Lamont boiler
Posted by dullfig
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 24, 2011 05:33PM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 215 |
Perter,
And very good to hear from you as well, glad you are still water deep in steam! Nikola Tesla designed a fluidic diode around 1890 that was very efficient, I forget what purpose he was going to use it in.
You are correct, large Lamonts hade several parallel lamont circuits as one extremely long tube would creat great resistance to adequate flow. In the valuable book "STEAM BOILERS" by Ruddurff is an example of three entirely different tube lengths each with a different amount of heat input. The pressure drop was from 10 to 25psi depending upon length and heat input. Therfore restrictors were made so that each parallel tube could be proportioned for the 5/1 circulation ratio. This took experimentation and some adjustment when the boiler was first fired. In the auto Lamonts that I have designed one single coil could be designed to limit pump pressure to 5psi circulating pump backpressure up to 1000#steam/hour. This reduced the electric demand of the circulaating pump to minimal. Although my little forgotten steamboat design for a Flying Dutchman olympic class planing sailboat hull had an inside drum and two Lamont circuits; one tight wound around the drum to classify it as an "unfired" vessel" getting the connections in and out were too much a hassle to actually go forward with.
Best, George
And very good to hear from you as well, glad you are still water deep in steam! Nikola Tesla designed a fluidic diode around 1890 that was very efficient, I forget what purpose he was going to use it in.
You are correct, large Lamonts hade several parallel lamont circuits as one extremely long tube would creat great resistance to adequate flow. In the valuable book "STEAM BOILERS" by Ruddurff is an example of three entirely different tube lengths each with a different amount of heat input. The pressure drop was from 10 to 25psi depending upon length and heat input. Therfore restrictors were made so that each parallel tube could be proportioned for the 5/1 circulation ratio. This took experimentation and some adjustment when the boiler was first fired. In the auto Lamonts that I have designed one single coil could be designed to limit pump pressure to 5psi circulating pump backpressure up to 1000#steam/hour. This reduced the electric demand of the circulaating pump to minimal. Although my little forgotten steamboat design for a Flying Dutchman olympic class planing sailboat hull had an inside drum and two Lamont circuits; one tight wound around the drum to classify it as an "unfired" vessel" getting the connections in and out were too much a hassle to actually go forward with.
Best, George
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 25, 2011 01:21PM |
Admin Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 2,120 |
Hi Peter,
I've been fascinated by fluidics since I was about 10 years old, back in the late 60s. Saw a documentary about them and whereas electronics were a bit hard to follow at that age, fluidics were much more accessible. For large steam plants I always kind of liked the idea of a fluidic level control system to maintain condenser hotwell levels rather than the pnuematic operators that were more common, maybe the water level would interrupt a vortex valve running from the condensate pump discharge, the pneumatics probably made more sense just based on availability alone....
The more I study, the more I tend to believe the time-tested, traditional light steam solutions can be improved upon; hard to find many technical fields that haven't progressed over time and often by employing hardware that once wasn't sufficiently effective but in the long years since has quietly undergone improvement for entirely different applications. Just as a 'fer-instance' (because I hate to give too much stuff away) and not that I'm actually embracing the idea; take the twin propositions that the Stanley fire tube boiler has been pretty much disregarded in favor of water tube designs and that some of the larger investments in R and D for steam power in the last half century have been in the nuclear field. If you look at a Boiling Water Reactor (though I prefer Pressurized Water if using actual nuclear fuel) you will see that fuel rods give off heat in a fashion reminiscent of the Stanley fire tubes. Over the years BWRs shed a lot of unnecessary weight and became more compact and powerful as the technology evolved. Basically these suckers are just a bundle of hot tubes immersed in water with steam percolating out, like the Stanley, but a lot of talent and money has gone into examining just how to make the different elements interact more effectively. Good chance some of the same technologies, suitably reinterpreted for scale and circumstance, could improve the Stanley's steam kettle measurably. Of course, there are many other 'fer instances' available for study if one is inclined.
Regards,
Ken
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/25/2011 01:24PM by frustrated.
I've been fascinated by fluidics since I was about 10 years old, back in the late 60s. Saw a documentary about them and whereas electronics were a bit hard to follow at that age, fluidics were much more accessible. For large steam plants I always kind of liked the idea of a fluidic level control system to maintain condenser hotwell levels rather than the pnuematic operators that were more common, maybe the water level would interrupt a vortex valve running from the condensate pump discharge, the pneumatics probably made more sense just based on availability alone....
