Hinote Steam Car 1973-75
Posted by Bill Hinote
|
Hinote Steam Car 1973-75 June 27, 2009 10:22AM |
Hello All:
As promised I've started a new thread which will provide some details about my successful steam car, built and operated in the period 1973-1975.
This first post will only have the 3 black and white photos attached; I'll start to provide some details in other posts as soon as tomorrow.
I hope you-all will enjoy this, and feel free to ask questions.
Regards,
Bill Hinote
As promised I've started a new thread which will provide some details about my successful steam car, built and operated in the period 1973-1975.
This first post will only have the 3 black and white photos attached; I'll start to provide some details in other posts as soon as tomorrow.
I hope you-all will enjoy this, and feel free to ask questions.
Regards,
Bill Hinote
|
Re: Hinote Steam Car 1973-75 June 27, 2009 09:10PM |
Bill,
I have a color illustration of the system (attached) that is very close to what you built that will allow people not familiar with the hardware used to identify items. As they say in the trade "a picture is worth 1,000 words". This is an update of a drawing published in 1976 that can be used for doodling on to show additional items or changes made by others. Change the title to suit.
Graeme
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/01/2009 12:07AM by gvagg2.
I have a color illustration of the system (attached) that is very close to what you built that will allow people not familiar with the hardware used to identify items. As they say in the trade "a picture is worth 1,000 words". This is an update of a drawing published in 1976 that can be used for doodling on to show additional items or changes made by others. Change the title to suit.
Graeme
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/01/2009 12:07AM by gvagg2.
|
Re: Hinote Steam Car 1973-75 July 01, 2009 03:44PM |
Quote
Bill Hinote
I'll try to provide a list of details about the items installed, and their configuration.
Here's some details about the engine:
Basic description for the type would be: 6-cylinder impulse ("bash"
valve uniflow type, with rotary intake for starting and slow speed operation. The actual hardware was a converted 6-cylinder Mercury outboard powerhead--I believe the displacement was 66 cubic inches.
Most of the work was done by RJ Smith on this motor. He claimed to have dyno'ed it, and there was quite a lot of power available if adequate steam was available. I forget the actual number but it seems it was something like 60 hp.
The standard conversion for this mostly-aluminum engine included: Removing the intake reed valves and holders; drilling and tapping the pistons for the brass lift pins; removing the ceramic portion of the spark plugs and brazing a swagelok fitting instead--before which the hardened steel ball was inserted and whacked with a hammer and punch to "coin" it to the plug base--creating a solid sealing surface. The rotary valve assembly consisted of brass body with packing glands and a steel (might have been SS) one-piece rotor and shaft assembly, and was mounted at the original location for the distributor. The fittings on the block to receive the rotary valve feed lines were just brass flare fittings. The feed lines from the rotary valve were intentionally small to restrict the steam flow from that source at higher speeds (I think we may have used 1/8-inch OD tubing). Fabrication of an intake plenum was recommended by Smith, and was accomplished successfully by yrs trly--ditto for the exhaust manifold. The intake plenum prevented unwanted variations in steam pressure and possible resonance issues.
Steam was exhausted through the original intake ports (3), after having been ported into the crankcase area through the original cast-in bypass ports of the 2-cycle IC configuration. Engine lubrication consisted of a pint of SC Gunk (actually a soluble oil) and a pint of superheat steam oil mixed together thoroughly and then poured slowly into 5 gallons of water; the oil mix was carried through the water supply and then the boiler, before lubricating the throttle and engine. It was then carried with the exhaust and went through the condenser to return to the feedwater tank for reuse.
The main problems encountered were with the bash valves. The brass lift pins had a lower than satisfactory life (the soft brass tended to "mushroom"out, reducing the valve lift). Pete Barrett struggled with this problem; I didn't experience it to any significant degree--probably because my average pressures were lower than his, and I didn't accumulate as much total mileage. The other problem was that the spark plugs wouldn't stay tightened in place, because of the different expansion coefficients of the steel plugs and the aluminum block assembly. I solved this by taking advantage of the clamping bolt holes at the crankcase seam--which were directly in-line with the cylinder centerlines. Using mild steel all-thread for extensions and c-shaped mild steel straps I was able to make valve retainers which totally solved the issue. The pre-tension value could be adjusted with the double nut arrangement so the correct tension was available when the engine was fully warmed up. I recall tapping the all-thread with a hammer and noting the sound to determine the actual tension being applied.
