably (and successfully) Peter Barrett's steamer. This approach works. Personally, I am trying to avoid the extra cost/weight/size of a clutch &/or gearbox drive train, and the extra wear & energy use of an idling engine. Many IC car designers are trying to eliminate engine idling, in an effort to save wear & fuel.
Peter</HTML>
Several steam cars have been built with idling/declutchable engines, even change-speed transmissions, most notably (and successfully) Peter Barrett's steamer. This approach works. Personally, I am trying to avoid the extra cost/weight/size of a clutch &/or gearbox drive train, and the extra wear & energy use of an idling engine. Many IC car designers are trying to eliminate engine idling, in an effort to save wear & fuel.
Peter</HTML>
Re: Blue Flame Burners-Electric Motors
Posted by: George Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: July 20, 2002 11:10AM
<HTML> As this blue flame burner topic spreads to other good things I agree that a main feedwater pump would require severe amperage to do the job; my post a ways back was for a auxilary starting/hill climbing pump possibly requiring 10 amperes to fill in for the mechanical Stanley pump or the type that Jim Crank has described on the "F" Doble---when starting the "F" boiler with insufficient water the driver would have to get out of the car with a Stanley type lever and hand pump water into the boiler!!! Not my idea of an automatic automobile.
Many of us are computer control shy as too many modern cars have doors and windows that won't function, antennas.security pre-keys, electrically controlled mirrors, computer controlled ignition and carbureters etc. So many have gone wrong. The air conditioning electric clutch takes only 3 amperes to actuate and is a small parasitic load for a one killowatt deep cycle marine battery. Rod Teel could tell you how he got his apart Peter.
When much younger(but just as steam crazy) there were many reports of cars made immobile when in the vicinity of "flying saucers"(in New Jersey there were dozens of reports and I have a few slides of a few that are rather eerie). I would often wake up in the middle of the night thinking they would never stop a Stanley from zipping down the road at high speed, there is something to be said about very good mechanical controls, they are immune to electrical interference. Of course old mechanical engineers prefer it that way!! We don't give in to the computer wizzes easily.
That being said I just got in last night a OMEGA three color temperature controller that must have a dozen op amps/computer/hundreds of other electrical components that will take all day to follow the directions to program. When running below the first preset temperature the display is in green, when hitting the second setpoint it turns orange and flips a relay, the third setpoint(for DANGER TOO HOT) has the display change to red and another relay flips in to turn on or off what need be. It will soon be on Rod Teel's Lamont to automatically control the water level from a temperature standpoint , turn on the magnetic pump clutch and in overheat turn off the burner. In a car one need not read the temperatures but just glance at the color of the display to know where things are at. All for $220!!! Be careful George, you have already burned out about 50 transistors/IC's/diodes trying to make your own!! Old mechanical engineers die hard(not the battery).
George</HTML>
Many of us are computer control shy as too many modern cars have doors and windows that won't function, antennas.security pre-keys, electrically controlled mirrors, computer controlled ignition and carbureters etc. So many have gone wrong. The air conditioning electric clutch takes only 3 amperes to actuate and is a small parasitic load for a one killowatt deep cycle marine battery. Rod Teel could tell you how he got his apart Peter.
When much younger(but just as steam crazy) there were many reports of cars made immobile when in the vicinity of "flying saucers"(in New Jersey there were dozens of reports and I have a few slides of a few that are rather eerie). I would often wake up in the middle of the night thinking they would never stop a Stanley from zipping down the road at high speed, there is something to be said about very good mechanical controls, they are immune to electrical interference. Of course old mechanical engineers prefer it that way!! We don't give in to the computer wizzes easily.
That being said I just got in last night a OMEGA three color temperature controller that must have a dozen op amps/computer/hundreds of other electrical components that will take all day to follow the directions to program. When running below the first preset temperature the display is in green, when hitting the second setpoint it turns orange and flips a relay, the third setpoint(for DANGER TOO HOT) has the display change to red and another relay flips in to turn on or off what need be. It will soon be on Rod Teel's Lamont to automatically control the water level from a temperature standpoint , turn on the magnetic pump clutch and in overheat turn off the burner. In a car one need not read the temperatures but just glance at the color of the display to know where things are at. All for $220!!! Be careful George, you have already burned out about 50 transistors/IC's/diodes trying to make your own!! Old mechanical engineers die hard(not the battery).
