Lamont boiler
Posted by dullfig
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 08, 2011 04:53PM |
Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 134 |
Here's a rough picture of what I envision my lamont to be for my bike.
The black sphere is the separator. Water enters tangentially at the "equator" and creates a vortex within to sphere. Water exits near the bottom through a drain. Since the bottom of the sphere has a much smaller area than the equator, the water's velocity will be increased and an ample supply of water will be available to the pump to avoid cavetation.
Within the green box is the main burner area, 316 stainless tubes encircle the burner, the water flows from the separator, through the pump, into these coils and then follows a path through the coils. I've read about multi path lamonts, and am exploring the idea, but I think a monotube should be sufficient for this application.
The tubes are quarter inch outer diameter, but I am unsure if this will provide adequate flow.
The exhaust gases flow from the combustion chamber, enter tangentially into the red drum, and circle the drum, eventually exhausting on the far side, into an exhaust pipe. The exhaust pipe will double as a preheater for the feed water.
A separate exhaust pipe for the motor steam exhaust will be an air preheater.
Van
The black sphere is the separator. Water enters tangentially at the "equator" and creates a vortex within to sphere. Water exits near the bottom through a drain. Since the bottom of the sphere has a much smaller area than the equator, the water's velocity will be increased and an ample supply of water will be available to the pump to avoid cavetation.
Within the green box is the main burner area, 316 stainless tubes encircle the burner, the water flows from the separator, through the pump, into these coils and then follows a path through the coils. I've read about multi path lamonts, and am exploring the idea, but I think a monotube should be sufficient for this application.
The tubes are quarter inch outer diameter, but I am unsure if this will provide adequate flow.
The exhaust gases flow from the combustion chamber, enter tangentially into the red drum, and circle the drum, eventually exhausting on the far side, into an exhaust pipe. The exhaust pipe will double as a preheater for the feed water.
A separate exhaust pipe for the motor steam exhaust will be an air preheater.
Van
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 08, 2011 05:37PM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 375 |
vandallas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The tubes are quarter inch outer diameter, but I
> am unsure if this will provide adequate flow.
>
>
> Van
Like your spherical drum Van. On flow - would this online calculator help you?
[www.pipeflowcalculations.com]
Mike
-------------------------------------------------------
> The tubes are quarter inch outer diameter, but I
> am unsure if this will provide adequate flow.
>
>
> Van
Like your spherical drum Van. On flow - would this online calculator help you?
[www.pipeflowcalculations.com]
Mike
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 08, 2011 08:41PM |
Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 134 |
Thanks a lot Mike, this calculator is pretty handy.
According to the calculator, at 20 horsepower, and therefore 300lbs of water per hour (15 lbs per hp hr), circulating at 5 times the consumption rate. means 1500 lb/hr needs to be circulated. An inner diameter of .25'' yields a water velocity of 13.35 mph.
20 horsepower might be overkill for a small steambike, what do you guys think?
For that matter how am I supposed to carry 300lbs of water on a bike? Water condensation is an option, unless I want to only run for 20 minutes at a time.
Can someone please help me out with the kind of expectations I can assume this bike to get? Realistic water rate, fuel rate, top speed, etc.
Van
According to the calculator, at 20 horsepower, and therefore 300lbs of water per hour (15 lbs per hp hr), circulating at 5 times the consumption rate. means 1500 lb/hr needs to be circulated. An inner diameter of .25'' yields a water velocity of 13.35 mph.
20 horsepower might be overkill for a small steambike, what do you guys think?
For that matter how am I supposed to carry 300lbs of water on a bike? Water condensation is an option, unless I want to only run for 20 minutes at a time.
Can someone please help me out with the kind of expectations I can assume this bike to get? Realistic water rate, fuel rate, top speed, etc.
Van
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 08, 2011 09:57PM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 657 |
Hey Van,
The horsepower required for a given speed can be figured thusly.
Kr = Rolling resistance pounds per 1,000 lbs vehicle weight, from 10 - 30 lbs on a smooth road and up to 100 lbs in soft dirt or sand. Divide the rolling resistance by 1,000 the Kr figure. Example 12 lbs per 1,000 = 12/1,000= .012
Rr = Kr * W
W = vehicle weight in pounds
Ra = air resistance lbs
Ka = coefficient of air resistance, divide the modern day cd by 392 to get the coefficient of air resistance, so for a cd of .35 that would equal .0008928 for the Ka.
V = vehicle velocity in mph
A = frontal area it sq ft
Formula for hopsepower at a given speed.
Horsepower = (((Kr*W)+(Ka*A*V*V))*V)/375
Lets plug in 6 sq ft frontal area, a coefficient of drag of .8(for a motorcycle), weight of 750 lbs(rider, fuel etc.) a rolling resistance of 12 lbs and 60 mph.
That would require 8 1/2 horsepower to drive the vehicle at the wheel. You would then need to figure in the losses between the engine and the wheel to figure the engine horsepower to drive the bike, then figure the power required to pump the water, fuel and air.
Figuring acceleration is a bit more complex, if you know that the vehicle will require a given horsepower at a given speed to keep it moving, then you can figure the torque required and if you can then figure the torque that the engine can produce at that speed then you will know how much is left over for acceleration.
The complex thing is that at a low speed the engine can operate with the intake valve open for more of the stroke to produce more torque. As you go faster then the engine is taking more "gulps" of steam per minute and to keep within the limits of what the boiler can provide you then must reduce the amount of time that the valve is open and giving the engine live steam. What complicates it even further is that for a given output the engine will use less steam with a shorter cutoff so the engine will actually be able to make a bit more horsepower at higher speed then at lower, BUT the chain drive of a motorcycle looses efficiency as the speed increases. Well, it goes around in circles a bit.
