Lamont boiler
Posted by dullfig
|
Re: Lamont boiler July 23, 2011 12:58PM |
Registered: 12 years ago Posts: 110 |
Rolly, I know exactly what you talking about with the rough cores, I think the foundrys use a coarser sand for thier cores when they do iron to allow the gasses to escape thru the core more easily. I would love to be able to do my own iron castings, but its just not realistic for a home foundry to do ductile castings and know what you are getting for a finished alloy. For the time being ill just stick to nonferris like brass and bronze.
I found a cad image of the pump burried back in the forum, looks like the back of the impeller is useing the graphaloy flange bushing for a thrust surface? Your pump has me kicking things around a little bit, If there were two chambers on the pump, like one hot side where the impeller is, and a cold side with the shaft spinning in the feed water, would you need a seal between the hot and cold water sections of the body? Im thinking you could just get away with a loaded face seal on the motor end of the pump running in the cold water and nothing between the cold and hot portions. Or would they try and bleed across the bushing too much?
I found a cad image of the pump burried back in the forum, looks like the back of the impeller is useing the graphaloy flange bushing for a thrust surface? Your pump has me kicking things around a little bit, If there were two chambers on the pump, like one hot side where the impeller is, and a cold side with the shaft spinning in the feed water, would you need a seal between the hot and cold water sections of the body? Im thinking you could just get away with a loaded face seal on the motor end of the pump running in the cold water and nothing between the cold and hot portions. Or would they try and bleed across the bushing too much?
|
Re: Lamont boiler July 24, 2011 12:02AM |
Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 663 |
I posted this on another thread already. But there is an alternative to the
LaMont and it also uses a stand pipe.
I saw it written up in the old steam power magazine. The boiler is a commercial
boiler made to produce process steam. It controls similar a LaMont but is
a once through steam generator. The commercial one supplied saturated steam but
no big deal to add a supper heater.
The once through steam generator output was connected to the lower end of the
stand pipe. With room below for sediment collection. Had a blow down valve on the
bottom. There were baffles in the stand pipe to force a longer path to the water
surface. The water level was controlled by allowing superheated steam to be
generated when the water level needs lowering. And wet steam to raise the water
level.
My thoughts on the control would to have a proportional variable faring and feed
system where the proportion fuel to water could be varied slightly. More heat
and you get superheated steam going into the stand pipe. The superheated
circulating up through the baffles would give up it superheat until it cooled to
the saturation temperature. This heat transferred to the liquid would vaporize a
portion producing more saturated steam. With a lower firing rate the steam
generated would be saturated wet steam. Part water part steam. The steam would
simply raise to the top. And the water part would raise the water level. I would a
protected super heater coil similar to the S.E.S. or LaMont.
Simple. easy to control and no circulating pump; Am sure the this could be fired
fairly hard with no problem. The one written up in the magazine was primarily
used in the dry cleaning business, and restaurant's.
Andy
LaMont and it also uses a stand pipe.
I saw it written up in the old steam power magazine. The boiler is a commercial
boiler made to produce process steam. It controls similar a LaMont but is
a once through steam generator. The commercial one supplied saturated steam but
no big deal to add a supper heater.
The once through steam generator output was connected to the lower end of the
stand pipe. With room below for sediment collection. Had a blow down valve on the
bottom. There were baffles in the stand pipe to force a longer path to the water
surface. The water level was controlled by allowing superheated steam to be
generated when the water level needs lowering. And wet steam to raise the water
level.
My thoughts on the control would to have a proportional variable faring and feed
system where the proportion fuel to water could be varied slightly. More heat
and you get superheated steam going into the stand pipe. The superheated
circulating up through the baffles would give up it superheat until it cooled to
the saturation temperature. This heat transferred to the liquid would vaporize a
portion producing more saturated steam. With a lower firing rate the steam
generated would be saturated wet steam. Part water part steam. The steam would
simply raise to the top. And the water part would raise the water level. I would a
protected super heater coil similar to the S.E.S. or LaMont.
Simple. easy to control and no circulating pump; Am sure the this could be fired
fairly hard with no problem. The one written up in the magazine was primarily
used in the dry cleaning business, and restaurant's.
Andy
|
Re: Lamont boiler July 24, 2011 12:12AM |
Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 663 |
For an automobile I think a proportional fire and feed control system would be
able to gave a more consistent pressure and temperature if done right. An
intelligent control would monitor the foot feed, vehicle speed, orientation and be
able to predict short term steam usage. Combined with boiler conditions it
would be able to keep the fire close to that required for operator conditions.
So with the Non-LaMont, I described, I would view the stand pipe a type of
normalizer. Just trying to keep water in it so that I would have saturated vapor
going to the super coil. So hopeful one would get consistent supper heat temp.
Andy
able to gave a more consistent pressure and temperature if done right. An
intelligent control would monitor the foot feed, vehicle speed, orientation and be
able to predict short term steam usage. Combined with boiler conditions it
would be able to keep the fire close to that required for operator conditions.
So with the Non-LaMont, I described, I would view the stand pipe a type of
normalizer. Just trying to keep water in it so that I would have saturated vapor
going to the super coil. So hopeful one would get consistent supper heat temp.
