boiler/engine/auxillary balancing

Good morning steamers

As the green-as-grass new kid on the block, I am looking at many aspects of this steam engine 'thing'.

I am especially interested in the particulars that make this all happen coherently. A point was made about balancing the system between the boiler and engine demand for the terrain and cooling too. Couldn't you use a steam injector to recirculate the exhausted steam back into the boiler without condensing it back to water?

If a goal were a boiler that would produce 40#/hr/sqft under three hundred pounds weight, for the overall job at hand maybe 500lbs--somethin along the Lamont Design for instance--and move 80,000 lbs at 75 miles per hr with out blowing up or comin to a complete stop, there are some important, but possibly not so difficult to figure out, details. It really helps to know in which direction to go if you are going to leave, so within that context, would you be willing to give me a few ideas--all are accepted--on a methodical way to effectively bring all this into harmony??

Hi there, Silentrunning.

Wow, you have selected a very large and broad question.


When I first started out, I too intended to be successful.

"would you be willing to give me a few ideas--all are accepted--on a methodical way to effectively bring all this into harmony??"

Yes, go into the SACA storeroom, pick a publication, wait for it to arrive. Then read it cover to cover. This will give you a good feel for the existing steam community.

Ive learned quite abit, just corrisponding with Jim Crank here on the forum/site.

But reading the steam bulletin for this current issue, puts things into perspective for me.

There has been many suggestions by members/users here that have referenced a sort of technical crash course, FAQ thread, to bring new users up-to-speed.


Best



Jeremy

Evening

Thanks Jeremy for your reply, and I am looking thru the FAQ section. Actually it was what provoked this line of question when I read the discussion about not burning up the boiler and getting stuck on hills because they ran out of water in the boiler etc.

Does sound like you guys are involved in your projects. Good luck with them. if 'luck' has anything to do with it.

Unheardnotwalking,

Sorry can't help it sometimes.

I have been working on a FAQ, Steam Car for the novice for a while now, easy to grasp once you "get it", but hard to get down in words that "everyone" will understand.

One of the greatest resources on the web, or anywhere for that matter, on steam cars(Stanleys in particular) is a web site dedicated to the restoration of Robert E. Wilhelm's 1918 Model 735B 7-passenger Touring Stanley Steam Car.

[www.stanleymotorcarriage.com]

One can spend many hours there studying the layout of the works in his technical section, his laymen section gives a very astute overview of the aspects of a steamer. Wonderfull pictures of ALL of the components of the car!

Finding a harmony in a steam system that must vary it's output so greatly and rapidly as that in a car is no easy task, although it can sort of be if "comprimises" are taken in the design.

Take the energy required to move the car.

First take the rolling resistance which varys on different road(or off road) surfaces from 10 to 30 lbs on good roads to over 100 lbs per 1,000 vehicle pounds on bad gravel or dirt. So that 80,000 lb semi could have a rolling resistance of between 800 to 8000 lbs depending on the road, actually even more then that if mud and deep sand are taken into consideration.

Note that this is the static rolling resistance, the energy required to overcome this increases dynamically with speed. There is also a stiction aspect that is usually in effect at really low speeds, somewhat inertia somewhat stuff not wanting to say goodby to other stuff.

This formula is from Kent's Power Twelfth Edition

Take the rolling resistance coefficient, K, which for 13 lbs per 1,000 would be .013 and multiply this by the vehicle weight, lets say 4,000 lbs.

So 4,000 * .013 = 52 lbs rolling resistance

This resistance is what the engine, transmission(if there is one) and tires must supply as a tractive effort, that is push force.

Now aerodynamic drag, note that dynamic is part of it's name. Lets go with a frontal area of 30 sq ft. Now the coefficient of drag(cd) for a road vehicle can vary from .35 to .7 or .8 for a "stuff stuck out everywhere" type of vehicle. Such as a flat front truck with a bunch of junk hauled in the back. Actully much less then .35 for many of the hybrids, it's not all in the drive system!

For the Kent's formula one must divide the cd by 392, so .35 / 392 = .0009, a cd of .8 / 392 = .002. Lets use a cd of .4 just to take a sort of middle ground. .4 / 392 = .001

Now for the air resistance we must multiple the cd formula equilivent by the total frontal area. So .001 * 30 = .03

Then multiply that by the velocity squared, that is mph * mph. So lets say we are going 15, .03 * (15 * 15) = 6.75 lbs resistance, at 30 mph .03 * (30 * 30) = 27, at 60 mph, .03 * (60 * 60) = 108, at 120 mph, .03 * (120 * 120) = 432 lbs resistance.

