Lamont boiler
Posted by dullfig
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 03, 2011 09:58PM |
Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 663 |
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 04, 2011 12:38AM |
Registered: 14 years ago Posts: 134 |
Andy,
What about a series of baffles within the pipe? Similar to what goes in to a car's gas tank. Obviously it won't do much good if the car is upside down, however if that happens I think water in your superheater is the least of your worries at that point. But it should do the job well enough to prevent excessive sloshing from acceleration and deceleration.
Van
What about a series of baffles within the pipe? Similar to what goes in to a car's gas tank. Obviously it won't do much good if the car is upside down, however if that happens I think water in your superheater is the least of your worries at that point. But it should do the job well enough to prevent excessive sloshing from acceleration and deceleration.
Van
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 04, 2011 07:35AM |
Admin Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 2,120 |
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 04, 2011 08:54AM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 215 |
In the Teel Lamont and others the incoming water/steam comes in tangentially creating a swirling centrifuge and the water is separated to the inside drum wall and is moving at many revolutions per second. The output steam is drawn off the center of the top dome free of water. As the water swirls at a usable velocity to the bottom of the drum the outlet of water to the Lamont circulating pump leaves tangetially to give an effective positive head pressure at the pump inlet so cavitation is elimintated, the pump is not trying to suck in water.. The Locomotor project and the large Steamotive locomotive design had these same features.
George
George
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 04, 2011 09:43AM |
Registered: 20 years ago Posts: 1,771 |
I don’t think there would be any sediment build up in the circulation coil of the lamont at eight times the evaporation rate. Most of the water tube boilers I have experience with only have sediment in the mud drums. In my opinion any sediment would show up in the drum. I would keep the feed for the circulation pump up several inches from the bottom of the drum depending on how large a boiler was to be built.
It would be very hard to get the temperature returning from the circulation coil above the saturation temperature. The problem with forcing a combustion chamber beyond its designed fuel rate is pushing the flame and heat out beyond the zone of its design. The superheater is located in an area to maintain a given temperature range at the design rate of firing. Pushing the combustion chamber can be expansive and destructive to both the engine and superheater in two high of a temperature.
Rolly
It would be very hard to get the temperature returning from the circulation coil above the saturation temperature. The problem with forcing a combustion chamber beyond its designed fuel rate is pushing the flame and heat out beyond the zone of its design. The superheater is located in an area to maintain a given temperature range at the design rate of firing. Pushing the combustion chamber can be expansive and destructive to both the engine and superheater in two high of a temperature.
Rolly
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 04, 2011 10:18AM |
Registered: 14 years ago Posts: 134 |
George, was the pump problem ever resolved?
Also, what is the best method of combusting the fuel? What kind of fuel atomizer and fresh air delivery system is used?
What about something like this? Would this be a suitable size for a steam motorcycle? (A DC motor would have to be swapped in)
beckett oil furnace burner assembly
Van
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/04/2011 04:41PM by vandallas.
Also, what is the best method of combusting the fuel? What kind of fuel atomizer and fresh air delivery system is used?
What about something like this? Would this be a suitable size for a steam motorcycle? (A DC motor would have to be swapped in)
beckett oil furnace burner assembly
Van
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/04/2011 04:41PM by vandallas.
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 04, 2011 11:48PM |
Registered: 20 years ago Posts: 657 |
Hey Van,
Here is a thread in which George Nutz spoke of how he developed, with Rod Teel, the circulation pump for his LaMont. Note that George Nutz is a professional engineer(now "retired" ) and Rod Teel is an expert machinest.
[stanleysteamers.com]
As to the Burner here are two threads that may help a bit.
[stanleysteamers.com]
[stanleysteamers.com]
The capacity of the burner is generally stated in maximum continuous gallons per hour of gasoline burned.
What you will require can be figured this way.
Take the maximum continuous horsepower that will be required, when you first posted you wanted a bit over 100 horsepower, so lets go with 100 for this example.
Steam engines are rated in pounds of steam required per horsepower produced per hour. For an engine running at a steady output and under optimal conditions this can be as low as 7 or 8 pounds, although a much more practical number would be twice that, lets use an average of 15 lbs per horsepower per hour.
That would be 100 horsepower times 15 lbs per hp hr, which gives 1,500 lbs of steam per hour, that is one would have to boil 1,500 lbs of water in one hour.
If the water starts at 160 degrees in the water tank, which is what it will run at once the system is hot, then it will contain 128 btu per lb.
If the steam is brought up to, say, 600 psi and 800 deg F. then the steam will contain 1,408 btu per lb.
So then for each pound we will need to transmit 1,408 btu - 128 btu, 1,280 btu to the boier forl each pound of steam.
