Lamont boiler
Posted by dullfig
|
Re: Lamont boiler January 21, 2011 11:39AM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 1,441 |
Andy,
I am not sure about Doble's method of calculating heating surface area; but isn't all you need is to know the circumference and length?
Perhaps he was thinking that the top surface of his spiral coils saw the direct heat from the fire and the back side really only saw heat from gas turbulence and metal conduction.
I do recall when Bill Besler and Stan Whitlock were designing steam generators, that is all they used. Abner was rather noted for going off the deep end at times.
I just don't know, so in all these matters I defer to George.
Doble's coils were always staggered, or the gas goes whoosh out the stack. At least all the original and rebuilt ones I have had my hands on.
Those hypodermic tubing contraptions always had many tubes in parallel and what caused so many to be reduced to melted lumps, was that there was no way to insure that each coil got it's share of water ALL the time. Academic theory overriding the actual facts again. Some never learn.
Dan,
If I recall the splendid lecture George provided one evening at that tour in New Hampshire, the velocity of the water in the tubes seeing the direct blast of heat from the fire is so fast that indeed it does sweep all the bubbles away. No matter how fast it goes, you always have a boundary layer, only very, very thin now.
He asked if i was familiar with the Lamont and while I was aware of it, I really knew nothing about it. That lecture completely turned my thinking around forever and I threw every negative thought I could about the Lamont at George. He totally answered every one. I wondered why I fought the monotube control problem for so long when the Lamont solved every one and then some, let alone all the other advantages it has.
If the circulating pump stops when firing, then you sure would be in a serious world of hurt. So that pump has to be really good; but I don't see that as a problem of design.
In that regard and for enhanced circulation my thinking is that 8-10 times the maximum evaporation rate would be good to have. The pump takes so little power considering what it brings to the design.
What would be most instructive would be to the build a Lamont, fully instrument it, then use a high pressure air blower and keep driving the fire rate up until the heat input exceeded the transfer rate through the tubing. Like going to 50-100" draft or higher. Just what can this design stand when really pushed hard??
What I would like to know, is that supposedly the French and German destroyers and destroyer escorts had really high powered Lamonts. So what were the specs on these?
Same question about the steam generators on BISMARK, also said to be Lamonts.
Jim
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/21/2011 11:54AM by Jim Crank.
I am not sure about Doble's method of calculating heating surface area; but isn't all you need is to know the circumference and length?
Perhaps he was thinking that the top surface of his spiral coils saw the direct heat from the fire and the back side really only saw heat from gas turbulence and metal conduction.
I do recall when Bill Besler and Stan Whitlock were designing steam generators, that is all they used. Abner was rather noted for going off the deep end at times.
I just don't know, so in all these matters I defer to George.
Doble's coils were always staggered, or the gas goes whoosh out the stack. At least all the original and rebuilt ones I have had my hands on.
Those hypodermic tubing contraptions always had many tubes in parallel and what caused so many to be reduced to melted lumps, was that there was no way to insure that each coil got it's share of water ALL the time. Academic theory overriding the actual facts again. Some never learn.
Dan,
If I recall the splendid lecture George provided one evening at that tour in New Hampshire, the velocity of the water in the tubes seeing the direct blast of heat from the fire is so fast that indeed it does sweep all the bubbles away. No matter how fast it goes, you always have a boundary layer, only very, very thin now.
He asked if i was familiar with the Lamont and while I was aware of it, I really knew nothing about it. That lecture completely turned my thinking around forever and I threw every negative thought I could about the Lamont at George. He totally answered every one. I wondered why I fought the monotube control problem for so long when the Lamont solved every one and then some, let alone all the other advantages it has.
If the circulating pump stops when firing, then you sure would be in a serious world of hurt. So that pump has to be really good; but I don't see that as a problem of design.
In that regard and for enhanced circulation my thinking is that 8-10 times the maximum evaporation rate would be good to have. The pump takes so little power considering what it brings to the design.
What would be most instructive would be to the build a Lamont, fully instrument it, then use a high pressure air blower and keep driving the fire rate up until the heat input exceeded the transfer rate through the tubing. Like going to 50-100" draft or higher. Just what can this design stand when really pushed hard??
What I would like to know, is that supposedly the French and German destroyers and destroyer escorts had really high powered Lamonts. So what were the specs on these?
Same question about the steam generators on BISMARK, also said to be Lamonts.
Jim
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/21/2011 11:54AM by Jim Crank.
|
Re: Lamont boiler January 21, 2011 01:51PM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 1,771 |
Jim
The Bismarck had twelve Wagner Hochduck high-pressure boilers of either the Schmidth-Hartmann type or the Velox type.
The Bismarck had twelve Wagner Hochduck high-pressure boilers of either the Schmidth-Hartmann type or the Velox type.
|
Re: Lamont boiler January 21, 2011 02:19PM |
Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 180 |
Rolly
nice diagrams. where are they from?
So the Velox is for all practical purposes a Lamont with a pressurized combustion chamber. Pretty much what I had in mind.
A Garrett turbo, like a T-25, goes for about $100-$200 on ebay. Lots of guys are making homemade turbines with them. The info on how to build one is out there, with recommendations on fuel delivery and everything. Adapting it to build a Velox should be easy. Just how much smaller would the whole boiler be, and would it justify the extra complexity? well, maybe not so much more complex, you need a blower anyhow...
Dan
nice diagrams. where are they from?
So the Velox is for all practical purposes a Lamont with a pressurized combustion chamber. Pretty much what I had in mind.
A Garrett turbo, like a T-25, goes for about $100-$200 on ebay. Lots of guys are making homemade turbines with them. The info on how to build one is out there, with recommendations on fuel delivery and everything. Adapting it to build a Velox should be easy. Just how much smaller would the whole boiler be, and would it justify the extra complexity? well, maybe not so much more complex, you need a blower anyhow...
Dan
|
Re: Lamont boiler January 21, 2011 02:50PM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 1,771 |
The Velox boiler is pre 1920, hear is another paper on the boiler by Dr Friedrich Munzinger Berlin. Most likely they are the type used in the Bismarck, built by Wagner Hochduck.
This is before Lamont, Velox started in the 1837
This is before Lamont, Velox started in the 1837
|
Re: Lamont boiler January 21, 2011 02:57PM |
Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 180 |
|
Re: Lamont boiler January 21, 2011 03:20PM |
Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 663 |
Hi Jim
Thanks. The one thing that conserns me about heat transfer in the Lamount circulation circuit is that boiling heat transfer increases exponentially with heat flux. That is temperature between the fluid and hot surface. While heat transfer in a counter flow heat exchanger is closer to linear. So as you increase the circulation rate you would be decreasing the heat flux which is an exponential change in heat transfer.
