1 Steam Cars : Phorum
General Steam Car topics
Driving pumps, generators, etc
Posted by: tom ward (IP Logged)
Date: July 21, 2002 11:59AM
<HTML>The blue flame burner line has mutated so far a new species has evolved.
I favor an auxilary steam motor for electrical power. A simple bash valve uniflow PM alternator putting out 220 Vac 3-phase. A simple step down transformer and diode could keep the 12 V dc battery charged if you really must have one. The high voltage reduces the need for current and since heat loss in electrical systems equals the square of amperage transmission efficiencies are dramatically improved. The use of light weight induction motors becomes possible. A wide array of off the shelf pumps suddenly are available for high pressure feed water and fuel injectors. The electric condensor fan and burner blower motors could come from any heating and cooling supplier. Since these devices are widely used for other purposes their prices will be lower than for equal capacity and rarer 12V devices. Cold starting your boiler could be as easy as plugging in an extension cord to a 220 outlet in the garage.</HTML>
I favor an auxilary steam motor for electrical power. A simple bash valve uniflow PM alternator putting out 220 Vac 3-phase. A simple step down transformer and diode could keep the 12 V dc battery charged if you really must have one. The high voltage reduces the need for current and since heat loss in electrical systems equals the square of amperage transmission efficiencies are dramatically improved. The use of light weight induction motors becomes possible. A wide array of off the shelf pumps suddenly are available for high pressure feed water and fuel injectors. The electric condensor fan and burner blower motors could come from any heating and cooling supplier. Since these devices are widely used for other purposes their prices will be lower than for equal capacity and rarer 12V devices. Cold starting your boiler could be as easy as plugging in an extension cord to a 220 outlet in the garage.</HTML>
Re: Driving pumps, generators, etc
Posted by: G. B. Gilbert (IP Logged)
Date: July 22, 2002 12:17AM
<HTML>220 volts is a potentially lethal voltage.
The current levels that you are talking about remove all doubt that you are advocating a needlessly dangerous electrical system.
When you 'jump start' the car from the garage, you have also incorporated earth ground into the possible flow paths.</HTML>
The current levels that you are talking about remove all doubt that you are advocating a needlessly dangerous electrical system.
When you 'jump start' the car from the garage, you have also incorporated earth ground into the possible flow paths.</HTML>
Re: Driving pumps, generators, etc
Posted by: Peter Heid (IP Logged)
Date: July 22, 2002 01:40AM
<HTML>Tom,
I like higher voltage than 12 volts to reduce the current and reduce the cost and weight of the vehicle wiring, also 24 volt military surplus items are everywhere, but there will almost always be a need for starting from batteries. This being the case, use a switching power supply to reduce your voltage to battery level or you will have a heavy expensive transformer to lug around. A consideration then becomes the blending of a DC and AC systems with separate wiring, fusing and controls. Technicians better be well trained to work with the higher AC voltage mixed in. Have you ever seen someone with a ring or watch draw an arc from a 12 volt battery, bad blisters in a millisecond.
Peter Heid, Mutator</HTML>
I like higher voltage than 12 volts to reduce the current and reduce the cost and weight of the vehicle wiring, also 24 volt military surplus items are everywhere, but there will almost always be a need for starting from batteries. This being the case, use a switching power supply to reduce your voltage to battery level or you will have a heavy expensive transformer to lug around. A consideration then becomes the blending of a DC and AC systems with separate wiring, fusing and controls. Technicians better be well trained to work with the higher AC voltage mixed in. Have you ever seen someone with a ring or watch draw an arc from a 12 volt battery, bad blisters in a millisecond.
Peter Heid, Mutator</HTML>
Re: Driving pumps, generators, etc
Posted by: Dick Vennerbeck (IP Logged)
Date: July 22, 2002 03:00AM
<HTML>My new Ford F250 Diesel manual warns me of 47 VDC in my injection system. We used 45 volt batteries as the bias supply in old tube type mass spectrometers...and THEY could knock you on your keester! If you want high voltage why not use an alternator and make 400 cycles? 400 cycle is the stuff of all commercial airlines and is readily available. Typical 400 cycle motors are 1/4 the size of comparable 60 hertz stuff.</HTML>
Re: Driving pumps, generators, etc
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: July 22, 2002 05:57AM
<HTML>One problem with auxiliary engines is that the steam rate of smaller engines tends to be higher than for larger engines. Note the weasel words; there are exceptions to the rule. An auxiliary engine would often be running at part load, another toughie when trying to keep the efficiency up. Overall, it would probably end up using more steam/fuel to run auxiliaries than if everything were run from the main engine, and the cost would probably be much higher than mechanical or electrical drive from the main engine, at least until the mass-production stage is reached. Personally, I've got too much to do already without designing/building a whole nother engine.
220VAC motors in 2 hp and up size are still huge. Can't remember now what size my washer & dryer motors are, but as I recall they are only fractional hp (3/4?) and having repaired the machines myself, I can attest that they are gigantic. Even the 1/3 horse motors on my lathes are monsters, considering their output. Admittedly, they are antiques.
400 hz components would be much more compact, but being supplied to a highly-regulated, cartel-dominated industry, I bet the price for this FAA certified stuff is as shocking as the current it uses. But maybe for a premium-grade steamer, like a modern equivalent of the Doble. Of course, "automotive grade", made for a more competitive market, is often nothing to write home about in the Q/C department.