The more I study, the more I tend to believe the time-tested, traditional light steam solutions can be improved upon; hard to find many technical fields that haven't progressed over time and often by employing hardware that once wasn't sufficiently effective but in the long years since has quietly undergone improvement for entirely different applications. Just as a 'fer-instance' (because I hate to give too much stuff away) and not that I'm actually embracing the idea; take the twin propositions that the Stanley fire tube boiler has been pretty much disregarded in favor of water tube designs and that some of the larger investments in R and D for steam power in the last half century have been in the nuclear field. If you look at a Boiling Water Reactor (though I prefer Pressurized Water if using actual nuclear fuel) you will see that fuel rods give off heat in a fashion reminiscent of the Stanley fire tubes. Over the years BWRs shed a lot of unnecessary weight and became more compact and powerful as the technology evolved. Basically these suckers are just a bundle of hot tubes immersed in water with steam percolating out, like the Stanley, but a lot of talent and money has gone into examining just how to make the different elements interact more effectively. Good chance some of the same technologies, suitably reinterpreted for scale and circumstance, could improve the Stanley's steam kettle measurably. Of course, there are many other 'fer instances' available for study if one is inclined.
Regards,
Ken
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/25/2011 01:24PM by frustrated.
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 26, 2011 12:18AM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 257 |
Ken,
Until I found that book, I had very little knowledge of fluidics. Then I became imersed in it, how cool a different form of digital signals. I found it very interesting that most digital electronic circuits could be produced with fluidic components. They work very well except over long distances, no electromagnetic interference, simple low cost components, and they work without electricity.
I was trying to figure out how to set up a flow path in only one direction when a boiler tube is heated and I remembered reading about the Tesla diode. I hope to get the chance to install one soon on the end of a coiled tube full of water and fire it. I have a feeling it will impart a definite direction to the flow from the tube.
I like the Thorium reactor, no water, no melt down. I have a good book on heat transfer that gets into the reactor design stuff, but I don't have much need for it right now.
No need to reinvent the wheel, just pick the right one for the job.
Peter Heid
Until I found that book, I had very little knowledge of fluidics. Then I became imersed in it, how cool a different form of digital signals. I found it very interesting that most digital electronic circuits could be produced with fluidic components. They work very well except over long distances, no electromagnetic interference, simple low cost components, and they work without electricity.
I was trying to figure out how to set up a flow path in only one direction when a boiler tube is heated and I remembered reading about the Tesla diode. I hope to get the chance to install one soon on the end of a coiled tube full of water and fire it. I have a feeling it will impart a definite direction to the flow from the tube.
I like the Thorium reactor, no water, no melt down. I have a good book on heat transfer that gets into the reactor design stuff, but I don't have much need for it right now.
No need to reinvent the wheel, just pick the right one for the job.
Peter Heid
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 26, 2011 11:11AM |
Admin Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 2,120 |
Peter,
I might as well toss one idea out there, I'm not necessarily vouching for it so don't have a real urge to defend the concept, but it seems worth investigation. Natural circulation boilers work because of the differing density of hot and cold fluids, and the taller the column the greater the pressure differential, thus limiting circulation rates for small systems. In an altogether different direction, however, we have pulse jet engines. Like a natural circulation steam system they have a working fluid that needs to be accelerated, and like a natural circulation steam system heat is applied at some point in the loop, but size is much less critical to sucess. It doesn't seem like a huge stretch to assume that some of the concepts can be transferred from one domain to the other. In a Rankine cycle there are large energy gradients, with creativity it doesn't seem excessively unlikely that some of those gradients can be tapped to perform caretaker functions in the system with very minimal mechanical complexity.
Regards,
Ken
I might as well toss one idea out there, I'm not necessarily vouching for it so don't have a real urge to defend the concept, but it seems worth investigation. Natural circulation boilers work because of the differing density of hot and cold fluids, and the taller the column the greater the pressure differential, thus limiting circulation rates for small systems. In an altogether different direction, however, we have pulse jet engines. Like a natural circulation steam system they have a working fluid that needs to be accelerated, and like a natural circulation steam system heat is applied at some point in the loop, but size is much less critical to sucess. It doesn't seem like a huge stretch to assume that some of the concepts can be transferred from one domain to the other. In a Rankine cycle there are large energy gradients, with creativity it doesn't seem excessively unlikely that some of those gradients can be tapped to perform caretaker functions in the system with very minimal mechanical complexity.