I think that some research is needed to better determine exactly the optimal flow rate. Boiling heat transfer with it's exponential relationship to heat flux is quite different then a single phase flow which isn't. In George's paper he is claiming 50% increase in output or better for a given surface area. But looking at charts for figuring transfer rates in relation to flow rates there just isn't that kind if gain.
So the gain isn't coming from flow rate alone. I think George said the same. The improvement is as much or more the better control allowing higher firing rates.
Andy
Thanks. The one thing that conserns me about heat transfer in the Lamount circulation circuit is that boiling heat transfer increases exponentially with heat flux. That is temperature between the fluid and hot surface. While heat transfer in a counter flow heat exchanger is closer to linear. So as you increase the circulation rate you would be decreasing the heat flux which is an exponential change in heat transfer.
I think that some research is needed to better determine exactly the optimal flow rate. Boiling heat transfer with it's exponential relationship to heat flux is quite different then a single phase flow which isn't. In George's paper he is claiming 50% increase in output or better for a given surface area. But looking at charts for figuring transfer rates in relation to flow rates there just isn't that kind if gain.
So the gain isn't coming from flow rate alone. I think George said the same. The improvement is as much or more the better control allowing higher firing rates.
Andy
|
Re: Lamont boiler January 21, 2011 04:40PM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 1,771 |
Dan
I put my micrometer down next to my milling machine and it takes me an hour to find it and I haven’t moved five feet. I have so much stuff on boilers I need to search my files for stuff. I just don’t remember. I’ll sleep on it and if I remember OK if not so be it.
Caleb you should start a new topic on natural circulation boilers, Herreshoff and the US navy used three drum boilers with no down commers, but there more to it then that.
Rolly
I put my micrometer down next to my milling machine and it takes me an hour to find it and I haven’t moved five feet. I have so much stuff on boilers I need to search my files for stuff. I just don’t remember. I’ll sleep on it and if I remember OK if not so be it.
Caleb you should start a new topic on natural circulation boilers, Herreshoff and the US navy used three drum boilers with no down commers, but there more to it then that.
Rolly
|
Re: Lamont boiler January 21, 2011 04:47PM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 215 |
Dan,
The best technical book I have ever read and own has serious chapters on all the most modern boilers of its time when steam was king is
TEAM GENERATORS by Dagobert Rudorff published in London in 1938. It is very rare, I had shown it to Tom Kimmel and he did quite sa search to come up with a copy, it could be$100+ or more. It includes chapters on the Benson, Sulzer monotube,steamotive locomotive Lamont style boiler, Velox, Lamont, Schmidt Hartmann, Loeffler, revolving boilers and many others. Very good reading for a serious boiler designer. The Germans and Japanese both used the Lamont peak load boilers in many of their ships much to the dismay of Vice Commander Lamont---our Navy stayed with the B&W types. I believe his dismay that the enemy ships could outspeed our fastest ships with his design caused him the tragedy of suicide. Very sad story of a great inventive engineer.
Try and see if you can get a copy of the book.
George
The best technical book I have ever read and own has serious chapters on all the most modern boilers of its time when steam was king is
TEAM GENERATORS by Dagobert Rudorff published in London in 1938. It is very rare, I had shown it to Tom Kimmel and he did quite sa search to come up with a copy, it could be$100+ or more. It includes chapters on the Benson, Sulzer monotube,steamotive locomotive Lamont style boiler, Velox, Lamont, Schmidt Hartmann, Loeffler, revolving boilers and many others. Very good reading for a serious boiler designer. The Germans and Japanese both used the Lamont peak load boilers in many of their ships much to the dismay of Vice Commander Lamont---our Navy stayed with the B&W types. I believe his dismay that the enemy ships could outspeed our fastest ships with his design caused him the tragedy of suicide. Very sad story of a great inventive engineer.
Try and see if you can get a copy of the book.
George
|
Re: Lamont boiler January 21, 2011 06:34PM |
Admin Registered: 18 years ago Posts: 2,086 |
Hi George,
I have to seriously doubt that the use of LaMont boilers by the Axis could have causes Commander LaMont significant anguish as to the potential outcome in battle. The only significant class of combatant fitted with LaMont boilers, that I know of, were the Hipper class heavy cruisers which were built in two batches. The first flight starting with Hipper and Blucher in 1940 were fitted with 3 Blohn and Voss geared turbines and 12 Lamont boilers and were good for a very decent top speed of 32.5 knots on trials.
The second flight starting with (and eventually limited to) Prinz Eugen had 3 Brown Boveri geared turbines and 9 LaMont boilers and had a top speed of 32 knots.
By means of comparison, the most typical Japanese heavy cruiser was the Mogami class which had 10 Kampon boilers, 4 geared steam turbines and during sea trials had a top speed of 36.4 kts, but this fell to 34.2 knots in later trials after SHIPALTS to correct original design flaws were completed. To the best of my knowledge these Kampon boilers did not use LaMont design.
The US Baltimore class heavy cruiser had 4 geared steam turbines, somehow scraped by with ONLY 4 Babcock and Wilcox boilers (they must have had nice steaming qualities) and was good for 32.8 knots on trials. Note that this is faster than the LaMont powered ships.
"Most experts consider the Baltimores the best heavy cruisers of W.W.II. The best of the Axis cruisers, Mogami and Prinz Eugen, would have been their closest rivals.
Compared to Mogami, the Baltimores were superior in size, protection, seaworthiness, range, secondary and AA battery, fire control, and structural integrity. Mogami carried one more 8in gun, and was slightly faster. Her one appreciable advantage was her heavy torpedo battery of long range 24in torpedoes.
Compared to Prinz Eugen, the Baltimores were superior in secondary and AA battery, armor, range, fire control (by the end of the war, the Baltimores' radar fire control system was superior to that of any Axis ship), and carried one additional 8in gun. Prinz Eugen was slightly larger, and mounted a powerful torpedo battery that the Baltimores lacked. They were about equal in underwater protection, seaworthiness, structural integrity, and speed.
Another factor to consider was the superiority of the American super heavy 335lb AP 8in shell, compared to the lighter and less reliable projectiles in use by the Axis nations. Both German and Japanese shells had a high percentage of "duds" in service."