On the other side of the coin, going virtually non-electric yet automatic involves a bunch of clockwork gizmos, as George noted about Dobles in the highly-mutated "Blue Flame Burners" string. Thanks for the interesting info on those, George; I'd never heard of some of these Doble details. My current system design is full of suchlike gizmos and gimcracks, however to date I think that they can still be kept both cheaper than their electric/electronic equivalents, and more reliable than the automotive-grade batteries and alternators which an electric system relies upon. That is, of course, merely a pre-building/running estimate. Plus they are more easily troubleshot, repaired and maintained by the typical roadside/home shop Doofus P. Dumbnut armed only with a box of wrenches and an "Idiot Book".
GB & The Mutator are right to bring up the safety advantages of minimizing electric stuff in a machine which has water, fuel, and low-resistance conductors all over the place. GB got me started on recent extensive web research into the planned 42v systems; one thing that turned up is that 42v was selected (instead of 48, 60, 110, etc) as it is about as high as you can safely go without excessive electrocution risk to service personnel of ordinary intelligence or less.
As George notes, this is largely a personal preference and design-specialization thing; some are more confident of their electric/electronic design skills, others (like me) are more confident of the mechanical stuff they can design. Vive la difference; let's get a bunch of all kinds of systems running -- electronic, electro-mechanical, all-mechanical, and perhaps even fluidic or "other" -- and see how they work. I bet almost any kind of well-executed steam design can beat the pants off of today's gas cars, and that's the real competition. At the same time, friendly steam debate is essential for brainstorming and idea-generating purposes, so vive la Phorum, too.
Peter</HTML>
220VAC motors in 2 hp and up size are still huge. Can't remember now what size my washer & dryer motors are, but as I recall they are only fractional hp (3/4?) and having repaired the machines myself, I can attest that they are gigantic. Even the 1/3 horse motors on my lathes are monsters, considering their output. Admittedly, they are antiques.
400 hz components would be much more compact, but being supplied to a highly-regulated, cartel-dominated industry, I bet the price for this FAA certified stuff is as shocking as the current it uses. But maybe for a premium-grade steamer, like a modern equivalent of the Doble. Of course, "automotive grade", made for a more competitive market, is often nothing to write home about in the Q/C department.
On the other side of the coin, going virtually non-electric yet automatic involves a bunch of clockwork gizmos, as George noted about Dobles in the highly-mutated "Blue Flame Burners" string. Thanks for the interesting info on those, George; I'd never heard of some of these Doble details. My current system design is full of suchlike gizmos and gimcracks, however to date I think that they can still be kept both cheaper than their electric/electronic equivalents, and more reliable than the automotive-grade batteries and alternators which an electric system relies upon. That is, of course, merely a pre-building/running estimate. Plus they are more easily troubleshot, repaired and maintained by the typical roadside/home shop Doofus P. Dumbnut armed only with a box of wrenches and an "Idiot Book".
GB & The Mutator are right to bring up the safety advantages of minimizing electric stuff in a machine which has water, fuel, and low-resistance conductors all over the place. GB got me started on recent extensive web research into the planned 42v systems; one thing that turned up is that 42v was selected (instead of 48, 60, 110, etc) as it is about as high as you can safely go without excessive electrocution risk to service personnel of ordinary intelligence or less.
As George notes, this is largely a personal preference and design-specialization thing; some are more confident of their electric/electronic design skills, others (like me) are more confident of the mechanical stuff they can design. Vive la difference; let's get a bunch of all kinds of systems running -- electronic, electro-mechanical, all-mechanical, and perhaps even fluidic or "other" -- and see how they work. I bet almost any kind of well-executed steam design can beat the pants off of today's gas cars, and that's the real competition. At the same time, friendly steam debate is essential for brainstorming and idea-generating purposes, so vive la Phorum, too.
Peter</HTML>
Re: Driving pumps, generators, etc
Posted by: George Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: July 22, 2002 10:06AM
<HTML> The higher voltage stuff gives me the heebie-jeebies(an old jazz tune) as even 48 votvolts can be shocking. I agree that a 24 volt system may be ideal and so much 24 volt stuff is around that it would redue the size of the wiring harnesses and reduce current draw by 2. With Rod's 8GPH Lamont, with its small blower and very efficient Leece-Neville DC motor, the 6 amp circulating pump, ten amp auxilary feedwater pump plus a few other amperes would not strain a 12 volt deep discharge battery when drawing 30+ amperes for a minute or slightly more. 24 volt would be even better with less IR losses. Craig Standbridge has his Derr boilered Chevy S-10 conversion that draws 15+ amps for the blower and ignitor and has absolutely no problems with battery drawdown during cold startup of a few minutes. I am amazed at how small modern alternators are;his is very tiny and yet as soon as rolling down the road it plays "catchup" putting out 40+ amperes at a relatively low road speed. Beckett puts out a 12VDC burner that is rated at 6+gallons per hour and draws about 15 amperes when the 5 amp ignitor goes off after a few seconds, undoubtably the 6+GPH could be nudged up a bit with higher fuel pressure. Atomizing pressure nozzles have a flow rate increase=the square root of the change in fuel pressure, running at 120psi versus 100psi would increase the burn rate10%. I still think the auxilary turbine exhaust booster as in the Doble is ideal, for a few psi back pressure many horsepower can be gained to completely over ride the electrics and all auxilaries are driven mechanically by the exhaust turbine booster. Unfortunately this is for high pressure engines that would not be hampered by a few extra psi on the exhaust. The steam auxilary engine is always a steam hog as long cutoff is used for it to be reliably self starting, Doble complained about the amount of steam used by the later "F" steam auxilary water pump.
