<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>1 Steam Cars</title>
    <link>http://stanleysteamers.com/phorum-5.1/list.php?1</link>
    <description><![CDATA[General Steam Car topics]]></description>
    <language>EN</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2006 07:46:06 -0500</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2006 07:46:06 -0500</lastBuildDate>
    <category>1 Steam Cars</category>
    <generator>Phorum 5.1.15</generator>
    <ttl>600</ttl>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Boiler Discussion Thread/Boilers only-</title>
      <link>http://stanleysteamers.com/phorum-5.1/read.php?1,963,5687#msg-5687</link>
      <author>Mujeeb R. Alvi</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Can you help me? 

I do hope you have completed your experiment and have succeeded in developing the new type of Boiler.

I am seeking small boilers delivering 150 Lbs/sq. inch of 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 H.P. for stationary application and small boats to operate on L.P.G., using sea water as feed water for generating steam and as well as cooling.

Thanks.       Mujeeb R. Alvi.]]></description>
      <category>1 Steam Cars</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://stanleysteamers.com/phorum-5.1/read.php?1,963,5687#msg-5687</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2006 07:46:06 -0500</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Boiler Discussion Thread/Boilers only-</title>
      <link>http://stanleysteamers.com/phorum-5.1/read.php?1,963,5686#msg-5686</link>
      <author>Mujeeb R. Alvi</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Can you help me? 

I am seeking small boilers delivering 150 Lbs/sq. inch of 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 H.P. for stationary application and small boats to operate on L.P.G., using sea water as feed water for generating steam and as well as cooling.

Thanks.       Mujeeb R. Alvi.]]></description>
      <category>1 Steam Cars</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://stanleysteamers.com/phorum-5.1/read.php?1,963,5686#msg-5686</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2006 07:39:34 -0500</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Boiler Discussion Thread/Boilers only-</title>
      <link>http://stanleysteamers.com/phorum-5.1/read.php?1,963,3865#msg-3865</link>
      <author>IBRAHIM HASSAN</author>
      <description><![CDATA[  Dear Sir ,
            We would like to introduce our selves to you as a trading company which work in sugar &amp; yeast factories field , we supply sugar &amp; yeast factories in Syria with all equipments and spare parts necessary for maintenance , this means that we inter in our names inside country tenders but we are working as a contractor and commissioner  when external tenders.

At the moment we have many tenders, 

1-The tender for supply plated heat exchanger according to the following specifications and dimensions:
2-The tender for supply heating coils for steam boilers water
3-The tender for supply tubes of heat exchanger for sugar pans from carbon steel ST35.8 accepting expanding from two ends according to the following specifications and dimensions:
1.Seamless tube carbon steel ST 35.8 according to DIN.

2.Tube length 1310 mm, outside diameter 100 mm.

3.Thickness 2.4 – 2.5 mm.

4.Quantity 3000 tubes.

-The tender for supply three ECONOMISER for steam boilers

I am looking to cooperate with your company.if you are interesting in the above mentioned tenders, tell me I will send you the technical conditions.
Awaiting your early reply.

Thank you , best regards

Eng. IBRAHIM AL HASSAN

Syrian Office For Sugar Technology  SOFST
SYRIA - RAKKA - P.O. Box: 318
Tell         : 00963 22 231 599
Fax         : 00963 22 238 911
Mobile    : 00963 94 205 357
E-mail     : sadco@scs-net.org