None of this makes me believe that Cdr. LaMont died from worry over the ability of the Axis ships to compete with ours. Heck, the Germans (who were actually using LaMont boilers) had no carriers and thus were never really a long term contender in a naval conflict, which a naval officer would have readily appreciated
Ken.
I have to seriously doubt that the use of LaMont boilers by the Axis could have causes Commander LaMont significant anguish as to the potential outcome in battle. The only significant class of combatant fitted with LaMont boilers, that I know of, were the Hipper class heavy cruisers which were built in two batches. The first flight starting with Hipper and Blucher in 1940 were fitted with 3 Blohn and Voss geared turbines and 12 Lamont boilers and were good for a very decent top speed of 32.5 knots on trials.
The second flight starting with (and eventually limited to) Prinz Eugen had 3 Brown Boveri geared turbines and 9 LaMont boilers and had a top speed of 32 knots.
By means of comparison, the most typical Japanese heavy cruiser was the Mogami class which had 10 Kampon boilers, 4 geared steam turbines and during sea trials had a top speed of 36.4 kts, but this fell to 34.2 knots in later trials after SHIPALTS to correct original design flaws were completed. To the best of my knowledge these Kampon boilers did not use LaMont design.
The US Baltimore class heavy cruiser had 4 geared steam turbines, somehow scraped by with ONLY 4 Babcock and Wilcox boilers (they must have had nice steaming qualities) and was good for 32.8 knots on trials. Note that this is faster than the LaMont powered ships.
"Most experts consider the Baltimores the best heavy cruisers of W.W.II. The best of the Axis cruisers, Mogami and Prinz Eugen, would have been their closest rivals.
Compared to Mogami, the Baltimores were superior in size, protection, seaworthiness, range, secondary and AA battery, fire control, and structural integrity. Mogami carried one more 8in gun, and was slightly faster. Her one appreciable advantage was her heavy torpedo battery of long range 24in torpedoes.
Compared to Prinz Eugen, the Baltimores were superior in secondary and AA battery, armor, range, fire control (by the end of the war, the Baltimores' radar fire control system was superior to that of any Axis ship), and carried one additional 8in gun. Prinz Eugen was slightly larger, and mounted a powerful torpedo battery that the Baltimores lacked. They were about equal in underwater protection, seaworthiness, structural integrity, and speed.
Another factor to consider was the superiority of the American super heavy 335lb AP 8in shell, compared to the lighter and less reliable projectiles in use by the Axis nations. Both German and Japanese shells had a high percentage of "duds" in service."
None of this makes me believe that Cdr. LaMont died from worry over the ability of the Axis ships to compete with ours. Heck, the Germans (who were actually using LaMont boilers) had no carriers and thus were never really a long term contender in a naval conflict, which a naval officer would have readily appreciated
Ken.
|
Re: Lamont boiler January 21, 2011 08:01PM |
Admin Registered: 18 years ago Posts: 2,086 |
|
Re: Lamont boiler January 21, 2011 08:39PM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 1,519 |
See that!!! 
I remember your reply (Ken) about a Steam Turbo Pump, wheras the turbo's regeneration capabilites are, how did you put it, less than optimum...
How can you turbocharge a boiler without the turbopump? Obviously we are using a pure condensable working fluid that is at 200°f for "make up water" all the non-condensable vapors will bug out of the water by then.
What exactly is it about these boilers that harnesses Isentropic-Polytropic process.
I will agree with Jim on the matter of using an electric motor for combustion air-supply.
Jeremy
I remember your reply (Ken) about a Steam Turbo Pump, wheras the turbo's regeneration capabilites are, how did you put it, less than optimum...
How can you turbocharge a boiler without the turbopump? Obviously we are using a pure condensable working fluid that is at 200°f for "make up water" all the non-condensable vapors will bug out of the water by then.
What exactly is it about these boilers that harnesses Isentropic-Polytropic process.
I will agree with Jim on the matter of using an electric motor for combustion air-supply.
Jeremy
|
Re: Lamont boiler January 21, 2011 09:08PM |
Admin Registered: 18 years ago Posts: 2,086 |
Hi Jeremy,
I have NO idea what you are talking about! Hopefully just a communications mixup.
As the illustration and the writeup in the pdf file illustrate, a supercharged boiler is one that uses a compressor to pack air (not water) into the boiler, and the exhaust gasses are expanded in a turbine to power the compressor. Since my brother cruised all over the Pacific on USS Ramsey (FFG-2), which had a pair of these boilers built by Foster-Wheeler to drive its single screw, I'm pretty sure they work. Basically it is the same as the Velox, but I supplied a pretty picture to illustrate the actual hardware. The electric motor in the illustration is nice when you want to start from cold iron, that air doesn't compress itself. Turbocharged cars have the advantage in that the IC engine is a compressor when on the starter motor. Under some circumstances with these boilers, you may have a temporary shortfall of gasses to power the compressor, and the electric motor can help make up the deficit, also a nice feature.
On the other hand, turbo pumps are used all the time in steam plants: auxillary steam turbines expand boiler steam and make horsepower to operate lube oil pumps, condensate pumps, main feed pumps, fire fighting pumps, standby lube oil pumps, main circ. water pumps... I know these work well because in 1980 I steamed a distance significantly greater than global circumnavigation in an engine room equipped with these things. The aux turbines are generally fairly inefficient, doesn't pay to put too many stages on such small units, the exhaust steam is fed into an auxilliary exhaust system where the thermal energy is used in other necessary applications so the heat doesn't go to waste. The trend had been to move to electric auxilliaries because of lower first cost, less maintenance and higher reliability. Since nautical steam propulsion is pretty much a dying technology (other than for a tiny handful of nuclear vessels) future trends likely won't be significant.
On the other hand, for automotive use I'd certainly not consider steam turbo pumps, the cost, complexity and low efficiency wouldn't make for good value in this particular application.
Ken
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/21/2011 09:14PM by frustrated.
I have NO idea what you are talking about! Hopefully just a communications mixup.
As the illustration and the writeup in the pdf file illustrate, a supercharged boiler is one that uses a compressor to pack air (not water) into the boiler, and the exhaust gasses are expanded in a turbine to power the compressor. Since my brother cruised all over the Pacific on USS Ramsey (FFG-2), which had a pair of these boilers built by Foster-Wheeler to drive its single screw, I'm pretty sure they work. Basically it is the same as the Velox, but I supplied a pretty picture to illustrate the actual hardware. The electric motor in the illustration is nice when you want to start from cold iron, that air doesn't compress itself. Turbocharged cars have the advantage in that the IC engine is a compressor when on the starter motor. Under some circumstances with these boilers, you may have a temporary shortfall of gasses to power the compressor, and the electric motor can help make up the deficit, also a nice feature.