Regards,
Ken
|
Re: Lamont March 27, 2011 12:23PM |
Admin Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 416 |
I split this thread Pulse Jet burner
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 30, 2011 12:51PM |
Registered: 16 years ago Posts: 153 |
Folks, while rereading this thread I decided to look up the book "Steam its Generation and Use" by Babcock and Wilcox. I hope that this is the book that GeorgeN was referencing. If so it is FREE to download from www.gutenberg.org . Other old books might also be available for free download. These are out of copyright public domain books. Personally I would love to have a paper copy but until I can get one this is still a lot of good information.
SteveW
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/30/2011 12:58PM by SteveW.
SteveW
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/30/2011 12:58PM by SteveW.
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 30, 2011 05:04PM |
Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 219 |
March 30, 2011, The Babcock and Wilcox book is widely available on the used book market and I think reasonably priced, so a paper copy should be purchased. I use abebooks myself. The book that George N. was mentioning is almost entirely not available as one shows up every year or so and then I buy it. That is "Steam Generators" aby Dagobert W. Rudorff, 1938 London Charles Griffin and Company. I recently acquired "Steam Power Plants" by Zerban and Nye 1952 and "Steam Power Stations" by Gustaf Gaffert 1940 that both have some information on these more exotic boilers. It is a real challenge to find books with good information. In the last half a year I have looked carefully at the libraries of Dave Nergaard and Art Gardiner. One wonders why they did not make a list of good books for us to have. I was too polite to ask them this question myself. For a real book on commercial sized LaMonts try to get one of the manuals for the John Thompson Water Tube Boilers Ltd. company out of Wolverhampton, England. They show you how to do it. Tom Kimmel
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 30, 2011 05:07PM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 1,441 |
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 30, 2011 05:24PM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 1,519 |
Hi Jim, Scott is best reached by pm, I contacted him recently, im sure he will do what he can to assist. Personally I think your posts are relatively concentric, I wouldnt worry to much about that, your noticing what most others would not.
Regarding "Modern Space Age Computer Control." it has finer resolution than analog circuits.
Jeremy
Regarding "Modern Space Age Computer Control." it has finer resolution than analog circuits.
Jeremy
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 30, 2011 06:48PM |
Registered: 17 years ago Posts: 358 |
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 30, 2011 07:28PM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 1,519 |
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 30, 2011 09:59PM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 1,441 |
Jeremy,
I had a few that honestly didn't know what end of the screwdriver to hold and they had their fresh BS degrees from San Jose State. What are these kids taught in school these days, only how to massage some damn computer? Sickening.
I had one though who made a Humphey gas pump for his senior project. That he even knew about one and made a big 8' on that worked was refreshing like you cannot believe.
Hired him too and at the top pay rate. Worth his weight in gold.
High resolution is just not needed. Does nothing when you have such a water column to work with. That is another good thing about the Lamont.
Even a very fast monotube being fired within an inch of it's life still has enough hysteresis to control with a simple system.
Jim
I had a few that honestly didn't know what end of the screwdriver to hold and they had their fresh BS degrees from San Jose State. What are these kids taught in school these days, only how to massage some damn computer? Sickening.
I had one though who made a Humphey gas pump for his senior project. That he even knew about one and made a big 8' on that worked was refreshing like you cannot believe.
Hired him too and at the top pay rate. Worth his weight in gold.
High resolution is just not needed. Does nothing when you have such a water column to work with. That is another good thing about the Lamont.
Even a very fast monotube being fired within an inch of it's life still has enough hysteresis to control with a simple system.
Jim
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 30, 2011 11:14PM |
Admin Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 416 |
Hi Jim,
Replace all of the text with a single period. If everything is deleted, the "post" update fails due to an empty message body.
Best,
Scott
Jim Crank Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Scott,
>
> Is there some reason I cannot erase the two posts
> above????? In the wrong place, please erase both.
>
> Jim
Replace all of the text with a single period. If everything is deleted, the "post" update fails due to an empty message body.
Best,
Scott
Jim Crank Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Scott,
>
> Is there some reason I cannot erase the two posts
> above????? In the wrong place, please erase both.