What I did was make an Excell spreadsheet for figuring the acceleration and top speed(as well as the distance required to achieve it) of a vehicle. I put in the max lbs of steam per hour output of the boiler, various vehicle paramaters, engine displacement, number of cylinders, gearing ect. then up to 10 different cutoffs, with the corresponding meen effective pressure and lb of steam per hp hr, max torque ect for that given cutoff. Then I have it figure in 5 mph steps what its rate of acceleration is, distance traveled ect, with the program shifting to the next shorter cutoff when the engine is using more steam then the boiler can provide. The spreadsheet is a bit crude and not perfect by any meens, but it gives me at least an idea of what to expect from a given design with given paramaters and it does a LOT of brain work for me in a very short period of time.
I believe that it is you(a few new faces here, hard to keep track sometimes) that is attending a University to become an Engineer(what type of engineer if you don't mind my asking), I would suggest that you hunt down the oldest mechanical engineering profesor that is there and ask him about this stuff. There may be an old steam hand around there somewhere that can help you out.
About your LaMont design, there is absolutly no need to use stainless steel tubing for the circulation coil or the economizer, maybe the superheater if you are going for high temperatures, but even that will survive for a long time with much less expensive steel.
The main advantage of the circulation coil in the LaMont is that the rapidly moving water keeps the tube very cool, so you don't need to use a steel that has a great resistance to high temperatures.
If it is rust that you are worried about, don't worry about it. There are Whites out there still using their original boilers, which were made from seamless standard steel tubing 100 years ago!
1/4" is way too small, the resistance to flow is exponential in regards to the inner diameter of the tube. To put it simply the big factor is the cross section of the fluid flow area(flow channel) as compared to the inner surface area of the tube(friction area). A single long tube with turns in it will have a big effect on the resistance to the fluid flow.
All of this stuff is in the old Engineering books, such as Kent's Mechanical Engineering, Marks Mechnical Engineering or the B&W boiler books.
What type of performance are you looking at for the motorcycle,(looks like you converted from a car to a motorcycle) the performance of a moped, Harley Davidson Sportster or a Hayabusa?
Caleb Ramsby
The horsepower required for a given speed can be figured thusly.
Kr = Rolling resistance pounds per 1,000 lbs vehicle weight, from 10 - 30 lbs on a smooth road and up to 100 lbs in soft dirt or sand. Divide the rolling resistance by 1,000 the Kr figure. Example 12 lbs per 1,000 = 12/1,000= .012
Rr = Kr * W
W = vehicle weight in pounds
Ra = air resistance lbs
Ka = coefficient of air resistance, divide the modern day cd by 392 to get the coefficient of air resistance, so for a cd of .35 that would equal .0008928 for the Ka.
V = vehicle velocity in mph
A = frontal area it sq ft
Formula for hopsepower at a given speed.
Horsepower = (((Kr*W)+(Ka*A*V*V))*V)/375
Lets plug in 6 sq ft frontal area, a coefficient of drag of .8(for a motorcycle), weight of 750 lbs(rider, fuel etc.) a rolling resistance of 12 lbs and 60 mph.
That would require 8 1/2 horsepower to drive the vehicle at the wheel. You would then need to figure in the losses between the engine and the wheel to figure the engine horsepower to drive the bike, then figure the power required to pump the water, fuel and air.
Figuring acceleration is a bit more complex, if you know that the vehicle will require a given horsepower at a given speed to keep it moving, then you can figure the torque required and if you can then figure the torque that the engine can produce at that speed then you will know how much is left over for acceleration.
The complex thing is that at a low speed the engine can operate with the intake valve open for more of the stroke to produce more torque. As you go faster then the engine is taking more "gulps" of steam per minute and to keep within the limits of what the boiler can provide you then must reduce the amount of time that the valve is open and giving the engine live steam. What complicates it even further is that for a given output the engine will use less steam with a shorter cutoff so the engine will actually be able to make a bit more horsepower at higher speed then at lower, BUT the chain drive of a motorcycle looses efficiency as the speed increases. Well, it goes around in circles a bit.
What I did was make an Excell spreadsheet for figuring the acceleration and top speed(as well as the distance required to achieve it) of a vehicle. I put in the max lbs of steam per hour output of the boiler, various vehicle paramaters, engine displacement, number of cylinders, gearing ect. then up to 10 different cutoffs, with the corresponding meen effective pressure and lb of steam per hp hr, max torque ect for that given cutoff. Then I have it figure in 5 mph steps what its rate of acceleration is, distance traveled ect, with the program shifting to the next shorter cutoff when the engine is using more steam then the boiler can provide. The spreadsheet is a bit crude and not perfect by any meens, but it gives me at least an idea of what to expect from a given design with given paramaters and it does a LOT of brain work for me in a very short period of time.
I believe that it is you(a few new faces here, hard to keep track sometimes) that is attending a University to become an Engineer(what type of engineer if you don't mind my asking), I would suggest that you hunt down the oldest mechanical engineering profesor that is there and ask him about this stuff. There may be an old steam hand around there somewhere that can help you out.
About your LaMont design, there is absolutly no need to use stainless steel tubing for the circulation coil or the economizer, maybe the superheater if you are going for high temperatures, but even that will survive for a long time with much less expensive steel.
The main advantage of the circulation coil in the LaMont is that the rapidly moving water keeps the tube very cool, so you don't need to use a steel that has a great resistance to high temperatures.
If it is rust that you are worried about, don't worry about it. There are Whites out there still using their original boilers, which were made from seamless standard steel tubing 100 years ago!