On the other hand, turbo pumps are used all the time in steam plants: auxillary steam turbines expand boiler steam and make horsepower to operate lube oil pumps, condensate pumps, main feed pumps, fire fighting pumps, standby lube oil pumps, main circ. water pumps... I know these work well because in 1980 I steamed a distance significantly greater than global circumnavigation in an engine room equipped with these things. The aux turbines are generally fairly inefficient, doesn't pay to put too many stages on such small units, the exhaust steam is fed into an auxilliary exhaust system where the thermal energy is used in other necessary applications so the heat doesn't go to waste. The trend had been to move to electric auxilliaries because of lower first cost, less maintenance and higher reliability. Since nautical steam propulsion is pretty much a dying technology (other than for a tiny handful of nuclear vessels) future trends likely won't be significant.
On the other hand, for automotive use I'd certainly not consider steam turbo pumps, the cost, complexity and low efficiency wouldn't make for good value in this particular application.
Ken
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/21/2011 09:14PM by frustrated.
|
Re: Lamont boiler January 22, 2011 10:09AM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 215 |
Ken,
I recall in his obituary by a fellow commander that he "died of a broken heart" and then related about a ship called the Gniessel or something like that, after being heavily battered my several his majestys ships, used the peak load Lamont to outsteam them and avoid distruction. I have no idea where that obit is now, used to be in the Steam Generators book I recommended. The germans also constructed land based Lamonts for power production.
George
I recall in his obituary by a fellow commander that he "died of a broken heart" and then related about a ship called the Gniessel or something like that, after being heavily battered my several his majestys ships, used the peak load Lamont to outsteam them and avoid distruction. I have no idea where that obit is now, used to be in the Steam Generators book I recommended. The germans also constructed land based Lamonts for power production.
George
|
Re: Lamont boiler January 22, 2011 10:37AM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 1,441 |
Ken,
The illustrations look suspiciously just like the ones in Besler's report. I see no one has yet picked up on his use of a two stage turbine for the second stage of expansion when coupled to a four cylinder DA landing craft engine. Proposed; but never built. On paper the end result was most impressive and avoided big LP cylinders.
He used the spillover cycle commercially as it was so much simpler and as he said: "Our customers cannot mess it up."
Indeed, someone is now going to propose using this supercharged boiler in a car. Absurd and totally unnecessary.
What I remember reading is that Commander Lamont was immensely discouraged that the American Navy only fooled with his steam generator designs, never took him seriously; but the German Navy put them to good use. His superb steam generators were used by our enemies in war now.
I think we have beaten this Lamont stuff to death and I propose we go to some other subject.
Jim
The illustrations look suspiciously just like the ones in Besler's report. I see no one has yet picked up on his use of a two stage turbine for the second stage of expansion when coupled to a four cylinder DA landing craft engine. Proposed; but never built. On paper the end result was most impressive and avoided big LP cylinders.
He used the spillover cycle commercially as it was so much simpler and as he said: "Our customers cannot mess it up."
Indeed, someone is now going to propose using this supercharged boiler in a car. Absurd and totally unnecessary.
What I remember reading is that Commander Lamont was immensely discouraged that the American Navy only fooled with his steam generator designs, never took him seriously; but the German Navy put them to good use. His superb steam generators were used by our enemies in war now.
I think we have beaten this Lamont stuff to death and I propose we go to some other subject.
Jim
|
Re: Lamont boiler January 22, 2011 10:59AM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 1,519 |
Hi Ken, LOL
I remember we touched on the "steam turbo pump" once before, your explaation was the same, I was just curious if the "super charged boiler" was of simular design. If the thing is compressing air (in the steam drum?) wouldnt that make a "binary cycle". Im assuming the compressed air is not used for combustion air supply.
Maybe a good topic to make new would be "supercharged boiler", this is a really interesting subject.
Jeremy
Quote
Ken
On the other hand, for automotive use I'd certainly not consider steam turbo pumps, the cost, complexity and low efficiency wouldn't make for good value in this particular application
I remember we touched on the "steam turbo pump" once before, your explaation was the same, I was just curious if the "super charged boiler" was of simular design. If the thing is compressing air (in the steam drum?) wouldnt that make a "binary cycle". Im assuming the compressed air is not used for combustion air supply.
Maybe a good topic to make new would be "supercharged boiler", this is a really interesting subject.
Jeremy
|
Re: Lamont boiler January 22, 2011 11:33AM |
Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 663 |
|
Re: Lamont boiler January 22, 2011 11:33AM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 1,441 |
Jeremy,
Supercharging is for the combustion air. The more the merrier until you burn out your firebox.
One thing you really do not want mixed with your steam or feed water is air. Really hurts the heat transfer rate and people went to great lengths to remove it.
On the Doble-McCulllogh car note that they put the vacuum pump on the top of the day tank to remove the air. Clever.
If you want really frantic heat release, take a look at pulse jet combustion chambers (the V-1), things like 9M BTU/cu/ft or more. Only thing is they are not easy to start, cannot be throttled and the racket will put you in jail. Search our old postings as there was some discussion about this one.
There is a grand book on the subject: Pulsating Combustion" by Cornelius van Ranst.
There is more than enough tricky things to solve first before even thinking about these esoteric ideas. Can't get them under the hood anyhow.
Jim
Supercharging is for the combustion air. The more the merrier until you burn out your firebox.
One thing you really do not want mixed with your steam or feed water is air. Really hurts the heat transfer rate and people went to great lengths to remove it.
On the Doble-McCulllogh car note that they put the vacuum pump on the top of the day tank to remove the air. Clever.
If you want really frantic heat release, take a look at pulse jet combustion chambers (the V-1), things like 9M BTU/cu/ft or more. Only thing is they are not easy to start, cannot be throttled and the racket will put you in jail. Search our old postings as there was some discussion about this one.
There is a grand book on the subject: Pulsating Combustion" by Cornelius van Ranst.
There is more than enough tricky things to solve first before even thinking about these esoteric ideas. Can't get them under the hood anyhow.
Jim
|
Re: Lamont boiler January 22, 2011 12:15PM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 1,519 |
Quote
Jim
One thing you really do not want mixed with your steam or feed water is air.