George</HTML>
Re: Blue Flame Burners
Posted by: Rolly (IP Logged)
Date: July 20, 2002 12:30PM
<HTML>Peter
I agree that having engine driven auxiliaries and a direct connected engine is probley a better system over all, but on a prototype vehicle it’s probably a lot easier to get started and solve problems with separately electrically controlled auxiliaries, especially with a boiler with small water capacity and needing quick responses.</HTML>
I agree that having engine driven auxiliaries and a direct connected engine is probley a better system over all, but on a prototype vehicle it’s probably a lot easier to get started and solve problems with separately electrically controlled auxiliaries, especially with a boiler with small water capacity and needing quick responses.</HTML>
Re: Blue Flame Burners
Posted by: Jim Crank (IP Logged)
Date: July 20, 2002 01:02PM
<HTML>Peter, George and Rolly,
I don't know how big the powerplants are that all of you are thinking about; but I can tell you that the three cylinder CAT pump in my steam race car took 16 HP, plus the belt and Salsbury transmission losses.
A good 50 HP road car will take some serious power just for the pump and as far as I am concerned, putting all this electrical stuff in a steamer is a golden path for unreliability. Been there, done that and have the tee shirt.
The Lamont completely sidesteps the need for continuous pump operation, as it bypasses so many of the problems with monotube steam generators.
The feed pump with some form of magnetic clutch and motors only for the blower motor and Lamont circulating pump is all that one needs.
Simple relay logic and the use of thermocouples with COMMERCIAL control modules is all you need, the Doble quartz rod thermostat is out.
Jim</HTML>
I don't know how big the powerplants are that all of you are thinking about; but I can tell you that the three cylinder CAT pump in my steam race car took 16 HP, plus the belt and Salsbury transmission losses.
A good 50 HP road car will take some serious power just for the pump and as far as I am concerned, putting all this electrical stuff in a steamer is a golden path for unreliability. Been there, done that and have the tee shirt.
The Lamont completely sidesteps the need for continuous pump operation, as it bypasses so many of the problems with monotube steam generators.
The feed pump with some form of magnetic clutch and motors only for the blower motor and Lamont circulating pump is all that one needs.
Simple relay logic and the use of thermocouples with COMMERCIAL control modules is all you need, the Doble quartz rod thermostat is out.
Jim</HTML>
Re: Blue Flame Burners
Posted by: peter heid (IP Logged)
Date: July 20, 2002 04:55PM
<HTML>All,
I envision an electric pump to fill the boiler before operation but a mechanical drive that can be uncoupled makes the most sense when under pressure, everything else would seem to work best direct drive. The most flexable, quick acting and efficient system for controls is one that is integrated, and the use of most industrial controls will not allow this.
Unfortunately most people have only had experiences with electronics that were developed from a first cost aspect, ease of use, relilability beyond warranty, and maintainance are not even considered.
Rolly,
I agree, with the old equiptment you must work with what you have and many things are not so critical as for a modern vehicle. With prototypes do what you can to acheive results but don't overburden the system for the sake of development ease or you may lose sight of your goals.
George,
When the space ship is hovering over head, I will stop for pictures anyway and don't think an electric motor would work keep working in a magnetic/plasma field that strong either. As I ride by on my bicycle.
Peter,
When there is no battery power you will be unsafe to travel anyway, no lights, signals or horn and such as well as no safety of boiler operation unless,everything, even all the gauges and valves are mechanical. Since the 1960's electronic motor control has proven very reliable and cost effective. Modern electronic controls are cheaper and more reliable than any mechanical design and increasing mechanical reliability has a logrithmic cost curve.
Jim,
The lamont sure does help ease the control situtation and the load imposed by boiler feed but as you know I'm a computer guy and the easiest way to hook up those thermocouples is with a computer. This is especially true when you are trying to establish a reference. A computer system doesn't have to be any more complex than its mechanical counterpart but it is usually less understood.