Most automobile boilers run around 80% efficiency when run at max output, a bit better at lower outputs generally. So then it would be 1,280 divided by .8 which is 1,600 btu per lb.
So in this example to make 100 horsepower we would have to boil 1,500 lbs of water per hour with each pound requiring 1,600 btu. That gives us 2,400,000 btu per hour required from the burner.
Gasoline varies a bit in btu per gallon but for general use 115,000 btu per gallon will sufice, dividing 2,400,000 btu per hour by 115,000 btu per gallon gives us a burner capacity of 20.89 or round to 21 gallons of gasoline per hour.
So that is what you are looking at, around 4 3/4 horsepower per gallon of gasoline burnerd per hour.
Here are two VERY good web pages about the Stanley burner!
[www.stanleymotorcarriage.com]
[www.stanleymotorcarriage.com]
Here is the main technical web page on that site, either move the curser around on the diagram part until it becomes a finger, then click to go to a detailed page on that part of the system or use the table on the left side to go to the same pages.
If you study, not just skim through, but really study all of the technical pages on that site then you will get a very clear understanding of exactly how and why a Stanley works, is made and was put together.
[www.stanleymotorcarriage.com]
There are a lot of Stanley "haters" out there and although they may not be the most efficient steam car when on a dyno they run VERY well, are relatively simple to maintain(that is they are very stable systems with simple controls) and are very rugged, with many of the engines and controls still running strong after one century of use! Well worth studing even if the goal is to make a very modern and efficient system.
A caveat about the figuring that I showed above. For well over 100 years steam powerplants have recaptured heat and put it back into their system.
Mainly by doing two things.
1: Using the exhaust steam from the engine. which for a car should still be superheated to about 300 degrees when it enters the exhaust pipe, to heat the water being pumped to the boiler from the feed tank. That will regenerate a bit of heat and put it back into the system thusly reducing the fuel required to get the water up to temperature. At 600 psi the water must be 471.6 deg F to boil.
2: Doing number one then makes the water going into the boiler hotter so it actually decreases the efficiency of the boiler in and of itself. Because at that point the combustion gases have cooled a lot and there is a smaller temperature differential then if the water was being pumped directly from the tank at the tank temperature. So then the combustion gases are hotter when leaving the boiler and then it becomes more beneficial to use an air to combustion exhaust as the last pass. This heats the air going into the boiler for combustion with the flue gases just before they leave the boiler. This also increases the combustion temperature and helps the boiler transfer more heat in the hotter sections.
So doing those two things will help reduce the btu required per lb of water boiled.
Hope that this all has helped some, keep studing there is still a LOT to learn and it isn't as simple as it first appears!
Caleb Ramsby
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/05/2011 12:48PM by Caleb Ramsby.
Here is a thread in which George Nutz spoke of how he developed, with Rod Teel, the circulation pump for his LaMont. Note that George Nutz is a professional engineer(now "retired" ) and Rod Teel is an expert machinest.
[stanleysteamers.com]
As to the Burner here are two threads that may help a bit.
[stanleysteamers.com]
[stanleysteamers.com]
The capacity of the burner is generally stated in maximum continuous gallons per hour of gasoline burned.
What you will require can be figured this way.
Take the maximum continuous horsepower that will be required, when you first posted you wanted a bit over 100 horsepower, so lets go with 100 for this example.
Steam engines are rated in pounds of steam required per horsepower produced per hour. For an engine running at a steady output and under optimal conditions this can be as low as 7 or 8 pounds, although a much more practical number would be twice that, lets use an average of 15 lbs per horsepower per hour.
That would be 100 horsepower times 15 lbs per hp hr, which gives 1,500 lbs of steam per hour, that is one would have to boil 1,500 lbs of water in one hour.
If the water starts at 160 degrees in the water tank, which is what it will run at once the system is hot, then it will contain 128 btu per lb.
If the steam is brought up to, say, 600 psi and 800 deg F. then the steam will contain 1,408 btu per lb.
So then for each pound we will need to transmit 1,408 btu - 128 btu, 1,280 btu to the boier forl each pound of steam.
Most automobile boilers run around 80% efficiency when run at max output, a bit better at lower outputs generally. So then it would be 1,280 divided by .8 which is 1,600 btu per lb.
So in this example to make 100 horsepower we would have to boil 1,500 lbs of water per hour with each pound requiring 1,600 btu. That gives us 2,400,000 btu per hour required from the burner.
Gasoline varies a bit in btu per gallon but for general use 115,000 btu per gallon will sufice, dividing 2,400,000 btu per hour by 115,000 btu per gallon gives us a burner capacity of 20.89 or round to 21 gallons of gasoline per hour.