Dick Smith was a real genius--and one of his best attributes was being able to find the simplest ways to build up a steam power system using "off-the-shelf" components. He claimed a steam rate (as I recall) of 6 lb/hp-hr for this engine, which was quite good. I never confirmed this BTW--but it was certainly economical in its steam usage as far as I was concerned.
Anyone out there who has further knowledge about this engine type is welcome to chime in, to add info or to correct mine. I hope my memory of this is mostly accurate, after 35 years!
Bill
|
Re: Hinote Steam Car 1973-75 July 12, 2009 01:35PM |
Quote
Bill Hinote
I'm currently working up a description of the steam generator along with a graphic depiction. I'll probably need a couple more days before I post it
OK--here's the drawing, with a few relevant notes:
1. It's probably not totally accurate (I'll bet Karl Petersen can provide corrections as necessary).
2. It's not to scale.
3. Created in MS Paint--it doesn't have any relationship to a CAD-type drawing.
FWIW
I believe Smith called this one the "Maxi-SASS".
The coils consisted of 300 feet of black iron pipe in 2 sizes (1/4 and 3/8 inch nominal, as I recall). These were mandrel-wound into concentric drums with the superheat section nested inside the economizer section. The outer section was welded into a solid drum while on the mandrel, using stitch welds about 1/2-inch in length between adjacent windings to create a solid piece with very little leakage between the courses. OTOH the inner drum (which was also welded on the mandrel) had pieces of welding rod forced between the courses to create gaps which would provide controlled leakage of the hot gases. The welding rod was then welded into place along with the same sort of welds to provide a solid drum.
The inner drum was suspended concentrically by driving 3 pieces of pipe (or tubing) into the gap and welding them at the ends to each drum to create a single assembly. A disc of aluminized steel sheet was welded at the outer end of the superheater/inner drum to seal that end and a ring of the same material was welded at the burner end to seal the gap between the drums there.
The water path was as follows (as I recall it): Feedwater entered through 2 check valves to the exhaust end of the outer coil and travelled up to the burner end where it was brought back to the exhaust end by a pipe running in the gap between the coils; then, entering the superheater (inner coil) it travelled up to the burner end where it exited the boiler.
The burner utilized a pressure atomizing nozzle from the oil furnace industry. I burned a mix of 80% diesel and 20% gasoline (the gasoline promoted light-off, and was chosen after some pretty hairy light-off delays that scared the hell out of me!) The air was supplied by the standard (for the time) aircraft surplus blower (squirrel-cage type). The spark plug was standard automotive type, modified with extended electrodes made out of stainless welding rod. The fuel pump was also aircraft surplus. Fuel pressure was set on a bypass loop with a restrictor valve to create the desired value.
Burner configuration is shown in the drawing as I remember it; the outer shell (of aluminized steel sheet) wrapped around the inner assembly to provide cooling, and to preheat the air. The innermost cylinder was a pretty interesting detail, and served 2 purposes:
1. It was a "recirculator" which drew superhot gases around it in the reverse direction; the resulting mix of burned/unburned fuel at the nozzle are resulted in a claimed NOx reduction.
2. The heat of the cylinder as well as the recirculated gases promoted final vaporization of any "stubborn" fuel that the atomizing nozzle was emitting as liquid. This still wasn't totally effective as the burner emitted "sparklers" consisting of small droplets of burning fuel. The inner space of the coil assembly provided enough length to allow these to burn out--there wasn't any real soot buildup noticeable after lengthy operation.
The nose of the burner was a tight fit inside the inner drum; the outer shell included tabs thru which sheet metal screws were inserted to fasten the whole assembly to the upper ring of the coil assembly. Any slight leakage of air at that point would have been cold air as a result of this design detail.
Insulation for the boiler consisted of a blanket of one-inch Cerafelt wrapped with 2 overlapping sheets of 304 stainless and held in place with large worm-type clamps. Simple but moderately effective--the outer shell ran about 200 degrees F at full tilt. A little too hot to put your hand on!
Control as follows:
1. Pressurestat primary control over the burner, completely shutting it down at target pressure (I used 600 psig as I recall).
2. Bypass flow control valve provided constant water flow from the FW pump once a minimum speed was achieved.
3. Temp sensing frame at the boiler outlet operated a whitey toggle valve on a bypassing "T" in the fuel supply line to the burner, with adjustable preset; The flow was set so the steam temp would slowly rise (assuming the FW pump was pumping fast enough to engage the FW flow control valve), then the toggle valve would "trim" the fuel feed back as the desired operating temp was approached.