So as you can see the air resistance increase dramitically with speed, with an increase in speed of 4 times the resistance went up 16 times.

Ahhh, but we are not done yet.

Now we must calculate the air and rolling resistance together by the speed.

Add the rolling resistance to the air resistance and then multiply the sum by the velocity, then divide this sum by 375 and you have your hp required.

So for this 30 sq ft frontal area vehicle with a cd of .4, weighing in at 4,000 lbs the hp required at:

Mph....hp
15.....2.35
30.....6.32
60.....25.6
120....154.9

Now when we increased the speed by 4 times(from 15 to 60mph) the hp required went up, 10.9 times. Whaa happen' why isn't this a greater ratio then just the aerodynamics, well it takes a while for the air resistance to aproach and excede the rolling resistance, but when it does it eclipses it rather rapidly with any significant increase of speed over around 55 mph, depending on the rolling resistance of the road and the cd of the car.

Note that the hp requirements are for sustaining the speed, not getting up to them in a hurry.

If we were to just calculate the hp required to overcome the aerodynamic resistance, such as mag lev trains. Then 15 mph requires, aerodymanic resistance multiplied by mph / 375. (6.75 * 15) / 375 = .27 hp and at four times that speed, 60 mph, (108 * 60) / 375 = 17.28 hp. So this is an increase of 64 times.

So now we have a good idea of the hp required for a car and how much it can vary depending on different requirements and I won't even get into acceleration requirements on the highway in this.

What do these hp outputs require of a steam plant. Well there really is no short and easy answer. One of the most astounding aspects of the steam powerplant is how variable the designs have been over history.

If we take a REALLY bad stationary engine, with a single beat up, in horrible shape valve controling the steam and exhaust events, with the capacity for the steam to go directly from inlet to outlet, running on saturated steam without any insulation on the cylinder. One of these can require well over 80 lbs of steam per horsepower hour. That is the boiler would need to boil 80 lbs of water in an hour for the engine to make 1 hp continously. On the opposite end of the spectrum we have Lentz who achieved on a stationary Uniflow engine 5.67 lbs of steam required per hp hour, using steam at 461 psi and 1,018 deg F.. That is about 1/14th as much steam as the one in bad shape, or 14 times as much hp out of the same weight of water boiled(which by the way would not require the same amount of heat to produce in the older lower pressure and lower temp steam engine with the worse water rate).

A Stanley engine with valves in really bad shape can use around 50 lbs of steam per hp hour at low speeds, this reduces greatly with speed as the steam doesn't have as much time to leek. I believe that fresh from the factory the Stanley brothers claimed 16 lbs per hp hour. The White and Doble would get between 12 and 14 lbs of steam per hp hour. Where as the Williams claimed around 6 lbs per hp hr for their trick uniflow.

So at 60 mph, 25.6 hp,

Fresh Stanley, 410 lbs steam.
White or Doble, 307 lbs.
Williams, 153.6 lbs.

So you can see that different engines will vary the steam required for a given hp produced. The engine will also use a LOT more steam when it is warming up. Below hot running temps, the cold engine will make the steam literally disapear, that is it will condense it back into water, hot engines are good!

Now onto the boilers, hummm, here it gets even more complex. You see in a steamer the working medium is not air, which surrounds us at all times(if not you might be dead, check you pulse), it is instead steam and this steam comes from water and FIRE.

Now almost every boiler put into a vehicle can fit into or inbetween two distinct catagories.

1: Lots of water contained in the boiler for what it can boil.

2: Very little water in the boiler for what it can boil.

In a monotube boiler, literally in effect one very long tube, a few hundred feet, which is coiled up to fit in a snug insulated drum. The water is pumped into one end of the tube and hot steam comes out the other end. This type of boiler often has virtually no water in it to speak of and they are usually fired very hard. So things get interesting, very little water, lots of fire, widly varying steam requirements.

Say you are going up a hill at 60 mph, the burner will be going hard and the water will have to be pumped into the boiler very rapidly to replace the little bit that is in there. If you pump too much the steam gets "wet", that is not superheated, one can even chance getting water into the engine which could destroy it, however most monotube boilers are made with a LOT of thought, because they have to be, so this is rare, if not unheard of in a tried and true boiler such as the Whites. Now if you don't pump in enough water then the tubes get too hot and can literally burn up. These are very touchy boilers.