Peter Heid</HTML>
I envision an electric pump to fill the boiler before operation but a mechanical drive that can be uncoupled makes the most sense when under pressure, everything else would seem to work best direct drive. The most flexable, quick acting and efficient system for controls is one that is integrated, and the use of most industrial controls will not allow this.
Unfortunately most people have only had experiences with electronics that were developed from a first cost aspect, ease of use, relilability beyond warranty, and maintainance are not even considered.
Rolly,
I agree, with the old equiptment you must work with what you have and many things are not so critical as for a modern vehicle. With prototypes do what you can to acheive results but don't overburden the system for the sake of development ease or you may lose sight of your goals.
George,
When the space ship is hovering over head, I will stop for pictures anyway and don't think an electric motor would work keep working in a magnetic/plasma field that strong either. As I ride by on my bicycle.
Peter,
When there is no battery power you will be unsafe to travel anyway, no lights, signals or horn and such as well as no safety of boiler operation unless,everything, even all the gauges and valves are mechanical. Since the 1960's electronic motor control has proven very reliable and cost effective. Modern electronic controls are cheaper and more reliable than any mechanical design and increasing mechanical reliability has a logrithmic cost curve.
Jim,
The lamont sure does help ease the control situtation and the load imposed by boiler feed but as you know I'm a computer guy and the easiest way to hook up those thermocouples is with a computer. This is especially true when you are trying to establish a reference. A computer system doesn't have to be any more complex than its mechanical counterpart but it is usually less understood.
Peter Heid</HTML>
Re: Blue Flame Burners
Posted by: Rolly (IP Logged)
Date: July 20, 2002 07:24PM
<HTML>Jim
I need to disagree (electrical stuff in a steamer is a golden path for unreliability.)We have come a long way in the electrical industry. I am in the electrical contracting business, have done all kinds of power plants up to 3600 PSI total computer controlled. They don’t spend 15 & 20 Mil for non-reliability. Even the Lamont in the size for a car needs fast reaction cycles. Electric controls and auxiliaries.</HTML>
I need to disagree (electrical stuff in a steamer is a golden path for unreliability.)We have come a long way in the electrical industry. I am in the electrical contracting business, have done all kinds of power plants up to 3600 PSI total computer controlled. They don’t spend 15 & 20 Mil for non-reliability. Even the Lamont in the size for a car needs fast reaction cycles. Electric controls and auxiliaries.</HTML>
Re: Blue Flame Burners-Electric Motors & UFO-Proofing
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: July 21, 2002 08:32AM
<HTML>Hi George,
I've read those UFO stories too, and had the same whimsical thought. Old-time steam cars are "guaranteed UFO-proof"! LOL. Actually, some of the stories did involve gas cars konking out in the presence of UFOs, while diesel trucks nearby kept chugging away. This also reminds me of horror stories involving early Bosch EFI on VW bugs (early 1970s), which would konk out while driving under high-tension electric lines or near high-wattage radio transmission towers. Soon after these incidents they must have upgraded the shielding or circuitry, as these are strictly "VW old-timer stories". But the UFOs still get 'em. And some electronic cars reportedly cannot be jump-started, as this fries the control system.
For filling the boiler before fireup, I think Other Peter (does that make me Main Peter?) has the right idea, a little pump that fills against no pressure. I plan to do this on the steamer I'm (forever it seems) designing. At least on the prototype, a small cheap hand-cranked peristalsis pump (cow pump) in the dash, only a few easy turns of the handle needed, though a small electric pump could be installed. Once steam is up and the beast is running, the engine-driven pump takes over. The electric dry-start pump is still UFO-proof, unless I need to fire up with a dry boiler while The Saucers are closing in, and I need to flee the Space Monsters, and my tinfoil hat keeps falling off, and I can't find that cow pump ... maybe it's under this pile of just-emptied beer cans and pork rind bags behind th' trailer ... LOL.
This hand pump, btw, would also prime the power pump.