David K. Nergaard wrote:
&gt; 
&gt; There is a cheap way to add an effective economiser to
&gt; a Stanley.  I bought a junk condenser coil from an air
&gt; conditioner repair shop.  I gives me about 7% improvement and
&gt; has worked for thirty years so far.  Feed water enters at
&gt; 200-210 deg. and leaves at 270-300 deg.  Flue gas enters at
&gt; about 550 deg and exits at 250 -300 deg. F.  Try to get one
&gt; with copper tube.  Many new ones use aluminum which probably
&gt; won't last as well.  If I remember rightly the thing cost me
&gt; $2.]]></description>
      <category>1 Steam Cars</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://stanleysteamers.com/phorum-5.1/read.php?1,963,3865#msg-3865</guid>
      <pubDate>Sat, 11 Sep 2004 02:38:57 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Boiler Discussion Thread/Boilers only-</title>
      <link>http://stanleysteamers.com/phorum-5.1/read.php?1,963,3357#msg-3357</link>
      <author>Eric  'Plumbing and mech. syst</author>
      <description><![CDATA[I have 3 boilers and 1 gas meter,can i measure amount of use each townhouse's using?There are 2 townhouse's on each boiler.There are diff.amounts of baseboard in each unit.Can this work by measuring superheat or therms?]]></description>
      <category>1 Steam Cars</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://stanleysteamers.com/phorum-5.1/read.php?1,963,3357#msg-3357</guid>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 May 2004 16:57:37 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Boiler Discussion Thread/Boilers only-</title>
      <link>http://stanleysteamers.com/phorum-5.1/read.php?1,963,1421#msg-1421</link>
      <author>Mike Bennett</author>
      <description><![CDATA[How does a lamont boiler react to overfireing (flame impingement) for short periods of time?
Thanks,
Mike]]></description>
      <category>1 Steam Cars</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://stanleysteamers.com/phorum-5.1/read.php?1,963,1421#msg-1421</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 22 Sep 2002 16:16:39 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Boiler Stuff Only-</title>
      <link>http://stanleysteamers.com/phorum-5.1/read.php?1,963,1265#msg-1265</link>
      <author>Peter Brow</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Hi Peter,

96% efficiency sure would be nice, but 70 decibels is pretty loud.  Then again, it might be possible to muffle everything pretty well.  I've seen awfully high prices quoted for some of those high-performance alloys.  Hope the stuff you mentioned is cheaper, or is only needed in small quantities.

Peter]]></description>
      <category>1 Steam Cars</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://stanleysteamers.com/phorum-5.1/read.php?1,963,1265#msg-1265</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Aug 2002 03:22:32 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Boiler Stuff Only-</title>
      <link>http://stanleysteamers.com/phorum-5.1/read.php?1,963,1262#msg-1262</link>
      <author>Peter Heid</author>
      <description><![CDATA[The concept of the Bonecourt boiler, pulse combustion and fireside condensation has had me out researching a bit.   I am looking at a factory bulletin for Fulton Pule Combustion Boilers dated 10/04/93 discussing the exhaust vent materials.   It states &quot;Fulton has selected Saf-t vent because it features an advanced bonded metal design with an inner liner wall of AL29-4C, which is the only metallic material tested to the corrosion resistance requirements of UL1738.   This alloy is a super ferritic stainless steel material designed for extreame resistance to flue gas condensate, chloride ion pitting, crevice corrosion and chloride stress corrosion cracking.&quot;   Fulton claims 96 % efficiency when run in the condensing mode where the exhaust gas temperatures might be below 125 degrees F..   It sounds like they have pulse combustion well figured out at 32Hz and a free air noise level of 70dba running on natural gas.   Has anyone had any experience with AL29-4C ?

Peter Heid]]></description>
      <category>1 Steam Cars</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://stanleysteamers.com/phorum-5.1/read.php?1,963,1262#msg-1262</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Aug 2002 16:22:25 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Boiler Discussion Thread/Boilers only-</title>
      <link>http://stanleysteamers.com/phorum-5.1/read.php?1,963,1249#msg-1249</link>
      <author>Peter Brow</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Hi George,

Thanks for the vote of confidence.  The proof is in the running.  One boiler idea I am looking at would be incredibly cheap, but needs small-scale fabrication/run tests before it is &quot;ready for prime time&quot; in the discussion forum.  Currently just a wild idea.

This boiler string has really broken the forum record in length!  Maybe &quot;Boiler Discussion Thread Part Two&quot; is in order, so that current discussions don't end up several pages back.

