I recall a Stanley Dealers Bulletin mentioning the omission of a seal around the stuffing boxes, essentially a piece of sheet metal (aluminum?) which enclosed the volume between cylinders and crankcase containing the stuffing boxes. As I recall, this was eliminated due to the buildup of water from condensed stuffing box leakage infiltrating into the crankcase. I have seen illustrations of engines sporting this enclosure, looking like a continuous oval tube between axle and engine hanger strap.

My question is, does anybody still use this enclosure around the stuffing boxes -- I think this was in pre-Model-740 engines, EG 700 series engines, condensing era, pre-740? So, 725, 735, etc?

If so, how well-sealed is this enclosure? Is it vented? How much condensate from valve stem & piston rod stuffing box leakage does it trap and/or leak to the crankcase? Seems like the clearance (~0.010" in 740s) in valve stem jaw guides would pass some leaked steam into crankcase, barring capacious factory vents.

Factory-recommended maintenance, as I recall, calls for periodic draining of water from the crankcase. How often, and (roughly) how much water comes out per draining?

I realize that there are complicating factors, perhaps venting, but mainly normal oil leakage out the crankcase oil seals -- not necessarily a bad thing in areas with dusty dirt roads -- which also carries out any condensate. The expression "total loss lubrication" comes to mind. As does the variation in stuffing box tightening, the fine art of balancing steam leakage against friction.

This also may be something of a controversial issue, as the Stanley Dealer's Bulletin in my set, purchased from the Stanley Museum many years ago, bears a pithy handwritten comment on the announcement of the omission of the stuffing box enclosure: "This was a mistake". It does seem that this enclosure would protect the exposed oily rods from road grit, which would otherwise be carried into the stuffing boxes, and catch any oil drips, albeit also condensing & trapping steam leakage from the stuffing boxes.

Peter



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/23/2008 12:57PM by Peter Brow.

Dear Peter, Total loss lubrication doesn't necessarily mean that the cylinder lubrication will all be lost through the stuffing boxes. That is why it is so important that the surface blow down valve is to be used on the condensing cars. Over 90 percent of the cylinder lubrication on condensing cars is returned to the water tank to be floated off the top during the next water filling, or to be eliminated from the boiler with the surface blow down valve. I have found that after sitting over night, that less than a teaspoon of cylinder oil will be left on the ground directly under the stuffing boxes. Going down the road under steam, it would be very hard to calculate just how much oil gets by the stuffing boxes. The stuffing box dust cover is vented, has no gaskets, and I have never see one hold back any water and oil. I have used the dust cover for years on a few of our Stanleys but I have only found them to be a nuisance of being in the way when it is time to take up on the stuffing boxes. I usually run with out the stuffing box dust cover on my Stanleys. For car shows, I will put the cover on for a completed look. The stuffing box cover was usually made out of copper. If copper wasn't used, then a tin cover was used that was blued like the bluing on a stove pipe. During the old days of gravel roads and dusty conditions, the stuffing box covers were very much needed. Nowadays I very seldom verture off of the asphalt highways. I drop the crankcase engine cover to do my annual inspection and I have yet to find any water in the crankcase oil. I suspect that is because that the engine runs so hot that what water would get into the crankcase oil would be evaporated out. When I take our Stanleys out, very seldom do I run them any less than 50 miles at a time. That is way more than enough time for everything to get plenty hot enough to evaporate any water accumulation out of the crank case oil. The art of stuffing box adjustment is very important. The proper piston rod packing is just as important as to how often and how tight to tighten the stuffing boxes. The first thing that I do to any Stanley that I buy is to hard chrome the piston rods if they need it. That way, with a smooth surface for the packing to seat on, I can usually drive for about up to about 4 days ((450 miles) with out even putting a wrench to the stuffing boxes. On pitted piston rods, I have seen when the operator has had to retighten the stuffing boxes about every twenty miles or less to keep from blowing out the piston rod packing. As soon as the driver hears the stuffing boxes blowing steam by, the stuffing boxes should be immediately properly retightened. When the packing gets loose enough to start leaking, the packing seems to get completely blown out with in about 5 miles. To replace all of the packing in a piston rod stuffing box while parked along the side of the road is a pain in the butt. The earlier pre 1910 engines that had a common crankcase and stuffing box chamber, were hand oiled every 50 miles. No water accumulated in those as they were not tight enough to hold water. The crankcase dust cover had doors to hand oil through. I have seen in the 1909 type U engine, that was the first wet engine, where condinsate in the crankcase oil was a problem and the water had to be drained off daily. A hand drain valve on the the rear engine case cover was installed just for this reason, to drain off water.