So that is what you are looking at, around 4 3/4 horsepower per gallon of gasoline burnerd per hour.
Here are two VERY good web pages about the Stanley burner!
[www.stanleymotorcarriage.com]
[www.stanleymotorcarriage.com]
Here is the main technical web page on that site, either move the curser around on the diagram part until it becomes a finger, then click to go to a detailed page on that part of the system or use the table on the left side to go to the same pages.
If you study, not just skim through, but really study all of the technical pages on that site then you will get a very clear understanding of exactly how and why a Stanley works, is made and was put together.
[www.stanleymotorcarriage.com]
There are a lot of Stanley "haters" out there and although they may not be the most efficient steam car when on a dyno they run VERY well, are relatively simple to maintain(that is they are very stable systems with simple controls) and are very rugged, with many of the engines and controls still running strong after one century of use! Well worth studing even if the goal is to make a very modern and efficient system.
A caveat about the figuring that I showed above. For well over 100 years steam powerplants have recaptured heat and put it back into their system.
Mainly by doing two things.
1: Using the exhaust steam from the engine. which for a car should still be superheated to about 300 degrees when it enters the exhaust pipe, to heat the water being pumped to the boiler from the feed tank. That will regenerate a bit of heat and put it back into the system thusly reducing the fuel required to get the water up to temperature. At 600 psi the water must be 471.6 deg F to boil.
2: Doing number one then makes the water going into the boiler hotter so it actually decreases the efficiency of the boiler in and of itself. Because at that point the combustion gases have cooled a lot and there is a smaller temperature differential then if the water was being pumped directly from the tank at the tank temperature. So then the combustion gases are hotter when leaving the boiler and then it becomes more beneficial to use an air to combustion exhaust as the last pass. This heats the air going into the boiler for combustion with the flue gases just before they leave the boiler. This also increases the combustion temperature and helps the boiler transfer more heat in the hotter sections.
So doing those two things will help reduce the btu required per lb of water boiled.
Hope that this all has helped some, keep studing there is still a LOT to learn and it isn't as simple as it first appears!
Caleb Ramsby
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/05/2011 12:48PM by Caleb Ramsby.
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 05, 2011 02:21AM |
Registered: 20 years ago Posts: 657 |
Hey Van,
The type of burner that one uses effects the way in which the boiler can be controled and how the boiler operates in general.
The White and Stanley both used a bunsen type of burner.
The Stanley pumped the gasoline or kerosine, depending on the model and specific burner, into a pair of copper tanks sitting side by side. One of which was full of air which was compressed, the other full of the liquid fuel. This was to give the fuel a constant pressure even though it was pumped by a single plunger driven by the engine via gearing and a crank.
The fuels flow to the burner was then controled by a brass diaphram that had a spring on one side and steam pressure on the other. When the steam pressure overcomes the spring then the diaphram pushed a rod connected to it to close a ball valve which stoped the fuel from flowing to the burner. When the steam pressure lowered then the spring pushed the rod so that it opened the ball valve( which is literally a ball pushed by a rod to close or open a port ) which allowed the fuel to flow to the burner.
The fuel flows to a small tube that is over the burner grate and is heated directly by the fire, this vaporizes the fuel and converts it into a gas, which then flows out of nozzles into a mixing tube drawing in air and forcing the mixture through the grate where it would then burn inside the boiler.
The White was very much the same except the entire fuel tank is pressurized by air pressure. The Whites run at a lower pressure and with bigger nozzles then the Stanleys.
This type of burner gives a fire that can be modulated to suit the demand of the boiler, which with the Whites control system and its monotube boiler was essential!
The "gun" type of burners, which use a pressure atomizing nozzle and a centrifugal fan, such as is used for oil fired home heating furnaces, are much more suited to running at a steady output. So they operate as more of an on or off type of burner. Although Rolly made one for his Derr type of boiler (water tube natural circulation) that has a lower output for starting up and then a higher output for when it is all hot.
Doble eventually went to a carburetor for the fuel delivery and a centrifugal fan for the air delivery. With a motor driving the fan at low outputs and for starting up from cold, then a turbine that ran off of the exhaust steam from the engine to drive the fan at a much higher speed for higher outputs. This turbine also drove the condensor fan, so when driving really hard and using a lot of steam the turbine would supply the boiler with a lot of combustion air, the carburator would supply it with a lot of fuel and the condensor fan would move a lot of air! As Jim has noted the Doble control system was very quick acting and must be fine tuned for it to work properly, this is also true for the White.