Congratulations to Peter Brow, his "blue flame burner" topic has surpassed the number of posts/activity of any subject ever to be on any of the topics on Woodson's site!! 40 was the highest and it is up to 44!!. May this topic do as well and it is great to have all the sharing of info and individual input from so many.
Best, George</HTML>
Congratulations to Peter Brow, his "blue flame burner" topic has surpassed the number of posts/activity of any subject ever to be on any of the topics on Woodson's site!! 40 was the highest and it is up to 44!!. May this topic do as well and it is great to have all the sharing of info and individual input from so many.
Best, George</HTML>
Re: Driving pumps, generators, etc
Posted by: Jim Crank (IP Logged)
Date: July 22, 2002 01:34PM
<HTML>Gentlemen,
This Blue Flame has really taken off in all directions!
Please do not even think of some 110/220 volt 400 cycle system. The safety aspects are too serious to make light of, and it is totally unnecessary.
When I was the senior test/development engineer at Lockheed for the flywheel bus project, we played with 550 volt, 2000 amp DC and 440 volt, 400 cycle AC systems. My lab had a special 600 volt, 2,000 amp per leg AC service run in, just so we could test the big DC traction motors at big overload ratings on our dyno. The bus system was 440 volt, 400 cycle variable frequency three phase AC.
I had a senior safety guy come in who was with the State and give my guys a lecture and a slide show on the results of resistance heating on the human body that I assure you had EVERY one of them barfing their lunch in the wastbaskets. I deliberately timed it for after lunch to make an impression on them. It did, we never had an accident.
This approach should not even be posted. You don't know what you are playing with.
A 24 volt DC blower motor and a small priming pump and the Lamont circulating pump are all that are required.
Do you know why Detroit is advocating 42 volt systems? It saves on big cables, and is CHEAPER than 12 volt with all the electrical contraptions the sales department puts into modern cars, that's why.
If you want to select a reasonable system that can be built, then do a complete energy balance table, with all the mechanical loads, belts, bearings, pumps, fans and whatnot. Then see what a separately steam driven auxiliary will do and compare that to what you would need from a mechanical drive system. Then make your decision, do the math first. A little triple expansion constant speed engine looks mighty good. Plus, until you have seen this approach and know what it can give you, think really hard about an independent auxiliary system. ALL the progressive steamcar builders eventually went this way, starting with Leon Serpollet in 1904.
Doble and Besler used it back in 1930-35.
Jim</HTML>
This Blue Flame has really taken off in all directions!
Please do not even think of some 110/220 volt 400 cycle system. The safety aspects are too serious to make light of, and it is totally unnecessary.
When I was the senior test/development engineer at Lockheed for the flywheel bus project, we played with 550 volt, 2000 amp DC and 440 volt, 400 cycle AC systems. My lab had a special 600 volt, 2,000 amp per leg AC service run in, just so we could test the big DC traction motors at big overload ratings on our dyno. The bus system was 440 volt, 400 cycle variable frequency three phase AC.
I had a senior safety guy come in who was with the State and give my guys a lecture and a slide show on the results of resistance heating on the human body that I assure you had EVERY one of them barfing their lunch in the wastbaskets. I deliberately timed it for after lunch to make an impression on them. It did, we never had an accident.
This approach should not even be posted. You don't know what you are playing with.
A 24 volt DC blower motor and a small priming pump and the Lamont circulating pump are all that are required.
Do you know why Detroit is advocating 42 volt systems? It saves on big cables, and is CHEAPER than 12 volt with all the electrical contraptions the sales department puts into modern cars, that's why.
If you want to select a reasonable system that can be built, then do a complete energy balance table, with all the mechanical loads, belts, bearings, pumps, fans and whatnot. Then see what a separately steam driven auxiliary will do and compare that to what you would need from a mechanical drive system. Then make your decision, do the math first. A little triple expansion constant speed engine looks mighty good. Plus, until you have seen this approach and know what it can give you, think really hard about an independent auxiliary system. ALL the progressive steamcar builders eventually went this way, starting with Leon Serpollet in 1904.
Doble and Besler used it back in 1930-35.
Jim</HTML>
Re: Driving pumps, generators, etc
Posted by: peter heid (IP Logged)
Date: July 22, 2002 01:37PM
<HTML>400Hz generators can be had quite cheaply from military surplus sources and, yes they are much smaller than their 60Hz counterparts but the devices one can find surplus to go with the 400Hz generator are few. To run a 400 Hz generator for charging a DC system makes no sense because modern automotive alternators can be run at any voltage from 6 to 130 with greater efficiency and reduced weight. The frequency of an automotive alternator varies with the RPMs but because most are 12 pole or more, they operate at frequencies higher than 400 when spinning along allowing very easy rectification. I am familiar with a Bosch car/motorcycle alternator that is a 50 amp unit about the size of a big grapefruit, reliable as a stone and available used.