Hi Pat,

Thanks, fascinating info. No water in the crankcase!

By total loss, I was thinking of crankcase leaks carrying out condensate. But it makes sense that heat coming down the frame rods would boil out any water that got in. Are Stanley crankcases oil-tight, or are leaks par for the course?

I looked up that Stanley Dealer's Bulletin. It was #211, dated 6-12-1922. Basically mentions the stuffing box case impeding service access, which discouraged adjustment and thereby led to bad leaks. #193 (11-7-1921) has interesting info on the metallic packing, including a claim [caveat emptor!] that after 500-700 miles of break-in & one adjustment, "little if any attention" was needed with that no-longer-available packing & the stock plain steel piston & valve rods.

Peter

Dear Peter, Most all Stanleys that I have seen operating always leave a few drips of crankcase oil where ever they park. A few operators have managed to completly stop their leaks like Norm Shanklin has done with his model 85. Non condensing Stanleys should always leave an oil spot under their exhaust pipe. If they do not, they are not getting enough cylinder lubrication and engine damage is in their near future. Our 1914 Stanley 606 roadster is oil tight while parked except for the exhaust spot that looks like a square outline. Our 606 is a sweet car that gives us pleasure everytime that we drive it. The metalic packing does work, but it is hard on the piston rods for wear. It is great stuff to use on pitted or poor piston rods. Art Hart sells a modern packing that we use and it is fantastic in the service that it gives us. When the Stanleys were built, the highway speed were about 25 miles an hour. At those speeds, the packing needed very little adjustment. Nowadays with highway speeds of 50 mph or more, the stuffing boxes take a beating and they need a lot more attention. The Stanley dealer Bulletins is a valuable resource of Stanley information and every Stanley should own a copy. For those that don't have one yet, they are available from the "Stanley Museum".

Peter,

I wonder if you have considered a labyrinth seal for the piston rod. I know that Doble used one on one of his engines, can't remember which(or was it one of his "thought" engines). It was supposed to work rather well, if that is, it is made perfectly. It also doubled in duty as a support for the piston, keeping it mostly off of the cylinder wall. If one were to pump oil into the crank end of the labyrinth seal that should push the water/condensate back into the cylinder and keep the rod/seal well lubricated, then one would only have to capture the oil leaving from the crank end of the seal(grin).

Pat,

Have you heard of anyone making and installing a labyrinth seal for a Stanley engines piston rods? I don't know if there is enough room to fit one of adequate length to give a proper seal or not.

Caleb Ramsby

Dear Caleb, Many people through the years have tried to make improvements to the Stanley engine, and they probably have tried a labyrinth seal too. That I do not know. There are a few improvements that have made the Stanley engine better and many more that have not. The features that made the Stanley engines last so long and to be so successful is that of their simplicity. Nowadays a much better Stanley engine can be built. Up grades to the Stanley engine should include hard chromed piston rods, condensing type cross heads and the floating wrist pins, modern main and rod bearings, and finally: pistons locked in place with a cotter pin as a lock, instead of having the piston rod peaned over the piston. These few improvements are what I do on my Stanley rebuilds. Have I forgot anything? Some people have installed engine stiffeners to reduce engine flex. I never have had a problem resulting from the Stanley engine twist and flex so I have left that issue alone. Let her twist and flex. Piston valves are a great improvment, but where do you stop with your improvements? David Nergaard has done most of these improvements. The most novel is his right axle half shaft disconnect. It gives him a neutral so that he can idle his engine at a stand still when needed. Like when he is preheating his engine with steam in the morning, or he wants to pump water into his boiler using his engine when he is standing still.