The Stanley and any other boiler that uses a water level type of boiler can use much slower acting controls and doesn't require that the temperature of the steam be controled by any aparatus, the boilers design does it naturally. The option is a balance in the design or a balance in the controls.
Caleb Ramsby
The type of burner that one uses effects the way in which the boiler can be controled and how the boiler operates in general.
The White and Stanley both used a bunsen type of burner.
The Stanley pumped the gasoline or kerosine, depending on the model and specific burner, into a pair of copper tanks sitting side by side. One of which was full of air which was compressed, the other full of the liquid fuel. This was to give the fuel a constant pressure even though it was pumped by a single plunger driven by the engine via gearing and a crank.
The fuels flow to the burner was then controled by a brass diaphram that had a spring on one side and steam pressure on the other. When the steam pressure overcomes the spring then the diaphram pushed a rod connected to it to close a ball valve which stoped the fuel from flowing to the burner. When the steam pressure lowered then the spring pushed the rod so that it opened the ball valve( which is literally a ball pushed by a rod to close or open a port ) which allowed the fuel to flow to the burner.
The fuel flows to a small tube that is over the burner grate and is heated directly by the fire, this vaporizes the fuel and converts it into a gas, which then flows out of nozzles into a mixing tube drawing in air and forcing the mixture through the grate where it would then burn inside the boiler.
The White was very much the same except the entire fuel tank is pressurized by air pressure. The Whites run at a lower pressure and with bigger nozzles then the Stanleys.
This type of burner gives a fire that can be modulated to suit the demand of the boiler, which with the Whites control system and its monotube boiler was essential!
The "gun" type of burners, which use a pressure atomizing nozzle and a centrifugal fan, such as is used for oil fired home heating furnaces, are much more suited to running at a steady output. So they operate as more of an on or off type of burner. Although Rolly made one for his Derr type of boiler (water tube natural circulation) that has a lower output for starting up and then a higher output for when it is all hot.
Doble eventually went to a carburetor for the fuel delivery and a centrifugal fan for the air delivery. With a motor driving the fan at low outputs and for starting up from cold, then a turbine that ran off of the exhaust steam from the engine to drive the fan at a much higher speed for higher outputs. This turbine also drove the condensor fan, so when driving really hard and using a lot of steam the turbine would supply the boiler with a lot of combustion air, the carburator would supply it with a lot of fuel and the condensor fan would move a lot of air! As Jim has noted the Doble control system was very quick acting and must be fine tuned for it to work properly, this is also true for the White.
The Stanley and any other boiler that uses a water level type of boiler can use much slower acting controls and doesn't require that the temperature of the steam be controled by any aparatus, the boilers design does it naturally. The option is a balance in the design or a balance in the controls.
Caleb Ramsby
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 05, 2011 05:27AM |
Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 488 |
Very well laid out and informative post Caleb. The links are great.
It is these numbers that give me hope for adding higher pumping losses to maintain fluid state and use direct injection and flash steam. We've got to do better in the fuel economy area for steam to viable now days imho.
Fortunately 100 hp isn't required for 60 mph maintained.
keith
It is these numbers that give me hope for adding higher pumping losses to maintain fluid state and use direct injection and flash steam. We've got to do better in the fuel economy area for steam to viable now days imho.
Fortunately 100 hp isn't required for 60 mph maintained.
keith
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 05, 2011 02:36PM |
Registered: 20 years ago Posts: 104 |
"Fortunately 100 hp isn't required for 60 mph maintained."
Depends how long you want to "maintain" 60mph for and If you only run on flat roads.
Living here, to go to the major city in our 4x4 2.4L turbo diesel slug I'm hard on the throttle for a full 5 minutes to get to the top of a range of hills. It's a long steady climb fortunately double laned and I can just sustain about 50mph.
Cheers
Depends how long you want to "maintain" 60mph for and If you only run on flat roads.
Living here, to go to the major city in our 4x4 2.4L turbo diesel slug I'm hard on the throttle for a full 5 minutes to get to the top of a range of hills. It's a long steady climb fortunately double laned and I can just sustain about 50mph.
Cheers
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 05, 2011 03:21PM |
Registered: 20 years ago Posts: 1,441 |
Mark,
Many thanks for saying something that I have tried to drill into a few dense heads for a long time.
Yes, on a flat level road with an ordinary car, 60 hp is quite good, unless you try to pass someone in a quick and responsible way. Then at least 150 hp is needed and a lot more torque. Gas cars get that by shifting to a lower gear. Steamers by using a longer cutoff and both with a more open throttle.
Something else people forget: Torque is acceleration--Horsepower is top speed.