1/4" is way too small, the resistance to flow is exponential in regards to the inner diameter of the tube. To put it simply the big factor is the cross section of the fluid flow area(flow channel) as compared to the inner surface area of the tube(friction area). A single long tube with turns in it will have a big effect on the resistance to the fluid flow.
All of this stuff is in the old Engineering books, such as Kent's Mechanical Engineering, Marks Mechnical Engineering or the B&W boiler books.
What type of performance are you looking at for the motorcycle,(looks like you converted from a car to a motorcycle) the performance of a moped, Harley Davidson Sportster or a Hayabusa?
Caleb Ramsby
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 09, 2011 12:31PM |
Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 134 |
Hey Caleb, thanks a lot for your help so far.
I'm not expecting top end performance, but I was hoping for something that was moderately comparable to a lower end motorcycle. Something that was at least roadworthy.
One thing I'm curious about is how speed affects engine speed. For example, in a perfect world, with a continuously adjustable transmission, would the speed of the engine remain constant as the vehicle accelerated?
Another thing I'm curious about is steam jacketing, I've read in multiple steam books that steam jacketing is not a benefit when superheating steam, so I assume this works both ways. Therefore would heat loss in the engine be drastically reduced due to the low thermal conductivity of pure water vapor? Furthermore, if one was to attempt condensing superheated steam, it would be logical to saturate the steam as soon as it exits the cylinder as soon as possible, so when it enters the condensor it's conductivity is increased a large amount, facilitating condensation.
I was planning on using copper (a readily available material to me) for the majority of the lamont's tubes, but was planning on using stainless for the superheater and the stack of coils directly surrounding the combustion chamber in the unlikely event of a burnout it is my hope the stainless tubes will hold together long enough for the problem to be addressed and rectified.
Another question I have is about economizers, is it best to economize exhaust combustion gases with incoming feed water and economize exhaust steam with incoming air? or vice versa? or some other combination of all four.
As far as the burner goes, for a small application such as this, what do people suggest? The use of a steam turbine from the exhaust steam is probably beyond my current skill level, however it would be nice to have the velocity of exhaust steam converted back into recuperated energy.
Van
I'm not expecting top end performance, but I was hoping for something that was moderately comparable to a lower end motorcycle. Something that was at least roadworthy.
One thing I'm curious about is how speed affects engine speed. For example, in a perfect world, with a continuously adjustable transmission, would the speed of the engine remain constant as the vehicle accelerated?
Another thing I'm curious about is steam jacketing, I've read in multiple steam books that steam jacketing is not a benefit when superheating steam, so I assume this works both ways. Therefore would heat loss in the engine be drastically reduced due to the low thermal conductivity of pure water vapor? Furthermore, if one was to attempt condensing superheated steam, it would be logical to saturate the steam as soon as it exits the cylinder as soon as possible, so when it enters the condensor it's conductivity is increased a large amount, facilitating condensation.
I was planning on using copper (a readily available material to me) for the majority of the lamont's tubes, but was planning on using stainless for the superheater and the stack of coils directly surrounding the combustion chamber in the unlikely event of a burnout it is my hope the stainless tubes will hold together long enough for the problem to be addressed and rectified.
Another question I have is about economizers, is it best to economize exhaust combustion gases with incoming feed water and economize exhaust steam with incoming air? or vice versa? or some other combination of all four.
As far as the burner goes, for a small application such as this, what do people suggest? The use of a steam turbine from the exhaust steam is probably beyond my current skill level, however it would be nice to have the velocity of exhaust steam converted back into recuperated energy.
Van
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 09, 2011 02:42PM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 657 |
Hey Van,
I don't have time to get to all of your questions right now, but I will touch upon the engine gearing.
If you have two double acting cylinders with their cranks set at 90 degrees and can admit steam to the cylinders for 60% or so of their stroke then the engine will be self starting.
That is, the engine can produce torque from a stall, just like an electric motor and it doesn't need a clutch or any variable gear ratios between it and the wheels.
The Stanley, White and Doble cars all had self starting engines.
As you go faster then you can shorten the percentage of the stroke that the inlet valve is open for, thusly getting more expansions from the steam and making the engine more efficient although it will be producing less torque for a given throttle position. The later Stanleys had two "hook up" positions for the valve gear, one for starting or climbing a really steep hill and another for cruising. Some steam cars have been outfited with a lot more positions for the hook up, locos often have over a dozen positions for the hook up.
Conversly, some steam cars have been made with engines that only run at one short cutoff(under 10% ) with only two single acting pistons, so they weren't self starting and required a starter and usually had a change gear box since they didn't make much more torque then the internal combustion engine that they replaced. This was in an effort to make the engine more efficient, but with the down side of more equipment required.
Check out Bill's steam powered motorcycle on youtube.
[www.youtube.com]
I believe that he used a two cylinder double acting Locomobile steam engine and a vertical firetube boiler for it.
Caleb Ramsby
I don't have time to get to all of your questions right now, but I will touch upon the engine gearing.
If you have two double acting cylinders with their cranks set at 90 degrees and can admit steam to the cylinders for 60% or so of their stroke then the engine will be self starting.
That is, the engine can produce torque from a stall, just like an electric motor and it doesn't need a clutch or any variable gear ratios between it and the wheels.
The Stanley, White and Doble cars all had self starting engines.
As you go faster then you can shorten the percentage of the stroke that the inlet valve is open for, thusly getting more expansions from the steam and making the engine more efficient although it will be producing less torque for a given throttle position. The later Stanleys had two "hook up" positions for the valve gear, one for starting or climbing a really steep hill and another for cruising. Some steam cars have been outfited with a lot more positions for the hook up, locos often have over a dozen positions for the hook up.