Peter]]></description>
      <category>1 Steam Cars</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://stanleysteamers.com/phorum-5.1/read.php?1,963,1249#msg-1249</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Aug 2002 01:00:51 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Boiler Discussion Thread/Boilers only-</title>
      <link>http://stanleysteamers.com/phorum-5.1/read.php?1,963,1237#msg-1237</link>
      <author>George Nutz</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Peter,
  Your 6GPH design parameters sound good to me,  6GPH and 95 sq.in. of gas pass area gives a gas mass flow of about 1000 and with a crossflow boiler should do well.  The mass flow could be increased a few times in the cooler economiser section.  6 fins per inch is very safe as it allows about 1/8th inch distance between the fins, you could always go to 4 or 8, for those like ourselves its what we find cheap that is near the ideal is what we will use/afford.  Than at least our &quot;junkpiles&quot; havent cost us a whole lot!!
By the way this thread is getting endangered of being slid to an &quot;older messages&quot; page so if you don't see it on the first page go to the second and we can continue.
Good luck,  George]]></description>
      <category>1 Steam Cars</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://stanleysteamers.com/phorum-5.1/read.php?1,963,1237#msg-1237</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Aug 2002 12:18:58 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Boiler Discussion Thread/Boilers only-</title>
      <link>http://stanleysteamers.com/phorum-5.1/read.php?1,963,1234#msg-1234</link>
      <author>Peter Brow</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Hi George,

Yes, I think the finned stuff I have has quite a bit more than 6 fins per inch, probably very draggy as to gas flow (good with higher gas pressure).  I figure that with a vaporizing burner it is not a good idea to use less than about 95 sq inches of gas flowpath cross-section per 6 gph, with flue area about 1/4 that, and even that is pushing it.  My latest design has about 150 sq inches for 8 gph (like pushing a 23&quot; Stanley to about 5 gph).  Hope to get spotless clean burning under all conditions; looking at deep fireboxes and big mixtubes.  For me, soot = unacceptable/redesign.  Blue flame only.  I'll scrap any burner that produces soot (or howls) under any conditions when properly tuned.  Hope my junkpile doesn't end up too tall!

Peter]]></description>
      <category>1 Steam Cars</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://stanleysteamers.com/phorum-5.1/read.php?1,963,1234#msg-1234</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Aug 2002 03:32:11 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Boiler Discussion Thread/Boilers only-</title>
      <link>http://stanleysteamers.com/phorum-5.1/read.php?1,963,1231#msg-1231</link>
      <author>George Nutz</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Peter,
  I would not recommend the small air conditioner unit, as in Daves car, for high output boilers as the fins are so close together and gas pass area restrictive that any soot from the fire would shortly clog the fins and create more gas flow restriction.  It works very well on Daves car as he is meticulous about NEVER forcing his burner or create any carbon in his exhaust.  Many of the Stanley owners that force their burners a-howling to exceed the 4GPH burn rate do have soot/incomplete combustion  at times and fins spaced farther apart would be more ideal.  A heat exchanger paper I mentioned above with 6 fins per inch would be very efficient with sufficient fin spacing to not clog or offer too much gas flow resistance, especially with much higher gas mass flow rates and Doble type combustion systems.  Remember the original Stanley 20HP only burned 4GPH with 100 square feet of heat transfer area and was lucky to produce 3-3.5#steam/ft.sq.-hr and had virtually non-existent gas velocites sorta-like one candle under each tube and flue gas in laminar flow.  From your discussions think you are looking for much higher performance and much higher gas flow rates, keep an eye on how much burner back pressure you build into it!!
Best,  George]]></description>
      <category>1 Steam Cars</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://stanleysteamers.com/phorum-5.1/read.php?1,963,1231#msg-1231</guid>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Aug 2002 06:25:39 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Boiler Discussion Thread/Boilers only-</title>
      <link>http://stanleysteamers.com/phorum-5.1/read.php?1,963,1230#msg-1230</link>
      <author>Peter Brow</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Erratum: Looks like I typed 8&quot; diameter x 18' tall for the dimensions of the odd finned &quot;tritube&quot; barrel coil I have.  Make that 8 inches diameter by maybe 18 INCHES tall.  If I had an 18 FOOT tall coil of this tubing, I could probably build economizers for a dozen boilers!  Typo.

Anybody have any idea what a weird coil like this would have been used for?  A/C is my guess.