I am trying to design for (safe) pilot standby & instant go, so that filling the boiler before startup would be very rarely needed in daily driving, less often than a jump-start with a gas car, yet much easier even with a hand-cranked pump. The valves needing opening would be ganged together on a little knob next to the pump. Turn the knob to "Hand Pump" position, turn the crank about 20 easy turns, turn the knob back to "Running" position, then close the little panel door in the bottom of the dashboard that covers the knob and crank. Then key "on". Easier than today's gas cars, where you get out & under the hood in rain or snow with a street gang loitering nearby, find sparky jumper cables, and flag down somebody with a good battery, or call/wait for road service, or replace the battery, and about as rarely needed. The hand pump is $20, off-the-shelf, and no sensors, wires, etc needed.
Peter: I wouldn't want to drive the car far without electricity either; driving with hand signals and/or flashlight is indeed a hassle and hazard. But if you left the lights on and drained the battery, it would be easier to just get the car running and recharge the battery while underway than to do a jump or push start. And if the battery or alternator burns out, it would be nice to drive the car to the parts store or mechanic to replace it. No hitchhiking or tow truck needed. A little extra safety, convenience, & savings. Would have saved my bacon on a few occasions with my old gas rattletrap ... wish they'd kept a $5 (anti-kickback safety) starting crank on gas cars for emergencies ... laughable, yes, until you NEED it ... and you will eventually ...
Peter</HTML>
I've read those UFO stories too, and had the same whimsical thought. Old-time steam cars are "guaranteed UFO-proof"! LOL. Actually, some of the stories did involve gas cars konking out in the presence of UFOs, while diesel trucks nearby kept chugging away. This also reminds me of horror stories involving early Bosch EFI on VW bugs (early 1970s), which would konk out while driving under high-tension electric lines or near high-wattage radio transmission towers. Soon after these incidents they must have upgraded the shielding or circuitry, as these are strictly "VW old-timer stories". But the UFOs still get 'em. And some electronic cars reportedly cannot be jump-started, as this fries the control system.
For filling the boiler before fireup, I think Other Peter (does that make me Main Peter?) has the right idea, a little pump that fills against no pressure. I plan to do this on the steamer I'm (forever it seems) designing. At least on the prototype, a small cheap hand-cranked peristalsis pump (cow pump) in the dash, only a few easy turns of the handle needed, though a small electric pump could be installed. Once steam is up and the beast is running, the engine-driven pump takes over. The electric dry-start pump is still UFO-proof, unless I need to fire up with a dry boiler while The Saucers are closing in, and I need to flee the Space Monsters, and my tinfoil hat keeps falling off, and I can't find that cow pump ... maybe it's under this pile of just-emptied beer cans and pork rind bags behind th' trailer ... LOL.
This hand pump, btw, would also prime the power pump.
I am trying to design for (safe) pilot standby & instant go, so that filling the boiler before startup would be very rarely needed in daily driving, less often than a jump-start with a gas car, yet much easier even with a hand-cranked pump. The valves needing opening would be ganged together on a little knob next to the pump. Turn the knob to "Hand Pump" position, turn the crank about 20 easy turns, turn the knob back to "Running" position, then close the little panel door in the bottom of the dashboard that covers the knob and crank. Then key "on". Easier than today's gas cars, where you get out & under the hood in rain or snow with a street gang loitering nearby, find sparky jumper cables, and flag down somebody with a good battery, or call/wait for road service, or replace the battery, and about as rarely needed. The hand pump is $20, off-the-shelf, and no sensors, wires, etc needed.
Peter: I wouldn't want to drive the car far without electricity either; driving with hand signals and/or flashlight is indeed a hassle and hazard. But if you left the lights on and drained the battery, it would be easier to just get the car running and recharge the battery while underway than to do a jump or push start. And if the battery or alternator burns out, it would be nice to drive the car to the parts store or mechanic to replace it. No hitchhiking or tow truck needed. A little extra safety, convenience, & savings. Would have saved my bacon on a few occasions with my old gas rattletrap ... wish they'd kept a $5 (anti-kickback safety) starting crank on gas cars for emergencies ... laughable, yes, until you NEED it ... and you will eventually ...