Conversly, some steam cars have been made with engines that only run at one short cutoff(under 10% ) with only two single acting pistons, so they weren't self starting and required a starter and usually had a change gear box since they didn't make much more torque then the internal combustion engine that they replaced. This was in an effort to make the engine more efficient, but with the down side of more equipment required.
Check out Bill's steam powered motorcycle on youtube.
[www.youtube.com]
I believe that he used a two cylinder double acting Locomobile steam engine and a vertical firetube boiler for it.
Caleb Ramsby
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 09, 2011 03:54PM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 375 |
Hot steam passing over cold feedwater pipes transfers a lot of heat. In my Stanley I had a parallel path feedwater heater with four 9 foot lengths of 5/16 copper pipe coiled up in a 20 inch long muffler sized can in the steam exhaust. It could get the water from cold to 200F. A single pass coil with about double that length of pipe in the smoke hood (gas flue) was much less efficient so I threw it out. The four parallel paths present the coldest water at four points to the steam which is much more effective than using a single path as is maximises the temperature differential.
I would go for a steam to water exchanger (which is a start to your condenser circuit anyway) and then have an exhaust gas to intake air exchanger. Forget hot gas to water as a separate device - its just the first part of your generator coil in a monotube or Lamont, and in my experience not worth the trouble in the smokebox over a Stanley boiler.
Mike
I would go for a steam to water exchanger (which is a start to your condenser circuit anyway) and then have an exhaust gas to intake air exchanger. Forget hot gas to water as a separate device - its just the first part of your generator coil in a monotube or Lamont, and in my experience not worth the trouble in the smokebox over a Stanley boiler.
Mike
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 09, 2011 05:41PM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 1,771 |
Mike
I have had just the opposite experience. The normal temperature of the flue gas is around 500 F for a Stanley boiler. It is relatively clean unlike that from an oil burner.
The economizers I have built for Stanley boilers comprise of 100 feet of ½ inch OD 0.049 wall tubing. Known as 3/8 K one quarter tube spacing between tubes. Out put Feed water temperature normally around 425 to 450 F
In fact I have had exultant results with all the different economizers I’ve built.
Rolly
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/09/2011 06:08PM by Rolly.
I have had just the opposite experience. The normal temperature of the flue gas is around 500 F for a Stanley boiler. It is relatively clean unlike that from an oil burner.
The economizers I have built for Stanley boilers comprise of 100 feet of ½ inch OD 0.049 wall tubing. Known as 3/8 K one quarter tube spacing between tubes. Out put Feed water temperature normally around 425 to 450 F
In fact I have had exultant results with all the different economizers I’ve built.
Rolly
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/09/2011 06:08PM by Rolly.
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 09, 2011 09:06PM |
Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 91 |
O.K. gentlemen... first of all a truely heart felt thanks for of all the valuable information that you have gathered through career, intellect, and the haus pipe of experience. You have been very helpful and have given me much to think about. Also thanks for scaring the crap out of me. In full disclosure, you have given me trembling night terrors as some of your comunications makes me feel that what I have been working on for the past thirteen years is simply impossible to complete without an engineering degree or a big waud of doe.... You cause me to retreat behind the hope that most of your focus is in relation to the complexities of steam cars and high pressures, where as I am building a large sidewheel steamboat which will run at low pressure.
I am more hours then I care to count into the building a feedwater/recirculation pump system for the lamont boiler I fancy myself to soon build. I do not have a college education but while sitting before the fire and sipping my morning's coffee, my simple bird's brain has reasoned that if the packing gland of a piston rod can deal with x amount of pressure then so too can the packing gland of a recirculation piston pump...And, if the recirculation water is cooled a few degrees before it enters a pump which is scale up to the point where it moves slower then the speed at which the recirculation water enters ....well then that water will be happy and not go boom.
I know it is presumptuous of me to tippytoe in and contend amoungst such experience, but I am thinking that because I intend to use low pressure and burn solid fuel and because a riverboat is such a different animal ...steadier in its needs then a steamcar, then it follows that the challenges of building a lamont to suit are not as criticle.....No?....yes? Will somebody give me an amen here!
I am more hours then I care to count into the building a feedwater/recirculation pump system for the lamont boiler I fancy myself to soon build. I do not have a college education but while sitting before the fire and sipping my morning's coffee, my simple bird's brain has reasoned that if the packing gland of a piston rod can deal with x amount of pressure then so too can the packing gland of a recirculation piston pump...And, if the recirculation water is cooled a few degrees before it enters a pump which is scale up to the point where it moves slower then the speed at which the recirculation water enters ....well then that water will be happy and not go boom.
I know it is presumptuous of me to tippytoe in and contend amoungst such experience, but I am thinking that because I intend to use low pressure and burn solid fuel and because a riverboat is such a different animal ...steadier in its needs then a steamcar, then it follows that the challenges of building a lamont to suit are not as criticle.....No?....yes? Will somebody give me an amen here!
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 09, 2011 09:52PM |
Registered: 17 years ago Posts: 137 |
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 10, 2011 04:34AM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 1,453 |
Often "experts" and "professionals" totally disagree among themselves, and often they later admit that they thought/did/preached things completely wrong for many decades, and 180-degree change their long-preached/believed opinions at the drop of a hat. After 32 years of reading their eternally ever-changing scribblings, personally, I am no longer impressed by them. They put on their underwear one leg at a time in the morning, just like you, me, and everyone else. Don't get "scared" by them; study up and think for yourself.