Andy
|
Re: Lamont boiler July 24, 2011 03:37PM |
Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 73 |
Well, if I had to design a simple control system to deliver consistent superheated steam pressure & temp in a car (or boat) I'd start with the Lamont boiler. I'd control the fire to modulate pressure, and design a mixing valve to adjust what percentage of steam passed back through the normalizer tubing (inside the steam drum) to reduce steam temps.... if temps are too low even w/o normalization, we'd have to increase the firing rate. Since conditions during startup could overheat the superheater, I'd make sure to be able to include the superheater tubing as part of the regular pumped circulation circuit during startup.
- Bart
----
Bart Smaalders [smaalders.net]
- Bart
----
Bart Smaalders [smaalders.net]
|
Re: Lamont boiler November 23, 2011 09:09AM |
Admin Registered: 17 years ago Posts: 2,013 |
Was reading about some pumps using a special recirc system to cancel out cavitation, did a couple minutes research and found the basic patent. Idiotically simple concept, should work nicely.
[www.google.com]
Ken
[www.google.com]
Ken
|
Re: Lamont boiler November 23, 2011 10:24AM |
Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 663 |
|
Re: Lamont boiler November 23, 2011 10:59AM |
Registered: 18 years ago Posts: 372 |
Bound to - but does it matter - think of a Stanley - fire can be on or off at the moment of opening the throttle, there is residual heat in the superheater and in the combustion chamber but the superheat will vary quite a lot depending on amount of throttle opening, state of fire and amount of steam going through. A bit rough and ready but it works. Doesn't help your maths though Andy!
Mike
Mike
|
Re: Lamont boiler November 23, 2011 11:12AM |
Registered: 18 years ago Posts: 1,441 |
Andy-Mike,
Simple and you always have constant superheat temperature.
Calculate the superheater tubing to always supply slightly over the desired temperature. Burying it down helps a whole lot keeping it stable anyhow. Then use a small normalizer, the control of it is simple.
In E-14 and E-23, the normalizer keeps the temperature constant +/- 2°F and that is close enough for anybody.
Actually, Mike is right, changes of 25° for moments don't mean anything. Look at the White, no control at all until the hysteresis got overcome and changes to the water and fuel feed took place. That didn't bother it one bit.
Way too much fussing about things that just do not matter in the real world of actual hardware.
Ken,
Of course, this would work perfectly.
Jim
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/23/2011 11:23AM by Jim Crank.
Simple and you always have constant superheat temperature.
Calculate the superheater tubing to always supply slightly over the desired temperature. Burying it down helps a whole lot keeping it stable anyhow. Then use a small normalizer, the control of it is simple.
In E-14 and E-23, the normalizer keeps the temperature constant +/- 2°F and that is close enough for anybody.
Actually, Mike is right, changes of 25° for moments don't mean anything. Look at the White, no control at all until the hysteresis got overcome and changes to the water and fuel feed took place. That didn't bother it one bit.
Way too much fussing about things that just do not matter in the real world of actual hardware.
Ken,
Of course, this would work perfectly.
Jim
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/23/2011 11:23AM by Jim Crank.
|
Re: Lamont boiler November 23, 2011 11:37AM |
Admin Registered: 17 years ago Posts: 2,013 |
Hi Andy,
Superheat temperature and steaming rate depend on whether you are talking radiant or convective superheaters. Radiant superheaters get cooler at higher loads and convective get hotter, a combination of the two is more stable but to get extremely stable temperatures might take some hairy calculations...for mass produced package boilers undoubtedly a good way to go once you've got it debugged. An inline desuperheater such as the normalizer Jim mentioned has the advantage that you can dial it in without disassembly, cutting, welding and reassembly, which seems more suitable for the do-it-yourselfer..
Regards,
Ken
Superheat temperature and steaming rate depend on whether you are talking radiant or convective superheaters. Radiant superheaters get cooler at higher loads and convective get hotter, a combination of the two is more stable but to get extremely stable temperatures might take some hairy calculations...for mass produced package boilers undoubtedly a good way to go once you've got it debugged. An inline desuperheater such as the normalizer Jim mentioned has the advantage that you can dial it in without disassembly, cutting, welding and reassembly, which seems more suitable for the do-it-yourselfer..
Regards,
Ken
|
Re: Lamont boiler November 23, 2011 01:03PM |
Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 663 |
Thats kind of my point. To excess superheat increasses exhaust loss and lowers efficiency. And low superheat can lead to problems. So controling superheat is important to relayable operation and efficiency. I wonder how well the White proportional control system heald superheat temperature.
|
Re: Lamont boiler November 23, 2011 01:03PM |
Registered: 18 years ago Posts: 1,754 |
Ken you don’t want a Normalizer where water is introduced into the steam. Doble used this method, not good in my mind. You might want a desuperheater as is used on navy boilers. Always dry steam. If enough superheat pipe is placed in the right location in the heat zone you can get very constant superheat. My Derr had the superheater located two rows of boiler tubes above the fire and maintained very stable superheat. Fire on or off throttle opened or closed. Or let’s say as good as thermal couples can measure it.
Rolly
Rolly
|
Re: Lamont boiler November 23, 2011 02:14PM |
Admin Registered: 17 years ago Posts: 2,013 |
Hi Rolly,
I tend to agree there, I like a desuperheater routed through some earlier part of the generator or drum, avoids issues of erosion for one thing.
Other reason I like a desuperheater line through the drum is that it provides a positive feedback mechanism. As the superheated steam gets too hot, it flows through the drum and cools off, heating the drum a bit. As the drum heats, it releases more steam, raising the drum pressure a bit. As the drum pressure rises, the pressurestat dials the burner down....and that was causing the high temperature in the first place.