So a good steam generator reserve is needed, one way or another and being able to use that reserve by going to long cutoff for a moment. Now, think of what a good Stanley does by having all that water reserve, loads of momentary overload power. The Lamont can do the same thing. Dobles did it by means of Warren's draft booster cutting in right away and using that increase in exhaust steam volume to boost the fire 100%.
Jim
Many thanks for saying something that I have tried to drill into a few dense heads for a long time.
Yes, on a flat level road with an ordinary car, 60 hp is quite good, unless you try to pass someone in a quick and responsible way. Then at least 150 hp is needed and a lot more torque. Gas cars get that by shifting to a lower gear. Steamers by using a longer cutoff and both with a more open throttle.
Something else people forget: Torque is acceleration--Horsepower is top speed.
So a good steam generator reserve is needed, one way or another and being able to use that reserve by going to long cutoff for a moment. Now, think of what a good Stanley does by having all that water reserve, loads of momentary overload power. The Lamont can do the same thing. Dobles did it by means of Warren's draft booster cutting in right away and using that increase in exhaust steam volume to boost the fire 100%.
Jim
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 05, 2011 03:25PM |
Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 488 |
Hopefully, in a fuel economy comparison, you get the return trip's offset. 
An 80,000 lb truck burns about 10 gallons an hour (little under 12.5 for gasoline btu conversion). Sounds like we're using LHV numbers. 20 gallons an hour for 100 hp just seems too high to consider. Scary.
I'm praying, hoping, calculating something closer to 6 gallons/hr per 100 hp. Should be able to hit that target with margin. I'll post results soon if process survives testing and runs long enough to collect data.
An 80,000 lb truck burns about 10 gallons an hour (little under 12.5 for gasoline btu conversion). Sounds like we're using LHV numbers. 20 gallons an hour for 100 hp just seems too high to consider. Scary.
I'm praying, hoping, calculating something closer to 6 gallons/hr per 100 hp. Should be able to hit that target with margin. I'll post results soon if process survives testing and runs long enough to collect data.
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 05, 2011 03:39PM |
Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 488 |
I totally agree with you on reserve capacity Jim. Need that capacity for safety and fun. I drifted into an economy focus.
What would a typical 60 mph flat road fuel economy be for a lamont boiler car that would have a 20 gph@100hp system?
Looks like I grabbed the 15 lbs/hp/hr assumption for calculation purposes, which was likely based on historical data and a likely easy target to achieve. Obviously one would need to better that for any commercial purposes. Sorry for applying that as a real world current target comparison.
kd
What would a typical 60 mph flat road fuel economy be for a lamont boiler car that would have a 20 gph@100hp system?
Looks like I grabbed the 15 lbs/hp/hr assumption for calculation purposes, which was likely based on historical data and a likely easy target to achieve. Obviously one would need to better that for any commercial purposes. Sorry for applying that as a real world current target comparison.
kd
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 05, 2011 03:57PM |
Admin Registered: 20 years ago Posts: 416 |
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 05, 2011 04:22PM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 215 |
What a great bunch of posts going on! Whatever boiler one uses if it operates at 80% efficiency(exhaust flue gas about 500F) one gets about 80# steam per gallon of oil burned. So the economy or fuel efficiency is much more a function of the engine efficiency. The factory 20HP Stanley burned 3.8-4.0GPH and developed a steady 15HP on the dyno. what was its efficiency? 15HP X 2544=38,200BTU's of work with a firing input of 3.8 X 136,000=517,000 heat input. Thus the efficiency would be 7.4%!! If it required 20HP to maintain 60mph in a modern car with this old system it would require a burn rate of 5.1GPH or a fuel milage of only 11.7mpg. The Stanley engine used just about 20#/hp-hr in 35% cutoff. The Doble on the road used about 12#/hp-hr a vast improvement. Now if Harry's Cyclone can get down to 6#/hphr we would doing possibly 30mpg @ 60mph. The heat input per pound for the higher steam temperature of the Cyclone doesn't make it a direct function, it would have a thermal efficiency on the road of 26% very high for any steam engine.
And yes to Van the circulating pump(after a doxen designs) worked very well and used very little electrical power to push 4000+# water per hour thru the Lamont circuit with a 5psi backpressure.
George
And yes to Van the circulating pump(after a doxen designs) worked very well and used very little electrical power to push 4000+# water per hour thru the Lamont circuit with a 5psi backpressure.
George
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 05, 2011 10:03PM |
Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 663 |
One thing to note is that a boilers efficiency is dependent on how hard it is fired. So if you were designing a sports car to do 160 MPG. And the boiler to be able to maintain that speed. Then at 80 MPH you would have 1/8 the power requirement. You boiler should be able to operate with better efficiency at 1/8 it's max firing rate.