Peter</HTML>
Re: Blue Flame Burners-Electric Motor Loads-
Posted by: George Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: July 21, 2002 10:44AM
<HTML>PETER MAJOR AND PETER MINOR(major started the thread)
As we wander further and further from the topic(its fun) I doubt that a car running with a non-restrictive gas pas Lamont would require more than 25-30 amperes for the blower, ignition, circulation pump, control system. The very small electric start up pump would only be used when starting from cold. Compare this to the modern day gas car and its probably 50-60 amperes on a luxury car---that is probably why they are going towards 48 volt systems. In P. Minors case , as he is a near olympian bicyclist he could install feedwater foot pumps and exert his temporary one horsepower to the main pumps. If one had him as a passenger special foot pumps could be installed and his fare for the ride would be to foot pump all the water required---UFO proof!!
Back to reality Jim Crank mentioned that a Doble monotube would normally be allowed to siphon itself full and be ready the next day---unless something happened and it didn't, out came the hand pump lever!! When siphoned full and started up in the morning the handbrake was pulled up and it had a link on it to open a port in the line going to the engine so that all the excess water in the boiler could dribble out on the street---amazing how many gadgets they came up with to make the monotube work. This gives me the idea, that if the Lamont had some water in its drum a bypass valve could be opened on the Lamont circulating pump output and a little of its water circulation put thru the Doble style economiser and boiler coil. I still prefer the small 10 ampere maximum auxilary pump drive for starting as it adds water and starts off pumping at zero psi requiring very little power.
Spent 7 hours trying to follow the 66 page program instruction manual for that super computerized OMEGA temperature controller--I give up-- about 100 steps to go thru and make one mistake and back to the beginning. Plus they use terminology that no average mere mortal would have any idea of what the hell they are talking about anyway!! What the hell are settings called RAMP/SOAK/ PID/C.PAR/BUS.F/IN.RD about? Will wait until Monday and call their technical support service. Damn computer things ;o( . Peter Heid is working on some nifty electronic circuits, maybe we should start a thread called BOILER CONTROL CIRCUITS.
Best, George</HTML>
As we wander further and further from the topic(its fun) I doubt that a car running with a non-restrictive gas pas Lamont would require more than 25-30 amperes for the blower, ignition, circulation pump, control system. The very small electric start up pump would only be used when starting from cold. Compare this to the modern day gas car and its probably 50-60 amperes on a luxury car---that is probably why they are going towards 48 volt systems. In P. Minors case , as he is a near olympian bicyclist he could install feedwater foot pumps and exert his temporary one horsepower to the main pumps. If one had him as a passenger special foot pumps could be installed and his fare for the ride would be to foot pump all the water required---UFO proof!!
Back to reality Jim Crank mentioned that a Doble monotube would normally be allowed to siphon itself full and be ready the next day---unless something happened and it didn't, out came the hand pump lever!! When siphoned full and started up in the morning the handbrake was pulled up and it had a link on it to open a port in the line going to the engine so that all the excess water in the boiler could dribble out on the street---amazing how many gadgets they came up with to make the monotube work. This gives me the idea, that if the Lamont had some water in its drum a bypass valve could be opened on the Lamont circulating pump output and a little of its water circulation put thru the Doble style economiser and boiler coil. I still prefer the small 10 ampere maximum auxilary pump drive for starting as it adds water and starts off pumping at zero psi requiring very little power.
Spent 7 hours trying to follow the 66 page program instruction manual for that super computerized OMEGA temperature controller--I give up-- about 100 steps to go thru and make one mistake and back to the beginning. Plus they use terminology that no average mere mortal would have any idea of what the hell they are talking about anyway!! What the hell are settings called RAMP/SOAK/ PID/C.PAR/BUS.F/IN.RD about? Will wait until Monday and call their technical support service. Damn computer things ;o( . Peter Heid is working on some nifty electronic circuits, maybe we should start a thread called BOILER CONTROL CIRCUITS.
Best, George</HTML>
Re: Blue Flame Burners
Posted by: Jim Crank (IP Logged)
Date: July 21, 2002 01:32PM
<HTML>Peter,
After decades with control computers, my only use of them in a steam car would be if they were MIL-SPEC.
My old VW with a Bosch system was plagued with cheap connectors, fragile boards and the world's most trouble prone relays.