Somewhere in the middle is the watertube boiler with a circulating water level. That is, instead of just a column of water moving around in the monotubes, errr tube, there are a bunch of tubes welded together so that the water can circulate around in them and there is a distinct level of water. These boilers have a greater storage of water in them, and generally(although not always) are not fired as hard as monotubes. So, more water, less fire, more TIME for the fire and water supply to respond to steam being taken out of the boiler and it's pressure droping OR fire and water on and no steam being used. This type of boiler makes the fire and water control system a walk in the park when compared to a monotube.

Now on the complete other side, we have the firetube, this is where there is a big ol' drum with a bunch of holed in the heads. Running through the drum and sealing the holes are a bunch of tubes. Now the fire goes through the tubes(vertical in the Stanley) and the fire is sealed inside the drum by them. This type of boiler hold the most water and is generally not pushed nearly as hard, sq ft per sq ft as a watertube boiler(water inside tube, fire outside), much less a monotube. So here we have LOTS of water, with 8" of water in the 26"(30hp) boiler that is around 70 lbs of water inside the boiler, while it would have a hard time making ten times that. So now the fire control and water pump controls are even simpler then before. The magic of stored energy.

Now there are of course up and down sides to all of these boiler types.

Monotube, light, fast to respond to fire, generally very little water storage
Watertube, med weight, slower to respond, more water storage easier controls
Firetube, heavy, even slower to make steam, tons of water, was controled by hand for many years.

Now there is also the reserve effect of the saturated water, that is water at the temperature which is required for it to boil at a given pressure, and the pressure it is at.

psi...temp
300...417
600...486
1200..567

These temps are a good indicator of what energy is stored in the water.

With a monotube boiler, if it can boil say, 1,000 lbs of steam per hour, thats about it, it will not give the engine steam at a greater rate then 1,000 lbs per hour, or 16.6 lbs per min.

A med sized watertube can(depending on the water stored) give the engine more steam then it can boil continously. So, if it could also make 1,000 lbs per hour continous, it may be able to double that output for a minute. So then we have 2,000 lbs of steam per hour or 33.2 lbs per min.

Now a firetube boiler, mainly because of the massive collected area that the water is in communication with the steam and the steam outlet is just a hole above this pool of boiling water held in the drum. Well, they can really give the engine a lot of steam, lets say 4,000 lbs per hour, or 66.4 lbs per min. The larger 30" "50 hp" boilers from Stanley hold over 90 lbs of water, if you could draw off 2/5ths of the water in 1/2 a min that would be around the 4,000 lbs per hour rate.

With higher boiler pressures come a greater amount of energy in reserve, as evidenced by the higher water temperatures. Thus the Stanley Rocket at Ormand 07', running around 1,200psi in the big boiler and light car. Less then half the weight of the car I have been using as an expample, also 1/3 the frontal area with a low cd. . .

So if you put all of these variable together you get. . . errr. well you get a lot of fun!

Caleb Ramsby

P.S.

I feel as if I have done an injustice to the different boiler types described above.

The why of their existance is just as if not more important then the how and what.

Monotube boilers are generally developed by people looking for the maximum amount of steam produced from a minimum of boiler weight. So they are fired much harder, that is more fuel burned per sq ft of boiler heating surface, then a watertube or firetube boiler.

HOWEVER, this is not always the case. I believe it was the Delling boiler for a passanger vehicle that was a water tube, four banks of tubes and four horizontal drums. The water would first enter the the cold side, that is on the oposite side of the drum which the combustion gases strikes. There are a group of small od vertical tubes inserted into holes in both the top and bottem horizontal drums. Two seperate banks of tubes, one for down(the back set) one for up(the front set. The water being pumped in cold would fall down the back tubes and then as it was heated by the water would rise in the front tubes.

There was then a second unit almost identical to this one in front of it, facing a blue flamed fire that erupted from a wall inside the boiler(porcupine tubes on a shell that the fuel was sprayed against by a pressure atomizing nozzle, air being delivered via fan, thusly the fuel was boiled and mixed with the air, then it would go in a large cavity and erupt through small holes through it and burn on the other side as a blue gas flame, very smart), this set of riser and downcomer tubes with their top and bottem horizontal drums was fed water via an overflow hole and connecting tube(s) from the initial water heating boiler segment. The first pass the water takes is generally refered to as an economizer section, this initially heats up the water and gets it up to temp.