Hi Pat,

740-style "shaved piston" crossheads look very good, compensating for frame flex in a curious way, like a universal joint. I plan to try these with Babbitt lining for the semi-cylindrical crosshead slides, which in my engine design have much larger bearing area than an equivalent Stanley. 4140 "stressproof" frame rods are another good flex-handling feature. You probably know about Mike Clark's stressproof-alloy frame rods on his H5 engine; they look even better in person than in pictures, and combined with other features & details too numerous to mention, his very authentic car runs brilliantly. He also has a handy and foolproof system of compact drip-catching pans for wherever he parks, amazing that he found room on an H5 to stow them!

Straight wrist pins and modern bearings are good ideas, and I have heard nothing but good about properly-chromed rods and Monel rods. Personally I plan to lock the pistons to their rods, as rods screw into the crossheads with locknuts and can be removed at that end. For integral crossheads and other designs, I like your cotter pin setup.

My engine design, now extremely close to final blueprints and shop, isn't "exactly" a Stanley, except for general layout, dimensions, and steam parameters, but it follows the proven features of the Stanley design close enough that I think/hope it will give good results on the road. I have based it on the Herb Schick Model 740 Stanley blueprint set, though I have scaled it down to 4" stroke and have also made many changes for improved durability, use of off-the-shelf components and modern materials, and the simplest fabrication possible. Most of my design work the past year or so has been _removing_ various gizmos & features, lots of them, which I once thought would be desireable or needed. Getting really serious about _exactly_ how to build things -- and about what really works & doesn't work in steam cars -- has led to all sorts of changes relative to my initial plans.

The design is now greatly simplified. For one example, thanks to your report I just eliminated a long-planned device to remove water from the crankcase. "Ingenious but fortunately superfluous". Previously I had assumed that Stanleys (and any engines closely patterned after them) had the same crankcase-water trouble as Whites and Dobles.

Hi Caleb,

Can't say as I have considered genuine labyrinth seals for piston or valve rods. I have seen illustrations/descriptions of the Doble seals you mention, and as I recall(?), those were a sort of segmented external-contracting solid metal seal-block system. I looked into something like that some years ago. I will take another look at it. Does anyone reading this have any info about these kinds of rod-seal boxes? Were they ever used successfully in steam car engines?

Soft stuffing box packing looks easier to work with. Just cut rings and stack them in stuffing box with gaps 180° apart. Should give less wear on the rods than a solid metal seal, too. I have a reel of "Garlock 98" equivalent made by Palmetto Packings, a pure graphite rope packing, extremely high temperature/pressure ratings, soft, noncorrosive, and should "graphite-plate" rods. I plan to try this in my engine. I have heard good things about this type of packing in steam use. So far, I've only used it for repacking antique water valve stems in my house. Its temperature and pressure ratings are kind of overkill for that app.. LOL

BTW, you mentioned a multi-port short-travel slide valve idea long ago, which I just found info on. See pages 40-43 of "Valve Gears", available from Lindsay Books. It is called the McIntosh & Seymour "gridiron valve". Apparently successfully used sometime prior to 1906. The version illustrated has separate inlet & exhaust slide valves, at top & bottom of cylinder respectively.

Peter

Pat,

Thanks for the great information, very usefull. For the cotter pin on the piston, how much do you make the piston rod jut out of the piston? Do you need to gouge out the cylinder head to make room?

As long as you are expounding your experince, what do you suggest for cylinder/steam chest drainage? A valve at each cylinder end, just at the steam chest or something completely different, Ben mentioned that Stanley used a port from the end of each cylinder(through steam passage?) through the wall back to the steam chest with a small ball check valve to relieve water/condensation, lightly spring loaded. I have read however that the condensate doesn't gently leave such a contrivence like one would hope, it just smashes things.