I totally agree with this, thats why I mentioned 200°f, the air bugs out of water at about 180°f, this is what you want, before the (make up) water is sent into boiler. So the water entering the economizer should be at 180°f in order to get the system into equilibrium.
Quote
Jim
Only thing is they are not easy to start, cannot be throttled and the racket will put you in jail
I use a speed controled electric centrifugal fan/blower that supplies preheated combustion air through a system of nozzles into combustion chambers. Burning pellet fuel it has a nice rumble, but if you add liquid fuel the thing absolutely roars.
The latest thing I have learned about boilers is the "Normalizer". On my last visit to Tom Kimmels shop, Tom explaied to me what the normalizer is, he was just casually pointing out all the features to a Stanely monotube boiler that was on the bench, and I said hey, what is a normalizer, he then showed where the hole is drilled, and said thats the normalizer. I could have never learned what a normalizer actually is, without that "hands on" explanation.
To my knowledge a LaMont boiler does not use a normalizer.
Jeremy
-edit- one thing on the "make up" water, "feed water" has disolved gasses (air) and make up water does not, this is because its over 180°f.-
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2011 12:49PM by Jeremy Holmes.
|
Re: Lamont boiler January 22, 2011 02:53PM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 1,441 |
Jeremy,
I have found that the water tank after some miles is about 180-200°F, so any air is long gone, unless you used a small head tank. Then it was kept full from a main storage tank which would stay cooler. Condenser return going to the head tank.
No, the Lamont does not use a normalizer. What I was thinking about, is that the superheater is made a tiny bit too large for all operating conditions, then a normalizer is used to hold the outlet constant. That way the superheat cannot take a dive; but is always up to what you want. One is so simple and easy to do that not using one is just not sensible to me. Like a good insurance policy. A tiny hole in an orifice established by test on every Doble and all varied.
Dobles had to use one with that forced circulation monotube, or the superheat goes all over the place.
Actually, Packy Nolan the Hills Bros. chauffeur invented it. As Walter Welch related, one day after Nolan and Hills came in from a test drive, Nolan said: "We are getting so big a temperature swing all over the place driving all over San Francisco ( a first version of the D) couldn't you just piss a bit of water into the superheater to hold it down?" Dobles patented it with the speed of light and Nolan got nothing out of it.
Actually the normalizer and the compensator together made the Doble control system what it was. The compensator was later replaced by that two level feed pump idea. The big thermal inertia in the Doble coil stack masked the swings quite well when accompanied by the normalizer.
The White had that pyrometer on the footboard. The desired temperature was at a red line at 12:00, straight up. Other than that one point the pyrometer is wildly inaccurate. Set initially by a calibrated thermometer inserted in a test well hole on the thermostat.
No numbers either, didn't want to scare the driver. Funny thing, when it creeps up, all you notice is a greatly increased liveliness, Whites like really hot steam.
Jim
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2011 03:09PM by Jim Crank.
I have found that the water tank after some miles is about 180-200°F, so any air is long gone, unless you used a small head tank. Then it was kept full from a main storage tank which would stay cooler. Condenser return going to the head tank.
No, the Lamont does not use a normalizer. What I was thinking about, is that the superheater is made a tiny bit too large for all operating conditions, then a normalizer is used to hold the outlet constant. That way the superheat cannot take a dive; but is always up to what you want. One is so simple and easy to do that not using one is just not sensible to me. Like a good insurance policy. A tiny hole in an orifice established by test on every Doble and all varied.
Dobles had to use one with that forced circulation monotube, or the superheat goes all over the place.
Actually, Packy Nolan the Hills Bros. chauffeur invented it. As Walter Welch related, one day after Nolan and Hills came in from a test drive, Nolan said: "We are getting so big a temperature swing all over the place driving all over San Francisco ( a first version of the D) couldn't you just piss a bit of water into the superheater to hold it down?" Dobles patented it with the speed of light and Nolan got nothing out of it.
Actually the normalizer and the compensator together made the Doble control system what it was. The compensator was later replaced by that two level feed pump idea. The big thermal inertia in the Doble coil stack masked the swings quite well when accompanied by the normalizer.
The White had that pyrometer on the footboard. The desired temperature was at a red line at 12:00, straight up. Other than that one point the pyrometer is wildly inaccurate. Set initially by a calibrated thermometer inserted in a test well hole on the thermostat.
No numbers either, didn't want to scare the driver. Funny thing, when it creeps up, all you notice is a greatly increased liveliness, Whites like really hot steam.
Jim
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2011 03:09PM by Jim Crank.
|
Re: Lamont boiler January 22, 2011 03:21PM |
Admin Registered: 18 years ago Posts: 2,086 |
Hi Jeremy, Dan
I just got an e-mail from Tom Kimmel on other subjects, but he asked in passing if I could point out that it was one of the several Doble “F” boiler designs made by Keen that had the normalizer and not a Stanley. Apparently Tom doesn't want people who have seen his collection to think he doesn't know what he bought, although I suspect sometimes Tom wishes Diane was that uninformed....
I was also asked to relay a Private Message to Dan concerning La Mont boilers. Dan, could you check your PMs? I only mention it because I know the notifications are often not that obvious unless you are looking for them.
Ken
I just got an e-mail from Tom Kimmel on other subjects, but he asked in passing if I could point out that it was one of the several Doble “F” boiler designs made by Keen that had the normalizer and not a Stanley. Apparently Tom doesn't want people who have seen his collection to think he doesn't know what he bought, although I suspect sometimes Tom wishes Diane was that uninformed....
I was also asked to relay a Private Message to Dan concerning La Mont boilers. Dan, could you check your PMs? I only mention it because I know the notifications are often not that obvious unless you are looking for them.
Ken
|
Re: Lamont boiler January 22, 2011 03:32PM |
Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 641 |
Jim Crank Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jeremy,
>
.
> If you want really frantic heat release, take a
> look at pulse jet combustion chambers (the V-1),
> things like 9M BTU/cu/ft or more. Only thing is
> they are not easy to start, cannot be throttled
> and the racket will put you in jail.
Having researched and then built advanced pulsejets of my own design I can make the following statements (all statements relevant to VALVELESS pulsejets BTW):
1. A well-designed pulsejet is not difficult to start; correct combinations of spark, air/fuel mixtures and starting air are necessary for consistent results.
2. I personally designed, operated and demonstrated a valveless PJ with a max thrust of 28lbf which could be throttled instantly from zero net thrust to max power and back, as fast as you could turn the throttle (fuel flow).