>
> Jim
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 31, 2011 05:15PM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 1,519 |
Quote
Jim
I had one though who made a Humphey gas pump for his senior project. That he even knew about one and made a big 8' on that worked was refreshing like you cannot believe.
Hired him too and at the top pay rate. Worth his weight in gold.
I actually looked up the Humphrey pump today. This reminds me of liquid piston engines people had described to me years ago, and was not able to grasp. Then to see it related to an IC engine, the idea comes thru clearly, neat.
Most likely a cyntrifugal pump is more efficient at pumping water, because of the heat factor.
Alternately this got me thinking about the "pulse-jet" thread, since they both(Hpry pump) need tuning (if you will) and brings us back full circle, to thermoacoustics.
Cheer's
Jeremy
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 31, 2011 05:25PM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 257 |
Steve W & Tom,
Forget the B&W book for anything to do with forced circulation, even in modern power plants. B&W never kept up with the times and have long since passed into obscurity. All modern power plants use forced circulation of some type, generally forced recirculation. Usually will you will find more than 1 drum and multiple circuits for a combined or hybrid system, but forced circulation is a key component.
The modern counterpart to the B&W Steam is Combustion Engineering. This is an equivalent book except that it is written from the point of view of forced circulation, not natural circulation. Though the name LaMont is not mentioned, everything to do with that type of boiler is. You can find this book most places and of course, the newer the better.
I have all the books Tom mentioned and most all the technology that survived from them and was put to practical use, can be found in Combustion Engineering.
Peter Heid
Forget the B&W book for anything to do with forced circulation, even in modern power plants. B&W never kept up with the times and have long since passed into obscurity. All modern power plants use forced circulation of some type, generally forced recirculation. Usually will you will find more than 1 drum and multiple circuits for a combined or hybrid system, but forced circulation is a key component.
The modern counterpart to the B&W Steam is Combustion Engineering. This is an equivalent book except that it is written from the point of view of forced circulation, not natural circulation. Though the name LaMont is not mentioned, everything to do with that type of boiler is. You can find this book most places and of course, the newer the better.
I have all the books Tom mentioned and most all the technology that survived from them and was put to practical use, can be found in Combustion Engineering.
Peter Heid
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 31, 2011 10:06PM |
Registered: 16 years ago Posts: 153 |
Peter, Thanks for the info. The books latest incarnation will be out next month and while out of my price range at the moment it looks to be well worth it.
Tom, I appreciate the clarification on which book GeorgeN was referring to. So far I haven't located a copy but there are lots of book sellers out there.
Tom, I appreciate the clarification on which book GeorgeN was referring to. So far I haven't located a copy but there are lots of book sellers out there.
|
Re: Lamont boiler April 01, 2011 12:28PM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 215 |
Peter,
Rar e that you and I disagree. Large natural circulation boilers can have a very high circulation ratio of over 20/1, The Lamont is very happy with a minimum of 4-5/1. All the equations in the B&W book are perfectly useful for a Lamont. I find the issue given to me as a graduating engineer is the 1955 Third edition, editions after that were not as meaty in material. Everything one needs(almost) to need to learn and be mentored by is in that book. My copy of Combustion Engineering was not nearly as clear as a textbook as was the B& W with all its examples;it is clearly written as a text book for graduating engineers. So I recommend to others do not be dissuaded to really learn from it and it is usefull to pressures of 2000+psi as far as many of the tables. I once had 4 copies of the above B&W book but sold two to aspiring to-be steam analytical types. Tom Kimmel may have one of them! ;o). All the thermo courses for a Bathelors and Masters degree tought me little about boilers in specific terms and the B &W book is my second most favorite engineering book next to the Marks engineering book. It may be I am older and more comfortable with the "old school" of engineering done by hand calculations. I simply will not trust somebody else's computer program to just give me answeres---best to learn the complete methods of heat transfer analysis.