Regards,
Ken
I tend to agree there, I like a desuperheater routed through some earlier part of the generator or drum, avoids issues of erosion for one thing.
Other reason I like a desuperheater line through the drum is that it provides a positive feedback mechanism. As the superheated steam gets too hot, it flows through the drum and cools off, heating the drum a bit. As the drum heats, it releases more steam, raising the drum pressure a bit. As the drum pressure rises, the pressurestat dials the burner down....and that was causing the high temperature in the first place.
Regards,
Ken
|
Re: Lamont boiler November 23, 2011 04:39PM |
Registered: 18 years ago Posts: 1,441 |
Rolly,
The normalizers were usually at the beginning of the superheaters, with a few even further down into the drying zone and out of eight Doble coil stacks, not one of them had any erosion where the normalizer was placed. Carbon, yes, erosion, no
They all had a quill that put the water into the center of the tube. A few like E-18, Jay Leno's car, took the normalize water from the middle of the boiling zone. Actually in this one it was a second normalizer controlled by s second quartz rod thermostat.
Jim
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/23/2011 04:41PM by Jim Crank.
The normalizers were usually at the beginning of the superheaters, with a few even further down into the drying zone and out of eight Doble coil stacks, not one of them had any erosion where the normalizer was placed. Carbon, yes, erosion, no
They all had a quill that put the water into the center of the tube. A few like E-18, Jay Leno's car, took the normalize water from the middle of the boiling zone. Actually in this one it was a second normalizer controlled by s second quartz rod thermostat.
Jim
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/23/2011 04:41PM by Jim Crank.
|
Re: Lamont boiler November 23, 2011 05:41PM |
Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 663 |
Hi Jim.
How stable was the steam temperature on your White? I am interested in how well a proportional water-fuel feed system controls output temperature. As you know I am interested in trying to have close to full expansion. A stable inlet steam state is real important to get the most out of what I am trying to do. I think maybe with a microprocessor it may be possable to hold output closely as long as a proportional control could do it with low rate of demand changes. A micro processor can antipicate future demands from the curent state and accelerator input. I suspect that an increase in demand is harder to cope with then a decrease. There is some thermal initia But with thin wall tubing that should be minimized.
Andy
How stable was the steam temperature on your White? I am interested in how well a proportional water-fuel feed system controls output temperature. As you know I am interested in trying to have close to full expansion. A stable inlet steam state is real important to get the most out of what I am trying to do. I think maybe with a microprocessor it may be possable to hold output closely as long as a proportional control could do it with low rate of demand changes. A micro processor can antipicate future demands from the curent state and accelerator input. I suspect that an increase in demand is harder to cope with then a decrease. There is some thermal initia But with thin wall tubing that should be minimized.
Andy
|
Re: Lamont boiler November 23, 2011 11:07PM |
Admin Registered: 18 years ago Posts: 531 |
|
Re: Lamont boiler November 24, 2011 12:03PM |
Registered: 18 years ago Posts: 1,441 |
Which had nothing to do with your question.
Andy,
The best thing if you want to investigate the idea of a fully proportioning water and fuel system is to completely understand the late White. When the car is restored to original factory specs and the Gods are with you, it is a superbly wonderful and fine steam car. Then, using the same operating principals design your own.
BUT; if you do this, you need to duplicate the varying firing rate as White did. I suggest a modern carburetor and then servo the throttle butterflys, simulating the White burner and the way it operated with varying fuel pressure. Nothing wrong with a post mix vaporizing burner, you know.
OK, the first thing with a White is to calibrate the pyrometer. They are wildly inaccurate unless this is done. So with a Weston dial type test thermometer in the well on the thermostat, you loosen the needle on the pyrometer. Then get the car fully heat soaked, while watching the test thermometer. Then when it is stable at 740°F, move the pyrometer needle to just evenly cover the red line at 12:00 and tap it home. There are no numbers on the pyrometer, just that red line. Guess they didn't want to scare the owners.
Then when under way watch the vaporizer pressure gauge and the steam pressure gauge, with your third eye on the test thermometer. On the level road just running along, you see that pyrometer needle move about half a needle width to the right, hotter, and go back to the center as the thermostat does it's job of feeding more or less water behind the piston in the flowmotor which cheats it and you also now see the vaporizer pressure gauge go from about 55 pounds, down to maybe 30-35 and then back up. It is regulating itself correctly. White thermostats are not On-Off; but vary the amount of water they add starting about 450° with a dribble to full blast at 740°F.
Also, the steel seats in the bypass valve on the lid of the flowmotor, the water valve in the thermostat and the seat in the water regulator are precisely calibrated for that horsepower model car. Never mix them up or chaos reigns and the car will never settle down. That tapered groove in the flowmotor is super critical too, and must be tinkered with by careful filing of the groove or adding some solder when you rebore it and make a new oversize piston.
That half a needle width on my car amounted to some 20°F in superheat variation, which made no difference to how the car was running. Actually, being the suspicious type, I cut a hole in the floorboard and screwed in a Weston permanently into the thermostat.
That overheat was of such short duration that it just didn't have time to heat up the cylinders. Never had a problem with it doing this.
The real fun was when the burner had just come on full and you had to make a quick stop. It keeps burning until the vaporizer is empty. Then, when you start up again, the pyrometer goes way to the right and the test thermometer is showing 1,000°F. Talk about a snappy getaway, Whites love really lot steam.
In point of fact, I did worry about this at first when I was driving the car in traffic as a daily driver during nice weather, so figured out how to add a non electric normalizer to the car. But, nothing happened, so I never tried one out on the White.