Peter]]></description>
      <category>1 Steam Cars</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://stanleysteamers.com/phorum-5.1/read.php?1,963,1230#msg-1230</guid>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Aug 2002 05:03:14 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Boiler Discussion Thread/Boilers only-</title>
      <link>http://stanleysteamers.com/phorum-5.1/read.php?1,963,1229#msg-1229</link>
      <author>Peter Brow</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Hi David,

That is a great retrofit to a Stanley, or to a new one-off project.  I actually have some copper finned tubing that somebody gave to me, probably from an a/c condenser (?).  It is in an odd-shaped coil about 8&quot; diameter by maybe 18' tall.  Three finned tubes, about 1/2&quot; ID, are twisted into one braided length, and that triple-tube is then barrel-coiled.  (Even my salvaged materials are multipath!)  Darned odd looking.  With some work, I could probably unravel it and rewind as needed, and I think it could handle 500-600 psig in economizer use.  Don't know the square footage, but it is probably considerable, and I should do some measurements and calculations.

Anyway, the thing is, if I get a boiler running decently I will want to build one or more additional units, and then material supply/cost becomes a problem if I've designed around finned tubing.  I'd probably end up buying new finned tubing for subsequent boilers.  The new finned tubing I've seen so far generally costs at least 20% more than unfinned tubing, per square foot, and the extra square footage for a good economizer (with new tubing) is costly enough already with unfinned tubing.  

The weight and volume of finned tubing is much lower per square foot, of course.  At least compared to unfinned tube in typical sizes (1/2&quot;, 3/8&quot; OD &amp; the like).  1/4&quot; OD tubing compares very favorably in volume/weight per sq. ft. to larger finned stuff, though 1/4&quot; tube requires multipath (or multi-boiler a la Andy Patterson) design in automobile-sized boilers.

Your finned economizer is the best thing since sliced bread for Stanleys and one-off projects, and I think others can easily duplicate it with a little scrounging for similar low-cost recycled tubing.  Really impressive results.  Alas, I am currently aiming for a low-cost compact boiler which can be exactly &amp; reliably reproduced in (at least limited) quantity with new tubing.

Peter]]></description>
      <category>1 Steam Cars</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://stanleysteamers.com/phorum-5.1/read.php?1,963,1229#msg-1229</guid>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Aug 2002 04:48:58 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Boiler Discussion Thread/Boilers only-</title>
      <link>http://stanleysteamers.com/phorum-5.1/read.php?1,963,1225#msg-1225</link>
      <author>David K. Nergaard</author>
      <description><![CDATA[There is a cheap way to add an effective economiser to a Stanley.  I bought a junk condenser coil from an air conditioner repair shop.  I gives me about 7% improvement and has worked for thirty years so far.  Feed water enters at 200-210 deg. and leaves at 270-300 deg.  Flue gas enters at about 550 deg and exits at 250 -300 deg. F.  Try to get one with copper tube.  Many new ones use aluminum which probably won't last as well.  If I remember rightly the thing cost me $2.]]></description>
      <category>1 Steam Cars</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://stanleysteamers.com/phorum-5.1/read.php?1,963,1225#msg-1225</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 25 Aug 2002 17:58:06 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Boiler Discussion Thread/Boilers only-</title>
      <link>http://stanleysteamers.com/phorum-5.1/read.php?1,963,1213#msg-1213</link>
      <author>Peter Brow</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Hi George,

Exactly!  And there are all sorts of engine modifications -- some relatively minor -- which can cut water rate by 0.5 lb/hp/hr or more without negatively affecting driveability, durability, etc..

Peter]]></description>
      <category>1 Steam Cars</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://stanleysteamers.com/phorum-5.1/read.php?1,963,1213#msg-1213</guid>
      <pubDate>Sat, 24 Aug 2002 19:54:20 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Boiler Discussion Thread/Boilers only-</title>
      <link>http://stanleysteamers.com/phorum-5.1/read.php?1,963,1208#msg-1208</link>
      <author>George Nutz</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Peter,
  Agree wholeheartedly!! 80-83% boiler efficiencies at high output are about as low as practical without adding many more tube stacks with such diminishing returns.  Better to have the engine use 1/2#/hp-hr less to achieve the same overall plant efficiency.
Best,  George]]></description>
      <category>1 Steam Cars</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://stanleysteamers.com/phorum-5.1/read.php?1,963,1208#msg-1208</guid>
      <pubDate>Sat, 24 Aug 2002 13:42:48 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Boiler Discussion Thread/Boilers only-</title>
      <link>http://stanleysteamers.com/phorum-5.1/read.php?1,963,1204#msg-1204</link>
      <author>Peter Brow</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Hi George,