4. There was an external frame attached to the superheat/inner drum at each end; this created a heat-sensitive differential movement on the frame which was used to operate a set of automotive points. The points were in the electrical circuit for the burner auxiliaries, and served as an overheat shutdown to back up the other, "normal" control functions.
The control methods used as well as the hardware used to create them, showed Smith's genius and ability to create novel and simple solutions. Control hardware is pretty much visible in the photos; I'll be glad to describe them in more detail as necessary.
This post is pretty long; I'll try to relate some recollections about actual operation in another post. I hope this one has been interesting and (reasonably) accurate.
Bill
|
Re: Hinote Steam Car 1973-75 July 16, 2009 07:35AM |
Hi Bill,
Interesting stuff for sure!
Sorry, to you and everyone, that I just have not had time lately to keep up with and comment on all the very interesting material and issues which have been presented on this forum. The past month's summertime design activities around the Hermitage here could be described as "throttle actuation". Sounds silly & minor, until you try to do it. Results at present are part "superb, ready to build, looks fantastic", part "gol durn it how long is this gonna take to figger out!?!?!?". I, along with I know a few others here, am a big believer in very careful design before building -- even if it takes seemingly forever -- but then again, as steam motorcycle driver Tony Grzyb says, to both consternation and agreement, and sometimes an odd combination of both, "you don't know nuthin' till you build it".
The bit I wanted to comment on was your rear axle setup. I considered something similar, built on the 1964 VW Beetle chassis now in my shop (will somebody please get over to San Diego and pick it up, free!?). I guess this suggestion is a few decades late. The trailing arms of the early/swing-axle bug suspension, I think, could be plain-pivot-mounted on a solid axle, as the suspension arms can (and do) flex side to side, as well as twist. The only thing I would add would be a Panhard rod, to keep the axle centered.
That being said, however, your slide-pin arrangement was a great "get 'er running ASAP" adaptation.
It bears mentioning that the later VW Bug suspension (1969 and on, or 1968 on for Automatic Stickshift), had double-jointed, "true independent" rear suspension. Whole different deal. The Bug went from what Jim Crank once described, with uncomfortable accuracy, as the "worst suspension ever" [ah, but don't forget the early swing-axle Corvette!], to a pretty decent independent suspension geometry.
Of course, despite being the hardest of hard-core Old VW drivers myself ('69 Auto-Stick Bug since '78, & still going strong), I still prefer the camber [& other] characteristics of a solid axle.
A bit off-topic, perhaps, for "engine guys".
Kudos to all for the recent lack of surliness here, even in the face of most contentious issues, considering that "flaming" often seems a requirement for internet fora. Extra credit to those who have maintained a positive sense of "steamthusiasm" in the face of genuine or alleged "reality checks".
Peter
Interesting stuff for sure!
Sorry, to you and everyone, that I just have not had time lately to keep up with and comment on all the very interesting material and issues which have been presented on this forum. The past month's summertime design activities around the Hermitage here could be described as "throttle actuation". Sounds silly & minor, until you try to do it. Results at present are part "superb, ready to build, looks fantastic", part "gol durn it how long is this gonna take to figger out!?!?!?". I, along with I know a few others here, am a big believer in very careful design before building -- even if it takes seemingly forever -- but then again, as steam motorcycle driver Tony Grzyb says, to both consternation and agreement, and sometimes an odd combination of both, "you don't know nuthin' till you build it".
The bit I wanted to comment on was your rear axle setup. I considered something similar, built on the 1964 VW Beetle chassis now in my shop (will somebody please get over to San Diego and pick it up, free!?). I guess this suggestion is a few decades late. The trailing arms of the early/swing-axle bug suspension, I think, could be plain-pivot-mounted on a solid axle, as the suspension arms can (and do) flex side to side, as well as twist. The only thing I would add would be a Panhard rod, to keep the axle centered.
That being said, however, your slide-pin arrangement was a great "get 'er running ASAP" adaptation.
It bears mentioning that the later VW Bug suspension (1969 and on, or 1968 on for Automatic Stickshift), had double-jointed, "true independent" rear suspension. Whole different deal. The Bug went from what Jim Crank once described, with uncomfortable accuracy, as the "worst suspension ever" [ah, but don't forget the early swing-axle Corvette!], to a pretty decent independent suspension geometry.
Of course, despite being the hardest of hard-core Old VW drivers myself ('69 Auto-Stick Bug since '78, & still going strong), I still prefer the camber [& other] characteristics of a solid axle.