Steamboats? Natural-circulation boilers. IMO. Yarrow, Winslow/Derr/early-BW, Bolsover, Ofeldt, etc, zillions of successful reliable boiler designs, ready to build, all over the internet. You choose. Lots of guys build and run 'em, day in, day out, no problems. Insert fuel and water, and go. Choose between building/running actual proven machines [fun], and "having endless internet psychodramas" over fundamental steam design principles [not fun].
Man up. Build it, run it, enjoy.
Lamonts, feh. Yesterday's SACA fad.
Peter
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/10/2011 04:58AM by Peter Brow.
Steamboats? Natural-circulation boilers. IMO. Yarrow, Winslow/Derr/early-BW, Bolsover, Ofeldt, etc, zillions of successful reliable boiler designs, ready to build, all over the internet. You choose. Lots of guys build and run 'em, day in, day out, no problems. Insert fuel and water, and go. Choose between building/running actual proven machines [fun], and "having endless internet psychodramas" over fundamental steam design principles [not fun].
Man up. Build it, run it, enjoy.
Lamonts, feh. Yesterday's SACA fad.
Peter
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/10/2011 04:58AM by Peter Brow.
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 10, 2011 09:32AM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 1,771 |
Kelly
Not quite that easy, but possible, I use a jig I built years ago. I’m in a Library at the moment and need to get back on my laptop to get a photo of the jig. I use # 8 solid copper wire to make the tie’s for the spacing. I wind the coil from the outside in to the center and back out again so there are no runs going into the center that add to the height.
The only problem with buying tubing from Mc-Master-Carr is you can’t inspect it. I’ve had more then one coil come with flat spots in the middle of the coil. I think a 100 foot is running around $400 bucks now. I buy mine from local industrial supply house’s
I think I only have two or three left.
Rolly
Not quite that easy, but possible, I use a jig I built years ago. I’m in a Library at the moment and need to get back on my laptop to get a photo of the jig. I use # 8 solid copper wire to make the tie’s for the spacing. I wind the coil from the outside in to the center and back out again so there are no runs going into the center that add to the height.
The only problem with buying tubing from Mc-Master-Carr is you can’t inspect it. I’ve had more then one coil come with flat spots in the middle of the coil. I think a 100 foot is running around $400 bucks now. I buy mine from local industrial supply house’s
I think I only have two or three left.
Rolly
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 10, 2011 10:33AM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 1,441 |
Peter,
AHMEN. But; don't forget that things and materials we never had are now available, technical evolution and it never stops. That peek (?) piston ring stuff Harry uses, at least I think that is what he uses, is just one.
It made it possible to not use injected oil, although I understand that the Mobile One 140 gear oil is working better than any petroleum oil ever did. Brent Campbell swears by it.
Some just want something that runs on steam, while others want the fine things steam engines have when in a car and there, today, the envelope has to be pushed, if that is what you are after.
Indeed, pick a boiler design you can build with the shop facilities you have and the amount of money you can spend and go have a ton of fun.
Only when you intend to make a steam system that really does push the envelope very hard are when all these other things become important. The Lamont does indeed make a steam generator half the size and weight of the old Doble ones with identical output and in a new car, that was one very nice gain to have. The other was such a simple control system than the ones the Dobles and everyone else used. Much to consider; but that is where the fun is.
Nothing nicer than a nice old displacement hull steamboat with an open frame engine just loafing along, peace and quiet and oh so nice.
Rolly,
Ran into another one to watch for. When I bought all the new tubing for a Doble steam generator, it arrived in perfect shape. When it came back from the firm that did the coil winding, they managed to groove it from end to end and ruin the tubing, Really deep gouging all along the tubes. Needless to say, it all had to be thrown away and start again with new tubing. They paid for it and fired the nitwit who wound the coils with a frozen roller in the winder. Company is now out of business and right across the Bay is a firm who can and will wind any type of coil you could possibly think up.
AHMEN. But; don't forget that things and materials we never had are now available, technical evolution and it never stops. That peek (?) piston ring stuff Harry uses, at least I think that is what he uses, is just one.
It made it possible to not use injected oil, although I understand that the Mobile One 140 gear oil is working better than any petroleum oil ever did. Brent Campbell swears by it.
Some just want something that runs on steam, while others want the fine things steam engines have when in a car and there, today, the envelope has to be pushed, if that is what you are after.
Indeed, pick a boiler design you can build with the shop facilities you have and the amount of money you can spend and go have a ton of fun.
Only when you intend to make a steam system that really does push the envelope very hard are when all these other things become important. The Lamont does indeed make a steam generator half the size and weight of the old Doble ones with identical output and in a new car, that was one very nice gain to have. The other was such a simple control system than the ones the Dobles and everyone else used. Much to consider; but that is where the fun is.
Nothing nicer than a nice old displacement hull steamboat with an open frame engine just loafing along, peace and quiet and oh so nice.
Rolly,
Ran into another one to watch for. When I bought all the new tubing for a Doble steam generator, it arrived in perfect shape. When it came back from the firm that did the coil winding, they managed to groove it from end to end and ruin the tubing, Really deep gouging all along the tubes. Needless to say, it all had to be thrown away and start again with new tubing. They paid for it and fired the nitwit who wound the coils with a frozen roller in the winder. Company is now out of business and right across the Bay is a firm who can and will wind any type of coil you could possibly think up.
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 10, 2011 11:34AM |
Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 488 |
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 10, 2011 12:28PM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 1,771 |
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 10, 2011 12:48PM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 1,441 |
Keith,
The outfit is in Fremont across the Bay from here. If you live in the San Francisco area, then it would be something to investigate. Otherwise the shipping these days would kill you, better by far that you find a local outfit.
If you are around here let me know and I will dig through the files and send you the name, address and phone number. Also the outfit in Los Angeles that was the only one who would supply fully annealed 4130 in 21' lengths, they had an annealing furnace long enough to take the full length. The fewer welds the better.