Thanks; no problem on the delayed reply.  I tend to look at several options at once, and recently have been looking into a very different boiler (easier design/control, but more fabrication work) until I get a better handle on the wearysome calculations.  I think just about everyone would hate my current boiler idea, so I'll keep it under my hat until I get some fabrication/running tests done on a miniature version.  

One thing that has hit me recently is the severely diminishing returns with economizers &amp; counterflow.  Adding a few extra percentage points to boiler efficiency can require a 40-50% increase in square footage/weight/cost.  That's fine for a big stationary unit, but maybe ~80% efficiency is good enough for a practical, affordable automotive boiler.  And why tempt the Fates by flirting with acidic stack condensation during warmup, cold weather, and low fire conditions?

Peter]]></description>
      <category>1 Steam Cars</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://stanleysteamers.com/phorum-5.1/read.php?1,963,1204#msg-1204</guid>
      <pubDate>Sat, 24 Aug 2002 06:24:01 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Boiler Discussion Thread/Boilers only-</title>
      <link>http://stanleysteamers.com/phorum-5.1/read.php?1,963,1183#msg-1183</link>
      <author>George Nutz</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Peter,
  One of the problems of circulating the whole &quot;tube stack&quot; is that we no longer end up with a counterflow boiler where the inlet feedwater is at its lowest temperature to absorb heat form the lower temperature gases---this is where the Doble counterflow approach has great success plus it removes some of the tubing from being a burden on the circulating pump.  Even Doble finally increased its economiser tube diameter as smaller tubing may have a slight but diminishing  return as to BTU/sqft but then to achieve it the tube lengths and closer tube spacings start to present other problems.  1/2&quot; OD seems to work out very well.
  The multiple path lengths you talk about are not dependent upon having the same internal flow area of a larger tube, that is if the mass flow is equal in each the pressure drop will be much higher in the smaller tube I believe. Again it is just not a direct function of flow velocity but more of Reynolds number.  It is a very wearysome project to calculate this as you are getting to be aware of.
It would be good to calculate the flow resistances under several ranges of boiler output to be assured that it will work.
  The car fan motor is ideally suited for this purpose as it is very efficient and of high enough rpm to get the circulating pressure up in a smaller pump and housing, just keep it away from the thermal heat. Others have proposed positive displacement pumps but my own(ever enlarging) gut feel is that the boiler/Lamont boiler has a natural circulation ratio and the pump should allow natural circulation if the pump stops---enough to limp home!!  An old fashioned packing gland approach would and did work perfectly well but its frictional resistance may well require more horsepower than the pumping of water--been there a few times.  Go from 8-10 amperes@12VDC to 16-20 and Stanley owners blanche!!!
Sorry for not responding sooner, busy with the SACA/NE runway time trials,
Best and good luck,  George]]></description>
      <category>1 Steam Cars</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://stanleysteamers.com/phorum-5.1/read.php?1,963,1183#msg-1183</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Aug 2002 17:14:45 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Boiler Discussion Thread/Boilers only-</title>
      <link>http://stanleysteamers.com/phorum-5.1/read.php?1,963,1118#msg-1118</link>
      <author>Peter Brow</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Hi George,

Thanks.  I am considering a naughty little trick for making sure that 100% of the evaporation would take place in the circulated section, no matter what.  The trick is, circulate the whole tube stack.  Flowpath length in current multipath concept would be about 34 feet &amp; equivalent to ~1&quot; ID single flowpath, so I think I could circulate everything with reasonable pump hp..  What I don't know yet is how this would impact efficiency.  Feedwater would be mixed into the recirc water at pump inlet, and then the mix (cooler than saturated) would downflow thru tubes from top to the tall tube-lined firebox at the bottom (up firing).  