The second heating section in this boiler was used to actually boil the water. The water would yet again go down the back cooler tubes and rise through the front hot tubes, in great part due to the steam mixed in with the water in the front hot tubes. Water + steam mix is light, Water + Water mix is heavy. The density difference, height difference and friction in the risers and downcomers will dictate the cirulation rate in a boiler like this.

This one if I recall correctly weighed in at 700 lbs and made 2,000 lbs of steam, I do not believe that it had a superheater.

So there is a water tube boiler that has a good amount of water in it at boiling temperature, of which a lot of it is in direct contact with the steam cavity in teh boiler, thusly ensuring a quick and quite drawing off of steam from the water.

The vertical firetube Stanley boiler is very unique in the steam car world. Not because they used one, Whitney and others were using the same general system that the Stanley brothers adopted well before they had even set eyes on a automobile. Try well, 100 years or so.

The unique thing is that they stuck with it! As I said their "30 hp" 26" od boiler with 8" of water in it will hold around 70 lbs. Their "20 hp" 23" od boiler was also shorter, so with 8" of water it would hold 55 lbs of water, if only 6" of water the 41 lbs of water.

By the mid to late teens they had droped the 30 hp boiler and engine except for the Mountain Wagons and Trucks which were large and heavy. Ironically as the years went on and the body became enclosed, then with glass all around, hard tops, etc. the weight went way up, where as the 30 hp system would keep a K model at well over 60 mph, they had went down to the 20 hp model with much heavier cars, about twice the weight, so they now could only keep up to 45 or 50 without pushing the boiler.

So when before the boiler could keep up with the engine at 60 and maintain the reserve and desired boiler pressure, now it was taxed at a lower speed, lowering the pressure and effectively reducing the reserve of the boiler.

A 30 hp Stanley boiler, coupled with a lighter/lower, more slipery car and a more effecient engine would enable it to maintain speeds well over those that are legal on the interstate.

I should mention however that they DO have the theoretical capacity to blow up, this is the side effect of all of that boiling water surface area and the mean distance between walls.

The monotube, because of it's small tubing is incapable of exploding. They will however fail on occasion and what will be noticed is a rapid or slow drop in boiler pressure and a hissing noise when everything is shut off and the boiler is still under pressure.

A watertube is very simular to the monotube in this regard, this depends however on how large the diameter of the drums are for it though. In general though they are also incapable of exploding.

As always there are many tradeoffs and there have been numerous instances of combined water/fire tube boilers, even with a little bit of monotube mixed in there.

The LaMont type, that is where the water is forced or assisted in its circulation in a watertube boiler is considered to be the safest. It is capable of being fired VERY hard without fear of burning out a tube. Instead of letting the steam bubbles circulate the boiler water, it uses a pump to do so.

Maxim in his steam plane passed the feed water through an injector, which increased the water pressure 30 lbs above that of the boiler water, this high velocity steam of water induced a much more rapid flow of water through his watertube boiler. It would make well over 9,000 lbs of steam per hour and weighed between 900 and 1,000 lbs, it held 200 lbs of water.

Caleb Ramsby



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/02/2009 09:10PM by Caleb Ramsby.

Caleb

Thank you for taking the time and effort to put so much information into one reply. I do appreciate it, I will take a look atthe Stanley website. And yes, they do represent a lot of fun. LOL. I do look forward to the experience.

Don Cochran

Evening Again Caleb

I did check out the Stanley site,beautiful job of restoration. I had not thought of it conciously, but Abner Doble and Stanley both used 4 cylinder flat undr the carengines hooked up to the rear axle. Interesting.

When I finally get to the point where I can do a little Automotive application I have a Mark V that is ready for a whole new perspective of traveling. (I may nudge Mathusala off the the oldest chair too). One of my goals noe the less.

Thanks for the extra insite on the boilers.

Don Cochran

Don,

Yeah, he sure did do a great job.

Those four rods you see coming out of the Stanley engine are, well, two for pistons and two for the valves. It sure looks like there could be four pistons in there, but nope, just two with the slide valves located in the sandwiched steam chest.

Yes, I believe that all of Dobles cars were geared direct to the axle.