With my fire ring boiler design it's very hard to force the fire into the tube area. I saw that in my primary tests when I was testing meterials for the fire box lining. The centfugal force is holding the gases hard against the fire box wall. I'm sure Harry has already seen that effect as he is basicly using the designe that was posted on my old web site.
Does anybody know what metel was used with stainless tubing to make a thermal couple on the OakRidge VW boiler. I remember Ed telling how they did them at a Danvile meating. But lost that peace of info.
Andy
With my fire ring boiler design it's very hard to force the fire into the tube area. I saw that in my primary tests when I was testing meterials for the fire box lining. The centfugal force is holding the gases hard against the fire box wall. I'm sure Harry has already seen that effect as he is basicly using the designe that was posted on my old web site.
Does anybody know what metel was used with stainless tubing to make a thermal couple on the OakRidge VW boiler. I remember Ed telling how they did them at a Danvile meating. But lost that peace of info.
Andy
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 06, 2011 12:25AM |
Registered: 20 years ago Posts: 657 |
Thanks for the compliment Keith.
All,
From what, I gather the best test on the Cyclone is getting a water rate of around 7 1/2 lb per hour and around 25% of the 32% efficiency is coming from the exhaust steam heating the feed water and the combustion gases preheating the inlet air prior to admitance to the burner. Please correct me if I am wrong.
This is a big deal and although used for over 100 years in stationary practices it hasn't been fully utilized in a light road going steamer to the best of my knowledge.
Stanleys, Whites and Dobles(thanks Jim, still can't believe that I forgot that! ) used water heaters, but not air preheaters. Ironically, the early non-condensing cars HEATED the exhaust steam by running it into the exhaust flue to keep it invisible upon exhausting to the atmosphere!
Some used a light air preheating, but not an intense one.
Also note that the efficiency gained by the capturing of what is usually wasted heat by the Cyclone gives about the same increase in efficiency as the Stanley gets from its entire system! So "tacking" that onto a Stanley would effectively double the efficiency of the SYSTEM.
I may not agree with all of the design principles that Harry and the Cyclone crew are promoting, but I do agree that it is the overall system that matters, not just the engine or the boiler. As George Nutz has stated time and time again the diminishing returns in regards to heating the water and steam in the boiler itself are very significant, especially for anything much over 80% to 85% efficiency. Those last few percent require either a lot of heat transfer area of a very high gass mass flow, the later would of course greatly increase the power required for the air movement through the boiler, the former would take up tons of space and produce a lot of weight.
Lots of think about here.
Caleb Ramsby
All,
From what, I gather the best test on the Cyclone is getting a water rate of around 7 1/2 lb per hour and around 25% of the 32% efficiency is coming from the exhaust steam heating the feed water and the combustion gases preheating the inlet air prior to admitance to the burner. Please correct me if I am wrong.
This is a big deal and although used for over 100 years in stationary practices it hasn't been fully utilized in a light road going steamer to the best of my knowledge.
Stanleys, Whites and Dobles(thanks Jim, still can't believe that I forgot that! ) used water heaters, but not air preheaters. Ironically, the early non-condensing cars HEATED the exhaust steam by running it into the exhaust flue to keep it invisible upon exhausting to the atmosphere!
Some used a light air preheating, but not an intense one.
Also note that the efficiency gained by the capturing of what is usually wasted heat by the Cyclone gives about the same increase in efficiency as the Stanley gets from its entire system! So "tacking" that onto a Stanley would effectively double the efficiency of the SYSTEM.
I may not agree with all of the design principles that Harry and the Cyclone crew are promoting, but I do agree that it is the overall system that matters, not just the engine or the boiler. As George Nutz has stated time and time again the diminishing returns in regards to heating the water and steam in the boiler itself are very significant, especially for anything much over 80% to 85% efficiency. Those last few percent require either a lot of heat transfer area of a very high gass mass flow, the later would of course greatly increase the power required for the air movement through the boiler, the former would take up tons of space and produce a lot of weight.
Lots of think about here.
Caleb Ramsby
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 06, 2011 09:55AM |
Admin Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 531 |
On the Stanley steam cars. If a boiler is designed too large for the average speed that the Stanley is going to be operated at, efficency is going to be reduced because at the lower speeds, the boiler is going to be cycled off part of the time and during that time, no super heat is being generated by the fire. A variable firing rate would be advantageous for a varying engine load. Our 1914 Stanley roadster weighs 2,700 pounds, has a 10 hp engine and a 20 hp boiler. It easily cruises at 60 mph on level ground on a warm day. At the 60 mph speed, the burner is firing almost 100 % of the time. Although while climbing a mountain, the small 10 hp engine can't use all of the steam being generated because the engine is not matched to the boiler. That is when the burner cycles off because full boiler pressure has been reached, and no super heat will be produced again until the steam pressure drops enough for the fire to come back on again. During this period, a loss of steam expansion is instantly noticed and power will continue to be soft until the fire comes back on, again making superheat. Hand firing to keep the fire continuously on is prudent in this case. Any boiler has its window of efficient operation and that should be matched to the expected work load. That is why stationary steam is so much more effecient as compared to the steam car operation. The steam car 's work load varies too much to keep the boiler operating with in its window of efficent operation.