George,
I thought I was the only one counting posts on a thread.
Peter Heid</HTML>
George,
I thought I was the only one counting posts on a thread.
Peter Heid</HTML>
Re: Driving pumps, generators, etc
Posted by: tom ward (IP Logged)
Date: July 22, 2002 11:01PM
<HTML>Your safety concerns are admirable especially considering you advocate driving around with a 500 to 1000 psi boiler. 220 volts is not that much considering some electric vehicles use 320 volt systems. The 400 volt aircraft systems use 3-phase induction motors, the most efficient motors yet invented. Also the lightest. Induction motors do not use the commutators found in the series wound AC-DC motors used in home appliances. The framing around the brushes is sturdy, cheap steel while the armature and rotor use heavy iron cores. The difference between the two types of motors is like the difference between locomotives and turboshaft aircraft engines. Same output,much different weight and size.
As for the heat losses of smaller steam motors, why not pack fiberglass around it like what is done with race car turbochargers?</HTML>
As for the heat losses of smaller steam motors, why not pack fiberglass around it like what is done with race car turbochargers?</HTML>
Re: Driving pumps, generators, etc
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: July 23, 2002 07:32AM
<HTML>George:
Hey, I can't take any credit/blame for long strings; I just start 'em, and you guys take off with it. My posts are only a few percent of the "problem". :) Sure is fun!
Tom:
Safety is key, and yes, 500-1000 psi superheated steam (1200 for Jim) is dangerous, no doubt about it, and don't forget high pressure fuel in some systems (including today's fuel-injected gas cars). In my designs, I don't like adding yet another source of danger. The main thing I don't like about higher voltage/hz, though, is the cost, which is why I look at things like appliance motors (or pref. 12v). But this only applies to my designs, not anybody else's. No advice, just some thoughts.
Liability Disclaimers:
I'm not advising anybody on anything. I might _suggest_ something as a possible option or consideration to investigate or discuss. All steam guys "pays their money and takes their chances". I always hope that whatever is tried will work superbly and not injure anybody. Best of luck to everyone, with anything you decide to build. Every steam success story is good for the whole hobby, not to mention downright fun.
Your results may vary, offer void where prohibited by law, do not tease Happy Fun Ball, side effects include nausea, coma, catarrh, loosie goosies, and heebie jeebies, batteries not included, ask your doctor, kids don't try this at home, and so on.
But seriously folks: safety first, last, and always. And caveat emptor. Always have charged/tested CO2 fire extinguishers handy, and use safety goggles, ear protectors (headphone type), and foundry gloves. Blankets of ceramic fiber for burner tests, hydrotest for pressure, and kinetic barriers for mechanical tests (e=mc squared). Most important, know what you're doing inside and out, work your way up to high energy states (better to blow up at low speed/pressure than high), and pay attention to _everything_ which is going on. Word to the newbies. The Safety Nut has left the building.
Peter H.:
Surplus is the way to go for fantastic advanced equipment at scrap prices or less. You wouldn't believe some of the surplus deals I've seen; get on the DoD surplus mailing list if you can. Great approach for individual one-off projects. I am designing with possible future blueprint sales or production in mind (a long way off if ever), and want supply deals which are easily repeatable. Unfortunately, this limits my options to lesser equipment in lots of ways.
I forgot what else I was going to comment on, so will post this, reread new posts, and do another "multi-post".
Peter B.</HTML>
Hey, I can't take any credit/blame for long strings; I just start 'em, and you guys take off with it. My posts are only a few percent of the "problem". :) Sure is fun!
Tom:
Safety is key, and yes, 500-1000 psi superheated steam (1200 for Jim) is dangerous, no doubt about it, and don't forget high pressure fuel in some systems (including today's fuel-injected gas cars). In my designs, I don't like adding yet another source of danger. The main thing I don't like about higher voltage/hz, though, is the cost, which is why I look at things like appliance motors (or pref. 12v). But this only applies to my designs, not anybody else's. No advice, just some thoughts.
Liability Disclaimers:
I'm not advising anybody on anything. I might _suggest_ something as a possible option or consideration to investigate or discuss. All steam guys "pays their money and takes their chances". I always hope that whatever is tried will work superbly and not injure anybody. Best of luck to everyone, with anything you decide to build. Every steam success story is good for the whole hobby, not to mention downright fun.
Your results may vary, offer void where prohibited by law, do not tease Happy Fun Ball, side effects include nausea, coma, catarrh, loosie goosies, and heebie jeebies, batteries not included, ask your doctor, kids don't try this at home, and so on.
But seriously folks: safety first, last, and always. And caveat emptor. Always have charged/tested CO2 fire extinguishers handy, and use safety goggles, ear protectors (headphone type), and foundry gloves. Blankets of ceramic fiber for burner tests, hydrotest for pressure, and kinetic barriers for mechanical tests (e=mc squared). Most important, know what you're doing inside and out, work your way up to high energy states (better to blow up at low speed/pressure than high), and pay attention to _everything_ which is going on. Word to the newbies. The Safety Nut has left the building.
Peter H.:
Surplus is the way to go for fantastic advanced equipment at scrap prices or less. You wouldn't believe some of the surplus deals I've seen; get on the DoD surplus mailing list if you can. Great approach for individual one-off projects. I am designing with possible future blueprint sales or production in mind (a long way off if ever), and want supply deals which are easily repeatable. Unfortunately, this limits my options to lesser equipment in lots of ways.