Not able to do the full heat-transfer calcs yet (still in estimate/cut&amp;try mode), but I figure that this would do better than a Stanley, in which the gas exit end of the heat exchanger is at (or even slightly above) saturated temperature.  In my current concept, gas-exit end of tubestack would be at lower than saturated temp, IE, scrubbing the gases down to a lower outlet temp, IE, better efficiency.

The small-dia, all-crossflow, all-circulated tubing should give several times the heat transfer per sq ft of a Stanley, but the lower gas pressure in firebox and lower gas speed thru tube stack means less per sf than a similar Lamont with a fan burner, esp if other Lamont also ran at higher steam pressure.  So I think this could be acceptably efficient, but the question is at what firing/steaming rate.  Might only run economically at outputs lower than design goal.  But should be enough to run a car nicely.  And, an uncirculated economizer can always be added later.

You're right, it all gets very complicated -- even in pre-math estimates.  Every statement above has several unstated &quot;then agains&quot;, and probably plenty of others I haven't discovered yet.

I am now looking at circulating pump.  Considering an off-the-shelf 12vdc auto radiator fan motor; available cheap &amp; everywhere in 13 amp ratings and designed to run 2000 hrs/100,000 miles in harsh hi-temp underhood environment (right behind the radiator).  Also considering homebuilt Roots-type positive displacement pump with straight 2-lobe rotors &amp; small stuffing box seal.  More mechanical friction, but (leaky) positive displacement design gives better volumetric efficiency than a typical (esp homebuilt) centrifugal or Tesla pump.  Also easier to design &amp; more compact, though harder to build.  Cavitation ahoy?  Also have next-generation ideas for cheap steam drive for pump, with air starter for brief cold-fireup.  The pump really ought to have its own thread.

Thanks again for the &quot;food for thought&quot;; seems to be working!  :)
  
Peter]]></description>
      <category>1 Steam Cars</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://stanleysteamers.com/phorum-5.1/read.php?1,963,1118#msg-1118</guid>
      <pubDate>Sat, 10 Aug 2002 03:41:15 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Boiler Discussion Thread/Boilers only-</title>
      <link>http://stanleysteamers.com/phorum-5.1/read.php?1,963,1117#msg-1117</link>
      <author>Mike Bennett</author>
      <description><![CDATA[THANKS. What is the complete title, date, edition. etc for this B &amp; W book? I would like to find one!

Great stuff!
Mike]]></description>
      <category>1 Steam Cars</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://stanleysteamers.com/phorum-5.1/read.php?1,963,1117#msg-1117</guid>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Aug 2002 12:26:43 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Boiler Discussion Thread/Boilers only-</title>
      <link>http://stanleysteamers.com/phorum-5.1/read.php?1,963,1116#msg-1116</link>
      <author>George Nutz</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Peter and Mike,
  Peter-as you and I have the same edition of the B&amp;W book and you are studying it carefully look at the chapter on the smaller and higher performance marine boilers in chapter 29 and the graphs on page 29-14.  These can be interpolated from their much larger size(although much smaller than stationary plants) to much smaller boilers like we are interested in. You may want to study chapter 11 with careful thought on partial pressures of the gases of combustion that are very powerful radiation gases---even if the gas is invisible to the naked eye, look at 11-24 and 11-28.  Other books will get you into calculating beam lengths and stuff, it s all rather complicated but is very necessary to get the right amount of heat transfer to your tubing design in the very hot boiler sections.  In the Lamont the goal is to get the short Lamont recirculating section to do 90-100% of all the evaporation.  Also remember even if the forced circulation is 5X steam output by weight the mixture leaving is over 90% steam by volume depending upon pressure and the delta enthalpy of the water/steam. Lamont works much better at higher pressures!!
  Mike, the binary boilers were popular in the 1950's, my father was a boilermaker and he lost many friends who died of mercury poisoning--their hair and teeth fell out and they died.  At the time the dangers were not well understood.  In the 70's Dr.? received grants in persueing binary freon-water boilers.  Guess that was before understanding the effects of freon in the ozone layer.  We leak enough freon form air conditioners without going to leaking from boilers---how much we have all learned.  Binary approach is very complicated for a variable load boiler and would probably be heavier, why complicate the boiler so much??  Instead of trying to get 10% more boiler efficiency(at that time the metal tube temperatures were most limiting factor) it may be better to get 10% more efficiency out of the engine.  Just rambling thoughts, thought I would post to get this topic up to 49 posts(bg)  ;0)  .  This weekend our local steam club is having a tour and 1/8th mile time trials on a runway.  It is absolutely astonishing to watch a 1902 Stanley leap from zero to 30mph in maybe 30-50 feet and average 30 going up hill, imagine the astonisment in 1902!! Many of the cars there are in John Woodson's picture section.  Always stirs the blood and interest to see these old cars perform.  Guess who is doing the time trials?  
  Best,  George]]></description>
      <category>1 Steam Cars</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://stanleysteamers.com/phorum-5.1/read.php?1,963,1116#msg-1116</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Aug 2002 18:11:00 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Boiler Discussion Thread/Boilers only-</title>
      <link>http://stanleysteamers.com/phorum-5.1/read.php?1,963,1115#msg-1115</link>
      <author>Mike Bennett</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Has anyone tried a binary boiler in an auto? I was thinking                  liquid metal / water.
Thanks,
Mike]]></description>
      <category>1 Steam Cars</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://stanleysteamers.com/phorum-5.1/read.php?1,963,1115#msg-1115</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Aug 2002 14:20:09 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Boiler Discussion Thread/Boilers only-</title>
      <link>http://stanleysteamers.com/phorum-5.1/read.php?1,963,1113#msg-1113</link>
      <author>Peter Brow</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Hi George,