A bit off-topic, perhaps, for "engine guys".
Kudos to all for the recent lack of surliness here, even in the face of most contentious issues, considering that "flaming" often seems a requirement for internet fora. Extra credit to those who have maintained a positive sense of "steamthusiasm" in the face of genuine or alleged "reality checks".
Peter
|
Re: Hinote Steam Car 1973-75 July 16, 2009 10:25AM |
Bill,
I bought one of those boiler coils (used with a leak in the superheater) from Smith when I was at Long Beach, Ca (only 20 minutes from Midway City where Smith lived) and considered using it in my VW conversion project at the time (1976). The design is shown in Smiths catalog as the Maxi Sass from the Super Sass range. Two smaller sizes were Midi Sass used on motorcycle conversions and the Mini Sass on bicycles.
The new burner I developed was a spinning cup design that had a shorter and wider flame pattern that did not suit the Smith boiler shape so I stayed with the pancake coil layout. That was only about half as long overall and lighter as well. Both Barrett and myself had been using pancake type (Doble F style) boilers for the previous 10 years. Subsequent developments of it by Barrett made additional savings on weight and size.
I left the Maxi Sass boiler tube nest for sale with Barrett when I left USA in 1977 and I don't have any news on where it went after that.
I have a picture of the two sections of the boiler separated to repair the superheater leak. Beside it is a picture of the pancake coils (and assistant) I made for my VW project.
Our projects from 1976 retained the original VW floor pans and suspension and none had a rigid back axle with engine attached. Smith claimed that was more efficient but he was deeply upset when Barrett demonstrated his test chassis at the 1977 Long Beach meet with a much smaller burner fitted (only 1 or 2 US gal/hr capacity instead of 4 to 6 gph as previously used). It was a watershed day when traditionalists and modernists parted ways. The abrupt change only took about 6 months to take place.
I bought one of those boiler coils (used with a leak in the superheater) from Smith when I was at Long Beach, Ca (only 20 minutes from Midway City where Smith lived) and considered using it in my VW conversion project at the time (1976). The design is shown in Smiths catalog as the Maxi Sass from the Super Sass range. Two smaller sizes were Midi Sass used on motorcycle conversions and the Mini Sass on bicycles.
The new burner I developed was a spinning cup design that had a shorter and wider flame pattern that did not suit the Smith boiler shape so I stayed with the pancake coil layout. That was only about half as long overall and lighter as well. Both Barrett and myself had been using pancake type (Doble F style) boilers for the previous 10 years. Subsequent developments of it by Barrett made additional savings on weight and size.
I left the Maxi Sass boiler tube nest for sale with Barrett when I left USA in 1977 and I don't have any news on where it went after that.
I have a picture of the two sections of the boiler separated to repair the superheater leak. Beside it is a picture of the pancake coils (and assistant) I made for my VW project.
Our projects from 1976 retained the original VW floor pans and suspension and none had a rigid back axle with engine attached. Smith claimed that was more efficient but he was deeply upset when Barrett demonstrated his test chassis at the 1977 Long Beach meet with a much smaller burner fitted (only 1 or 2 US gal/hr capacity instead of 4 to 6 gph as previously used). It was a watershed day when traditionalists and modernists parted ways. The abrupt change only took about 6 months to take place.
|
Re: Hinote Steam Car 1973-75 July 17, 2009 08:03PM |
Bill--
The Super SASS boiler that you describe is the same type that I acquired thru Tom Kimmel-the one I used for my T-Model-Ford based steam vehicle. I used the generator for a matter of years, and developed a very intimate relationship with it..since I could never get it to work satisfactorily!! The burner that came with the generater was also as you describe...but needed quite a bit of rebuild time in order to function.
I think part of my problem was that the person who built the burner didn't get it quite right to begin with, and so I had a bit of catching up to do..in order to get it somewhat close to Smith's original design. I always had trouble with soot, and had quite a few large backfires as a result of the ignition problems.
I agree wholeheartedly with you concerning the correct flow of gases thru the boiler--I had exactly the same idea. I planned to modify the one I had to use that arrangement, but decided against modifying the Smith design-and decided to just replace it with a Doble-type instead. I increased the efficiency somewhat by installing a FW heater in the stack of the Smith Boiler, but still didn't get very good performance out of it. The Doble-type that replaced the Smith boiler is much more effiicient, and has a much more dependable ignition.