3. Pulsejets aren't just loud--they're dangerously loud. Proven to damage internal organs, and the Nazis demolished a brick and mortar test facility with the V1 (Argus) valved pulsejet.
4. Pulsejets make excellent heat sources as Jim mentioned, but they cannot be pressurized at the output end. This implies acoustic confinement which will alter and even destroy the operating properties of the engine.
>Search our
> old postings as there was some discussion about
> this one.
> There is a grand book on the subject: Pulsating
> Combustion" by Cornelius van Ranst.
Reynst had a fascinating design and applied it in reality as an effective burner for industrial purposes. Although he conjectured mightily on the possibility of his concept for propulsion he never succeeded in realizing an actual motor--and no one since has been able to, either.
Here's some youtube clips of valveless pulsejets, all designed and built by me:
[www.youtube.com]
[www.youtube.com]
[www.youtube.com]
Also, since there was some discussion about using car/truck turbos for gas turbines here's 2 clips on my turbo conversion project, utilizing a Cummins VT-50 truck turbo:
[www.youtube.com]
[www.youtube.com]
edit: what the heck, I might as well post this link too; it's a walkaround of my gas turbine project in which I point out the relevant details. I thought there might some questions that may be answered if you watch this:
[www.youtube.com]
Bill
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2011 04:56PM by Bill Hinote.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jeremy,
>
.
> If you want really frantic heat release, take a
> look at pulse jet combustion chambers (the V-1),
> things like 9M BTU/cu/ft or more. Only thing is
> they are not easy to start, cannot be throttled
> and the racket will put you in jail.
Having researched and then built advanced pulsejets of my own design I can make the following statements (all statements relevant to VALVELESS pulsejets BTW):
1. A well-designed pulsejet is not difficult to start; correct combinations of spark, air/fuel mixtures and starting air are necessary for consistent results.
2. I personally designed, operated and demonstrated a valveless PJ with a max thrust of 28lbf which could be throttled instantly from zero net thrust to max power and back, as fast as you could turn the throttle (fuel flow).
3. Pulsejets aren't just loud--they're dangerously loud. Proven to damage internal organs, and the Nazis demolished a brick and mortar test facility with the V1 (Argus) valved pulsejet.
4. Pulsejets make excellent heat sources as Jim mentioned, but they cannot be pressurized at the output end. This implies acoustic confinement which will alter and even destroy the operating properties of the engine.
>Search our
> old postings as there was some discussion about
> this one.
> There is a grand book on the subject: Pulsating
> Combustion" by Cornelius van Ranst.
Reynst had a fascinating design and applied it in reality as an effective burner for industrial purposes. Although he conjectured mightily on the possibility of his concept for propulsion he never succeeded in realizing an actual motor--and no one since has been able to, either.
Here's some youtube clips of valveless pulsejets, all designed and built by me:
[www.youtube.com]
[www.youtube.com]
[www.youtube.com]
Also, since there was some discussion about using car/truck turbos for gas turbines here's 2 clips on my turbo conversion project, utilizing a Cummins VT-50 truck turbo:
[www.youtube.com]
[www.youtube.com]
edit: what the heck, I might as well post this link too; it's a walkaround of my gas turbine project in which I point out the relevant details. I thought there might some questions that may be answered if you watch this:
[www.youtube.com]
Bill
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2011 04:56PM by Bill Hinote.
|
Re: Lamont boiler January 22, 2011 04:49PM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 375 |
Before we leave the Lamont theme would you have a look at this and shoot me down if you wish!
Remember I am looking at converting a 1923 vintage car to steam rather than making a modern super efficient diesel beater. The car will weigh about 1300 lbs so the problem is weight. Although a Stanley 18" x 14" boiler will fit, it is far too heavy and in any case I like the challenge of building a Lamont.
I started with the idea of using a central drum, but having taken on board Jim Crank's idea for an external coil reservoir I have drawn this scheme up just to see if it can all be packaged together. I think it can. The storage coil is 25 feet of 1.5 inch sch 40. The total generator pipe area excluding the storage coil is 19sq feet and the Lamont circuit about 72 feet of 3/8" sch 40. The capacity for water at working level is about 3 USG and it would need to make about 250lbs steam per hour. The drawing is a first draft just to see if it will work. The furnace volume, as Doble descirbes it, is 1.3 cu ft
Shoot!
Mike
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2011 04:59PM by Mike Clark.
Remember I am looking at converting a 1923 vintage car to steam rather than making a modern super efficient diesel beater. The car will weigh about 1300 lbs so the problem is weight. Although a Stanley 18" x 14" boiler will fit, it is far too heavy and in any case I like the challenge of building a Lamont.
I started with the idea of using a central drum, but having taken on board Jim Crank's idea for an external coil reservoir I have drawn this scheme up just to see if it can all be packaged together. I think it can. The storage coil is 25 feet of 1.5 inch sch 40. The total generator pipe area excluding the storage coil is 19sq feet and the Lamont circuit about 72 feet of 3/8" sch 40. The capacity for water at working level is about 3 USG and it would need to make about 250lbs steam per hour. The drawing is a first draft just to see if it will work. The furnace volume, as Doble descirbes it, is 1.3 cu ft
Shoot!
Mike
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2011 04:59PM by Mike Clark.
|
Re: Lamont boiler January 22, 2011 05:52PM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 215 |
Dan,
I also believe that many of our PM's have not gone forward on the Lamont issues. I have asked Tom Kimmel to getme/you our personal tel# so maybe we could talk about things Lamont.
To respond to Jim Crank the small Lamonts I have designed do not have a normalizer as it has some serious problems that may outway its temperature control usefulness. In the normalizer or little "pisser" hole it is supplied by a tank water supply that may have concentrations of dissolved minerals, oils and other things. It is no wonder, that in reading the massive Doble books, that they could clog up and certainly inject unpure water into the superheater dry zone that would eventually coat the highly heated tube interior , build up deposits and cause overheating of the tube temperature. In the small Lamont we had a shielded/protected superheater that theoreticallly received half its heat from radiation and half from convection heat transfer. This becomes, if the numbers are done diligently, a protected and balanced superheater and nomineral deposites or scale can make there way into it. I would rcommend that those serious about boiler design study an earlier B&W boiler book as it really has most of the theory and knowledge to grasp the importance of these things. Everytime one reads it more knowledge is gained about the process of what old engineers went thru to design a huge boiler and have it work correctly the first time around. B&W by the way tried using "attemporators" for a while not using Dobles earlier term of normalizers however there water was rather pure and constantly tested after it had been condensed in a large cooling pond. A steam car is a very different animal.