I forgot what else I was going to comment on, so will post this, reread new posts, and do another "multi-post".
Peter B.</HTML>
Re: Driving pumps, generators, etc
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: July 23, 2002 09:24AM
<HTML>George:
Of course an auxiliary drive engine could be set up to start at long cutoff, and then switch to short cutoff once it gets going. It is mainly the higher "wiping losses" I wonder about in a small engine. Ted Pritchard mentions this on his site: the internal steamed surfaces cooling the incoming steam and heating the exhaust steam, raising steam rate/reducing efficiency.
I have called this effect "thermal capacitance" in other steam forums. Smaller engines have more of this, due to increased internal surface-to-volume ratios. Higher rpms can reduce it somewhat by reducing steam/metal exposure times (though increasing convection). Internal surface insulation may also reduce it. Higher expansion ratio can increase it by increasing the temperature differential between beginning and end of stroke. (Thus negating the advantage of more expansion in some designs, which was Ted's point). Compounds reduce it by using less expansion in each individual cylinder. Figuring it out involves balancing all these factors for an individual engine. In reality, the only way to really figure it out is to build and test an engine, or find one already built/tested. You know all this, just a note for newbies.
Jim:
Agree, a full energy balance calculation must be done for both auxiliary-engine systems and systems with auxiliary drive from main engine. First we need water rate figures for engines of suitable size/design for auxiliary drive. I don't know of any, so I am stuck.
Generally though, the water rates I have seen for smaller engines are higher than for (order of magnitude) larger engines. Whether the difference is high enough to tip the comparison against the auxiliary engine, I don't know. May depend on system hp.. More likely to pay in a high-output (eg 200 hp) system than in a low-output system (say 40 hp), and then maybe only at full system output.
In a good design, the auxiliaries should take less than 10% of the main engine hp.. So even if the aux engine ran for free, that's only a 10% max increase in system power or efficiency. 5% improvement if the aux engine took 1/2 the steam of the main-engine-driven auxiliaries, and so on. The actual improvement, if any, may be only a few percent, for some rather pricey extra equipment.
Peter B.</HTML>
Of course an auxiliary drive engine could be set up to start at long cutoff, and then switch to short cutoff once it gets going. It is mainly the higher "wiping losses" I wonder about in a small engine. Ted Pritchard mentions this on his site: the internal steamed surfaces cooling the incoming steam and heating the exhaust steam, raising steam rate/reducing efficiency.
I have called this effect "thermal capacitance" in other steam forums. Smaller engines have more of this, due to increased internal surface-to-volume ratios. Higher rpms can reduce it somewhat by reducing steam/metal exposure times (though increasing convection). Internal surface insulation may also reduce it. Higher expansion ratio can increase it by increasing the temperature differential between beginning and end of stroke. (Thus negating the advantage of more expansion in some designs, which was Ted's point). Compounds reduce it by using less expansion in each individual cylinder. Figuring it out involves balancing all these factors for an individual engine. In reality, the only way to really figure it out is to build and test an engine, or find one already built/tested. You know all this, just a note for newbies.
Jim:
Agree, a full energy balance calculation must be done for both auxiliary-engine systems and systems with auxiliary drive from main engine. First we need water rate figures for engines of suitable size/design for auxiliary drive. I don't know of any, so I am stuck.
Generally though, the water rates I have seen for smaller engines are higher than for (order of magnitude) larger engines. Whether the difference is high enough to tip the comparison against the auxiliary engine, I don't know. May depend on system hp.. More likely to pay in a high-output (eg 200 hp) system than in a low-output system (say 40 hp), and then maybe only at full system output.
In a good design, the auxiliaries should take less than 10% of the main engine hp.. So even if the aux engine ran for free, that's only a 10% max increase in system power or efficiency. 5% improvement if the aux engine took 1/2 the steam of the main-engine-driven auxiliaries, and so on. The actual improvement, if any, may be only a few percent, for some rather pricey extra equipment.
Peter B.</HTML>
Re: Driving pumps, generators, etc
Posted by: George Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: July 23, 2002 10:28AM
<HTML>Tom,
500-1000 or even 1200 psi is rather low in this day and age of high pressure powerplants. Considering that tube stress fator of safeties can easily be 10-15/1 there is not much danger if well designed. As far as high voltage in a automobile when running along and breaking down in a rain storm I am much more afraid of that than even a 2000psi boiler. Thank Nikola Tesla for the AC rotating field motors and all modern high voltage AC power; wear 4" cork soled shoes(as he did at times) when in such wet driving conditions ;0).
Best, George</HTML>
500-1000 or even 1200 psi is rather low in this day and age of high pressure powerplants. Considering that tube stress fator of safeties can easily be 10-15/1 there is not much danger if well designed. As far as high voltage in a automobile when running along and breaking down in a rain storm I am much more afraid of that than even a 2000psi boiler. Thank Nikola Tesla for the AC rotating field motors and all modern high voltage AC power; wear 4" cork soled shoes(as he did at times) when in such wet driving conditions ;0).