Best, George
Rar e that you and I disagree. Large natural circulation boilers can have a very high circulation ratio of over 20/1, The Lamont is very happy with a minimum of 4-5/1. All the equations in the B&W book are perfectly useful for a Lamont. I find the issue given to me as a graduating engineer is the 1955 Third edition, editions after that were not as meaty in material. Everything one needs(almost) to need to learn and be mentored by is in that book. My copy of Combustion Engineering was not nearly as clear as a textbook as was the B& W with all its examples;it is clearly written as a text book for graduating engineers. So I recommend to others do not be dissuaded to really learn from it and it is usefull to pressures of 2000+psi as far as many of the tables. I once had 4 copies of the above B&W book but sold two to aspiring to-be steam analytical types. Tom Kimmel may have one of them! ;o). All the thermo courses for a Bathelors and Masters degree tought me little about boilers in specific terms and the B &W book is my second most favorite engineering book next to the Marks engineering book. It may be I am older and more comfortable with the "old school" of engineering done by hand calculations. I simply will not trust somebody else's computer program to just give me answeres---best to learn the complete methods of heat transfer analysis.
Best, George
|
Re: Lamont boiler April 01, 2011 01:48PM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 257 |
George,
I have both books of similar years, in the 1970's I believe. You are correct, the B&W book has what you need to perform the calculations on any boiler design. I found the CE book had everything the B&W book does plus a lot more. The CE book explains the use of circuit restrictors, canned pumps and other details of forced recirculation that are not even mentioned in the B&W book.
You can't have too many books !
Peter Heid
I have both books of similar years, in the 1970's I believe. You are correct, the B&W book has what you need to perform the calculations on any boiler design. I found the CE book had everything the B&W book does plus a lot more. The CE book explains the use of circuit restrictors, canned pumps and other details of forced recirculation that are not even mentioned in the B&W book.
You can't have too many books !
Peter Heid
|
Re: Lamont boiler April 01, 2011 02:40PM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 657 |
George it is not only the "old" that believe in doing calculations by hand to really learn. I am 31 and although I have written and used Excel spreadsheets to analyze some of my boiler designs, I learned a whole lot more by doing the calculations and making graphs of heat transfer in the various parts of the boiler by hand then when I used the program that I wrote!
The Mark's and Kent's engineering handbooks to me are much more useful from an engineering/boiler design standpoint then the Combustion Engineering book that I have. The Combustion Engineering book is a bit light on formulas and theory and more heavy on the principles of their products, reads more like a very large brochure to me then an engineering book. Maybe it is just the version that I have.
I can also suggest the 1920 Marine Engineers' Handbook by Sterling and Elements of Heat-Power Engineering by Hershfeld and Barnard, the earlier single volume I believe to be more straight forward then the later three volume edition.
For practical applications of steam engineering I believe that the earlier books are in general better then the later ones. The newest ones that I have seen have practically nothing to do with reality or combustible fuel!
Caleb Ramsby
The Mark's and Kent's engineering handbooks to me are much more useful from an engineering/boiler design standpoint then the Combustion Engineering book that I have. The Combustion Engineering book is a bit light on formulas and theory and more heavy on the principles of their products, reads more like a very large brochure to me then an engineering book. Maybe it is just the version that I have.
I can also suggest the 1920 Marine Engineers' Handbook by Sterling and Elements of Heat-Power Engineering by Hershfeld and Barnard, the earlier single volume I believe to be more straight forward then the later three volume edition.
For practical applications of steam engineering I believe that the earlier books are in general better then the later ones. The newest ones that I have seen have practically nothing to do with reality or combustible fuel!
Caleb Ramsby
|
Re: Lamont boiler April 01, 2011 03:31PM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 215 |
Caleb,
You make me smile!!
). Don't give up the dream young man. If I knew where to get a modern version of the Combustion Engineering book I would probably get it just to see what Peter was talking about re: forced circulation and canned motors.
It is a terrible shame that the once greatest boiler company B&W lost ground and finally sued into bankruptcy by insidious class action lawyers on the asbestoes lawsuits. According to Peter's remarks it appears that Combustion Engineering is still alive and well--BWDIK!
George
You make me smile!!
). Don't give up the dream young man. If I knew where to get a modern version of the Combustion Engineering book I would probably get it just to see what Peter was talking about re: forced circulation and canned motors.
It is a terrible shame that the once greatest boiler company B&W lost ground and finally sued into bankruptcy by insidious class action lawyers on the asbestoes lawsuits. According to Peter's remarks it appears that Combustion Engineering is still alive and well--BWDIK!