Jim</HTML>
After decades with control computers, my only use of them in a steam car would be if they were MIL-SPEC.
My old VW with a Bosch system was plagued with cheap connectors, fragile boards and the world's most trouble prone relays.
Jim</HTML>
Re: Blue Flame Burners
Posted by: Peter Heid (IP Logged)
Date: July 22, 2002 01:24AM
<HTML>Jim,
Your term "relay logic" brought an image of the workings of a 1950's bowling alley with all the switches, relays and such. The back room was always well stocked with at least a few of the more common components on the shelves and piles of used parts along side.
Rolly has a good point, I think reliability is something you must pay for regardless of its form.
The only place electronics have not been adequately been shielded from all interference is in the cleanup of Chernobyl, they had to send in people. Even the high tension devices used to stop vehicles at road blocks can be shielded against. Other than that, the US military/civilian forces have devices to blast directional 10 to 100 Hz pulses of radio frequency waves with enough power to destroy most electronic devices by overheating them but might cook any people in between.
One point I forgot to mention is many electronic devices sourced from companies outside the manufacturers doors very often come from the lowest bidder.
Peter Heid</HTML>
Your term "relay logic" brought an image of the workings of a 1950's bowling alley with all the switches, relays and such. The back room was always well stocked with at least a few of the more common components on the shelves and piles of used parts along side.
Rolly has a good point, I think reliability is something you must pay for regardless of its form.
The only place electronics have not been adequately been shielded from all interference is in the cleanup of Chernobyl, they had to send in people. Even the high tension devices used to stop vehicles at road blocks can be shielded against. Other than that, the US military/civilian forces have devices to blast directional 10 to 100 Hz pulses of radio frequency waves with enough power to destroy most electronic devices by overheating them but might cook any people in between.
One point I forgot to mention is many electronic devices sourced from companies outside the manufacturers doors very often come from the lowest bidder.
Peter Heid</HTML>
Re: Blue Flame Burners
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: July 22, 2002 06:32AM
<HTML>Hi Jim,
My old VW's are carbureted, but yep, I've heard plenty of grousing about the early Bosch EFI. One friend told me that he considered picking up "dead" cars with the system for a song, fixing a couple simple connectors, and reselling the nicely-running vehicle the next day for a hefty markup.
I love Old VWs, but some of the workmanship is pretty shoddy. Okay, now I'm way off topic. To keep it steam-related, I'll toss out the idea of building a low-cost 8 gph blue flame steam car burner with an Old VW carburetor and cooling fan. SES did use one of these fans in their burner. That one burned a lot more than 8 gph!
Mil-spec is the way to go for electronics. Pricier, though, unless you also go surplus, but those are usually one-time-only bargains.
Peter</HTML>
My old VW's are carbureted, but yep, I've heard plenty of grousing about the early Bosch EFI. One friend told me that he considered picking up "dead" cars with the system for a song, fixing a couple simple connectors, and reselling the nicely-running vehicle the next day for a hefty markup.
I love Old VWs, but some of the workmanship is pretty shoddy. Okay, now I'm way off topic. To keep it steam-related, I'll toss out the idea of building a low-cost 8 gph blue flame steam car burner with an Old VW carburetor and cooling fan. SES did use one of these fans in their burner. That one burned a lot more than 8 gph!
Mil-spec is the way to go for electronics. Pricier, though, unless you also go surplus, but those are usually one-time-only bargains.
Peter</HTML>
Re: Blue Flame Burners-Electric Motor Loads-
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: July 22, 2002 10:09AM
<HTML>Hi George,
The Lamont system you describe sounds good; reasonable use of electrical components and a definite improvement over today's gas cars.
Interesting about the Dobles. The self-siphoning nature of steam car boilers can really come in handy, and no plumbing tricks required. I plan a few things linked to the handbrake lever; sounds like Abner was way ahead of me on this.
Several of the articles I read about the upcoming 42v automotive electrical systems mentioned that 12v systems are currently very close to capacity. Yep, that plus plans to increase electrical use even further are why the changeover is planned. There will also be a several-year transition period, during which cars will have both 12v AND 42v batteries and electrical systems. The "transition models" are going to be fun to repair!