With my 735 Stanley, the OO White and the Doble Series E, I found out that super precise temperature control means nothing +/- 5° doesn't make one bit of difference unless really high overheat goes on for a long time.
Jim
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/24/2011 12:35PM by Jim Crank.
Andy,
The best thing if you want to investigate the idea of a fully proportioning water and fuel system is to completely understand the late White. When the car is restored to original factory specs and the Gods are with you, it is a superbly wonderful and fine steam car. Then, using the same operating principals design your own.
BUT; if you do this, you need to duplicate the varying firing rate as White did. I suggest a modern carburetor and then servo the throttle butterflys, simulating the White burner and the way it operated with varying fuel pressure. Nothing wrong with a post mix vaporizing burner, you know.
OK, the first thing with a White is to calibrate the pyrometer. They are wildly inaccurate unless this is done. So with a Weston dial type test thermometer in the well on the thermostat, you loosen the needle on the pyrometer. Then get the car fully heat soaked, while watching the test thermometer. Then when it is stable at 740°F, move the pyrometer needle to just evenly cover the red line at 12:00 and tap it home. There are no numbers on the pyrometer, just that red line. Guess they didn't want to scare the owners.
Then when under way watch the vaporizer pressure gauge and the steam pressure gauge, with your third eye on the test thermometer. On the level road just running along, you see that pyrometer needle move about half a needle width to the right, hotter, and go back to the center as the thermostat does it's job of feeding more or less water behind the piston in the flowmotor which cheats it and you also now see the vaporizer pressure gauge go from about 55 pounds, down to maybe 30-35 and then back up. It is regulating itself correctly. White thermostats are not On-Off; but vary the amount of water they add starting about 450° with a dribble to full blast at 740°F.
Also, the steel seats in the bypass valve on the lid of the flowmotor, the water valve in the thermostat and the seat in the water regulator are precisely calibrated for that horsepower model car. Never mix them up or chaos reigns and the car will never settle down. That tapered groove in the flowmotor is super critical too, and must be tinkered with by careful filing of the groove or adding some solder when you rebore it and make a new oversize piston.
That half a needle width on my car amounted to some 20°F in superheat variation, which made no difference to how the car was running. Actually, being the suspicious type, I cut a hole in the floorboard and screwed in a Weston permanently into the thermostat.
That overheat was of such short duration that it just didn't have time to heat up the cylinders. Never had a problem with it doing this.
The real fun was when the burner had just come on full and you had to make a quick stop. It keeps burning until the vaporizer is empty. Then, when you start up again, the pyrometer goes way to the right and the test thermometer is showing 1,000°F. Talk about a snappy getaway, Whites love really lot steam.
In point of fact, I did worry about this at first when I was driving the car in traffic as a daily driver during nice weather, so figured out how to add a non electric normalizer to the car. But, nothing happened, so I never tried one out on the White.
With my 735 Stanley, the OO White and the Doble Series E, I found out that super precise temperature control means nothing +/- 5° doesn't make one bit of difference unless really high overheat goes on for a long time.
Jim
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/24/2011 12:35PM by Jim Crank.
|
Re: Lamont boiler November 24, 2011 12:33PM |
Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 488 |
|
Re: Lamont boiler November 24, 2011 03:14PM |
Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 663 |
Thanks Jim. Vary good info. I am not planing on duplicating the White control. But a digital control that would basicly control the fuel to match the water feed. The fire is a forced draft. The fuel will be controled by an automotive fuel injector. At this point I am not sure which I will control the fire with. The air or fuel. But an O2 sensor will be used to keep a clean burn. I can ramp the blower up and down to control the fire and supply fuel to make a clean burn. Or ramp the furel up and down and adjust the blower for a clean burn. Ken sugested an air flow sensor should also be used. But I think in a way the blower fan acts as an air flow sensor. I could simply use the blower shaft RPM as an air flow indicator. I am trying to match the water feed to the engine usage rate. Pressure feed back would be used to adjust the feed rate,set by an RPM,cutoff table. Temperature feed back would be used to adjust the feed rate,fuel table.
I figure that for a specific RPM and cutoff a feed rate can be figured. Basicly a table. But that would also take the accelerator position (and maybe the break) as an input to project future requirements. A specific feed rate would require a specific burn rate. So that can also be tabulated and used to set a burn rate to match the feed rate. 20F is no problem. And that was what I was interested. In my case there shouldn't be a big overshoot in a suden stop as that would be anticipated from the throttle input. But for a fast take off I would recognize the accelerator down with the break on as a special condition. But would not alow it to over heating the tubes in any case.
I does sound like a variable firing rate can make a oncethrough boiler have a very constant output steam state.
Andy
I figure that for a specific RPM and cutoff a feed rate can be figured. Basicly a table. But that would also take the accelerator position (and maybe the break) as an input to project future requirements. A specific feed rate would require a specific burn rate. So that can also be tabulated and used to set a burn rate to match the feed rate. 20F is no problem. And that was what I was interested. In my case there shouldn't be a big overshoot in a suden stop as that would be anticipated from the throttle input. But for a fast take off I would recognize the accelerator down with the break on as a special condition. But would not alow it to over heating the tubes in any case.
I does sound like a variable firing rate can make a oncethrough boiler have a very constant output steam state.