They can wind the Doble superheaters and helical coils though, 1-1/4"-1-1/2" OD, 1/8"-3/16 wall, fully annealed 4130, a really hard one to wind. Even the old 15 hp coil winders at Beslers used to groan when they wound that stuff.
You are going to groan too when you see what this stuff costs these days. That coil stack for E-23 in 1994 for the tubing alone was about $4200.00. Today I would hate to guess, although we have to make a new coil stack for E-19, so I guess I will find out the price the hard way. I would bet the same thing now is about $7,000.00 for the tubing alone.
Jim
The outfit is in Fremont across the Bay from here. If you live in the San Francisco area, then it would be something to investigate. Otherwise the shipping these days would kill you, better by far that you find a local outfit.
If you are around here let me know and I will dig through the files and send you the name, address and phone number. Also the outfit in Los Angeles that was the only one who would supply fully annealed 4130 in 21' lengths, they had an annealing furnace long enough to take the full length. The fewer welds the better.
They can wind the Doble superheaters and helical coils though, 1-1/4"-1-1/2" OD, 1/8"-3/16 wall, fully annealed 4130, a really hard one to wind. Even the old 15 hp coil winders at Beslers used to groan when they wound that stuff.
You are going to groan too when you see what this stuff costs these days. That coil stack for E-23 in 1994 for the tubing alone was about $4200.00. Today I would hate to guess, although we have to make a new coil stack for E-19, so I guess I will find out the price the hard way. I would bet the same thing now is about $7,000.00 for the tubing alone.
Jim
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 10, 2011 12:50PM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 1,771 |
Company is now out of business and right across the Bay is a firm who can and will wind any type of coil you could possibly think up.
Jim it’s nice to have access to company’s like that. There was one in Boston that could do Roll cages with nice tight radius, all computer generated. No waste with expansive chrome molly tube. Another company I used in Pennsylvania to bend up my code marine boilers from A-106 sold me all the piece cut and bent to my CAD drawings cheaper then I could buy straight lengths locally and with Mill cert’s.
Rolly
Jim it’s nice to have access to company’s like that. There was one in Boston that could do Roll cages with nice tight radius, all computer generated. No waste with expansive chrome molly tube. Another company I used in Pennsylvania to bend up my code marine boilers from A-106 sold me all the piece cut and bent to my CAD drawings cheaper then I could buy straight lengths locally and with Mill cert’s.
Rolly
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 10, 2011 01:44PM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 1,771 |
Jim have you ever tried any of the ASME approved chrome moly tubes for the Doble boilers. The T91 is supposed to be the latest and greatest in the chrome moly line of alloys. They have a lot more chrome and moly then 4130 and I assume cost a lot more money.
SA-213 T2 Smls. Intermediate alloy - 1/2% chrome, 1/2% moly Waterwalls, superheaters, not in common use
SA-213 T11 Smls. Intermediate alloy - 1 1/4% chrome, 1/2% moly Waterwalls, superheaters
SA-213 T22 Smls. Intermediate alloy - 2 1/4% chrome, 1% moly Waterwalls, superheaters
SA-213 T5 Smls. Intermediate alloy - 5% chrome, 1/2% moly High temperature superheaters, not in common use
SA-213 T9 Smls. Intermediate alloy - 9% chrome, 1% moly High temperature superheaters, no longer in common use
SA-213 T91 Smls. Intermediate alloy - 9% chrome, 1% moly, 1/4% vanadium High temperature superheaters - the latest and greatest
4130 Carbon 0.28 - 0.33
Chromium 0.8 - 1.1
Manganese 0.7 - 0.9
Molybdenum 0.15 - 0.25
Phosphorus 0.035 max
Silicon 0.15 - 0.35
Sulphur 0.04 max
SA-213 T2 Smls. Intermediate alloy - 1/2% chrome, 1/2% moly Waterwalls, superheaters, not in common use
SA-213 T11 Smls. Intermediate alloy - 1 1/4% chrome, 1/2% moly Waterwalls, superheaters
SA-213 T22 Smls. Intermediate alloy - 2 1/4% chrome, 1% moly Waterwalls, superheaters
SA-213 T5 Smls. Intermediate alloy - 5% chrome, 1/2% moly High temperature superheaters, not in common use
SA-213 T9 Smls. Intermediate alloy - 9% chrome, 1% moly High temperature superheaters, no longer in common use
SA-213 T91 Smls. Intermediate alloy - 9% chrome, 1% moly, 1/4% vanadium High temperature superheaters - the latest and greatest
4130 Carbon 0.28 - 0.33
Chromium 0.8 - 1.1
Manganese 0.7 - 0.9
Molybdenum 0.15 - 0.25
Phosphorus 0.035 max
Silicon 0.15 - 0.35
Sulphur 0.04 max
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 10, 2011 01:55PM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 215 |
Riichard Orrr,
I would not use or design a Lamont boiler for low pressures as the lower the pressure the longer the Lamont coil has to be as its required heat input is dependent upon Hfg. The longer the coil the more back pressure on the pump and the lower the pressure the higher the specific volume of the ever changing saturated water to steam is and that increases flow resistance in that circuit as well.
This increases the required circulating pump horsepower.
From my experiences with their designs I would suggest not going to the bother to design one under a pressure of 400psi. In a steamboat you have all the room for a larger natural circulation boiler which is not a luxury of room for an auto boiler. Hope that helps.
George
I would not use or design a Lamont boiler for low pressures as the lower the pressure the longer the Lamont coil has to be as its required heat input is dependent upon Hfg. The longer the coil the more back pressure on the pump and the lower the pressure the higher the specific volume of the ever changing saturated water to steam is and that increases flow resistance in that circuit as well.