On the noncondensing Stanleys, the exhausted steam and spent steam cylinder oil is piped with in it's own tail pipe, five feet from the engine out through to the end the exhaust stack . At the very end of the boiler's exhaust stack is where the spent steam is then exhausted into the atmosphere. The purpose of this is to create a draft to suck the boiler's exhaust gases out from the smoke bonnet. It works quite well. As far as the exhausted engine steam being heated by the exhausted boiler gases, it is very doubtful. When the engine's exhausted steam is also ran through a boiler feed water heater, some amount of heat loss is expected in the engine's exhausted steam.
When a person operates our Stanley roadster at a highway speeds at over 30 mph, no gain in performance or speed is noticed by taking the engine out of hook up. Just the opposite happens, soon a loss of power is experienced because more non-expanded steam is being dumped into the atmosphere at the end of the the stroke. This is more wasted steam than the boiler evaporization can replace and quickly the boiler pressure will drop giving the car less high speed performance. At speeds under 30 mph, taking the Stanley out of hook up will give you an increase of power depending on the rpm of the engine. This robust surge of power is only temporary though as there is again, a huge waste of steam. Driving at a slow enough RPM, as in "climbing a mountain", and the engine will be slow enough to not be able to use all of the steam that can be generated by the boiler, and that is when taking it out of hook up can be beneficial. Using full admission of steam, "being out of hook up", should always be used in starting out from a stop. Our 30 hp Stanleys don't seem to be affected as much as our 10 hp Stanley when they are taken out of hook up. But then they also get less than half the water and fuel mileage as our 10 hp Stanley does.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/06/2011 04:48PM by SSsssteamer.
On the noncondensing Stanleys, the exhausted steam and spent steam cylinder oil is piped with in it's own tail pipe, five feet from the engine out through to the end the exhaust stack . At the very end of the boiler's exhaust stack is where the spent steam is then exhausted into the atmosphere. The purpose of this is to create a draft to suck the boiler's exhaust gases out from the smoke bonnet. It works quite well. As far as the exhausted engine steam being heated by the exhausted boiler gases, it is very doubtful. When the engine's exhausted steam is also ran through a boiler feed water heater, some amount of heat loss is expected in the engine's exhausted steam.
When a person operates our Stanley roadster at a highway speeds at over 30 mph, no gain in performance or speed is noticed by taking the engine out of hook up. Just the opposite happens, soon a loss of power is experienced because more non-expanded steam is being dumped into the atmosphere at the end of the the stroke. This is more wasted steam than the boiler evaporization can replace and quickly the boiler pressure will drop giving the car less high speed performance. At speeds under 30 mph, taking the Stanley out of hook up will give you an increase of power depending on the rpm of the engine. This robust surge of power is only temporary though as there is again, a huge waste of steam. Driving at a slow enough RPM, as in "climbing a mountain", and the engine will be slow enough to not be able to use all of the steam that can be generated by the boiler, and that is when taking it out of hook up can be beneficial. Using full admission of steam, "being out of hook up", should always be used in starting out from a stop. Our 30 hp Stanleys don't seem to be affected as much as our 10 hp Stanley when they are taken out of hook up. But then they also get less than half the water and fuel mileage as our 10 hp Stanley does.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/06/2011 04:48PM by SSsssteamer.
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 06, 2011 02:44PM |
Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 488 |
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 06, 2011 02:49PM |
Registered: 20 years ago Posts: 1,771 |
Backett makes a 3 & 5GPH 12V oil burner.
I use to use them on some of my marine boilers I sold.
Rolly
I use to use them on some of my marine boilers I sold.
Rolly
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 06, 2011 04:06PM |
Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 641 |
Hi:
I have a question for maybe Jim Crank or George Nutz who may be able to provide a solution for me.
I'm considering a "parking lot" project which might take the form of a Locomobile style steam demonstrator. Pretty low power requirements and relatively slow control issues to deal with.
I really like the Lamont boiler concept--but I can't seem to come up with a "stoopid-simple" version of a circulating pump for something I'm considering. The economies of scale don't seem to favor the low end of the power scale, it seems.