George
I also believe that many of our PM's have not gone forward on the Lamont issues. I have asked Tom Kimmel to getme/you our personal tel# so maybe we could talk about things Lamont.
To respond to Jim Crank the small Lamonts I have designed do not have a normalizer as it has some serious problems that may outway its temperature control usefulness. In the normalizer or little "pisser" hole it is supplied by a tank water supply that may have concentrations of dissolved minerals, oils and other things. It is no wonder, that in reading the massive Doble books, that they could clog up and certainly inject unpure water into the superheater dry zone that would eventually coat the highly heated tube interior , build up deposits and cause overheating of the tube temperature. In the small Lamont we had a shielded/protected superheater that theoreticallly received half its heat from radiation and half from convection heat transfer. This becomes, if the numbers are done diligently, a protected and balanced superheater and nomineral deposites or scale can make there way into it. I would rcommend that those serious about boiler design study an earlier B&W boiler book as it really has most of the theory and knowledge to grasp the importance of these things. Everytime one reads it more knowledge is gained about the process of what old engineers went thru to design a huge boiler and have it work correctly the first time around. B&W by the way tried using "attemporators" for a while not using Dobles earlier term of normalizers however there water was rather pure and constantly tested after it had been condensed in a large cooling pond. A steam car is a very different animal.
George
|
Re: Lamont boiler January 22, 2011 08:06PM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 1,453 |
Peter Barrett once reported a problem with tube erosion/leaks downline from the normalizer inlet in his "once-through" monotube steam generator. I seem to recall that he attributed this to thermal shock -- cold water hitting very hot tube -- and that he reported fixing it by preheating the normalizer water [to saturated temp?] on its way to the superheater zone. Apologies if somebody already mentioned this & I missed it. Anyway, that's another possible pitfall to watch out for with normalizers.
Reminds me of the line in "Bridge On The River Kwai" -- "There's always one more thing".
Peter
Reminds me of the line in "Bridge On The River Kwai" -- "There's always one more thing".
Peter
|
Re: Lamont boiler January 23, 2011 12:52AM |
Registered: 16 years ago Posts: 151 |
I'm just wondering whether anyone has addressed the thought of having a totally separate superheater section with its own small burner for tighter control of the superheat? In my mind something like this could adjust the superheat according to road conditions reguardless of whether the main burner is going or not. If so what are the pro's and cons of an idea like this?
|
Re: Lamont boiler January 23, 2011 01:53AM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 657 |
Hey Steve,
A while ago I looked into that very thing in great detail. I messed around with designs that used a separate burner and in using a separate housing for the superheater that took heat from the combustion chamber and passed it around the convection boiling section to the economizer. It was to use a temperature controlled baffle at the superheater combustion gas outlet to control the steam temperature.
This was more so to play around with the operational steam temperature of the system and see the results with a water level boiler, without having to change any of the components then anything else.
After looking at the known facts I decided that the most practical thing to do was to go with a steam temperature that a good steam oil could withstand and not to push it too much into the experimental zone in that regard.
With a monotube there is no real superheater section, it moves around a bit, with a water level type there is a distinct superheater section.
The harder a boiler is pushed the more heat(percentage) is extracted via convection, the softer it is pushed the more heat is extracted via radiation. As George Nutz so wisely said, a balanced/shielded superheater will under virtually all firing conditions extract the same percentage of heat from the fire via the combined radiant and convection transfers and thusly give a very steady steam temperature. What saves Stanleys with their exposed superheater is that the blue flame dosn't transfer as great of a percentage of heat via radiation as does a yellow or white flame. What shouldn't be forgotten is that the combustion gases in a boiler also radiate heat to the tubes even as they pass through the sections shielded from the direct light from the fire.
Here is what it really comes down to. Do you want the complication in the design and plan of the boiler or the operation of it?
To expand on that thought, if the superheater has its own fire or a regulated gas stream then the construction of the boiler and its casing is more complex, larger, heavier and more costly. If it is designed right from the get go, then a LOT of work must go into its design for that to be so.
Caleb Ramsby
A while ago I looked into that very thing in great detail. I messed around with designs that used a separate burner and in using a separate housing for the superheater that took heat from the combustion chamber and passed it around the convection boiling section to the economizer. It was to use a temperature controlled baffle at the superheater combustion gas outlet to control the steam temperature.
This was more so to play around with the operational steam temperature of the system and see the results with a water level boiler, without having to change any of the components then anything else.
After looking at the known facts I decided that the most practical thing to do was to go with a steam temperature that a good steam oil could withstand and not to push it too much into the experimental zone in that regard.
With a monotube there is no real superheater section, it moves around a bit, with a water level type there is a distinct superheater section.
The harder a boiler is pushed the more heat(percentage) is extracted via convection, the softer it is pushed the more heat is extracted via radiation. As George Nutz so wisely said, a balanced/shielded superheater will under virtually all firing conditions extract the same percentage of heat from the fire via the combined radiant and convection transfers and thusly give a very steady steam temperature. What saves Stanleys with their exposed superheater is that the blue flame dosn't transfer as great of a percentage of heat via radiation as does a yellow or white flame. What shouldn't be forgotten is that the combustion gases in a boiler also radiate heat to the tubes even as they pass through the sections shielded from the direct light from the fire.
Here is what it really comes down to. Do you want the complication in the design and plan of the boiler or the operation of it?
To expand on that thought, if the superheater has its own fire or a regulated gas stream then the construction of the boiler and its casing is more complex, larger, heavier and more costly. If it is designed right from the get go, then a LOT of work must go into its design for that to be so.
Caleb Ramsby
|
Re: Lamont boiler January 23, 2011 02:04AM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 1,453 |
Hi Mike,
Neat setup; I like it! Personally I might connect the economizer output to about the same point in storage coil as the Lamont circuit output, just above water level, in case the economizer generates a bit of steam in some conditions. No risk of steam pushing extra water up the storage coil toward the steam outlet separator... or steam bubbles cavitating in circulating pump... On the other hand, economizers are tuneable for length, to avoid steam generation in that section. I notice that the Lamont coil is longer and smaller bore than the one in George's stanleysteamers.com paper ... meaning more output pressure from circulating pump? Then again, your generating and circulating rates are lower... A few small nitpicks... maybe to prime the "constructive criticism pump"...