Best, George</HTML>
Re: Driving pumps, generators, etc
Posted by: Rolly Evans (IP Logged)
Date: July 23, 2002 11:18AM
<HTML>Peter / George
On a Lamont type boiler, in lieu of turning feed water on and off, why not control it with a variable speed electric pump. Let the steam output Volume/temp control the pump speed/volume as well as variable burner speed/volume. The demand would do all the control not by turning things off and on but by variable speed control. The burner and feed can modulate to the output keeping pressure and temperature constant to the demand volume.</HTML>
On a Lamont type boiler, in lieu of turning feed water on and off, why not control it with a variable speed electric pump. Let the steam output Volume/temp control the pump speed/volume as well as variable burner speed/volume. The demand would do all the control not by turning things off and on but by variable speed control. The burner and feed can modulate to the output keeping pressure and temperature constant to the demand volume.</HTML>
Re: Driving pumps, generators, etc
Posted by: George Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: July 23, 2002 01:22PM
<HTML>Rolly, Unfortunately on a bigger high pressure boiler(1000#/hr and 1000psi) the main feedwater pump, if electrically driven could require 1.5-2 horsepower= 1.5-2Killowatts and what an electrical load that would be!! I do agree that a variable speed mechanically driven pump would be great, it could be hitched to a variable speed transmission. Think Rod and I will stick with the 3 ampere electric clutch off the motor, it is somewhat of a variable speed pump but doesn't consider cutoff changes/total steam requirements.
Best, George</HTML>
Best, George</HTML>
Re: Driving pumps, generators, etc
Posted by: Jim Crank (IP Logged)
Date: July 23, 2002 01:25PM
<HTML>Peter,
It's not just the slight gain in efficiency. It is the ability to keep water going into a monotube steam generator when you are crawling in traffic up a hill.
My Doble will simply go dry and then with no pressure it is a 6,000 pound brick in the middle of the road. Just try to motor the auxiliary unit with the generator for any period of time and an original Doble wll flatten the battery.
When I restored E-23 I put in four 850 amp hour 12 volt batteries, I have been stuck more than once in a dead Doble. Yes it is fused on both legs.
That is why electric auxiliaries are no good and why steam driven seem to be the answer. Until you live with this problem in city traffic, you don't know what it does. Speculating is one thing, real life is another.
Why not just run the auxiliaries with a small gas engine, as some advise?
Small steam engines have high radiation and leak losses; but you can overcome lots of this. When it has been done properly, it works.
Jim</HTML>
It's not just the slight gain in efficiency. It is the ability to keep water going into a monotube steam generator when you are crawling in traffic up a hill.
My Doble will simply go dry and then with no pressure it is a 6,000 pound brick in the middle of the road. Just try to motor the auxiliary unit with the generator for any period of time and an original Doble wll flatten the battery.
When I restored E-23 I put in four 850 amp hour 12 volt batteries, I have been stuck more than once in a dead Doble. Yes it is fused on both legs.
That is why electric auxiliaries are no good and why steam driven seem to be the answer. Until you live with this problem in city traffic, you don't know what it does. Speculating is one thing, real life is another.
Why not just run the auxiliaries with a small gas engine, as some advise?
Small steam engines have high radiation and leak losses; but you can overcome lots of this. When it has been done properly, it works.
Jim</HTML>
Re: Driving pumps, generators, etc
Posted by: Jim Crank (IP Logged)
Date: July 23, 2002 01:31PM
<HTML>George-Rolly,
In a steam car like the Besler Chevy conversion, the pump and all the belts that ran it absorbed 4 HP. I know, I ran the tests.
Since the Lamont will be very happy with an on/off water supply, why add needless complication with electric drives and other contraptions?
If we ever have a steam meet in the Bay Area again, you guys ought to come out for it and I will show you how fast you can get in trouble with a monotube and the wrong control system.
Jim</HTML>
In a steam car like the Besler Chevy conversion, the pump and all the belts that ran it absorbed 4 HP. I know, I ran the tests.
Since the Lamont will be very happy with an on/off water supply, why add needless complication with electric drives and other contraptions?
If we ever have a steam meet in the Bay Area again, you guys ought to come out for it and I will show you how fast you can get in trouble with a monotube and the wrong control system.
Jim</HTML>
Re: Driving pumps, generators, etc
Posted by: Terry Williams (IP Logged)
Date: July 23, 2002 02:07PM
<HTML>"Why not just run the auxiliaries with a small gas engine, as some advise?"
Yuba tractor?</HTML>
Yuba tractor?</HTML>
Re: Driving pumps, generators, etc
Posted by: Rolly Evans (IP Logged)
Date: July 23, 2002 03:06PM
<HTML>Jim City traffic.