He also had a two cylinder unaflow and a two cylinder compound, also a 4 cylinder V type triple expansion for a steam truck, that might have had multiple gears. I am far from an expert on Dobles engine design history.

Mark V, now that would certianly be a unique project, then again almost any steam project is unique.LOL

Caleb Ramsby

Couple info bits. Stanleys have 2-cylinder double-acting, single-expansion engines. Doble-Detroit of 1916 = 2-cylinder unaflow, Doble E (1925), 4 cylinder compound, Doble F (1930something), 2 cylinder compound. Delling boiler was an "inside out Stanley boiler", with vertical straight short water tubes between top and bottom reservoirs shaped like jelly donuts. Mmmm, donuts. Delling burner was a _sideways_-firing vaporizing type with one vertical mixing tube, fuel jet/air entry at the top, and a vertical fine-mesh metal screen flameholder. Water circulated upward (with steam bubbles) thru the tubes closest to burner, downward through the rest of tubes. Fascinating design, hard to find detailed info on.

Best of luck Don, there's an awful lot of stuff to figure out in designing a steam car. Wish I could be of more help, but am currently experiencing a sort of "mental traffic jam" and can't think/comment on the wide variety of darned interesting things being discussed on this Board at present. Not quite gridlocked yet though. LOL

Peter

[www.steamautomobile.com]

[www.steamautomobile.com]


Notice these two postings carefully. Like I said before, read some current nomenclature from the SACA store(whatever you pick will be fine) use this, as a platform to start a discussion. Then, from there, you can cut across the grain, if you have something that will turn heads.

ALSO, here is something from the[current] steam bulletin, written by 'frustrated' or Ken. attach-a


Best



Jeremy

Morning Peter

Thanks for the reply, sorry about the near-grid lock, trying to break thru my self Some, rather close to me, might say I am not succeeding very fassst. LOL

Don Cochran

Morning Jeremy

Looks like a neat article to machine a small crankshaft--a rather important part of the whole thing. I need to get hooked up with a subscription to SACA, I haven't done that yet. I will look them up on Google in the next day or two.

HAVE A GREAT DAY.

dON cOCHRAN

Hi dON,

I get that too. "Perseverance furthers".

p3+3r

Hi All,

These are the current links to the SACA store.

[www.steamautomobile.com]

[www.steamautomobile.com]

-edit-

[www.steamautomobile.com]

-


Best


Jeremy



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/04/2009 08:13PM by Jeremy Holmes.

Evening Caleb
I have been reviewing your e-mail/postd reply about the different boilers. I guess I haven't entered the correct information on google for the Williams boiler. From what you said it must be very efficient. Can you help me with a car or company that uses it, (used it)? From what I have been reading Doble was working on an engine that only required 4 to 6 lbs per hr before the project came to a stop. Have a good evening.

Don Cochran

Don,

There is a whole, errr rather long discussion on this forum about the Williams engine and what is sometimes called the Williams cycle.

[www.steamautomobile.com]

The Whole thread is 36 pages long and spans three years of posts! To put it mildly, the Williams engine is still debated rather hotly even today.

To be honest I am not sure what kind of boiler the Williams were using, some sort of monotube I believe.

What was so effecient was their engine, almost every successfull boiler put in a steam car got around 80% effeciency when running at it's stated "max" output, some more some less.

The real difference is how much steam a certian boiler can make and how much steam the engine requires to make a horsepower for one hour.

To explain the Williams engine and why it worked so well, first a little bit about the standard steam engine.

Let us take the Stanley engine as an example. It is double acting, meaning that both sides of the piston are contained by the cylinder and both sides are pushed by steam, so that there are two power strokes per cylinder per revolution, as opposed to one power stroke per two revolutions in a standard 4 stroke gas engine.

On the Stanley there are two cylinders in line with eachother, there is a steam chest cast into the engine block between them. There are also three ports for each cylinder, the fore and aft ports go from the steam chest to the cylinder, one to the head end and the other to the crank end. The middle port, which is a big larger, goes to the exhaust.

One "D" valve is used per cylinder to admit and exhaust steam from both ends of the cylinder. It is seated on the ports with the flat bit against them, under the curve of the D is a cavity. As it moves towards the head end of the cylinder it will uncover the crank end port to the cylinder thusly letting fresh steam into the cylinder, AND it will communicate the head end cylinder port with the exhaust port via the valve cavity.