Water pushed up storage coils like this, ahead of steam generated when opening throttle/dropping boiler pressure, should "spread out" along the length of the storage coil above usual water level, with steam passing by above the water ... assuming enough bore/length of storage coil above usual water level... faster throttle opening and accelerating engine = longer "water spread out" length in storage coil... until circulator & burner ramp up and match steam generation to steam demand... also circulator pump pulls water level down the storage coil in other direction as Lamont coils fill... interesting to visualize everything happening simultaneously under varying engine loads and speeds...
Tilting "slow spiral" storage/reserve coils like this on steep grades might affect the "spread out" pattern and create "water traps". Good idea connecting the Lamont circuit outlet a few turns down the storage/reserve coil...
I agree about the fun and challenge of doing things differently... sometimes it is a balancing act between "different enough to be fun/improved", and "similar enough to proven stuff to be likely to work well"... I am looking forward to reports on Lamont boiler road results...
Peter
Neat setup; I like it! Personally I might connect the economizer output to about the same point in storage coil as the Lamont circuit output, just above water level, in case the economizer generates a bit of steam in some conditions. No risk of steam pushing extra water up the storage coil toward the steam outlet separator... or steam bubbles cavitating in circulating pump... On the other hand, economizers are tuneable for length, to avoid steam generation in that section. I notice that the Lamont coil is longer and smaller bore than the one in George's stanleysteamers.com paper ... meaning more output pressure from circulating pump? Then again, your generating and circulating rates are lower... A few small nitpicks... maybe to prime the "constructive criticism pump"...
Water pushed up storage coils like this, ahead of steam generated when opening throttle/dropping boiler pressure, should "spread out" along the length of the storage coil above usual water level, with steam passing by above the water ... assuming enough bore/length of storage coil above usual water level... faster throttle opening and accelerating engine = longer "water spread out" length in storage coil... until circulator & burner ramp up and match steam generation to steam demand... also circulator pump pulls water level down the storage coil in other direction as Lamont coils fill... interesting to visualize everything happening simultaneously under varying engine loads and speeds...
Tilting "slow spiral" storage/reserve coils like this on steep grades might affect the "spread out" pattern and create "water traps". Good idea connecting the Lamont circuit outlet a few turns down the storage/reserve coil...
I agree about the fun and challenge of doing things differently... sometimes it is a balancing act between "different enough to be fun/improved", and "similar enough to proven stuff to be likely to work well"... I am looking forward to reports on Lamont boiler road results...
Peter
|
Re: Lamont boiler January 23, 2011 04:39AM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 375 |
Peter Brow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tilting "slow spiral" storage/reserve coils like
> this on steep grades might affect the "spread out"
> pattern and create "water traps". Good idea
> connecting the Lamont circuit outlet a few turns
> down the storage/reserve coil...
>
>..
>
> Peter
Hi Peter,
Thanks for your comments. No not nitpicking at all - it's good to have another set of eyes looking at it which is exactly why I posted the drawing. Online brainstorming.
I think your comment on the creation of "traps" on slopes raises a very significant point - just think what would happen when starting off on a 25% grade. which as you may remember I need to do quite often on the road to my house!
I suspect the rapid pumped circulation will eliminate this probem but if not then you would would need a very steep pitch helical coil perhaps with 2 or 3 interwound coils to get the same volume - getting a bit complicated. A fabricated store of semi circular horizontal bends joined by two vertical headers might be better - still just tubing but needing a lot of welds, or even many vertical pipes with ring headers top and bottom. The snag with these ideas is that it has now become multiple path with the risk that all the stored water may not be circulated. It is hard to see where the return water should go in.
The tube sizes are smaller to maintain velocity in this generator which is for a much lesser output than George describes or the Doble generator. I agree the Lamont circuit may be a bit long and I could lose a bit out of the helical section which would help with the overall height.
Anyway I'm off out to the shed now and will no doubt have more thoughts during the day.
Mike
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/23/2011 05:18AM by Mike Clark.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tilting "slow spiral" storage/reserve coils like
> this on steep grades might affect the "spread out"
> pattern and create "water traps". Good idea
> connecting the Lamont circuit outlet a few turns
> down the storage/reserve coil...
>
>..
>
> Peter
Hi Peter,
Thanks for your comments. No not nitpicking at all - it's good to have another set of eyes looking at it which is exactly why I posted the drawing. Online brainstorming.
I think your comment on the creation of "traps" on slopes raises a very significant point - just think what would happen when starting off on a 25% grade. which as you may remember I need to do quite often on the road to my house!
I suspect the rapid pumped circulation will eliminate this probem but if not then you would would need a very steep pitch helical coil perhaps with 2 or 3 interwound coils to get the same volume - getting a bit complicated. A fabricated store of semi circular horizontal bends joined by two vertical headers might be better - still just tubing but needing a lot of welds, or even many vertical pipes with ring headers top and bottom. The snag with these ideas is that it has now become multiple path with the risk that all the stored water may not be circulated. It is hard to see where the return water should go in.
The tube sizes are smaller to maintain velocity in this generator which is for a much lesser output than George describes or the Doble generator. I agree the Lamont circuit may be a bit long and I could lose a bit out of the helical section which would help with the overall height.
Anyway I'm off out to the shed now and will no doubt have more thoughts during the day.
Mike
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/23/2011 05:18AM by Mike Clark.
|
Re: Lamont boiler January 23, 2011 12:57PM |
Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 134 |
Hello, I've been lurking these boards for a while now: very interesting conversations and exchange of ideas.
Has anyone built a Lamont for automobile usage? If so I would greatly appreciate the link.
In a similar vein which i'm sure has been beat to death by now, has anyone thought about converting a four stroke IC engine to a two stroke steam? There are a few obvious obstacles to over come but are there any less obvious ones? Cylinder composition for example, is there a major difference between IC cyl materials and steam? Ditto for the pistons.
Many thanks,
Van
Has anyone built a Lamont for automobile usage? If so I would greatly appreciate the link.
In a similar vein which i'm sure has been beat to death by now, has anyone thought about converting a four stroke IC engine to a two stroke steam? There are a few obvious obstacles to over come but are there any less obvious ones? Cylinder composition for example, is there a major difference between IC cyl materials and steam? Ditto for the pistons.
Many thanks,
Van
|
Re: Lamont boiler January 23, 2011 11:10PM |
Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 663 |
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
All files from this thread