I also had a bit of experience with the spinning cup burner, which was on the Carter Boiler, when Jay Carter loaned it to us for use on the Dragster. I thought it was a very good method of atomizing the fuel without having to compress it to 100 psi, as is usually the case with pressure-atomizing burners. The spinning-cup type always lit off easily, too...but I found that over a period of time, we had a soot buildup on the finned tubing of the boiler. I think the small amount of soot was the result of Carter's control of nitrous oxide emissions for the Federal Emissions Tests that he originally built the Boiler to pass.
The blue-flame burner in the new Dragster boiler is pretty awesome--with absolutely no smoke or soot, but time will only tell how dependable it is-as far as longevity and ease of control go!!!
Cheers--Chuk
The Super SASS boiler that you describe is the same type that I acquired thru Tom Kimmel-the one I used for my T-Model-Ford based steam vehicle. I used the generator for a matter of years, and developed a very intimate relationship with it..since I could never get it to work satisfactorily!! The burner that came with the generater was also as you describe...but needed quite a bit of rebuild time in order to function.
I think part of my problem was that the person who built the burner didn't get it quite right to begin with, and so I had a bit of catching up to do..in order to get it somewhat close to Smith's original design. I always had trouble with soot, and had quite a few large backfires as a result of the ignition problems.
I agree wholeheartedly with you concerning the correct flow of gases thru the boiler--I had exactly the same idea. I planned to modify the one I had to use that arrangement, but decided against modifying the Smith design-and decided to just replace it with a Doble-type instead. I increased the efficiency somewhat by installing a FW heater in the stack of the Smith Boiler, but still didn't get very good performance out of it. The Doble-type that replaced the Smith boiler is much more effiicient, and has a much more dependable ignition.
I also had a bit of experience with the spinning cup burner, which was on the Carter Boiler, when Jay Carter loaned it to us for use on the Dragster. I thought it was a very good method of atomizing the fuel without having to compress it to 100 psi, as is usually the case with pressure-atomizing burners. The spinning-cup type always lit off easily, too...but I found that over a period of time, we had a soot buildup on the finned tubing of the boiler. I think the small amount of soot was the result of Carter's control of nitrous oxide emissions for the Federal Emissions Tests that he originally built the Boiler to pass.
The blue-flame burner in the new Dragster boiler is pretty awesome--with absolutely no smoke or soot, but time will only tell how dependable it is-as far as longevity and ease of control go!!!
Cheers--Chuk
|
Re: Hinote Steam Car 1973-75 August 25, 2009 01:22AM |
I saw little of this car since I was no longer spending much time in Midway City, but was busy building the steam Citroen, then moved north at the end of 1974.
The maxiSass coil set was cheap, maybe, but it certainly had poor heat transfer. Chuk Williams "T" chassis, my Citroen, Graeme's understanding and the Hinote car set no efficiency records due to this major producer of hot exhaust. I do not think the tradeoff in low cost was worth the poor performance.
The efficiency of the bash valve Merc based engines must have been compromised by the largely unknown effects of the compression space, the amount of steam which could come through the bash valve, and the exhaust restriction using only the original transfer ports for exhaust into the crankcase. I did dyno testing on a 2 cylinder unit sold to Clayton Mfg and on test engines with rotary valves which showed excellent efficiency, but this was about 11 lb/hp-hr and not 6.
Graeme-- You say the falling out of old/new designs was at the Long Beach meet. Can you write privately or open a new topic? I was clearly away and do not understand the fork in the road. I would like to understand Richard's reactions to the facts better, and what he might have done to his development path.
Karl Petersen
The maxiSass coil set was cheap, maybe, but it certainly had poor heat transfer. Chuk Williams "T" chassis, my Citroen, Graeme's understanding and the Hinote car set no efficiency records due to this major producer of hot exhaust. I do not think the tradeoff in low cost was worth the poor performance.
The efficiency of the bash valve Merc based engines must have been compromised by the largely unknown effects of the compression space, the amount of steam which could come through the bash valve, and the exhaust restriction using only the original transfer ports for exhaust into the crankcase. I did dyno testing on a 2 cylinder unit sold to Clayton Mfg and on test engines with rotary valves which showed excellent efficiency, but this was about 11 lb/hp-hr and not 6.
Graeme-- You say the falling out of old/new designs was at the Long Beach meet. Can you write privately or open a new topic? I was clearly away and do not understand the fork in the road. I would like to understand Richard's reactions to the facts better, and what he might have done to his development path.
Karl Petersen
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