Best of luck with the temperature control computer. I admire your patience: I would have chucked it by now and completed an expansion tube thermostat. Not a Doble quartz-rod type, but a pipe expanding relative to a frame around the outside of the boiler, John Wetz style. Not a suggestion, just what I would have done in my system. The electronic device is more accurate and better for your application. In my system, I only plan to use an expansion tube 'stat as an overheat fuel trimmer/shutoff, not as a primary fuel or water control, too slow and inaccurate except for a water-level boiler with large capacity.
Ken Helmick once suggested a vapor-pressure thermostat as an easily-built, faster-reacting, and more accurate temperature sensor than an expansion tube.
A separate string for "boiler control circuits" is a good idea.
Peter B</HTML>
The Lamont system you describe sounds good; reasonable use of electrical components and a definite improvement over today's gas cars.
Interesting about the Dobles. The self-siphoning nature of steam car boilers can really come in handy, and no plumbing tricks required. I plan a few things linked to the handbrake lever; sounds like Abner was way ahead of me on this.
Several of the articles I read about the upcoming 42v automotive electrical systems mentioned that 12v systems are currently very close to capacity. Yep, that plus plans to increase electrical use even further are why the changeover is planned. There will also be a several-year transition period, during which cars will have both 12v AND 42v batteries and electrical systems. The "transition models" are going to be fun to repair!
Best of luck with the temperature control computer. I admire your patience: I would have chucked it by now and completed an expansion tube thermostat. Not a Doble quartz-rod type, but a pipe expanding relative to a frame around the outside of the boiler, John Wetz style. Not a suggestion, just what I would have done in my system. The electronic device is more accurate and better for your application. In my system, I only plan to use an expansion tube 'stat as an overheat fuel trimmer/shutoff, not as a primary fuel or water control, too slow and inaccurate except for a water-level boiler with large capacity.
Ken Helmick once suggested a vapor-pressure thermostat as an easily-built, faster-reacting, and more accurate temperature sensor than an expansion tube.
A separate string for "boiler control circuits" is a good idea.
Peter B</HTML>
Re: Blue Flame Burners-Control Systems.
Posted by: Jim Crank (IP Logged)
Date: July 22, 2002 12:58PM
<HTML>Peter,
Right, forget the Doble quartz rod thermostat.
Strange you should mention the expansion bulb type of temperature control.
The early Dobles had a mercury bulb in the outlet of the steam generator that went to the temperature gauge on the dashboard. The old "Power"meter. Much later they used thermocouples and a Weston meter with a custom face on it.
Absolutely no reason why this approach would not work and work well.
Providing you can get or make one that will work at 900-1,000°F, got to consider temperature overshoots. Mercury would no doubt work just as well now for some temperature control system as it did back then as a temperature gauge.
After all, it was nothing more than a bordon tube pressure gauge.
Jim</HTML>
Right, forget the Doble quartz rod thermostat.
Strange you should mention the expansion bulb type of temperature control.
The early Dobles had a mercury bulb in the outlet of the steam generator that went to the temperature gauge on the dashboard. The old "Power"meter. Much later they used thermocouples and a Weston meter with a custom face on it.
Absolutely no reason why this approach would not work and work well.
Providing you can get or make one that will work at 900-1,000°F, got to consider temperature overshoots. Mercury would no doubt work just as well now for some temperature control system as it did back then as a temperature gauge.
After all, it was nothing more than a bordon tube pressure gauge.
Jim</HTML>
Re: Blue Flame Burners-Control Systems.
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: July 24, 2002 07:59AM
<HTML>Hi Jim,
Thanks for the encouragement and info on Doble's mercury temp gauges. I think Ken mentioned using a diaphragm and water instead of a Bourdon tube & mercury. Peter Barrett used a quartz thermometer at one time and had problems with the quartz rods breaking. The expansion rod used by White reportedly had some problems too.
McMaster-Carr has a bunch of cheap industrial thermometers in the right temp ranges, which might be modifiable to run a switch & relay. Too wimpy to run a valve, though.