George
|
Re: Lamont boiler April 04, 2011 12:53AM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 657 |
|
Re: Lamont boiler July 06, 2011 01:06PM |
Registered: 14 years ago Posts: 110 |
Something I was thinking about when reading this post, it seems as though the pump to circulate the the water thru the coil is holding up alot of people from going with the lamont type boiler, would it be possible to use a piston pump? If it were a twin cylinder piston pump with the cylinders 180' opposed to each other then would the pressure acting on the piston be equalized? Hope I make sense on what im thinking, Sometimes im not well versed.
|
Re: Lamont boiler July 06, 2011 01:50PM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 1,771 |
|
Re: Lamont boiler July 06, 2011 04:10PM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 238 |
Tony's solution is very clever, especially the variable stroke feed pump.
I have a 1960's Lamont type Clayton generator with a diaphragm pump which gets around some of the problems. The new Claytons work on a spillover system but still use a similar pump [www.claytonindustries.co.uk]
Brian
I have a 1960's Lamont type Clayton generator with a diaphragm pump which gets around some of the problems. The new Claytons work on a spillover system but still use a similar pump [www.claytonindustries.co.uk]
Brian
|
Re: Lamont boiler July 06, 2011 10:28PM |
Registered: 14 years ago Posts: 110 |
I keep looking for stuff on tony gryzb's pump but cant find anything on here, does anyone have a like to his stuff???
That clayton pump looks like more than i would want, or want to try and build. Its a pretty neat set up though, looks like it uses a piston to displace fluid to actuate a diaphram?
That clayton pump looks like more than i would want, or want to try and build. Its a pretty neat set up though, looks like it uses a piston to displace fluid to actuate a diaphram?
|
Re: Lamont boiler July 06, 2011 10:51PM |
Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 663 |
One thing that I am most interested in is consistant output pressure and temperature. An would be interested in how consistant the LaMont holds pressure and temperature with varing steam rates. Say compared to a White that is working right. Maybe Jim and George can answer this. I kind of suspect the once through White might be better at holding consistant output. The proportional feed fuel seams it might be more stable if done right. The LaMont, I think, with a fixed lengh super heater would have some superheat variation with varing load. This could be important if you have a high expansion ratio. If your close to a full expansion the temperature variation could effect the ending pressure quite a bit.
|
Re: Lamont boiler July 07, 2011 04:33AM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 1,771 |
Andy
The few times I road in a White the pressure jumped all over the place, starting off at 800 PSI and falling off to 400 then would clime as we drove to 600, have to stop at a light and would jump to 800. Start off again back to 400. There is so little water in the system and a slight lag in the burner on and off in response to throttle. The thing is you don’t feel it in driving the car. Close your eyes to the pressure and the car is very responsive and a pleasure to drive.
The few times I road in a White the pressure jumped all over the place, starting off at 800 PSI and falling off to 400 then would clime as we drove to 600, have to stop at a light and would jump to 800. Start off again back to 400. There is so little water in the system and a slight lag in the burner on and off in response to throttle. The thing is you don’t feel it in driving the car. Close your eyes to the pressure and the car is very responsive and a pleasure to drive.
|
Re: Lamont boiler July 07, 2011 04:54AM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 1,771 |
I did a drawing for Tony when the bike was published in the Bulletin. It was only a copy as he sketched it out.
Tony’s pump is just a homemade piston pump with a couple of checks. And a link bar on the drive to adjust the stroke. He had three pumps in series.
Rolly
Tony’s pump is just a homemade piston pump with a couple of checks. And a link bar on the drive to adjust the stroke. He had three pumps in series.
Rolly
|
Re: Lamont boiler July 08, 2011 05:18PM |
Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 663 |
Thank for the info Rolly.
The reasion I am looking at this is that in my design I am trying to avoid over expansion (below the external exhaust pressure) The amount of supperheat can have quite an effect on expansion. All the old cars would be operatoring in an overexpansion mode at low power and short cutoff.
For example if the car can maintain 60 MPH at full throttle. Then at 20 MPH the car would have to be throttled to produce 1/9 the torque produced at 60 MPH. Or 1/27 the horse power. Pretty sure a Stanley throttled down that much would be expanding well below exhaust pressure. So when exhaust opens you have suction onto the cylander and then it has to push that back out. That is the engine is doing some unneccessary pump work lowering efficiency. It is possably more efficient to use longer cutoff with more throttling where end of expansion pressure is above the exhaust pressure avoiding the pumping loss. During expansion when the pressure is below external pressure the engine is working against exhaust pressure on the opsite side. The exhaust pressure being higher is producing more negative work against the piston during that time.