This increases the required circulating pump horsepower.
From my experiences with their designs I would suggest not going to the bother to design one under a pressure of 400psi. In a steamboat you have all the room for a larger natural circulation boiler which is not a luxury of room for an auto boiler. Hope that helps.
George
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 10, 2011 02:37PM |
Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 488 |
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 10, 2011 05:36PM |
Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 134 |
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 10, 2011 05:38PM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 1,453 |
Hi Jim,
To clarify a bit, by all means _listen carefully_ to experts and people who have been doing things for decades. Invaluable tips and info. Just don't be intimidated, and keep your wits about you. By "you" I mean all of us.
I used to be critical of people who did things wrong for 30 years or more, until I found myself in the same boat with a few Old-VW maintenance procedures which I had been doing wrong or not doing for decades. Well, everybody runs that risk with everything in life. Find errors, fix 'em.
Right, things constantly change. Some flip-flops are fully justified. I am finding components and materials which were not available just 10 years ago, or which have come way down in price. I looked at PEEK in the 1990s; at the time is was very expensive, except for very small critical components. I don't know the current prices; I have no app for it... yet.
One advanced material which I am watching/waiting to become available in reasonable quantities and prices, is that epoxy resin with "buckytube" carbon nano-threads. Pourable, room-temp-cure, castable plastic resin with carbon-fiber composite strength/weight ratios (or higher) and no hassles with fiber orientation or fiber/resin ratios. Make a mold, any size/shape component, mix with catalyst, and pour it in. Mind-boggling potential -- IF they can get the price down. A number of companies are working on that. Last I looked, only available in tiny "lab test quantities" at extremely high prices.
Do you mean Mobil One SHC634 like Rolly used, or is Mobil One 140 a different oil? While straightening up the shop recently, I found the 2 glass jars from my "shake and sit" oil/water separation tests. 634/water in one, 40W ND petro-base oil/water in the other. After sitting a couple years, the 634 synthetic water is ever so faintly cloudy (barely visible); the 40W petroleum water is crystal-clear. But that faint cloudiness might be just the thing for putting a microscopic trace of oil into a steel economizer & evaporator to help coat/protect them. Of course with periodic blowdowns to keep oil from building up. Nice to eliminate the need for that; hope Harry succeeds with his no-oil setup.
Steam car boiler weight reduction is a worthy goal, and the Teel/Nutz boiler shows that a Lamont can do this. However, the Lamont's popularity among steam car people doesn't necessarily mean it is a good idea for everything powered by steam.
Also interesting to compare the cost of the Teel/Nutz Lamont evaporator coil to the other tubing prices reported here. Really a brilliant design.
Peter
To clarify a bit, by all means _listen carefully_ to experts and people who have been doing things for decades. Invaluable tips and info. Just don't be intimidated, and keep your wits about you. By "you" I mean all of us.
I used to be critical of people who did things wrong for 30 years or more, until I found myself in the same boat with a few Old-VW maintenance procedures which I had been doing wrong or not doing for decades. Well, everybody runs that risk with everything in life. Find errors, fix 'em.
Right, things constantly change. Some flip-flops are fully justified. I am finding components and materials which were not available just 10 years ago, or which have come way down in price. I looked at PEEK in the 1990s; at the time is was very expensive, except for very small critical components. I don't know the current prices; I have no app for it... yet.
One advanced material which I am watching/waiting to become available in reasonable quantities and prices, is that epoxy resin with "buckytube" carbon nano-threads. Pourable, room-temp-cure, castable plastic resin with carbon-fiber composite strength/weight ratios (or higher) and no hassles with fiber orientation or fiber/resin ratios. Make a mold, any size/shape component, mix with catalyst, and pour it in. Mind-boggling potential -- IF they can get the price down. A number of companies are working on that. Last I looked, only available in tiny "lab test quantities" at extremely high prices.
Do you mean Mobil One SHC634 like Rolly used, or is Mobil One 140 a different oil? While straightening up the shop recently, I found the 2 glass jars from my "shake and sit" oil/water separation tests. 634/water in one, 40W ND petro-base oil/water in the other. After sitting a couple years, the 634 synthetic water is ever so faintly cloudy (barely visible); the 40W petroleum water is crystal-clear. But that faint cloudiness might be just the thing for putting a microscopic trace of oil into a steel economizer & evaporator to help coat/protect them. Of course with periodic blowdowns to keep oil from building up. Nice to eliminate the need for that; hope Harry succeeds with his no-oil setup.
Steam car boiler weight reduction is a worthy goal, and the Teel/Nutz boiler shows that a Lamont can do this. However, the Lamont's popularity among steam car people doesn't necessarily mean it is a good idea for everything powered by steam.
Also interesting to compare the cost of the Teel/Nutz Lamont evaporator coil to the other tubing prices reported here. Really a brilliant design.
Peter
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 10, 2011 06:26PM |
Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 91 |
Hello Mr Nutz.
Indeed a pleasure to hear from you. I have heard you reffered to in previous posts and have read an article on lamonts written by you some years ago .Appearently you have been away from this forum for a good spell... so welcome back. I am sure this already great forum will only get even more dynamic by your return.
Must say golly-gee-wizz to your cautionary advice...not at all what I wanted to hear. Still, it would be foolish of me to turn my back on such experience. I won't bother to fill you in you on all my WHYS as you already know well what is so great about lamonts. Let me dig a little deeper into your WHY NOTS and ask you instead what is to me a pivital question: Do the efficiency losses that would be found in a low pressure lamont exceed that of a conventional, small-sized watertube boiler?