Peter,

I think you are right on the Doble labyrinth seal system. I can't remember for the life of me what engine it was on, saw drawings big long labyrinth cast iron I believe. Jim mentioned them once too, can't find his post about it with the search here or at the SACA site.

As to your engines rod seals, I would suggest to stick with what works, it works.

As to the gridiron valves, they are in the old ICS books, I think that is where the Linsay books come from(don't have the Linsey). Also in another series of 190?'s engineering books I have(in boxs in storage can't remember author, the earlier one book better than the later three). That gridiron valve had a riding cutoff for the intake, still think it would be good(great) for a stationary high compression uniflow esp if SA, way to simple to machine valve "plates" could make the ports very smooth with low clearence, friction issue if low re-compression mabey, Stanley slide worked great, as long as it worked great.

Keep your fire high and you water low, or vica versa

Caleb Ramsby

With the outside piston, I made a castelated nut out of it using a slitting blade on my milling machine. I have never had one come loose since. The wrist pin still uses the cone fit but the wrist pin bolt floats in the hole like was done on the model 735. The earlier noncondensing engine had the wrist pin bolt screwed into the inside half of the connecting rod. The flex of the wrist pin bolt broke at the threads sending the piston through the head every time. I experienced this about 3 times before I finally had everything drilled through and two jam nuts with a cotter pin to check them were used. See the attachemnts. The 10 H.P. engine parts were made of 4140 steel by Howard Johnson.

Hi Caleb,

As I understand it, the ball relief valves on the Stanley Bros. experimental piston valve engines were intended to expel condensate from cylinders the same way the slide valves do. This is not by the piston pushing the water out (through blown cylinder heads), but by the operator opening/closing throttle quickly, giving the engine brief "puffs" of steam, when starting out with a cold engine. As the car travels a few feet, open/closing the throttle causes valve chest pressure to drop below cylinder pressure, and the steam pressure in cylinders lifts the slide valves and blows out any water in cylinders.

I think Ben said he doesn't worry about cylinder drains, and relies on exhaust release pressure to blow the warmup condensate out the exhaust. David Nergaard, David Warriner, and some others plumbed drain valves to the ends of the cylinders in their piston valve engines.

Stanleys have lots of clearance volume in cylinders and valve passages, just under 9% by my math in the Schick drawings, though larger volumes have been measured/reported on actual engines. With well-superheated steam, the cylinders soon blow out & evaporate their own warmup condensate, which, barring major malfunctions or extreme operator error (which have happened), is not enough to fill the clearance volume and give hydrolock. Warriner added cylinder drains because he used extremely tight cylinder clearance volumes.

My current design has just under 9% clearance, piston valves (just found standard rings for them, yay), a valve chest drain, and no cylinder drains. I think the ample clearance volume, 700F steam, and release pressure will avoid hydrolock. There is another control feature involved too -- long story & off topic.

Yep, the Lindsay valve gear book is a reprint of an old ICS text. lindsaybks.com as I recall, or Google it (fantastic free catalog & economical books), but it sounds like you have the original.

Come to think of it, I think the labyrinth(?) seals were in the Doble-Detroit, which also had slide valves and uniflow.

Hi Pat,

Thanks for the explanation of the floating wrist pin. Definitely an improvement. Beautiful engine parts -- 4140 is absolutely bulletproof. Really a fine job.

Peter

Pat,

Brilliant soolution to a major problem on the piston retainer. Never thought of cutting a relief in the piston face. I second Peters comments on the rod crank design and Howard Johnson's manufacture. Again thanks for the information.

Peter,

Thanks for the explenation of how the ball valves are supposed to work, makes more sense than just a relief valve. Yeah, I remember Ben's comments on his driving/starting style, makes sense to me.

Caleb Ramsby