Andy
|
Re: Lamont boiler November 24, 2011 07:43PM |
Registered: 18 years ago Posts: 657 |
Hey Andy,
Ken is right, you really must have an air flow sensor for injectors. The RPM of the fan will only tell you the tip speed and initial head, the flow is the initial head minus the flow losses and resistance of the boiler proper. Which in turn is dependent on the gass mass flow and temperature of the combustion gases through the boiler. If you could perfectly account for every flow loss under every firing condition of the boiler then you could calculate the air flow from just the fan RPM, but frankly that isn't possible, also any modification of the boiler would result in an error in the calculated air flow from the fan for a given RPM, as would air density.
I would also suggest adjusting the air flow to increase the firing rate then have the system jam in fuel to match the air flow from the air flow sensor. There should be much less lag from the fuel system then the air system.
Caleb Ramsby
Ken is right, you really must have an air flow sensor for injectors. The RPM of the fan will only tell you the tip speed and initial head, the flow is the initial head minus the flow losses and resistance of the boiler proper. Which in turn is dependent on the gass mass flow and temperature of the combustion gases through the boiler. If you could perfectly account for every flow loss under every firing condition of the boiler then you could calculate the air flow from just the fan RPM, but frankly that isn't possible, also any modification of the boiler would result in an error in the calculated air flow from the fan for a given RPM, as would air density.
I would also suggest adjusting the air flow to increase the firing rate then have the system jam in fuel to match the air flow from the air flow sensor. There should be much less lag from the fuel system then the air system.
Caleb Ramsby
|
Re: Lamont boiler November 25, 2011 01:43PM |
Registered: 18 years ago Posts: 1,441 |
Caleb,
Absolutely right, injectors have to have a mass air flow rate sensor to control the mixture strength in an IC car. I think even a single point injectors like G.M. used for a time needs one too. Along with coolant and ambient temperature, throttle position, rpm and barometric pressure too. The IC engine needs a hell of a lot more to control the mixture ratio than any steam car, so why impose this mess on it too? Thank the air pollution nazis for this one.
Thermal hysteresis will mask any firing condition change quite well. In fact, it makes trying to super closely follow the water flow with the fuel flow and control the evaporation rate-pressure-superheat impossible. The hysteresis smoothes all this stuff very well, even the White displayed this as do the Dobles.
What is it today that people want to needlessly complicate the steam car when it is simply not needed??? Air flow On-Off unless a draft booster is used and a carburetor does everything that Andy would want. Holly makes them up to 1400 cu/ft/min which covers a huge car system, a big bus really.
Just don't put the carburetor on the intake of the blower or a good backfire will turn a blower housing into something like "Modern art".
Or run the blower at a constant speed and use a butterfly in the inlet if you insist on complicating what is simple.
I am beginning to think that all this is due to no rel hands on with steam cars and too much computer clicking. Each has it's need; but one follows the other and only confirms the set conditions.
Jim
Absolutely right, injectors have to have a mass air flow rate sensor to control the mixture strength in an IC car. I think even a single point injectors like G.M. used for a time needs one too. Along with coolant and ambient temperature, throttle position, rpm and barometric pressure too. The IC engine needs a hell of a lot more to control the mixture ratio than any steam car, so why impose this mess on it too? Thank the air pollution nazis for this one.
Thermal hysteresis will mask any firing condition change quite well. In fact, it makes trying to super closely follow the water flow with the fuel flow and control the evaporation rate-pressure-superheat impossible. The hysteresis smoothes all this stuff very well, even the White displayed this as do the Dobles.
What is it today that people want to needlessly complicate the steam car when it is simply not needed??? Air flow On-Off unless a draft booster is used and a carburetor does everything that Andy would want. Holly makes them up to 1400 cu/ft/min which covers a huge car system, a big bus really.
Just don't put the carburetor on the intake of the blower or a good backfire will turn a blower housing into something like "Modern art".
Or run the blower at a constant speed and use a butterfly in the inlet if you insist on complicating what is simple.
I am beginning to think that all this is due to no rel hands on with steam cars and too much computer clicking. Each has it's need; but one follows the other and only confirms the set conditions.
Jim
|
Re: Lamont boiler November 25, 2011 06:15PM |
Registered: 18 years ago Posts: 657 |
Hey Jim,
Yes, too little hands on tinkering with steam cars! Frankly of all the steam cars out there VERY few of them are in a condition to be modified or tinkered with!
Back in the 1920's there were tons of Stanley cars out there, which has to be the ultimate modifiers steam car in the history of steam cars. Just 50 years ago they were relatively cheap and not considered as antiques that shouldn't be modified in any way, they were just odd cars that ran on steam.
Today, how many steam powered cars can you point to that can be worked on without 20 years of experience(such as the White) or one is in danger of sparking outrage from changing any component on it(Stanleys)? Honestly, how many?
The only ones I can think of are the backyard experiments that are more or less hodge podged together from whatever steam equipment that could be found.
Whites must be run perfectly as designed, Dobles were each an experiment, test bed and as rare as hens teeth, Stanleys were practically the only American made steam car that could easily be modified by the owner and still work well. Such as the guys who modified the boiler over to solid fuel during World War II, and those who installed their own burners, added economizers, swaped in a larger boiler or modified the engine.
All of the other steam cars were little more then one of a kind and have been treated as such, without regard to how well they may have run on the road.
Jim,
If you could chose to have had experience with only one car as a learning experience, out of all of those that you have owned, which would it be?
Caleb Ramsby
Yes, too little hands on tinkering with steam cars! Frankly of all the steam cars out there VERY few of them are in a condition to be modified or tinkered with!