I second Mike B's thanks for the radiant heat figures, and for the ongoing boiler design tutorial.  I am back to working on a Lamont design.  A few more flip-flops on boiler type, and I'll never get it built.  However, the deeper I get into the B&amp;W Book calculations, the better the Lamont looks.  This wouldn't be the first time I worked out several different designs in detail before deciding what to build.  

Jim's &quot;subject to instant change&quot; approach to powerplant concepts is the best way to go, considering all the design options available in every part of a light steam powerplant, and all the previously unknown things which pop up.

Peter]]></description>
      <category>1 Steam Cars</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://stanleysteamers.com/phorum-5.1/read.php?1,963,1113#msg-1113</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Aug 2002 17:30:19 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Boiler Discussion Thread/Boilers only-</title>
      <link>http://stanleysteamers.com/phorum-5.1/read.php?1,963,1111#msg-1111</link>
      <author>Mike Bennett</author>
      <description><![CDATA[George, et al,
Could ebullient powered coils be made to work on a lamont (besides the 5X pumped circuit)?  Has anyone tried ultrasonic etc. to liberate the steam bubbles from the tubes?
Thanks,
I've learned a lot here!
Mike]]></description>
      <category>1 Steam Cars</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://stanleysteamers.com/phorum-5.1/read.php?1,963,1111#msg-1111</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Aug 2002 16:46:35 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Boiler Discussion Thread/Boilers only-</title>
      <link>http://stanleysteamers.com/phorum-5.1/read.php?1,963,1108#msg-1108</link>
      <author>George Nutz</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Mike,
   15 to 20#/hr-sqft is rather easy even if designed for full load purposes as in steamboat use.  Much higher rates have been accomplished  and obtainable, 40 is not out of the question with complete safety.
Depends on how much power you will put into the circulating pump and how big a firebox volume is allowable.  As an example of the importance of firebox volume with radiant heat transfer, if one had a one cubic foot forebox and fired 600K BTU per cubic foot there would be 6 sq.ft. of firebox(Lamont) wall exposed and the heat generated per sq.ft. is 100K BTU's/ sq.ft. Large industrial boilers can have one million BTU's/sq.ft. available.  In the case of the described boat Lamont about 40-45K per sq.ft. is absorbed or 40-45% of total heat available.  if one had a two foot cube there would be 600K X 8 cubic feet or 4.8 million BTU's released in the firebox and 24 sq.ft. of surface for radiant absorption purposes= 200K BTU available per sq. ft.  The radiant part is very useful as it requires no draft pressure loss.  Of course several rows of convective coils could be added for more Lamont coil heat absorption.
Hope this helps,  George]]></description>
      <category>1 Steam Cars</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://stanleysteamers.com/phorum-5.1/read.php?1,963,1108#msg-1108</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Aug 2002 06:13:38 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Boiler Discussion Thread/Boilers only-</title>
      <link>http://stanleysteamers.com/phorum-5.1/read.php?1,963,1104#msg-1104</link>
      <author>Mike Bennett</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Any idea how much pounds per hour / square feet tubing surface, that a well designed lamont should produce. (forced draft)?