Peter B.</HTML>
Thanks for the encouragement and info on Doble's mercury temp gauges. I think Ken mentioned using a diaphragm and water instead of a Bourdon tube & mercury. Peter Barrett used a quartz thermometer at one time and had problems with the quartz rods breaking. The expansion rod used by White reportedly had some problems too.
McMaster-Carr has a bunch of cheap industrial thermometers in the right temp ranges, which might be modifiable to run a switch & relay. Too wimpy to run a valve, though.
Peter B.</HTML>
Re: Blue Flame Burners-Control Systems.
Posted by: Jim Crank (IP Logged)
Date: July 24, 2002 12:34PM
<HTML>Peter,
The quartz rods did and do break. Seems that to get sensitivity out of them Doble made the thin steel tube they rode in, very thin and long. It squirmed around and that cracks them. Also if you don't prepare the ends correctly, they fret and then crack. The Doble control box has a rather strong spring in it that pushes the control rod against the quartz. You have to make it just enough and not real strong. Also, the rods are rattle loose in that thin tube, not a snug fit at all, or the squirming will break them.
The White rod is copper, and if one doesn't know how to set up a White, not an easily learned technique at all today, along with proper startup drill, the copper get overheated and bows, throwing the whole shebang out of kilter.
Most novice White owners tighten the tiny packing gland, on the thermostat copper rod, up until there is no dripping. WRONG, you have to leave it loose enough to drip once in a while.
Frankly, Peter, and after making thermostats for both my Doble and White, for a new car project I would use thermocouple probes in the outlet and BN of the boiler and a commercial control, like the Action Pac I used for the race car, or the one George just got. So simple and really rugged.
Jim</HTML>
The quartz rods did and do break. Seems that to get sensitivity out of them Doble made the thin steel tube they rode in, very thin and long. It squirmed around and that cracks them. Also if you don't prepare the ends correctly, they fret and then crack. The Doble control box has a rather strong spring in it that pushes the control rod against the quartz. You have to make it just enough and not real strong. Also, the rods are rattle loose in that thin tube, not a snug fit at all, or the squirming will break them.
The White rod is copper, and if one doesn't know how to set up a White, not an easily learned technique at all today, along with proper startup drill, the copper get overheated and bows, throwing the whole shebang out of kilter.
Most novice White owners tighten the tiny packing gland, on the thermostat copper rod, up until there is no dripping. WRONG, you have to leave it loose enough to drip once in a while.
Frankly, Peter, and after making thermostats for both my Doble and White, for a new car project I would use thermocouple probes in the outlet and BN of the boiler and a commercial control, like the Action Pac I used for the race car, or the one George just got. So simple and really rugged.
Jim</HTML>
just a small comment'
Posted by: JB Perry (IP Logged)
Date: February 12, 2005 10:05PM
<HTML>About 8 years ago, while looking through one of my Live steam mags, I read an article about a man up in the nirth east that had designed a steam system that was controlled by a computer chip. Seems to be a good idea. why try and invent somthing new when its already been done?
furthermore, Its about time that one of our distinguished steam buffs just pulled out one of the sets of real working designs for a steam car and sent it out to the whole United States for us steam nuts to build and drive every day, instead of trying to set on the plans and make money off our fellow man. Too He** with the big oil companys, Lets move on with new steam car designs and stop depending on oil companys to tell the inventer in some of us that we cannot us our designs to get 50 to 100 MPG vehicles out on the road today. My father knew a gentleman back during the great depresssion that was getting 400 miles to a quart of kerosene; and shortly after the depression the old inventer was apporached and given an option he couldn't refuse- or die if he ever told anyone how he did it.</HTML>
furthermore, Its about time that one of our distinguished steam buffs just pulled out one of the sets of real working designs for a steam car and sent it out to the whole United States for us steam nuts to build and drive every day, instead of trying to set on the plans and make money off our fellow man. Too He** with the big oil companys, Lets move on with new steam car designs and stop depending on oil companys to tell the inventer in some of us that we cannot us our designs to get 50 to 100 MPG vehicles out on the road today. My father knew a gentleman back during the great depresssion that was getting 400 miles to a quart of kerosene; and shortly after the depression the old inventer was apporached and given an option he couldn't refuse- or die if he ever told anyone how he did it.</HTML>
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.