Back in the 1920's there were tons of Stanley cars out there, which has to be the ultimate modifiers steam car in the history of steam cars. Just 50 years ago they were relatively cheap and not considered as antiques that shouldn't be modified in any way, they were just odd cars that ran on steam.
Today, how many steam powered cars can you point to that can be worked on without 20 years of experience(such as the White) or one is in danger of sparking outrage from changing any component on it(Stanleys)? Honestly, how many?
The only ones I can think of are the backyard experiments that are more or less hodge podged together from whatever steam equipment that could be found.
Whites must be run perfectly as designed, Dobles were each an experiment, test bed and as rare as hens teeth, Stanleys were practically the only American made steam car that could easily be modified by the owner and still work well. Such as the guys who modified the boiler over to solid fuel during World War II, and those who installed their own burners, added economizers, swaped in a larger boiler or modified the engine.
All of the other steam cars were little more then one of a kind and have been treated as such, without regard to how well they may have run on the road.
Jim,
If you could chose to have had experience with only one car as a learning experience, out of all of those that you have owned, which would it be?
Caleb Ramsby
|
Re: Lamont boiler November 25, 2011 09:01PM |
Registered: 18 years ago Posts: 1,441 |
Caleb,
Well, the Stanley came with a Baker boiler and burner and for two years was a lot of fun, being my own first steam car. Big whistle that got a lot of use. Engine broke twice; but it was easy to get another one, as then they were all over the place for about $500.00 then. Not the gouging done today. Slow though and burned a ton of kerosene.
The White was a lesson in patience and not thinking you knew everything. Did it all wrong with the clearances I used at first, then Mel Howell gently led the way and after Nick and i got it right, it was fourteen years of very nice trouble free frequent use. With only occasional vaporizer and pilot light cleaning and frequent blowing down to keep it going along.
The Doble was a pain in the ass, if you must know. Something always going wrong and after a full Pebble Beach restoration too. Spare parts didn't fit because they changed something all the time, so you had to make things from new. After and I kid you not, $435,000.00 totally restoring the car and leaving nothing behind, my confidence in what they did was gone. Even Barney Becker was always having to fix something on E-14 and he was the super expert. Mainly because Abner and Co didn't put any safety margin into anything.
The electric additions were most often the source of the problems. It was always something and that gets real tiresome really fast.
Fast and impressive, sure; but it says something when you are supposed to go to a concours or local tour and the first thing you had to do was find out if your favorite flat bed guy was going to be in town. I still love and respect the Doble; but never want another one, ever. Same goes for the J Duesenberg and the P-I R-R, big clumsy trucks with a horrible transmission in the J. The 28 BB Stutz Black Hawk boat tail speedster was ten times the car.
If I had to do it all over again, the White would be the only choice; but this time a 1909-10 40 hp car. All things considered, my thinking is that White definitely made the very best production steam car. Done correctly and STRICTLY to the factory standards they are super reliable. The Company motto was no exaggeration: "The White Steam Car The Car for Service." I now bitterly regret selling the Stutz and the White.
Jim
Well, the Stanley came with a Baker boiler and burner and for two years was a lot of fun, being my own first steam car. Big whistle that got a lot of use. Engine broke twice; but it was easy to get another one, as then they were all over the place for about $500.00 then. Not the gouging done today. Slow though and burned a ton of kerosene.
The White was a lesson in patience and not thinking you knew everything. Did it all wrong with the clearances I used at first, then Mel Howell gently led the way and after Nick and i got it right, it was fourteen years of very nice trouble free frequent use. With only occasional vaporizer and pilot light cleaning and frequent blowing down to keep it going along.
The Doble was a pain in the ass, if you must know. Something always going wrong and after a full Pebble Beach restoration too. Spare parts didn't fit because they changed something all the time, so you had to make things from new. After and I kid you not, $435,000.00 totally restoring the car and leaving nothing behind, my confidence in what they did was gone. Even Barney Becker was always having to fix something on E-14 and he was the super expert. Mainly because Abner and Co didn't put any safety margin into anything.
The electric additions were most often the source of the problems. It was always something and that gets real tiresome really fast.
Fast and impressive, sure; but it says something when you are supposed to go to a concours or local tour and the first thing you had to do was find out if your favorite flat bed guy was going to be in town. I still love and respect the Doble; but never want another one, ever. Same goes for the J Duesenberg and the P-I R-R, big clumsy trucks with a horrible transmission in the J. The 28 BB Stutz Black Hawk boat tail speedster was ten times the car.
If I had to do it all over again, the White would be the only choice; but this time a 1909-10 40 hp car. All things considered, my thinking is that White definitely made the very best production steam car. Done correctly and STRICTLY to the factory standards they are super reliable. The Company motto was no exaggeration: "The White Steam Car The Car for Service." I now bitterly regret selling the Stutz and the White.
Jim
|
Re: Lamont boiler November 26, 2011 12:30AM |
Registered: 18 years ago Posts: 1,249 |
|
Re: Lamont boiler November 27, 2011 08:12PM |
Registered: 18 years ago Posts: 1,453 |
|
Re: Lamont boiler November 28, 2011 01:34AM |
Registered: 18 years ago Posts: 657 |
|
Re: Lamont boiler November 28, 2011 05:57AM |
Admin Registered: 17 years ago Posts: 2,013 |
Hi Bill,
Good to see you're back again, was starting to worry about you!