GREAT STUFF
thanks,
MB]]></description>
      <category>1 Steam Cars</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://stanleysteamers.com/phorum-5.1/read.php?1,963,1104#msg-1104</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Aug 2002 18:25:36 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: More Bonecourt</title>
      <link>http://stanleysteamers.com/phorum-5.1/read.php?1,963,1095#msg-1095</link>
      <author>Peter Brow</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Hi Peter,

The iron itself was the catalyst?  Interesting.  I know that steel wool will burn with forced air, but that has some carbon content and is also not cooled by a surrounding heat exchanger.  Still, I wonder how long the soft iron element would last, and if the fuel/air ratio has to be spot-on, with no excess air.  Concentric tubes with circulated water does sound like the best way to go with this.  Should be possible to design for a little less efficiency, so that acids don't condense out of the exhaust.  Small experimental rigs shouldn't be too hard to fabricate ... find out how much steam one tube unit will make, then gang together enough to run a car, boat, etc ...

Wonder if ordinary wrought iron strap stock would do the trick?

George:  The Bonecourt is definitely ingenious!  I think we can learn a lot from the designers of the past, then improve on their designs with modern tools, materials &amp; knowledge.

Peter]]></description>
      <category>1 Steam Cars</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://stanleysteamers.com/phorum-5.1/read.php?1,963,1095#msg-1095</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Aug 2002 01:45:31 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: More Bonecourt</title>
      <link>http://stanleysteamers.com/phorum-5.1/read.php?1,963,1089#msg-1089</link>
      <author>Peter Heid</author>
      <description><![CDATA[George / Peter

The inner spiral of soft iron is the catalytic refractory material and it is just a strip of iron twisted and inserted into the pipe.   The original design used broken chunks of refractory material for the catalyst but these broke down with use and made crumbled dust in the exhaust.   I will sift through for more technical specs, patent numbers, diagrams ect.   The boiler was first designed as a fire tube which means it was a low pressure boiler and many were used for heating buildings.   I keep picturing a tube in a tube, fire in the inner and water between with circulation provided in Lamont fashion but I dream a lot.

The original: Other Peter]]></description>
      <category>1 Steam Cars</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://stanleysteamers.com/phorum-5.1/read.php?1,963,1089#msg-1089</guid>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Aug 2002 12:45:31 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: More Bonecourt</title>
      <link>http://stanleysteamers.com/phorum-5.1/read.php?1,963,1088#msg-1088</link>
      <author>George Nutz</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Peter H.,
  Thanks for the info on the Bonecourt boilers.  I was wondering how they could get a &quot;fire tube&quot; boiler to have high heat transfer rates as generally the heat transfer in a longflow firetube is only about 1/5th the rate of crossflow with the same gas mass flow per hour.  I wonder how they make the inside spiral in the tubes???  That would greatly increase the heat transfer on the gas side.  How ingenious people were the last 100 years---the glory days of mechanical engineering!!
Best and thanks,  George]]></description>
      <category>1 Steam Cars</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://stanleysteamers.com/phorum-5.1/read.php?1,963,1088#msg-1088</guid>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Aug 2002 12:11:13 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: More Bonecourt</title>
      <link>http://stanleysteamers.com/phorum-5.1/read.php?1,963,1083#msg-1083</link>
      <author>Peter Brow</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Hi Peter,

Any info on square footage, temp/pressure, steaming rates, or what the catalytic elements were made of, in Bonecourt boilers?

Perhaps a search of UK or US patent records would turn up more info.

Peter]]></description>
      <category>1 Steam Cars</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://stanleysteamers.com/phorum-5.1/read.php?1,963,1083#msg-1083</guid>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Aug 2002 00:34:20 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