Another good reason for a clutch.</HTML>
Another good reason for a clutch.</HTML>
Re: Driving pumps, generators, etc
Posted by: Dick Vennerbeck (IP Logged)
Date: July 23, 2002 03:15PM
<HTML>Here's another 2 cents worth. My pressure atomizing burner in my 1902 Locomobile powered Curved Dash Olds is a 12 volt converted commercial home heating burner. I runs nicely off of a 12V Costco Deep cycle battery. I make up some of the loss with a beautiful little alternator about the size of your fist. They are used on the smaller Kubota diesel tractors and put out about 20 amps at 500 rpm or less. They are built inside out. That is the armature rotates around the stator. Pricy, but can be found used/rebuilt.</HTML>
Re: Driving pumps, generators, etc
Posted by: Rolly Evans (IP Logged)
Date: July 23, 2002 04:22PM
<HTML>Power requirements don’t change very much for auxiliaries weather mechanical or electrical. The fuel going in the tank still has to do the job with or without and auxiliary engine. It’s a lot easier to wire up electrical motors then rig mechanical linkage gears & sprockets. Electrical controls on or off or variable are more reliable. With a variable burner & feed pump controlled by volume/temperature output, as you slowdown in traffic your fuel gal, water gal, per hour would slow down to match your demand. Unlike a Doble, with a Lamont, your always going to have a flooded combustion coil chamber. You also have some reserve capacity to absorb latent heat. And your super heater is not prone to over temperature. With a clutch or torque converter the engine can stay running, but I don’t think it would be necessary. I just like the idea on a prototype vehicle. If you were stopped for very long the Lamont pump could shut down. No electrical drain. The coil is still flooded. The pump would start instantly with burner on command. (opening the throttle).</HTML>
Re: Driving pumps, generators, etc
Posted by: tom ward (IP Logged)
Date: July 23, 2002 05:22PM
<HTML>Variable speed control is simpler with AC. All you need is a silicon controlled rectifier, resistor, and a potentiometer. Nearly every power drill has one, they are cheap and reliable. DC controllers use more expensive pulse width modulators.</HTML>
Re: Driving pumps, generators, etc
Posted by: peter heid (IP Logged)
Date: July 23, 2002 06:22PM
<HTML>Tom,
AC power control is cheaper to implement unless you are trying to get the most efficiency. When you look at industrial motors and their controllers, 90 volt DC is very comon for that reason. Polyphase AC power has better motor control capabilities than single phase but control is more expensive than for DC motors. Also 3 phase motors generate twice as much torque starting than when running compaired to single phase motors.
Rolly,
I like the on / off type of burner control, in my mind, it makes the most sense especially if the boiler has any reserve capacity like the Lamont. I like a specific size fire box for a specific size fire. But as you say, electronic controls, with super fast reaction times, would be great for varying the output. Best part is those same controls can turn it on and off reliably also.
Love the Phorum
Peter Heid</HTML>
AC power control is cheaper to implement unless you are trying to get the most efficiency. When you look at industrial motors and their controllers, 90 volt DC is very comon for that reason. Polyphase AC power has better motor control capabilities than single phase but control is more expensive than for DC motors. Also 3 phase motors generate twice as much torque starting than when running compaired to single phase motors.
Rolly,
I like the on / off type of burner control, in my mind, it makes the most sense especially if the boiler has any reserve capacity like the Lamont. I like a specific size fire box for a specific size fire. But as you say, electronic controls, with super fast reaction times, would be great for varying the output. Best part is those same controls can turn it on and off reliably also.
Love the Phorum
Peter Heid</HTML>
Re: Driving pumps, generators, etc
Posted by: George Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: July 23, 2002 08:28PM
<HTML>Rolly,
The power requirements may be the same, mechanically or electrically driven, but the main water pressure pump running off the engine does not require the weight of a 2+ horsepower electric motor with mucho starting torque, the powerplant weight goes up. As you mention the Lamont has reserve water capacity whereas the Doble monotube very little, the problems with the pure monotube boiler are much greater than the Lamont. The reason I keep bringing up a small auxillary .1- .2 horsepower motor that can drive the main pump for starting and usable during the severe problems in traffic is that it adds so little weight and electrical power requirements to the system, we may be talking the addition of a 5# electric motor @ 10-20 amperes. A Doble or other steam car does not need a 1000 pound per hour pump for starting or stuck in traffic, it needs 100-200/hr to "dribble" it in.
Good news is that #@*#* OMEGA temperature control unit is now programmed and working beautifully, both relays and three color display working perfectly---it draws .1 amperes. Will bring to the next SACA/NE meet. It could also be used for a two step normaliser control, put a big superheater in a Stanley and have it control two water injectors into the superheater, like at 700 and 750 degrees F. In this case the display color could be amber below 700, green from 700-750, red above 750. No longer suffer from the crappy Stanley superheater that can run from 500-800 degrees. Much faster than the Doble system also. Wonder how long its computer chip retains the 100 settings in its memory without any power?? As Schultz said on "Hogans Heros", I know nooothing! (about computer chips).
Best, George</HTML>
The power requirements may be the same, mechanically or electrically driven, but the main water pressure pump running off the engine does not require the weight of a 2+ horsepower electric motor with mucho starting torque, the powerplant weight goes up. As you mention the Lamont has reserve water capacity whereas the Doble monotube very little, the problems with the pure monotube boiler are much greater than the Lamont. The reason I keep bringing up a small auxillary .1- .2 horsepower motor that can drive the main pump for starting and usable during the severe problems in traffic is that it adds so little weight and electrical power requirements to the system, we may be talking the addition of a 5# electric motor @ 10-20 amperes. A Doble or other steam car does not need a 1000 pound per hour pump for starting or stuck in traffic, it needs 100-200/hr to "dribble" it in.