I really need to find the research papers that buttress that patent. I'd tend to agree with you that increasing the head pressure would be an effective antidote for cavitation, but this guy appears to have done extensive research into the problem and his results seem to be getting approval from people in the pump business. You'd have to guess, from the patent, that he's found the shear component to be more important in creating cavitation than just the pressure head; but without the papers that's just an inference on my part. Some jet pumps work with peripheral jets rather than central, find them in fish pumps, sludge removers and so on; if you angled his nozzles into the throat you'd get both an increase in pressure head and a reduction in the shear component. Might be that splitting his version and yours would be the better bet.
Regards,
Ken
Good to see you're back again, was starting to worry about you!
I really need to find the research papers that buttress that patent. I'd tend to agree with you that increasing the head pressure would be an effective antidote for cavitation, but this guy appears to have done extensive research into the problem and his results seem to be getting approval from people in the pump business. You'd have to guess, from the patent, that he's found the shear component to be more important in creating cavitation than just the pressure head; but without the papers that's just an inference on my part. Some jet pumps work with peripheral jets rather than central, find them in fish pumps, sludge removers and so on; if you angled his nozzles into the throat you'd get both an increase in pressure head and a reduction in the shear component. Might be that splitting his version and yours would be the better bet.
Regards,
Ken
|
Re: Lamont boiler November 28, 2011 03:05PM |
Registered: 18 years ago Posts: 657 |
Hey Ken,
I read one paper where a guy was trying to increase the efficiency of a centrifugal air pump and he found that just about the most destructive thing one could do was to place stationary vanes intended to induce a spiriling effect in front of the central input port of the fan housing.
He concluded that the air found its best order of entry and a smooth bell housing a rather large size was the best help.
Aiming the nozzles towards the pump may have the same effect as the stationary spiral inducing blades. In the sense that they would be producing a formed spiral of the fluid, which would probably not be the best for possible. Could that be why the fellow with the patent you linked to used pure tangential feed back circuits?
It is a very interesting concept, a self supercharging pump.
Caleb Ramsby
I read one paper where a guy was trying to increase the efficiency of a centrifugal air pump and he found that just about the most destructive thing one could do was to place stationary vanes intended to induce a spiriling effect in front of the central input port of the fan housing.
He concluded that the air found its best order of entry and a smooth bell housing a rather large size was the best help.
Aiming the nozzles towards the pump may have the same effect as the stationary spiral inducing blades. In the sense that they would be producing a formed spiral of the fluid, which would probably not be the best for possible. Could that be why the fellow with the patent you linked to used pure tangential feed back circuits?
It is a very interesting concept, a self supercharging pump.
Caleb Ramsby
|
Re: Lamont boiler November 28, 2011 05:56PM |
Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 663 |
Hi Caleb
I have taken one that was on a 90 Mitsubishi Montero. It didn't seam to be more then an air speed sensor and a probably a temperature sensor. It had a 4 conductor conector. 2 went to the pladed air speed sensor and 2 went to the other prob type sensor.
What is contained in the Mass Air flow sensors and have they changed over the years.
I am driving the DC fan motor blower with a PWM controled bu a micro processor. So I basicly have drive power and fan speed.
But what I do have, is control of the air flow and fuel rate and an O2 sensor. The first use of O2 sensors was with throttle body injection and did not have a mass air flow sensor. They produced cleaner running engines then a caborator.
I can ramp up the fire by increasing the fuel and fan together in an alternating manor. When not in a rich state the fuel would ramped up faster then the fan to get a rich mix and then switch to a fast fan rate to get a lean mix then slow fan to get a lean mix. Simular going down. I plan to have temperature sensors on the inlet and exhaust of the boiler as well.
I have some experiance with chimical process control of non-compressable liquids. And other process control systems in the food processing industry. I worked for a company that sold control terminals to food processors.
Andy
I have taken one that was on a 90 Mitsubishi Montero. It didn't seam to be more then an air speed sensor and a probably a temperature sensor. It had a 4 conductor conector. 2 went to the pladed air speed sensor and 2 went to the other prob type sensor.
What is contained in the Mass Air flow sensors and have they changed over the years.
I am driving the DC fan motor blower with a PWM controled bu a micro processor. So I basicly have drive power and fan speed.
But what I do have, is control of the air flow and fuel rate and an O2 sensor. The first use of O2 sensors was with throttle body injection and did not have a mass air flow sensor. They produced cleaner running engines then a caborator.
I can ramp up the fire by increasing the fuel and fan together in an alternating manor. When not in a rich state the fuel would ramped up faster then the fan to get a rich mix and then switch to a fast fan rate to get a lean mix then slow fan to get a lean mix. Simular going down. I plan to have temperature sensors on the inlet and exhaust of the boiler as well.
I have some experiance with chimical process control of non-compressable liquids. And other process control systems in the food processing industry. I worked for a company that sold control terminals to food processors.
Andy
|
Re: Lamont boiler November 28, 2011 09:18PM |
Registered: 18 years ago Posts: 1,441 |
Andy,
Please tell me honestly why you insist on complicating a simple problem that has been more than proven in practice over many decades??
I really would like to know. This kind of stuff misleads people who might be interested in working with steam, thinking that these overly complicated schemes are the desired way to go. You seem to be ignoring the thermal hysteresis that smoothes things out between the fire and water rates.
Jim
Please tell me honestly why you insist on complicating a simple problem that has been more than proven in practice over many decades??