There for the single vavle does four functions. One issue is that the cut off, that is the point at which it is closed off, of the inlet and exhaust are connected. So that a change in one will produce a change in the other. This can be modified with trick valve gear or modifying the valve laps etc.

The two main issues with this vave however is that, ONE, the live and exhaust steam both travel through the same ports as it goes to and from the engine. So, the cold steam leaving cools the port and the live steam entering is cooled down, even condensed if there is not enough superheat, sort of like always driving with a cold engine! TWO, if the live steam leaks past the valve it will go directly into the exhaust, doing no good at all.

That being said, if the ports are made straight and the valve is tight, both of these issues become much smaller.

The Williams made their engine after Stumpf's unaflow engine. Stumpf's books are availiable at Google.com books for free download and worth reading if you are interested in the unaflow type of engine.

The unaflow seperated the inlet and exhaust ports, preferably using only one valve per cylinder end, for the inlet only.

The piston was made much longer and a ring of exhaust ports were cast or machined into the middle of the cylinder. These ports were covered by the lond piston except for the last 5% to 15% of the pistons stroke.

Thusly the hot steam valve and port was kept far away from the exhaust ports. The other MAJOR product of this design was a great pressure of compression. The D valve on the Stanley is set up to release the steam for almost all of the stroke, thusly producing a very low compression pressure.

This has and is an issue with the unaflow engine, if the exhaust opening is fixed and the exhaust pressure(condensor) is fixed and the clearance is fixed the recompression pressure will be fixed(more or less, it will vary with rpm because of steam flow rates etc.). Now, with a varying inlet pressure the compression pressure could be much lower or usually much higher then the inlet pressure. Doing much negative work.

Stumpf, for various applications applied numerous "fixs" for this issue ranging from, a variable clearance space to various auxilarry exhaust valves, the most wild of which was an auxiliarry exhaust valve in the piston itself.

The main thing that the Williams did was to come up with the idea of and making WORK an automatic compression relief valve. This valve automatically opened if the compression pressure was above that of the inlet steam and let the compressed steam go from the cylinder to the inlet line.

One other issue AND benefit of the unaflow engine, or that is, high compression, is the very high temperature that is achieved, usually a few hundred degrees higher then the inlet steam, although only for an instant. In Stumpf book there are graphs that show this is a real time scale, very informative!

The big thing that the unaflow engine does is let one expand steam many times in one cylinder without having the steam condense in the process. This was the reason for the invention of compound engines, ones which exhaust steam from one cylinder to another, thusly spliting up the temperature drops into different cylinders.

The unaflow does this in one cylinder with the exhaust ports being physically removed from the presence of the inlet cylinders, getting 20 expansions or more in one unaflow cylinder is not unheard of!

As you may notice if you look up discussions of the Williams engine on this forum, the Williams claims are also hottly debated, they were rather private about their work and there were few if any real independent tests of their engine. The only one that I know of was reported in "Machine Design", can't remember the date or find the cliping that I have.

I hope that this helps some.

Caleb Ramsby

Great topic! Great information. I have discovered this site only recently and am still reading old posts.

My 74 Econoline-300 has a 302 - 2 bbl carb, with C-4 transmission and Dana 60 (1:3.451) ratio.
It also has a top speed of 85 mph. I looked up the specs: the 302 develops 210 hp (new). That falls in line with Caleb's discussion on power requirements and becomes my target for my steam-dream.

I am not certain that I am converting torque to hp correctly, any shortcuts? Now I need to reed about the williams

Thanks,

Charles Gutha

Hp=Torque*RPM/5252.

[www.howstuffworks.com] Google Torque horsepower conversion. Lots of hits.

It took me this long to find this site! thinking about googling for mathmatical formulas is too easy. thanks. (blush blush)

Harry,

I assume it was some mush-brained reporter that came up with the line about ghoulish fuel for your self-fueling robot. Sheesh! Talk about unwanted publicity!

Tom

Sorry, this was supposed to be one the Cyclone post.

Tom



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/22/2009 01:11AM by TH.

Hi Tom
we have had more than our share of press on this ....it is a vegetarian . It is amazing to see a flame 2[' high 6" in diameter coming out of the combustion test stack on wood chips....of course this is without the heat exchanger installed. I'll send a picture of it soon
Harry

All files from this thread

File Name	File Size		Posted by	Date
020309a.jpg	125.8 KB	open | download	Jeremy Holmes	02/03/2009	Read message