Andy
The reasion I am looking at this is that in my design I am trying to avoid over expansion (below the external exhaust pressure) The amount of supperheat can have quite an effect on expansion. All the old cars would be operatoring in an overexpansion mode at low power and short cutoff.
For example if the car can maintain 60 MPH at full throttle. Then at 20 MPH the car would have to be throttled to produce 1/9 the torque produced at 60 MPH. Or 1/27 the horse power. Pretty sure a Stanley throttled down that much would be expanding well below exhaust pressure. So when exhaust opens you have suction onto the cylander and then it has to push that back out. That is the engine is doing some unneccessary pump work lowering efficiency. It is possably more efficient to use longer cutoff with more throttling where end of expansion pressure is above the exhaust pressure avoiding the pumping loss. During expansion when the pressure is below external pressure the engine is working against exhaust pressure on the opsite side. The exhaust pressure being higher is producing more negative work against the piston during that time.
Andy
|
Re: Lamont boiler July 08, 2011 07:32PM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 1,771 |
Andy
In today’s traffic its imposable to maintain and efficiency across the rpm and load spectrum. Eccentrics operated engines are not by far the most efficient valve design.
Typically the valve is opened for over 60% of piston travel, with only 10 to 12% of piston travel for compression. I don’t know what the lead is on the Stanley engines but hopefully 10 to 12 degrees. Of course when you hookup it becomes more meaning the valve is opening a lot more before TDC cutting less of the pie for the opened valve but with a much larger opening of the valve. Typically after the exhaust closes there is some where around 10% of piston travel for compression. These events don’t change only rotate around the circle and the lead is added to the compression, in other words you have the 10% compression when the exhaust closes and the intake is not opened but then the intake opens with lead before TDC big question if there is any movement of steam into the cylinder as its heading up to TDC but the more lead as you hookup the more the valve is opened after TDC. They’re by moving as much of a charge of steam into the cylinder as possible. On an eccentric operated valve if there is no lead the valve never opens anywhere near the full port area, even with lead it never opens full port area except in the exhaust position which is needed. On most steam cars I have had experience with the pipe from the boiler and the hole in the throttle are small compared to other steam plants, and it is rare that the engine ever runs at boiler pressure. 500 to 600PSI in the boiler and only 100 to 150 PSI on the engine. However the superheat is up there between 6 and 700F even at the lower engine pressure. On my 35 foot boat the pipe off the boiler was
[home.comcast.net]
1-1/2 inches and the superheater was one inch. The engine ran at full boiler pressure at 275 PSI with around 100 to150 F of superheat and 40 PSI on the low and 29 inch of vacuum.
Good stuff to play with.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/08/2011 07:35PM by Rolly.
In today’s traffic its imposable to maintain and efficiency across the rpm and load spectrum. Eccentrics operated engines are not by far the most efficient valve design.
Typically the valve is opened for over 60% of piston travel, with only 10 to 12% of piston travel for compression. I don’t know what the lead is on the Stanley engines but hopefully 10 to 12 degrees. Of course when you hookup it becomes more meaning the valve is opening a lot more before TDC cutting less of the pie for the opened valve but with a much larger opening of the valve. Typically after the exhaust closes there is some where around 10% of piston travel for compression. These events don’t change only rotate around the circle and the lead is added to the compression, in other words you have the 10% compression when the exhaust closes and the intake is not opened but then the intake opens with lead before TDC big question if there is any movement of steam into the cylinder as its heading up to TDC but the more lead as you hookup the more the valve is opened after TDC. They’re by moving as much of a charge of steam into the cylinder as possible. On an eccentric operated valve if there is no lead the valve never opens anywhere near the full port area, even with lead it never opens full port area except in the exhaust position which is needed. On most steam cars I have had experience with the pipe from the boiler and the hole in the throttle are small compared to other steam plants, and it is rare that the engine ever runs at boiler pressure. 500 to 600PSI in the boiler and only 100 to 150 PSI on the engine. However the superheat is up there between 6 and 700F even at the lower engine pressure. On my 35 foot boat the pipe off the boiler was
[home.comcast.net]
1-1/2 inches and the superheater was one inch. The engine ran at full boiler pressure at 275 PSI with around 100 to150 F of superheat and 40 PSI on the low and 29 inch of vacuum.
Good stuff to play with.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/08/2011 07:35PM by Rolly.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
All files from this thread