I really would like to know. This kind of stuff misleads people who might be interested in working with steam, thinking that these overly complicated schemes are the desired way to go. You seem to be ignoring the thermal hysteresis that smoothes things out between the fire and water rates.
Jim
|
Re: Lamont boiler November 28, 2011 10:41PM |
Registered: 18 years ago Posts: 1,249 |
Hello,
Ken, I owe you an apology for not contacting you earlier. I did receive your e-mail.
I was thinking that maybe the tangential inflow of the return water to the pump might have somewhere a different effect. That could be to spin the water to a point where it underwent a lower pressure at its core. This would then flash off some of the water into vapor and lower the waters temperature slightly enough to stop cavitation at the inlet. I worked with a condensate pump on a steam boiler recently and could hear the pump start cavitating when the return water was close to the boiling point. A two foot head of water above the pump entrance was all that was needed to stop it. The pump sounded like the bearings were being torn out. As the water cavitated it would throw the balance of the impeller out.
A Lamont tank is basically a tank of boiling water with the heat source at the top turned down. Shake it and it will boil. Pull a slight pressure reduction on it and it will boil, add a slight pressure and it will quit boiling. Crack the throttle open and watch out. I imagine that at lower pressures this is more true. I would think that to avoid a possible problem that one could use a water separating baffle above the bottom of the tank, feed the cooler feed water into the tank under this baffle and the mix could then go into the recirculating pump at a temperature sufficiently low enough to avoid pump cavitation.
I haven't had much time for the last four years to work on steam as I have been busy with another project and money is short also. I did some preliminary design on another engine, however, and it would be a much easier build than my more efficient compound. The expansion ratio at full power is between 12 - 16 and it uses much more throttle control. Still the efficiency looks like it should be good and reliability should be as good as any IC engine. I have worked out a few problems for a steam engine and have a cam system which can independently vary the advance and the cut off. This is a non Desmodromic one. It came out quite simple. The cam system then allows for a slightly different steam engine cycle of zero clearance high compression. This stops the losses incurred from a zero compression cycle and still allows for higher expansion. The residual steam is re-compressed to the steam chest inlet port.
Also with my two stage condenser, I figure I can condense about 1,200 lbs/ hr @ 110F ambient so a 1,200 lb Lamont boiler should fit. This produces about 168 hp which should move a little 1/4 ton truck along. Something like the small GMC would be good here. HP peaks at about 2K and the engine winds to 3.8 K. I also worked out the boiler freeze problem but not the way to drain the feed pump. The engine should buckle up to an existing automatic transmission and rear end as the rpm range is close enough to the IC engine. Ken, can you get me specs on the tranny??
It's not the end all and be all of steam engine development but it should get you from New York to L. A. a few times with about the same efficiency as a gas engine with no problems winter or summer. Some further developments can be added after it's on the road.
That's the news from the outskirts of Lake Woe-Be-Gone Minnesota for now.
Best wishes for the holidays,
Bill G.
Ken, I owe you an apology for not contacting you earlier. I did receive your e-mail.
I was thinking that maybe the tangential inflow of the return water to the pump might have somewhere a different effect. That could be to spin the water to a point where it underwent a lower pressure at its core. This would then flash off some of the water into vapor and lower the waters temperature slightly enough to stop cavitation at the inlet. I worked with a condensate pump on a steam boiler recently and could hear the pump start cavitating when the return water was close to the boiling point. A two foot head of water above the pump entrance was all that was needed to stop it. The pump sounded like the bearings were being torn out. As the water cavitated it would throw the balance of the impeller out.
A Lamont tank is basically a tank of boiling water with the heat source at the top turned down. Shake it and it will boil. Pull a slight pressure reduction on it and it will boil, add a slight pressure and it will quit boiling. Crack the throttle open and watch out. I imagine that at lower pressures this is more true. I would think that to avoid a possible problem that one could use a water separating baffle above the bottom of the tank, feed the cooler feed water into the tank under this baffle and the mix could then go into the recirculating pump at a temperature sufficiently low enough to avoid pump cavitation.
I haven't had much time for the last four years to work on steam as I have been busy with another project and money is short also. I did some preliminary design on another engine, however, and it would be a much easier build than my more efficient compound. The expansion ratio at full power is between 12 - 16 and it uses much more throttle control. Still the efficiency looks like it should be good and reliability should be as good as any IC engine. I have worked out a few problems for a steam engine and have a cam system which can independently vary the advance and the cut off. This is a non Desmodromic one. It came out quite simple. The cam system then allows for a slightly different steam engine cycle of zero clearance high compression. This stops the losses incurred from a zero compression cycle and still allows for higher expansion. The residual steam is re-compressed to the steam chest inlet port.
Also with my two stage condenser, I figure I can condense about 1,200 lbs/ hr @ 110F ambient so a 1,200 lb Lamont boiler should fit. This produces about 168 hp which should move a little 1/4 ton truck along. Something like the small GMC would be good here. HP peaks at about 2K and the engine winds to 3.8 K. I also worked out the boiler freeze problem but not the way to drain the feed pump. The engine should buckle up to an existing automatic transmission and rear end as the rpm range is close enough to the IC engine. Ken, can you get me specs on the tranny??
It's not the end all and be all of steam engine development but it should get you from New York to L. A. a few times with about the same efficiency as a gas engine with no problems winter or summer. Some further developments can be added after it's on the road.
That's the news from the outskirts of Lake Woe-Be-Gone Minnesota for now.
Best wishes for the holidays,
Bill G.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
All files from this thread