Indeed a pleasure to hear from you. I have heard you reffered to in previous posts and have read an article on lamonts written by you some years ago .Appearently you have been away from this forum for a good spell... so welcome back. I am sure this already great forum will only get even more dynamic by your return.
Must say golly-gee-wizz to your cautionary advice...not at all what I wanted to hear. Still, it would be foolish of me to turn my back on such experience. I won't bother to fill you in you on all my WHYS as you already know well what is so great about lamonts. Let me dig a little deeper into your WHY NOTS and ask you instead what is to me a pivital question: Do the efficiency losses that would be found in a low pressure lamont exceed that of a conventional, small-sized watertube boiler?
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 10, 2011 06:58PM |
Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 134 |
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 10, 2011 06:58PM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 657 |
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 10, 2011 07:18PM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 1,453 |
Hi Van,
A "convection-circulated Lamont" technically would be a "natural-circulation" boiler rather than a Lamont. Nice turn of phrase, though; suggests the idea of natural circulation which is as rapid as some Lamont (or other forced-circulation) boilers. I have heard reports of Bolsovers and some other compact natural-circulation boilers which were claimed to circulate as rapidly as Lamonts. These use many more flowpaths, which are also much shorter and have more combined flowpath area than most Lamonts. More work to build the "tube stack", but also no circulating pump to build.
Peter
A "convection-circulated Lamont" technically would be a "natural-circulation" boiler rather than a Lamont. Nice turn of phrase, though; suggests the idea of natural circulation which is as rapid as some Lamont (or other forced-circulation) boilers. I have heard reports of Bolsovers and some other compact natural-circulation boilers which were claimed to circulate as rapidly as Lamonts. These use many more flowpaths, which are also much shorter and have more combined flowpath area than most Lamonts. More work to build the "tube stack", but also no circulating pump to build.
Peter
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 10, 2011 08:05PM |
Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 134 |
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 10, 2011 11:45PM |
Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 91 |
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 10, 2011 11:53PM |
Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 91 |
vandallas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you're going for low pressure Richard, what
> about some type of convection circulated lamont?
>
>
> Van
Well, you have me curious with that suggestion. I cannot even imagine how such a lamont would work.
can you fill me in? One of the main reasons that I like lamonts is that they don't get any solids build-up along the tubes.
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you're going for low pressure Richard, what
> about some type of convection circulated lamont?
>
>
> Van
Well, you have me curious with that suggestion. I cannot even imagine how such a lamont would work.
can you fill me in? One of the main reasons that I like lamonts is that they don't get any solids build-up along the tubes.
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 11, 2011 03:08AM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 1,453 |
Hi Van and Richard,
Natural-circulation boilers raise water in steam-generating (boiling) tubes because of the steam bubbles forming in those heated tubes. The water in these "risers", filled with steam bubbles, is lighter than the bubble-free water in the nearby drum or downcomers, so it rises to a higher level, spilling over back into the drum. The steam and water slow down and separate in the drum -- steam is removed from the top of the drum, and water falls through the steam to the bottom of the drum. Then water goes back into the boiling tubes from the bottom of the drum, to replace the water which was "bubble-lifted" out of the tops of the tubes.
Since the water keeps moving in the tubes, any scale, oil, etc, stays suspended in the moving water, and does not deposit in the tubes. Contaminants flow with the water to the drum, where they separate from the water and collect. Then they are easily blown off from the drum.
Also, the tubes always have water flowing through them, so they never get hot enough to burn oil or develop carbon deposits.
Natural-circulation boilers circulate water just like a Lamont, and have most of the advantages of a Lamont, except that they do not have (or need) the Lamont's circulating pump.
Natural-circulation boilers are extremely common, are built in many different styles, shapes, and sizes, and they work very well, including in steam cars.
However, natural-circulation boilers tend to be larger, heavier, and more expensive than Lamont boilers of the same steam output. I believe that these problems can be solved, but plan to build and test some ideas before discussing how.
Circulating boiling water through heated tubes and separating steam, water, and contaminants in a drum, is indeed an excellent way to run a boiler. Natural-circulation boilers have been operating that way for more than 150 years now.
Peter
Natural-circulation boilers raise water in steam-generating (boiling) tubes because of the steam bubbles forming in those heated tubes. The water in these "risers", filled with steam bubbles, is lighter than the bubble-free water in the nearby drum or downcomers, so it rises to a higher level, spilling over back into the drum. The steam and water slow down and separate in the drum -- steam is removed from the top of the drum, and water falls through the steam to the bottom of the drum. Then water goes back into the boiling tubes from the bottom of the drum, to replace the water which was "bubble-lifted" out of the tops of the tubes.
Since the water keeps moving in the tubes, any scale, oil, etc, stays suspended in the moving water, and does not deposit in the tubes. Contaminants flow with the water to the drum, where they separate from the water and collect. Then they are easily blown off from the drum.
Also, the tubes always have water flowing through them, so they never get hot enough to burn oil or develop carbon deposits.
Natural-circulation boilers circulate water just like a Lamont, and have most of the advantages of a Lamont, except that they do not have (or need) the Lamont's circulating pump.
Natural-circulation boilers are extremely common, are built in many different styles, shapes, and sizes, and they work very well, including in steam cars.
However, natural-circulation boilers tend to be larger, heavier, and more expensive than Lamont boilers of the same steam output. I believe that these problems can be solved, but plan to build and test some ideas before discussing how.
Circulating boiling water through heated tubes and separating steam, water, and contaminants in a drum, is indeed an excellent way to run a boiler. Natural-circulation boilers have been operating that way for more than 150 years now.
Peter
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
All files from this thread