I'm hoping I've missed something obvious here--can you provide some guidance to a solution?
Thanks in advance,
Bill
I have a question for maybe Jim Crank or George Nutz who may be able to provide a solution for me.
I'm considering a "parking lot" project which might take the form of a Locomobile style steam demonstrator. Pretty low power requirements and relatively slow control issues to deal with.
I really like the Lamont boiler concept--but I can't seem to come up with a "stoopid-simple" version of a circulating pump for something I'm considering. The economies of scale don't seem to favor the low end of the power scale, it seems.
I'm hoping I've missed something obvious here--can you provide some guidance to a solution?
Thanks in advance,
Bill
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 06, 2011 05:12PM |
Registered: 20 years ago Posts: 1,441 |
Bill,
For something like that Locomobile project, really, why bother with a Lamont? You aren't after high power in the smallest package you can have as in a car.
What's the matter with a nice water tube? Easy to control and no fuss.
What did they use in that Likamobile thing? Seems that quite a few were built and ran very well.
Jim
For something like that Locomobile project, really, why bother with a Lamont? You aren't after high power in the smallest package you can have as in a car.
What's the matter with a nice water tube? Easy to control and no fuss.
What did they use in that Likamobile thing? Seems that quite a few were built and ran very well.
Jim
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 06, 2011 06:09PM |
Registered: 17 years ago Posts: 358 |
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 06, 2011 06:47PM |
Registered: 20 years ago Posts: 657 |
I believe that the Likamobile (replica) uses a Derr type water tube boiler with an oil furnace type burner.
The original used a small firetube boiler that provides a lot of reserve, much more then a water tube or a LaMont will and as Ben pointed out, they can use it too.
From what I have heard a firetube and Derr type boiler both cost about the same to build, more welding in a Derr and more materials in a firetube.
Caleb Ramsby
The original used a small firetube boiler that provides a lot of reserve, much more then a water tube or a LaMont will and as Ben pointed out, they can use it too.
From what I have heard a firetube and Derr type boiler both cost about the same to build, more welding in a Derr and more materials in a firetube.
Caleb Ramsby
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 07, 2011 05:45PM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 1,453 |
Hi Caleb,
Correct, the Modelworks Likamobile uses a Derr boiler and a really neat Riello gun burner. Somewhere in this Forum, I posted some "factory spy photos" of one of the burners. The Riello runs on household AC, so a 12vDC to AC inverter is added. Burner sticks out the back of the body a bit, so a period-looking wicker basket "trunk" was added to enclose it. About 75 of these steam cars were built.
Peter
Correct, the Modelworks Likamobile uses a Derr boiler and a really neat Riello gun burner. Somewhere in this Forum, I posted some "factory spy photos" of one of the burners. The Riello runs on household AC, so a 12vDC to AC inverter is added. Burner sticks out the back of the body a bit, so a period-looking wicker basket "trunk" was added to enclose it. About 75 of these steam cars were built.
Peter
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 08, 2011 11:13AM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 215 |
Rod Teel's Lamont has an older Carlin oil burner(they were cosidered by some to be better then Beckett burners) that will burn 5GPH. The advantage of the Carlin is that its diameter is only 3" instead of the usual 4" and makes it easier for tangential entry into the firebox that has a Lamont helical coil wrapped around it. Think they went out of business years ago but they may be back on the market again?
George
George
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 08, 2011 11:56AM |
Registered: 20 years ago Posts: 1,771 |
Carlin is not out of business George, I don’t think they make the small diameter nozzle any more but they do make 12V controls but do not supply 12V motors. I used their controls on the burner I built up for the Derr burner. The Beckett 12V motor is only 3400 RPM; I went to a continuous duty 5000-RPM motor to burn 6 GPH
The Beckett 12V burner is a good reliable 5-GPH burner as Craig used on his truck.
Rolly
The Beckett 12V burner is a good reliable 5-GPH burner as Craig used on his truck.
Rolly
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 08, 2011 01:36PM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 215 |
I think there was a time when the Carlin was not produced, I know Rod tried to get info back then on a new one and had no luck. Yes I worked on Craigs car and burner and gave him the motor for the flue gasdraft assist blower. We went out once and the car stopped dead, the Beckett igniter transformer had overheated and burned out! We walked a mile back to the steam meet and he had a spare ingiter coil in his truck. The difficulty of making a 4" diameter hole thru the lamont helical coil is much more difficult than the 3" Carlin and that is why I like it.
George
George
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 08, 2011 02:13PM |
Registered: 17 years ago Posts: 358 |
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 08, 2011 02:37PM |
Registered: 20 years ago Posts: 1,771 |
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
All files from this thread