Good news is that #@*#* OMEGA temperature control unit is now programmed and working beautifully, both relays and three color display working perfectly---it draws .1 amperes. Will bring to the next SACA/NE meet. It could also be used for a two step normaliser control, put a big superheater in a Stanley and have it control two water injectors into the superheater, like at 700 and 750 degrees F. In this case the display color could be amber below 700, green from 700-750, red above 750. No longer suffer from the crappy Stanley superheater that can run from 500-800 degrees. Much faster than the Doble system also. Wonder how long its computer chip retains the 100 settings in its memory without any power?? As Schultz said on "Hogans Heros", I know nooothing! (about computer chips).
Best, George</HTML>
Re: Driving pumps, generators, etc
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: July 24, 2002 07:22AM
<HTML>Jim and George:
Either the auxiliary drive engine or the electric "dribble pump" would solve the problem of running out of water in extended slow traffic. I'd prefer the 10A dribble pump to designing/building a separate engine or installing a small gas engine.
I currently plan to try a different approach. Want to see if/how it works. Engine-driven pump moves enough water per engine revolution to replace all the steam used by the engine per revolution, when engine is at boiler pressure and longest cutoff (conditions never encountered on the road). Large excess pumping capacity to deal with leaks, warmup, etc.. Light poppet valves with recessed o-rings in seats, designed to (hopefully) lift/seal well at negligible plunger/liquid velocity.
The pump is big and (by my standards anyway) so is the hp waste at light load with a bypass control. It is also proving to be a challenge to build. Most of the hp put into the pump turns into water heat via fluid friction thru the bypass valve. Any time the boiler is taking water, the pump is working against full boiler pressure (more, actually).
Main-engine pump drive automatically does part of the water control job.
I invented/designed/studied several variable-displacement pumps to eliminate this waste, but they were a pain to design and build. Nicest one used a Stephenson link to drive a pump plunger.
I can't find my notebook with the calcs, but as I recall I calculated typical waste at cruising load with this system (assuming it works out) on the order of 5% of developed engine hp.. More at lower load/speed, less at higher. Certainly far less than those confounded belts on the Clean Air Era cars Jim mentioned. Even declutched, a typical automotive belt drive wastes a hefty fraction of a hp; don't recall the figure now. 4 hp belt waste sounds right for a whole multi-belt system. In a typical car, that's 50% or more of total developed hp at low vehicle speeds. No belts anywhere in my designs.
Peter B.</HTML>
Either the auxiliary drive engine or the electric "dribble pump" would solve the problem of running out of water in extended slow traffic. I'd prefer the 10A dribble pump to designing/building a separate engine or installing a small gas engine.
I currently plan to try a different approach. Want to see if/how it works. Engine-driven pump moves enough water per engine revolution to replace all the steam used by the engine per revolution, when engine is at boiler pressure and longest cutoff (conditions never encountered on the road). Large excess pumping capacity to deal with leaks, warmup, etc.. Light poppet valves with recessed o-rings in seats, designed to (hopefully) lift/seal well at negligible plunger/liquid velocity.
The pump is big and (by my standards anyway) so is the hp waste at light load with a bypass control. It is also proving to be a challenge to build. Most of the hp put into the pump turns into water heat via fluid friction thru the bypass valve. Any time the boiler is taking water, the pump is working against full boiler pressure (more, actually).
Main-engine pump drive automatically does part of the water control job.
I invented/designed/studied several variable-displacement pumps to eliminate this waste, but they were a pain to design and build. Nicest one used a Stephenson link to drive a pump plunger.
I can't find my notebook with the calcs, but as I recall I calculated typical waste at cruising load with this system (assuming it works out) on the order of 5% of developed engine hp.. More at lower load/speed, less at higher. Certainly far less than those confounded belts on the Clean Air Era cars Jim mentioned. Even declutched, a typical automotive belt drive wastes a hefty fraction of a hp; don't recall the figure now. 4 hp belt waste sounds right for a whole multi-belt system. In a typical car, that's 50% or more of total developed hp at low vehicle speeds. No belts anywhere in my designs.
Peter B.</HTML>
Re: Driving pumps, generators, etc
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: July 24, 2002 07:47AM
<HTML>Erratum:
My previous post said belt waste in Clean Air Era cars was 4 hp.. Just reread Jim's post, and that was waste plus useful pump work at unstated output. Probably not full time. Sometimes I just don't get it. Never mind my belt comments.
Belts are more wasteful than spur gears and some other auxiliary drive options, though.
Peter B.</HTML>
My previous post said belt waste in Clean Air Era cars was 4 hp.. Just reread Jim's post, and that was waste plus useful pump work at unstated output. Probably not full time. Sometimes I just don't get it. Never mind my belt comments.
Belts are more wasteful than spur gears and some other auxiliary drive options, though.
Peter B.</HTML>
Re: Driving pumps, generators, etc
Posted by: peter heid (IP Logged)
Date: July 24, 2002 12:44PM
<HTML>George,
Some microcontrollers are available with flash memory which allows program retention for more than 40 years with no power applied and reprogramability for at least 1000 times. The memory is built into the microcontroller and there are one time programable (OTP) chips for less money to use in imbedded applications.
Peter Heid</HTML>
Some microcontrollers are available with flash memory which allows program retention for more than 40 years with no power applied and reprogramability for at least 1000 times. The memory is built into the microcontroller and there are one time programable (OTP) chips for less money to use in imbedded applications.
Peter Heid</HTML>
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.